The True Church

There are at least three ideas concerning the progress of the Church of Jesus Christ. The traditional, which sees the church moving triumphantly from its small beginnings with Jesus and the apostles in the little country of Judaea, until today it covers the world with a highly sophisticated organization, an elaborate ritual, and a fully developed system of doctrine. Then there is the reformation idea, which basically follows the traditional idea, but also sees the church gradually acquiring pagan or non-Christian accretions until it reached a point of drastic need of reforming the existing institutions, both doctrinal and organizational. There were various movements for reformation through the centuries, but this effort received its greatest impetus under Martin Luther, producing the Protestant Reformation and the multitude of Protestant denominations we have today.

The third view holds that sometime after the demise of the apostles there was a general falling away of the churches into apostasy, and what is regarded as the historical church is not the true church at all but an apostate impostor, holding to the name of Christ, but far removed from the church established by Christ and his apostles. Many who hold this view believe that the true church was represented throughout history by those small groups, scattered here and there, who were striving for a return to New Testament Christianity. Their goal was and is restoration, the restoration of the church according to the pattern accomplished by Jesus and his apostles.

As this is an inquiry into the apostasy of the early church and its restoration, certain questions present themselves for our investigation!

First: How do we know that the traditional or historical church is not the true church? In other words, can we be sure that there was an apostasy or falling away of the early church from the apostolic doctrine to begin with, or is the traditional view correct?

Second: Where did the Protestant Reformation fail, and how can we declare unequivocally that the Protestant denominations do not represent the true church. In other words did Protestantism recover apostolic Christianity or does Protestantism continue to perpetuate the apostasy?

third: What caused the church to go into apostasy in the first place and is it possible that this could be a key as to why restoration movements have failed in the past, and why the church has not been fully restored in our day? In other words if the cause of the apostasy is not recognized and corrected, is complete restoration possible?

When we speak of the traditional or historical church we refer first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest sect of Christianity. The terms "denomination" and "sect" are synonymous, but in current usage the term "sect" seems to carry a connotation of derision, while the term "denomination" seems to be reserved for the older, larger, or more respected organizations. I will NOT make this distinction in the two words. To me they are strictly synonymous. I will use the terms denomination and sect interchangeably

The Roman Catholic sect has claimed for centuries to be the only true church. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) declared in the bull Unam Sanctum, " that submission on the part of everyone to the bishop of Rome is altogether necessary for salvation." As late as 1964 the Second Vatican Council in its Decree on Ecumenism maintained that "only through the Catholic Church of Christ, the universal aid to salvation, can the means of salvation be reached in all their fullness."

Protestants are called "separated brethren." Roman Catholics consider Protestantism a heresy and Eastern Orthodoxy a schism. According to Catholic belief "a heresy consists in the propagation of a denial of any revealed truth of the faith by a baptized person who retains the name Christian ... A schism, on the other hand, consists in the refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Pope or to hold communion with Christians subject to the Holy See" (William J. Whalen: Separated Brethren p.2)

The Eastern Orthodox schism was the result of several centuries of dispute over whether the Bishop of Rome was the supreme head of the Church. The Orthodox were willing to accord honor to the Pope but not universal supremacy. The Pope was not the unique successor of Peter but all right-teaching bishops were equally successors of Peter. Therefore they felt that matters of faith should be decided finally by a council with ALL the bishops of the church, and not by papal authority.

According to the Orthodox view, each bishopric is self governing, although the bishops of certain historically important sees are accorded more honor than others and are given the title "patriarch"; the patriarch of Constantinople is known as the Ecumenical or Universal Patriarch.

This separation called the Great Schism occurred in 1054 A.D. Relations between the Orthodox, called the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic, called the Western or Latin Church, were friendly until 1204 when Constantinople was captured during the Fourth Crusade. The destruction and sacrilege of the crusaders brought about an antagonism that finalized the division between the East and the West.

The Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439 tried, but were unable to effect a permanent reconciliation. It is the Orthodox position that there has been no genuinely ecumenical council since Nicaea II (787) owing to the separation between the East and West. As it takes, in their view, an ecumenical episcopal council with ALL the bishops, both East and West, to define and clarify Christian dogma, Orthodoxy considers the councils since Nicaea II to be without canonical authority, and the doctrines propounded by succeeding councils to be Roman innovations that are not binding upon the conscience of the faithful.

The Orthodox Church often calls itself the Church of the Seven Councils. These were Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680-81), Nicaea II (787). The decrees of this last named council were not approved by the Roman papacy thus increasing the divergence of Orthodoxy from Western Theology that brought about the final rupture in 1054 A.D.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the theological differences between Orthodoxy and itself to be slight compared with what they consider the doctrinal innovations of the Protestant reformers. The Orthodox retain a valid episcopacy, priesthood, Mass, and the seven sacraments which are lacking in Protestantism.

The apparent differences between Catholicism and Protestantism as clerical celibacy, the Latin liturgy, communion in which the priest drinks the wine and the communicant eats the bread are things Protestant polemicist emphasize, but Catholics point out that these are not doctrinal issues but are disciplinary measures of the Latin rite which can be changed at any time without violating the integrity of Catholic theology.

The real issue that makes Protestantism heretical according to the Catholic view begins with Luther's doctrine of justification. Justification by faith became Luther's key to interpret the rest of the Bible. Through the fall of Adam, man's nature was completely corrupted. He is totally depraved, so that even his good works are evil. As such man has no free will and justification is wholly apart from any effort man may make. "The sole means of obtaining grace is the eternal election and predestination of God." This is a radical departure from Catholic doctrine which holds that grace is imparted through the sacraments of the church, which can be either accepted or rejected by man's free will. And further, that after justification the good works which a man performs, ethical or ceremonial, earn merit.

The sacraments of the Catholic Church through which grace can be imparted are: baptism, the Eucharist, conformation, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. As most of these can only be administered by the Catholic Church itself, through its ordained representatives, very little grace can be received by anyone outside the Catholic Church. The one exception is baptism, which can in extremis be administered by a layman.

There were other things that arose as the controversy between Luther and the papacy continued, but it seems that the Catholic position today is that Luther's teaching on justification and the means of grace were the doctrinal innovations that led to the Protestant heresy and Luther's excommunication.

The Reformers on the other hand did not feel like they were innovators at all. Rather they sought to reform the church to its original purity, free from all the erroneous doctrines and prac-tices alien to Christian truth that had accumulated through the centuries. It was a basic Refor-mation concept that the primitive church had drifted from its original moorings. The Church had "fallen." Not that it wasn't still God's church, but it needed to be purified, cleansed and reformed.

For most of the Reformers the assumption of temporal authority by the papacy was considered "the fall of the church." However there was no general agreement as to when that took place. Luther placed it with Sabinian (604-606 and Boniface III (607); Zwingli with Gregory VII (Hildebrand, c.1023-1085); while Calvin dated it with Gregory I, called Gregory the Great (590-604). The Anabaptist felt it was much earlier, with the union of church and state under Constantine. (see William R. Estep: The Anabaptist Story p.177 )

The one thing common to all of these views is that they see an historical continuity of the Catholic Church with the Apostolic Church. It would seem that all the Reformers, except perhaps the Anabaptist, regarded the Catholic Church as the true church up until the time of the Reformation. Luther said: "In all we wanted to say, we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic Church. and the teachers of the Church"

This of course substantiates the Roman Catholic claim to be the only denomination that can historically trace its origin back to the apostles. But does history prove this claim? When you compare the Roman Catholic Church to the churches found in the New Testament, the one thing that stands out is the glaring disparity you find between the Catholic church and the church of the New Testament. There is absolutely no similarity or likeness in a New Testament church and the Roman Catholic denomination. And that includes order or government, doctrine, and worship.

Can you imagine Peter and the other apostles dressed up in all the fancy regalia that bishops wear and crowned with a miter. Perhaps if you are a Catholic you can, but there is not one word said about such garb in all the New Testament. Neither do you find the Mass, the sacerdotal priesthood, holy orders, holy water, burning candles, the rosary, praying to Mary or the saints, or just about every other aspect of Catholic worship and doctrine.

If the Roman Catholic Church or any church makes the claim that it is the true church of Jesus Christ, then most certainly that church should at the very least RESEMBLE the church that Jesus built. Since there is such a disparity between what we see in the New Testament and what we see in the Roman Catholic church, we should question the authenticity of the history that claims the Catholic church to be the lineal descendent of the Apostolic church in an unbroken succession. And we should consider the proposition that Catholic Christianity is the culmination of a falling away or departing from the faith that began in the latter part of the apostolic period.

the Roman Catholic Church is not the only sect that claims to be the true church. But it is the only one that bases this claim solely on historical continuity. There are certain Baptist groups and similar sects that attempt to trace their origin back to the first century through the various heretical sects that existed in ancient and medieval times, as the Cathari, the Albigenses and Waldenses. It is true that like the Baptist, the Waldensess rejected infant baptism, and some other Roman Catholic practices. But similarities in a few points do not prove identification. For example, the Assemblies of God, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses all reject infant baptism, images, the pope and a multitude of other Roman Catholic practices and have many things in common with the Baptist, but these sects would certainly not be recognized by the Baptist as being a part of their denomination.

we know very little about these medieval sects and most of what we do know was written by their enemies. But we can be sure that when the New Testament is read and believed, men with honest hearts become dissatisfied with the status quo, and will try to conform themselves and their churches to what is found in the New Testament. So it is safe to assume that small groups existed throughout history that were closer to New Testament Christianity than what is known as the "historical church." But the Baptists and similar sects had their origins in modern times, and can be traced through historical documents to these origins. There is no direct connection of these modern sects with the sects of the middle ages.

But how many church members know the history of their own denomination? And how many know about its organization and government? It seems that the average Christian not only doesn't know, he doesn't care! The average church member appears to be more discriminating in his choice of an automobile than in his choice of a church. Church membership is usually the result of birth or heritage. Children belong to the church of their parents or grandparents. Often the reason for joining a church is the personality the preacher, or even the convenience of the parking lot. These are certainly not eternal verities. After all, preachers come and go, and parking lots are changed. Certainly church membership requires more consideration than this!!

Then in the midst of all of this ignorance there seems to be an air of self assurance that borders on arrogance. Church members assume that their own particular sect is the right one without even investigating it or the Bible. On the other hand there are those who feel that church membership in itself is irrelevant, that one sect or denomination is as good as another. And yet if there is such a thing as the true church, it would seem that it would be of paramount importance to everyone who claimed to be a Christian to find that true church. And if you are in an apostate sect, why would you jeopardize your own soul by willingly remaining ignorant?

In the Old Testament economy "... Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount" (Heb. 8:5). In the New Testament, the church becomes the temple of God (Eph. 2:21). It too must be built by the PATTERN. This pattern is given to us in the New Testament. Once you see the New Testament pattern, you can certainly know if you are in a New Testament church or not! It is only when we recognize, honor, and implement the New Testament pattern, that we can call ourselves New Testament churches.

The glaring departure from New Testament order is sufficient to show that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church! An examination of the Protestant denominations, comparing them with the New Testament pattern, will show that Protestantism did not return to New Testament order, therefore neither can any of the various Protestant sects claim to be the true church! The true church must be built according to the New Testament pattern!!!

The polity (order or government) of the church is bound up in the very nature of the church itself. The early disciples regarded the church as a supernatural institution! They felt the Lord was still actively involved with his church. Even after he went to heaven Luke says "... And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47). We must never lose sight of the fact that the Lord is working in his church. When men take it upon themselves to create denominational organizations or to build ecclesiastical bureaucracies, they have lost sight of this important principle. We today must regard the church in the same manner as these early disciples. The church is not an institution that was started by a man centuries ago, who has long since died and left the control of it to other men. When Christ went to heaven he did not relinquish control of his church to Peter or the other apostles. Christ is still the head of it. The living Christ still controls his church.

The apostles went forth under the direction of the living Christ to establish his church. The New Testament records their labors and the principles they operated by. We cannot ignore their labors or these principles and arrive at an understanding of the New Testament pattern. We will examine some of these principles, comparing them with both Catholic and Protestant methods. It is easy to see why carnal men apostatized from New Testament order, for all of these principles rely upon the supernatural workings of the Spirit of God.

There is only one absolute authority in the universe and that is God. All other authority is delegated authority. God delegated Christ, and Christ alone, to be the head of the church. all authority in the Church must derive from the living Christ. To illustrate the principle of headship the apostle Paul uses the metaphor of the body. The church is a body, the body of Christ. A body may have many members but it has only one head. If the church is the body of Christ, then Christ, and Christ alone is the HEAD of the church.

22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

And he 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.

Christ, then, as the head of the church delegates authority to men in positions of leadership. But we must distinguish between leadership and headship. Leadership in the church was always plural, but headship is singular. Christ chose twelve apostles. The apostles themselves never assumed headship of the church. Peter never claimed headship! When a leader, whether preacher, pope or king, claims to be the head of the church, he exalts himself above even the apostles, including the apostle Peter. Christ alone is the head of the church!

The Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter was the head of the church and the pope as his successor is now the head of the church contradicts this New Testament principle that Christ is the head of the church and it violates all we know about the workings of the early church. Peter was certainly unique and his impetuous spirit often put him in the forefront. It also got him into trouble. We should never try to take away any honor from that great man of God, the apostle Peter, but we cannot give him the honor that belongs to Christ alone. Christ is the head of the Church!!!

As we read about the activities of the early church in the book of Acts and the epistles, we can see that one apostle did not try to exalt himself above the other apostles. Far from putting Peter over the others, Jesus said, "... one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Matt. 23:8). God never intended a one man leadership for the church here on the earth. Peter acted in accordance with the other apostles and they likewise stood with him. When Peter got out of line Paul did not hesitate to confront him:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

There are other incidences that could be mentioned which show that Peter was not over the other apostles, such as the mission to Samaria, where the other apostles sent Peter along with John to Samaria. Here Peter is the one who is sent, not the one doing the sending! This does not mean that the other apostles were necessarily over him, but it certainly implies that neither was he over them. They were at least his equal in authority.

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

The conference at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 could also be mentioned. As you read the proceedings of this meeting you can see that Peter was a major participant, but the final word was pronounced by the apostle James. It is true that Peter was a pillar in the early church, but so was James (Gal 2:9). James gave his judgment, not as the final authority, but when the other apostles concurred with his decision, the issue was settled. Reading this account we see them working together as a team and not one among them lording it over the others.

We even find men who were not of apostolic stature contending with Peter when they felt he was wrong. Peter did not rebuke them for questioning his authority but carefully explained his actions. This account is found in the eleventh chapter of the book of Acts. The point here being: the members of that early church did not look upon Peter with some kind of holy awe as being infallible. How can men today look back to that time and proclaim Peter to be something that Jesus never said of him, Peter never claimed for himself, nor any of his contemporaries ever regarded of him? Not Peter, nor the Pope, nor any other beside Christ is the head of the Church.

It is a principle of authority that no delegated authority can countermand a higher authority. As God is the only absolute authority in the universe, all must submit to his counsels and commands. There is no head over God. Jesus as a delegated authority never transgressed the authority of his Father. God was his head (1 Cor. 11:3). Jesus never even took it upon himself to preach his own message: "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7:16). And "I come to do THY will, O God (Heb. 10:9).

Because God delegated Christ to be the head of the church no man, council, or organization has the right to contradict the word of Christ or to change the doctrine which Christ gave the church in the beginning. When men meet together to establish doctrine different from that of Christ, or to disregard his word or change his laws, they set themselves up as the head of the church! This automatically severs Christ from being the head. If the head is not Christ, then the body is not the body of Christ, and therefore not the true church of God. The true church IS the body of Christ.

No disciple of Christ should remain in a sect or organization that contradicts the doctrine of Christ. Paul says to withdraw yourself from those who do not teach according to the words of Christ and the doctrine that was given to that early church.

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The Bible is our only record of the words of Christ and the doctrine of Christ as it was given to his own chosen apostles. Therefore the Bible alone is the only infallible guide for the doctrine of the church. Pages could be written on the primacy of the word of God.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We know that God has and does give revelation that is not recorded in the Bible (1 Cor. 14:26-31). Christ can speak to his people today. After all he is alive and in control of his church today. However the Christ of today will not contradict the Christ of yesterday. Whatever revelation one receives today cannot contradict or countermand the revelation God has already given to us in the Bible. Any revelation a man gets today must harmonize with the scriptures, Roman Catholic Creeds and Protestant Confessions of faith notwithstanding. The watchword of the restoration movement must always be, "No book but the Bible, No creed but Christ." Conferences and councils should be for the purpose to consider what the word of God teaches, and to gain a more perfect understanding of the scriptures, not to establish doctrines not found in the word of God and impose them on the church. Any sect or organization that requires its members to subscribe to a creed or confession of faith other than the Bible is anathema.

One other point should be made in connection with headship. Men in the denominations speak of the headquarters of their organizations, whether it be Rome, Springfield, St. Louis, or some other city. The word "headquarters" implies that their head has his quarters in some geographical location here on this earth. The Roman Catholics put great emphasis on Rome, and the pope, as bishop of Rome, is the supreme head of the Church. But according to the New Testament Jesus Christ is the head, and he is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. If any city could claim status of being the mother church, it would be Jerusalem. Yet Jesus himself said it would no longer be a natural city or physical location, but God was seeking spiritual worship that is not attached to sacred locations here on earth.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Organizations and denominations that maintain headquarters here on the earth or that have a head other than Christ, are definitely NOT built according to the New Testament pattern.

This analogy of the church being the body of Christ establishes another great principle. Just as each member of our natural body has a work or a function, so every member of the church, the body of Christ, has a distinct work or function.

14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body... 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Paul is here showing the necessity of every member in the body. In order for a body to operate properly, every member must function in its own position, doing the work assigned to it. This means every member in the body should be a FUNCTIONING member and should function in its own place or position in the body. This position is their office in the body of Christ. Every member has his own office.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

All members have an office, but not the same office. There are different offices for the different members. The word "office" may be somewhat misleading here as the word "office" can have several connotations. Many people, when you speak of having an office, think in political terms or of positions of authority as in a hierarchical system. But none of the offices in the church are political, and only a few of them are positions of authority in the usual meaning of that term. The office one holds in the body simply means his particular function in the body.

If we examine the word "office" used in the New Testament you will find there are only eight verses in the King James Version that contain the word "office." Of these verses, three have reference to the Levitical priesthood. These are Heb. 7:5 and Luke 1:9 in which the Greek word hierateia (hee-er-at-i'-ah) is used and is translated "office of priesthood" and "priest's office" respectively. The Greek word hierateia means priesthood. The third reference is Luke 1:8 where hierateuo (hee-er-at-yoo'-o), the verb form of hierateia, is translated "execute the priest's office". Our English word "hierarchy" comes from this Greek word hierateia. These verses, of course, concern the Levitical priesthood and have nothing to do with the pattern of the New Testament church and need not be considered in our present study.

This leaves five verses of scripture to consider in which three different Greek words are translated office. If we examine all the Greek words translated "office" in these verses, it will verify that the word as used the New Testament, means office in the sense of function or work. The Greek word translated office in our scripture above, Rom 12:4, is praxis, (prax'-is) which means work or action. It is translated "office" only here in Rom. 12:4. It is translated "works" once, and "deed" four times. It should be obvious by the way it is usually translated that its basic meaning has to do with work.

The Greek word episkope (ep-is-kop-ay') means overseership and is translated "office of a bishop" in 1Tim. 3:1. That this is referring to the work of bishop is evident from the scripture in which it is found "... If a man desire the OFFICE OF A BISHOP, he desireth a good WORK" (I Tim. 3:1) episkope is also translated "bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 and "visitation" in Luke 19:44 and 1 Pet. 2:12. episkope perhaps comes closest to what most people mean by the word office, for a bishop is a position of authority in the church. But it is first an foremost a work or function in the body of Christ.

The only other word translated "office" in the New Testament is diakonia,(dee-ak-on-ee'-ah) which means minister and it's verb form diakoneo, (dee-ak-on-eh'-o) which means to minister or serve. Diakonia is translated "office" in Rom. 11:13 and diakoneo is translated "use the office of a deacon" in I Tim. 3;10 and again in verse 13, but these words are almost always translated "minister", for diakonia and its cognates are the principle words meaning minister and ministry in the New Testament.

All of these Greek words behind the English word "office" have the same basic meaning then, of working, serving, or ministering. So the words "function" and "work" best describe the word "office" as used in the New Testament. Once we understand that an office in the body of Christ is simply the function of that particular member, we can readily understand how all members should have an office and be functioning members.

The practical application of this concept is that God uses the various members functioning in their offices to cause the body to grow and increase as they are connected to one another in the body and tied to the head by the joints and bands (ligaments and sinews).

And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

All nourishment flows from the head which directs the various organs of the body to do their work. Every part, that is every member of the body, can only effectually work, that is, give his supply, through the joints and bands, that is, as he is connected to the body.

The services in the early church were conducted in such a way that all of the members could function in their respective offices. When Paul instructs the church at Corinth on how a service should be conducted, he tells them it should be so that "every one of you" can participate, not just the clergy or the priesthood or a few designated individuals, but every Christian in the congregation was given the right and opportunity to exercise in his office, whatever that office might be. And notice too the variety of activity in that service.

26 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. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 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.

Paul is not referring here to a special class of men set aside to perform or conduct religious services. He is talking about every member in the church. For the body to work properly every member must have the opportunity to function in his office. There is no clergy distinct from the laity in the New Testament church. The idea of the clergy being a separate class from the laity was a part of the apostasy of the early church which finally resulted in the Roman Catholic idea of a sacerdotal priesthood - a priest that stands BETWEEN Christ and his body.

This priesthood became one of the seven sacraments of the Roman system, called Holy Orders, in which men were ordained to reoffer the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, called the Mass. The Eucharist is another of the sacraments in the Roman system. The priest by virtue of his office has the power to turn the bread and wine into the real blood and body of Christ. Remember that in the Roman system the sacraments are the way that God dispenses his grace to man.

Contrary to the sacerdotal priesthood of Catholicism, the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers, simply by virtue of being a part of the people of God. And our sacrifices are not to be flesh and blood, not even the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, but we are to offer up "spiritual sacrifices."

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.

Martin Luther recovered this concept of the priesthood of all believers, and renounced the idea that men could place themselves as mediators between God and man. But Protestantism has not followed through with this concept to its Biblical conclusion that every member in the church is a functioning member. While Protestants reject the idea that a minister is a sacerdotal person that offers sacrifices on behalf of the laity through the holy Eucharist, they still retain the Roman Catholic concept of dividing the church into clergy and laity. In the services of almost any denomination it is obvious who is officiating and who are communicants or laity. Generally those officiating are even dressed differently than the rest of the congregation. And for the most part the congregation are merely spectators.

The Reformers simply did not go far enough to return to New Testament order. Tradition is a hard thing to overcome. When practice has been sanctified by age it is difficult to make the stringent changes required to return to the New Testament teaching that every member is to have a particular function or work in the body of Christ. It is very difficult for natural or carnal men to recognize that the church of Jesus Christ is a supernatural institution with Christ as the head, with the members being added by God, and God setting them in the body in the position that he wants them.

In some denominations the congregation is allowed to participate in the singing. It is not uncommon to find some who encourage "lay" participation by having someone help in some of the ceremonies or to give a talk or to share their testimony. It, of course, depends on the denomination and even the type of service they are having. Some are very formal and some are very relaxed and informal. Whatever concessions these denominations may make to the "laity", this is a far cry from the way Paul is instructing the Corinthians that a service should be conducted here in 1 Cor.14:26-31, where "every one of you hath ..." something to contribute.

It should be obvious from this scripture that the services could not be programmed. How could someone be put on an agenda in a service conducted like that described here? Contrast this with the services in the denominations where even “programs” or “bulletins” are passed out outlining the order of the service and detailing every event that will occur in that service. Others of course don't need a program, because tradition dictates exactly what will take place and it is the same routine every time.

In that New Testament church one never knew what was going to happen. Their first meeting, after Jesus returned to heaven, started with a prayer meeting that lasted ten days, culminating in an outpouring of the Spirit of God that left the whole congregation speaking in tongues. I have heard denominational preachers object: "Well, they were speaking in tongues because of the different nationalities there." Oh no! When they started speaking in tongues, only the hundred and twenty Galilaeans were present. The foreigners came later, after they heard about it. This particular service climaxed in a great sermon preached by the apostle Peter, followed by a baptismal service in which three thousand were baptized.

In determining the basic elements of a New Testament service a key scripture is Acts 13:2. The word "ministered" here is from the Greek word lietourgeo (li-toorg-eh'-o), from which we get our English word liturgy. The liturgy of a church are those rites prescribed for public worship.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Notice it says "they ministered to the Lord", not to each other, not to the church, but to the Lord. How does one "minister" to the Lord. We cannot serve him food or take care of God's physical needs, for he has no physical needs. An example of ministering to the Lord is given by Daniel where this same Greek word lietourgeo is used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

This scene in heaven is further illuminated by a similar scene described in the book of the Revelation.

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. 9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ...

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

It should be plain to see that ministering to the Lord is nothing more than worshipping and praising the Lord. This is confirmed by all the other scriptures showing the activity of that early church.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

First they "ministered unto the Lord" and then what happened? Ministering to the Lord was the first part of the service. When they had ministered to the Lord, the Lord in turn began to minister to them. Notice it said "the Holy Ghost said ..." How did the Holy Ghost speak? There was no mysterious voice speaking out of the air. The Holy Ghost in the New Testament church speaks to us through the gifts of the Spirit such as prophecy or tongues and interpretation, and in the anointed preaching and teaching of the gospel "... by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven” (1 Pet. 1:12).

As we said the church is a supernatural institution. There is a communion that takes place between the Living Christ and his living church. We minister to him by offering up our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, then he moves by his Spirit to speak to us or to minister to our needs.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

The main purpose of the song service is for praise and worship. Music creates an atmosphere conductive to worship. It can insulate our minds from the clamor of the world and the distractions around us and direct our hearts and minds toward God. When our hearts are open to God, then God can move in. We don't always feel like praising the Lord, that's why it says "sacrifice" praise to God. This does not mean we just start shouting , "Hallelujah, glory to God!" We simply start by singing. As we sing with our hearts our emotions are touched and before long there is an outpouring of love and affection toward the Lord in which we can shout "Hallelujah" from the depths of our hearts. True praise is emotional because joy and rejoicing are emotions.

Elisha used music to create an atmosphere that would insulate him from the presence of the wicked Jehoram, the son of Ahab, and allow him to be touched by God to minister in his office as a prophet.

But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the LORD came upon him.

Music has always been connected with praising and worshipping God as a prelude to the moving of the Spirit of God in prophecy among God's people. This was nothing new to the New Testament church.

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy:

1 Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was: 2 Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king. 3 Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD.

The book of Psalms was the song book of the early church. Paul instructed the churches to use it in the services. Of course we know that praising God is something we do more often than just in church service. David said "Seven times a day do I praise thee ..." (Ps 119:164), but it must also be a part of corporate worship that finds its expression in the song service and in singing psalms and hymns to God.

Speaking to yourselves [every modern translation has "to one another" or similar words. Paul is not saying speak to yourself as a private exercise, but yourselves, as to one another in a service.] in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 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.

What could be more clear than Paul's instruction here to the saints at Colosse. Our thanks is to be offered corporately as a body. We are to offer praise as one body. Paul even goes further and tells us that the Psalms are to be used as our instruction book in teaching and admonishing one another. This is appropriate for of all the books of the Bible, it alone gives us detailed instruction as to how we should worship and praise the Lord. From the Psalms we can learn the acceptable modes for worship and praise.

Praise the LORD; for the LORD is good: sing praises unto his name; for it is pleasant.

1 O God, my heart is fixed; I will sing and give praise, even with my glory. 2 Awake, psaltery and harp: I myself will awake early. 3 I will praise thee, O LORD, among the people: and I will sing praises unto thee among the nations.

Praise ye the LORD: for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for it is pleasant; and praise is comely.

While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being. Sing unto the LORD with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God:

Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp. 4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs. 5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals. 6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.

Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

14 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness;

Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy. 16 I will also clothe her priests with salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy.

Ps 47:1O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

As important as praising the Lord is, it is strange that so few Christians know how to praise the Lord, or are too bashful and backward to do it!! Others criticize it as emotionalism, but God inhabits the praises of his people (Ps 22:3).

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

As we have said, this scripture shows the two elements in the services of the early church. First we minister to the Lord, then, he in turn ministers to us. We minister to him by praise and worship, and he ministers to us through the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost does not operate in vacuum, but through the various members of the body operating in their offices. When it says " ... the Holy Ghost said ..." we must not assume that a voice spoke out in the room from the thin air. The Holy Ghost was speaking through one or more of the saints. It could have been by prophecy, after all there were prophets in Antioch (Acts 13:1), or it could have been by tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Either way the Holy Ghost would be operating through one of the gifts of the Spirit.

In order for the members to function properly in their offices the Holy Ghost imparts to each member a gift or gifts of the Spirit.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Your office in the body of Christ then is dependent upon the GIFT you receive from the Lord. It would be presumptuous to assume a certain office without the proper gift to function in that office. It is the gift that enables you to function in a particular office. God calls men to a certain office, then he gives them the proper gift to fulfill that office. the offices are inseparable from their respective gifts. That is why in the list of gifts that Paul gives above, he names sometimes the gift, sometimes the office, and even sometimes the operation of the gift in the office. These are used interchangeably. So closely are the gifts connected to their respective offices that the offices themselves are sometimes referred to as gifts.

In the Corinthian correspondence Paul deals with the subject of the gifts and their functioning in the body of Christ in considerable detail. He begins this section on the gifts in 1 Cor 12:1 with the statement "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." As his stated purpose is not to leave them, or us, ignorant, it is strange that so few people understand this subject. Perhaps this is because they fail to see the significance of the way Paul is presenting this subject.

Paul's exposition on the gifts occupies three chapters in our Bible but the key to these chapters is verses 4, 5, and 6 of chapter twelve. If you ignore these verses or fail to grasp Paul's intention here, it will be difficult to put the rest of his discourse into proper perspective. These verses should be carefully analyzed. But first, let's look at the last part of verse six and verse seven.

... it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Notice! Paul says that God worketh in ALL and that a manifestation or gift of the Spirit is given to EVERY MAN! Not just a few, but to all! Not just the clergy, but to every one as a member of the body. This is stated over and over again as the apostles teach on the gifts and offices. In almost every passage in the New Testament dealing with this subject it should be noted that it invariably speaks of every or all: “every man,” “every one of you,” “every part,” or “all the body” and “the whole body.” Read again the scriptures I have already given, noticing how many times these terms are used. Then be aware of this as we continue. The gifts of the spirit are for all of God's people. There is no professional clergy in New Testament order. If you are a member of the body of Christ then one or more of the gifts of the Spirit belongs to you. Every Christian should know this!!!

One brother told me, "No, Brother Smith, the gifts are only for the ministry." By ministry he meant the recognized body of preachers among us. He excluded women and what he would term "the laity." But this idea is proven false by noting a few scriptures where women are indeed spoken of as possessing or exercising in the gifts of the spirit. And as far as "the laity" is concerned, there is no such concept in the New Testament.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Now besides the fact that every member is given a gift, which Paul so clearly states, let's turn our attention to verses four through six of First Corinthians chapter twelve where Paul lays a foundation for his teaching on the gifts of the Spirit and the relationship of the gifts with the offices and their function in the body of Christ. If we are not careful we will miss what Paul is saying here about the different gifts and the different administrations and operations.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

The first thing we should do is analyze the words in these verses. The word "diversities" in verses 4 and 6 is translated from the same Greek word as "differences" in verse 5. That is to say that the words "diversities" and "differences" mean exactly the same thing. There are different gifts to go with the different administrations. Or to turn it around and say it another way, a different administration has a different gift.

For the word "administrations" notice the margin of your Bible has "ministeries." Administrations is translated from the Greek word diakonia (dee-ak-on-ee'-ah). The King James Version translates diakonia by ten different English words. These are: administration, 2 times; ministering, 3 times; ministration, 6; ministry, 16; office, 1; relief, 1; service, 2 ; serving 1; do service 1; minister, 1. Notice it is only translated "administration" twice while it is translated "ministry" sixteen times. It is necessary for anyone desiring to understand what the New Testament teaches concerning the government and ministry of the church to be familiar with this Greek word and the way it is translated and used in our Bible.

In the Greek New Testament there are seven words with their cognates that are rendered “minister,” “ministry,” and “to minister” by the King James Version. The majority of these Greek words are only rendered "minister" once or twice and would better be translated by a different English word. For example didomi is translated "minister" in 2 Cor. 9:10, but is usually translated "give" (367 times).

Actually when considering with the Christian ministry we need concern ourselves with only one Greek word and that is diakonos (dee-ak'-on-os) with its cognates diakoneo (dee-ak-on-eh'-o) and diakonia (dee-ak-on-ee'-ah). diakonos is the noun form of the word referring to the person, a minister, diakoneo is the verb form of the word referring to the act, to minister, and diakonia is the noun form referring to the activity, the ministry. diakonos is translated minister, 20 times; servant, 7 times and transliterated deacon, 3 times. diakoneo is translated administer, 2 times; minister (as a verb), 7 times; minister to, 1 time; minister unto, 15 times; serve, 10 times, and use the office of a deacon, 2 times.

Paul uses this very Greek word diakonia to describe his own work as an apostle. Here it is translated office. Remember that in the New Testament office and ministry mean the same .

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (diakonia)

The office of an apostle is one of these different administrations or ministries produced by the different gifts. Another of these ministries is the office of an evangelist. Paul uses this word diakonia, translated ministry, when referring to Timothy's office of an evangelist. An apostle is one ministry and an evangelist is another, different ministry.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry (diakonia)

Thus we can see that the preaching offices are among the ministries or administrations Paul is referring to. However diakonos is not used exclusively in connection with the ministry of the word of God. As often as not it refers to ministering to the physical well being of another. The Greek word like the English word simply means to serve, and only the context can determine what is being served. It could be the word of God or it could be bread. Both uses of the word are found together in Acts chapter six.

1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (diakonia) 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve (diakoneo) tables. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry (diakonia) of the word.

In our modern speech the word administration has come to have the idea of management or of executive duties. The word as it is used in our Bible does not have that connotation at all. When you understand that the word administration as it is used in our Bible simply means "ministry," its connection with the gifts becomes more understandable. It is difficult to see a connection with the gifts of the Spirit and the word administration in the modern sense of that word. However when you understand administrations in its original meaning of ministry, then you can readily see what Paul is meaning here.

The saints were to minister their gifts one to the other for the edifying or profiting of the whole body. Each different gift produces a different ministry. And every body in the body is involved in a ministry for which God has given them a gift. Someone may ask, "If every one has a ministry and is a minister, does that mean everyone is on the same level?" Not at all, for some gifts and offices are greater than others (1 Cor. 14:5). Another question that may arise concerns authority. If all are ministers then are all free to pursue their own independent ministry under the headship of Christ? Again the answer is no! Ministry means serving. All must serve, but all cannot rule. Some offices or ministries in the body of Christ are positions of authority and leadership. These must rule and the rest must minister and work under their oversight. "Obey them that have the rule 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). The title "minister" is usually referring to those who minister the word of God. As we discuss the various offices, we will show which offices are leadership offices and the means they are to use in ruling the saints.

Those offices we usually refer to as "the ministry" are actually to prepare the rest of the body for the work of the ministry. This is obscured by a misplaced comma in our King James Version.

Notice if we leave the comma out in verse twelve it would mean that the apostles, prophets, etc. would be placed in the church for the perfecting of the "saints for the work" of ministry. The word for perfect here is katartismos (kat-ar-tis-mos') and it means complete furnishing or to equip fully. This is brought out in other translations such as the New International Version.

11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

The next word we need to consider is operations. "And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Cor. 12: 6). The word "operations" is from the Greek word energema (en-erg'-ay-mah). This is a noun form of the Greek verb energeo (en-erg-eh'-o). Our English word "energy" derives from these Greek words. energeo is usually translated work or work effectually. Another noun form, energeia (en-erg'-i-ah), is usually translated “working” or “effectual working.” This word has to do with the operation or effectual working of the Holy Ghost through the gifts God imparts to accomplish the purpose of each office or ministry. The word operations basically means the result or that which is accomplished by the workings of the gifts in the ministries. Failure to grasp the significance of this word has resulted in failure to fully comprehend the relationship of the various gifts of the Spirit to the particular ministries or offices in the church. I am using the words office and ministry as synonymous terms throughout this thesis.

So then our key scripture is telling us the functioning of the body of Christ, and how that through the Spirit, the different gifts are given for the different ministries (offices) each of which has a different mode of operation. God gives us certain gifts that produces certain ministries (administrations) that effectually work (operate) in a certain way to accomplish the work of the church.

Considering the close relationship of the gifts with the ministries and their operations, it has not been necessary to have an office specified for every gift. Some gifts do not have an office named nor do some offices have a gift named. For example for the gift of healing there is no corresponding office called "healer," even though this is a valid ministry in the body of Christ. God does give some men and women a healing ministry. Likewise there is the office of pastor and yet there is no gift named such as the gift of rule.

It must be emphasized that the NAMES of all the offices in the New Testament church, whether it be apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, etc., describe FUNCTIONS and are not ornamental titles to confer on men in honorary positions. Each one of the names for the offices in the body of Christ describes a particular function and sphere of labor in the ministry. One reason so many have failed to understand the order of God is because they have been preoccupied with the dignity of the title rather than the function of the office.

I mention this because in the next section of his letter Paul gives us a list of some of the gifts, next he gives us some of the offices or ministries, finally he gives us a number of operations produced by those gifts. Because there is not a perfect correspondence of the gifts Paul names in verses 8-10, with the ministries he names in verse 28, many have failed to see that these are indeed the "differences of administrations" which are produced by the "diversities of gifts."

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

These are not all the gifts that are available to the church, just as the following list of ministries does not contain all the offices in the body.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The connection of some of the gifts with their offices may not be apparent at first. We will go into greater detail proving our assertions when we deal with each office. Suffice it for now to say briefly that the gift of the word of wisdom is given for the office of apostle. The gift of prophecy for the office of prophet, the teacher is given the gift of the word of knowledge. The worker of miracles, the gift of miracles as healing to those who have the gifts of healing. There is no gift mentioned for helps or governments, although I am sure there are gifts that God gives to enable men to function in these positions. Diversities of tongues is dependent on the gift of tongues.

Finally Paul gives us a survey of some of the operations which these gifts and ministries produce. He does all this while at the same time showing that these operations, no matter how spectacular they are, are futile if we do not use them in love to edify the body:

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

The tongues of men and of angels is a manifestation of the gift to tongues. This is not referring to flowery speech or oratory as is generally assumed, it is talking about speaking in tongues. The gift of prophecy of course is obvious, but it is not so obvious that the result of the word of wisdom is to understand all mysteries. However that is its purpose. Knowledge of course is the result of the gift of the word of knowledge. Faith to remove mountains comes from the gift of faith, bestowing goods is an operation of the office of helps.

While Paul lists many of the gifts and ministries, and even demonstrates some of their operations, it must be remembered that this list is not all inclusive. It was not Paul's purpose to provide a catalog of all the gifts and ministries available for the different members of the body of Christ to function in. We know these lists are not complete because we find other gifts and ministries mentioned throughout the Bible that are not included here.

There are a number of offices mentioned in the Ephesian letter: Here the offices themselves are referred to as gifts or presents that he gives to men.

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Notice again the scripture we gave in the book of Romans, paying attention to the different gifts and offices mentioned here.

Each respective office has its respective gift which enables the person called to that office to function in that office. So then everyone who is a member in the body of Jesus Christ is given a gift with which he is to minister to the other members for the edifying of the body. The gifts are not just for a select few in the church, called the clergy, but the gifts and operations of the Spirit are open to ALL the saints.

If, as we have seen according to the New Testament pattern, every member is to have a gift with which to minister to the other members of the body and is instructed to wait on his gift, then the services of the church must of necessity be open so that the Spirit can move on the members as he wills. This can only be accomplished by opening the service to all the saints (members of the body) to operate their respective gifts as the Spirit moves them.

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

This is how the services in the early church were run. Paul makes it perfectly clear that when they came together in the church all the members were to operate in their respective offices. Everyone was to have something but not the same thing to contribute to the service.

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. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Compare the New Testament method with the Catholic or the Protestant methods. It should be obvious that they are far removed from the New Testament pattern. No matter how great, successful, or prestigious a church or denomination may be, if it does not follow the New Testament pattern of every member being a functioning member with space given for those members to function, then that church is not built according to the New Testament pattern, and can in no wise be called the true church! Again, any church or denomination that does not urge its members to seek the gifts of the Spirit and become functioning members, and then give time and space for those members to exercise their gifts, is NOT building according to the New Testament pattern, and has no claim to being called the true church of God.

The Greek word for gift here is charisma (khar'-is-mah); It is derived from charis (khar'-ece), the Greek word for grace. gift and grace are closely tied together. The gifts are a manifestation or product of grace. This is why Paul says "gifts differing according to the grace ..." God has a grace to meet every human need. Peter calls it manifold grace.

As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Manifold means different, many faceted or various in character. It is from the Greek word poikilos which is usually translated "divers," as divers diseases in Matt 4:24, Mark 1:34, and Luke 4:40; or divers lusts, in 2 Tim 3:6 and Titus 3:3; or divers temptations in James 1:2 and manifold temptations in 1 Pet 1:6. This simply means it doesn't matter how varied the sickness or disease, how assorted the lust that assaults your soul or how many ways you are tempted, the manifold grace of God can minister healing, deliverance, and victory in every case. There is divers grace for divers needs.

God imparts his grace to "every man", that is, every member of the body, in the form of a gift. Each saint is then to be a steward of that grace that has been imparted to him. It is his work or duty then to minister that gift to others. In doing this each member ministers grace to the other members. This is the method that God uses to impart grace to us. First by giving these gifts of the Spirit to the members of the body and then by each member of the body ministering his particular gift to the other members of the body, and beyond the body to all men.

I can remember as a young Christian reading this and thinking this scripture was the answer to those who worried about what would happen to the natives in Africa and the jungles of South America who had never heard the Gospel. I had the idea that God deals with men in some abstract way, that God's spirit talks to men's hearts, even alien sinners apart from any contact with the church or the people of God. It was not for us to worry about the heathen. God would take care of them. His grace would appear to them. It was like I thought they might be walking through the jungle one day and all of a sudden the Holy Ghost would convict them, their heart would smite them and they would realize they were sinners and needed to be saved. I was quite an idealist and naive, but many people have a belief similar to that, although maybe not that simplistic.

But when I read this scripture in its context, I realized that it was through teaching that the grace of God appears. God gives his preachers gifts which enable them to preach, teach and exhort. It is through the preaching and teaching of the word of God that men learn how to live. It is in the teaching of the Gospel that men learn about the hope of his coming. So the grace of God appears to all men by teaching, which is one of the gifted offices in the body of Christ.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

An elder or bishop in his office is a steward of this teaching grace. He must be a faithful man and maintain a high moral tone and standard, for he teaches first with his blameless life, and then his gift enables him to exhort and expound the word of God. He is to be a vessel of God's grace. He is a steward of God's grace to minister the word of God.

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine [the word doctrine means teaching] both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1Cor 4:1-226 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

The Greek word translated steward in these scriptures is oikonomos (oy-kon-om'-os). A steward (oikonomos) is one who has a stewardship (oikonomia). The Greek word oikonomia (oy-kon-om-ee'-ah) is translated stewardship three times but it is also translated dispensation four times. This is the cause of some confusion because the word dispensation has come to mean something quite different from stewardship. I believe this is the result of the teaching of the Dispensationalist whose views received wide dissemination by the Scofield Reference Bible. From the Dispensationalist way of using this word Bible students began to think of a dispensation as a "period of time" and the original meaning of the word has been lost to many students today.

However if you will notice the very word itself "dispensation", you can see it contains the word dispense. To dispense is to give out or distribute. A soft drink dispenser dispenses soft drinks, a paper towel dispenser dispenses paper towels and one who has a dispensation of the grace of God is one who dispenses the grace that God has placed within him. When you read this word dispensation think in terms of stewardship.

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:

Paul is saying here that he has a stewardship of grace that is given to him to give to the Ephesian saints. That which God has placed in his life was not for Paul, but was for Paul to dispense to the other saints. Paul goes on to explain that it is his gift entrusted to him that gives him the ability to preach the gospel.

Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

And woe is Paul if he is not a faithful steward in dispensing this grace by preaching the gospel.

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 9 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Just as Paul has a dispensation or stewardship of a gift of grace, so each and every member in the body of Christ is given a gift with which to minister grace and as a steward, he is responsible for the gift with which God has entrusted to him.

Contrast this concept of grace with the Catholic or Protestant ideas of how grace is imparted. In their failure to see the church as the body of Christ with every member being a functioning member, neither Catholics nor Protestants understand how God dispenses his grace through the members of the body of Christ. As we have said the Catholics believe that God imparts his grace through the sacraments of the church.

Luther and the other reformers, while they rejected the Catholic idea, never grasped the Biblical concept of grace and how God imparts his grace. The standard Evangelical definition of grace is that "grace is God's unmerited favor." While this definition may be true as far as it goes, it says nothing about how this favor is manifested. The Protestant idea of grace seems to be almost entirely bound up with forgiveness of sins, which is given solely on the basis of "the eternal election and predestination of God." In most of the Protestant writings on grace, it seems that more time and effort is spent vilifying "works" and the law than explaining the actual working of grace.

As we stated, the Catholics see the doctrine of the means of grace as the fundamental difference between themselves and the Protestants. However neither the Catholic nor the Protestant view is that which was taught by the apostles. This is why the members of the body of Jesus Christ can be neither Catholic nor Protestant. This is a fundamental difference of the body of Jesus Christ from the apostate sects of Christendom.

As we are accounted stewards of the gift or gifts of grace God has placed in our care, it is essential that we should understand how important stewardship is. This is the subject of the parable of the talents Jesus gave in Matt 25:14-30. In this parable Jesus tells a story about a great landowner who makes a long trip and plans to be gone for a long time. In order that his property will be taken care of he appoints his different servants to positions of stewardship, and delivers his goods to them. They were to be stewards of their lord's property.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

Of course it should be obvious that the landowner is Jesus, the far country is heaven and his servants are his disciples. Some very important things should be pointed out though. He called his own servants and gave something to every one of them. This means that if you are a servant of Jesus Christ it includes you. If you are a Christian then you are also his servant, for he bought you and paid for you with his own blood! Every Man in his household is included here.

Next he gave us his goods. I have heard many sermons on stewardship, but in every one of them it concerned my goods, my money, or my possessions. These sermons were mainly trying to get Christians to give more of their carnal possessions to the church, which may be a noble project, but here in this parable Jesus is not concerned with the stewardship of my goods but his goods. Notice verse 14 he " ... delivered unto them his goods." and in verse 18, the servant "... hid his lord's money." Now when the master returns, he will not ask these servants concerning their own goods and possessions, he may do that in another place, but here he is calling into account what his servants did with his Lord’s goods.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What is the Lord's property? What are his goods? His goods are these wonderful gifts of grace which he has committed to our care to use for him to edify his body. In this parable the slothful servant who was not a faithful steward over that which was committed to his care, was cast into outer darkness. When Jesus returns to this earth he is going to call into account all of us in the church regarding the gifts of the Spirit he has given us. It is extremely important that you as a Christian know your office in the body of Jesus Christ and use the gift God has given you. We can see how important God regards these gifts and their use in the church!

Notice the excuse given by the unprofitable servant, "I was afraid." How many times have you yourself used this excuse for not doing what you felt in your heart the Lord wanted you to do? You were afraid of embarrassment or failure. You were afraid people would laugh at you, or that God was a "hard man" and he would let you down. Fear causes men to fail before they even try. Fear will paralyze the body of Christ, and the work of God will falter because we fail to do our part. We should all step out boldly!! Let us use what God gives us!!

Of course there are few congregations in which every member will be active. This was a problem in the early church too. This is why over and over the apostles gave admonitions and warnings to the disciples to desire the gifts and to seek the gifts. And, after they have received them to keep them stirred up and active in their lives. It is the only way the body can grow up and come to perfection.

But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Many try to circumvent God's pattern and justify their own unscriptural systems by declaring that many of these gifts, with their respective offices, were merely temporary and that they were meant to be done away with. However, we must remember that GOD is the author of these offices and the giver of the gifts and HE sets them in the body as it pleases HIM.

But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Not one scripture can be produced to even intimate that any of these God-set offices were temporary and were to be removed later or replaced by other offices. And yet this is exactly what the denominational teachers say. Most of them say that the apostle and the prophet and all the miraculous gifts were temporary, and that only the pastor and perhaps the evangelist were meant to be permanent.

Perhaps the reason they declare the gifts have been removed is based upon their own experience. They have little faith and no power, but the fault must lie with God and not themselves. If the gifts are not available, then they have the perfect excuse for not having them!!! The truth of the matter is, it is much easier to live on an earthly, carnal plain, then to consecrate ourselves to God and walk in the Spirit. And this is where the vast majority of Christians are living. But operation in the flesh will never bring perfection.

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

If you will study the Bible you will see that the gifts are NEVER spoken of as being confined to the early church. They are for ALL the church. Paul makes NO DISTINCTION as to some of these offices being temporary and others being perpetual. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is this distinction made. If God set ALL of them in the church, and the Bible says he did, then before we say he took some of them out of the church, certainly we ought to find a place IN THE BIBLE where he authorizes their removal. Instead of this, we find "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:29). God is not going to change his mind and take away what he has given to the church. These gifts were given to accomplish a certain purpose and they will remain in the church until that purpose is accomplished. Paul tells us that these offices would remain until "that which is perfect is come," only then could they be done away.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

So prophecies, tongues, knowledge. and all other gifts shall be done away with, only when that which is perfect is come.

Now what does Paul mean here? What is "that which is perfect?" Some say "that which is perfect" is the Bible. They say that when the Bible was written there would be no need for these offices. According to this teaching, the gifts were merely temporarily placed in the church until the Bible could be written, and then they were to be done away with.

This absurd notion will not stand in the light of reason, nor harmonize with the scriptures. The gifts were operating quite effectively in the early church. And yet, at that time most of the Bible had already been written. If the gifts were necessary for the work of God before the Bible was written, why don't we read about them in the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Or in the days of Noah? They are the ones who had no Bible!

Actually the gifts were to be an intimate part of that new age of the Spirit, which is, in fact, the age of the New Testament. Peter makes this perfectly clear on the day of Pentecost when the operation of the gifts were plainly in evidence. A new age was dawning and this is what God had promised:

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

In this age of the New Testament, God pours out his Spirit upon ALL of his people and the gifts are merely a manifestation of that Spirit.

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Peter further states that this same Holy Ghost would be available to the next generation and even to those AFAR OFF.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

You will notice that those who teach that the gifts will be done away with, do away with only part of the gifts. They still retain the office of teacher and the office of pastor. But these are just as much gifts as the other more spectacular gifts. Pastors and teachers are listed right along with the other gifts with no distinction being made.

What right and authority does anyone have to do away with part of the gifts and to keep the ones they want? If Paul is referring to the Bible here where he says "that which is perfect", then ALL the gifts have ceased, and all pastors, teachers, and evangelists are without gifts to function in their respective offices. Those denominational leaders who teach "that which is perfect is the Bible, ought to quit their jobs as pastors and evangelists and pass out Bibles.

There are many things in the Bible said to be perfect. We must find out which of these things Paul is referring to. Of course, we know the Bible is perfect. David said, "The LAW of the LORD is perfect." (Ps. 19:7) and that was a thousand years before the New Testament was even written. Every word that God gives us is perfect. (Heb. 5:9). Job was perfect. (Job 1:1). But Paul is not speaking of these things here. "That which is perfect" here in this context that Paul is writing, is the body of Christ itself. This is the context here!!! When the body comes to perfection, then and only then, will there be no further need for these gifts.

Paul explains this more fully in the Ephesian letter where he enumerates those offices that concern the ministry of the Word, which ministry will bring the body to perfection. Notice how Paul regards the perfection of the saints as coming to a "perfect man"!!!

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

"That which is perfect" in I Cor. 13:10, is the PERFECT MAN in Eph. 4:13. The gifts are placed in the body TILL this is accomplished. Of course when this is accomplished, there will be no further need for the gifts.

As might be expected, those who don't believe in apostles, prophets, miracles, and healing don't believe in perfection either. But as long as one member is being added to the body of Christ, these offices are needed to bring that member to perfection. This, of course, will be up to the time of the second advent. This simply means that these office were given by Christ when he ascended to heaven and will REMAIN IN THE CHURCH UNTIL CHRIST DESCENDS BACK TO EARTH:

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

This scripture shows us that the gifts were given when Christ ascended back to the Father. This next scripture shows us that they will be in operation while we are waiting for the coming of Christ. After Christ comes there will be no further need for these gifts, for we will receive immortality.

So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

So while we are WAITING for the coming of the Lord, we should seek THE GIFTS that Christ will give us, that we come behind in no gift. It is the only way we can reach perfection. We must not, indeed cannot, add to them or take away from them. God set them in the church. Our place is to open our hearts and minds to receive the gifts that Christ would give us, that we might function in the body of Christ in the offices to which God has called us! The authority for them is DIVINE!!!

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

This is the New Testament pattern! Paul places the authority and commission of these church offices in God himself: "GOD HATH SET". The offices in the church are by God's appointment, and are not arbitrarily left to the device of man.

If God set certain offices in the church, and this is what Paul is saying here, then these offices are appointed and ordained by God himself. Any man who would controvert these offices, opposes God's system, and thence he opposes God! No man or group of men have the right to abnegate God's system in favor of one or more to their liking, or a system that 'works better' or one that is congruous with human reason.

If men are building the church according to the New Testament pattern, they will recognize these God-ordained offices. They will also recognize that the divine order is "God hath set some in the church FIRST APOSTLES. (I Cor. 12:28)

Just as in the natural body every member is not equal, so in the body of Christ some members are greater than others: "for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues" (I Cor 14:5). This is not to be mistaken for respect of persons. There is no respect of persons with God (Acts 10:34). In the church it does not matter whether one is rich or poor, bond or free, Jew or Gentile!!! Social, economic, or racial origin does not count (Gal. 4:28). There is absolute equality of persons!!

However, this equality of persons does not extend to equality of offices. Some offices are greater than others. And the New Testament pattern is "FIRST APOSTLES". The apostle is the greatest or primary office in God's church.

Contrast this New Testament pattern with those systems used in the denominations. For Roman Catholics the first or highest ranking office is the Pope. For the Eastern Orthodox it is the Patriarch. In the Church of England the "reigning monarch" is the head of the church. In the Protestant Episcopal church, the archbishops are the head. The fact is, not one of these offices is even mentioned in the Bible, so they CANNOT even be considered as offices in the body of Christ.

The denominations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, with popes, patriarchs, and archbishops have the hierarchical or prelatist system of church government, commonly called the EPISCOPAL. Episcopal means rule by bishops. The name of this system comes from the Greek word episkopos (ep-is'-kop-os). This word is found in the Greek New Testament five times. In the KJV it is translated "bishop" four times (Phil. 1:1, I Tim. 3;2, Tit. 1:7, I Pet. 2:25) and "overseer" one time (Acts 20:28). More modern translations use the word "overseer" all five times as it reflects to the English reader the true meaning of episkopos.

The word bishop, so often used to translate episkopos is derived from Latin and it too originally meant simply "overseer". The New Testament bishop (episkopos) was simply an in OVERSEER! The word bishop in the Episcopal system has come to mean something far different than the simple overseer of the New Testament. In the New Testament, the office of the bishop was held by an ELDER (presbyter), thus making the bishop and presbyter (elder) two designations of one and the same office. (Acts 20:17,28; Tit. 1:5-7). In the New Testament, a bishop (presbyter, overseer) is one of several men, all likewise bishops who together are to oversee ONE local church. In the episcopal system, a bishop is one man who is over several churches.

In other words, in Apostolic times, each and every church or assembly had several bishops to oversee it, while in the Episcopal system, each bishop has several churches he must oversee. Thus, there is quite a bit of difference between a New Testament bishop and Episcopalian bishop. Many Episcopal scholars readily admit this and place the development of the Episcopal system in Post-Apostolic times. (see The Christian Ministry -J.B. Lightfoot)

So the Episcopal system of church government has removed many offices that Christ placed in the church, including that of apostle, and changed the others so that they in no wise resemble the church of the New Testament. With the Episcopal system, whether Roman, Greek, or Protestant, you are completely outside of the Bible and Bible order!!!

When Martin Luther broke with Rome and initiated the Protestant Reformation, he derogated the office of the pope, whom he regarded as antichrist, but he kept the Episcopal system. He did however depose of many of the unscriptural offices, as the pope, and cardinal, etc.

These changes were not enough for many of the other reformers, so men like Zwingli and Calvin developed what is known as the Presbyterian system of church government. The word presbyterian, like the word episcopal, is derived from a New Testament Greek word. That word is presbuteros (pres-boo'-ter-os) and is translated "elder" or "presbyter" in our English Bible.

The Presbyterian system provided for three ordained offices: ministers, (also called teaching elders), ruling elders, and deacons. The minister or teaching elder, is regarded as the bishop and pastor, although some Presbyterians would insist that ruling elders are equally called bishops.

In the Presbyterian system, the elder or presbyter is the highest office, but the real authority and power is vested in the presbytery which is a council or assembly of the elders. One elder alone does not weld much power except as he can influence the other elders in the assembly.

The Presbyterian system also provides for popular elections in choosing officers, but only the presbytery has the power to install or dismiss ministers. As you can see, the Presbyterian system does away with the hierarchical system of the Episcopalian, but it is hardly a return to the New Testament. The Presbyterian system, like the Episcopal system, has removed many offices that Christ put in the church, including the apostle. They have divided the church into clergy and laity and have exalted the office of presbyter (elder) as the primary office in the church, and the presbytery (assembly of elders) as the final authority.

There is no room in the Presbyterian system for apostles and prophets, nor can every member be a functioning member in the Bible sense. Not one place in the New Testament do we find the members of the church voting as they do in the Presbyterian system, but we do find them functioning as they cannot in the Presbyterian system. (We will take up the issue of voting later.)

The reformation produced another system of church government, Independency, which is called the Congregational system. Although this system first developed among the radical wing of the reformation, generally called the Anabaptists, it received its real impetus from the Separatists of England who were first called Brownist, and later called Congregationalists. The Baptist denominations are an off-shoot of early Congregationalism. Most Baptists have retained the Congregationalists polity.

It is ironic that the first and primary reason for the formation of the congregational system was the reaction against the "state church" concept that was so congenial to both the Presbyterians and Episcopalians in Europe, and as soon as Congregationalism was transferred to the American colonies in the early 17th century it became the Established or state church in the New England colonies. This was due primarily to the influx of vast numbers of Puritans uniting with the Congregationalist. The Puritans were the reformation party in the Church of England and like the Continental Protestants believed in the union of church and state.

Today the Independent or Congregational system is characterized by the principle that each congregation is autonomous. This very principle of autonomy makes it impossible to make a general statement of polity for all Independents. We can say that among the vast majority of Independents there are only two offices recognized in the church, the office of pastor and the office of deacon. Again among the vast majority this consists of one pastor with a board of deacons who are to assist the pastor.

In the Congregational system, the pastor is nominally the greatest or first office in the church, but actually the pastor is merely a figure head. The real power lies in the congregation and its ability to vote, for in the congregational system a pastor can be voted in or voted out at the will of the people.

At first appearance it might seem the congregational system is the closest to the New Testament church, by the mere reason of its primitive simplicity, but actually it is the very antithesis of the New Testament pattern. In the New Testament church, Christ is the head, and the rule is from the top down. In the Congregational system, the rule is the from the bottom up. In the Congregational system things are done at the will of the people and not the will of God. In this system a minister may find that he spends the most of his time playing politics instead of preaching the word of God.

Most denominations and sects follow one or the other of the three systems of church government that we have briefly outlined. These systems are named after the first office, or greatest authority in each system. In the Episcopal system the authority is in the Episcopate. In the Presbyterian system the authority is in the Presbytery. And in the Congregational system, the authority is in the congregation itself. The political terms describing these systems are, respectively, Autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. This is just a brief summary of these systems, for a book could be written about each of these systems describing their manifold errors. Often the system employed by an organization may contain aspects from more than one of these systems. In other words it may be a mixture of Episcopal and Congregational systems, or Congregational and Presbyterian, etc, making it hard to classify them. Then too an organization may have the Episcopal system but call their bishops "superintendents" or "district overseers," again making it hard to identify at first appearance. To really know what system an organization is using, one needs to examine how it actually works.

Let it simply be said that NONE of these systems follow the New Testament pattern. ALL of them have removed from the church many of the offices or gifts that Christ put in it. ALL deny the members of the body the right and duty to be functioning members and relegate them to the position of laity. ALL have removed the office of apostle as the first and greatest office in the church as it was in the New Testament, and in its place have substituted other inferior offices. Whatever success these manmade systems may have as far as gaining members or influencing society, regardless of the charitable programs they may sponsor, and the good they appear to do, they are a detriment to true spiritually, and have greatly hindered the work of God in the earth. And here I am not speaking of the good and godly men and women who may belong to these organizations but of the unscriptural organizations themselves which actually hold these good men and women in bondage.

We have briefly outlined the various forms of church polity (government or order) found in most denominations. We have presented the true church as the body of Christ with every member being a functioning member who has been given a gift or gifts with which to minister the grace of God to the other members of the body. We have pointed out that the services in our churches should be open for the saints of God to minister their gifts. All of these are things that characterize the true church and distinguish it from the denominational organizations of apostate Christianity.

We also gave scriptural witness to the fact that the first or primary office in the church of Jesus Christ is the office of the apostle. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles," (ICor. 12:28). Most Christians have absolutely no conception of what an apostle is or what the function of his office is. Of course apostolic order goes beyond just the office of the apostle. It includes those offices that the apostles, under the headship of Jesus Christ, placed in the churches when the churches were "set in order." To fully understand the office of an apostle, we should understand the Call of an apostle, the Function of an Apostle and the Gift of an apostle. In connection with the function or work of an apostle we must also understand the concept of spiritual authority, not only as it applies to an apostle but to all offices of the ministry.

The word "apostle" is transliterated from the Greek word apostolos (ap-os'-tol-os). It comes from the Greek verb apostello (ap-os-tel'-lo). The basic meaning of apostello is "to send forth." The verb form occurs more than 700 times in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, the Bible that Jesus and the early disciples used, but the noun form apostolos (apostle) is rarely used in the Greek Old Testament, neither was it widely used among the Jews of Jesus' day. (See Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol 1, Pages 398-446).

Whatever the original meaning of the word or whatever the source from which Jesus derived this word, this is the name he gave to the twelve men he chose to build his church.

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

"Apostle" became the name or designation of an office or specific ministry in the church that Jesus was building. While it is true that he sent (apostello) other men, he never gave these other men the name apostle (apostolos) as he did the twelve.

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent (apostello) them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

When we speak of the office of an apostle, it means much more that just being sent. "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach" (Mark 3:14). First, they were to be with him. They must first be separated from all other concerns. The most significant part of Jesus ministry was his training of his apostles. This must not be overlooked, he "ordained twelve, that they should be with him." An apostle is one who is first separated from all other business or affairs so that he might devote himself completely to the affairs of the one sending him. An apostle is one sent, but he is one sent with full authority to transact business for the one sending him. He is the authorized representative of the one sending him. Just as an ambassador is commissioned to represent the king, to transact business for the king, in the name of the king, so an apostle has an embassy on behalf of the One sending him. The apostle is God's representative in the earth.

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

In order to faithfully represent him, they must first know his will. They must know how he would do things and how he feels about things. So he first called them to be with him that he might teach them, that they might learn his ways and methods of doing things, then he would "send them forth to preach." They were to represent him in the earth by preaching the gospel that he commits to them. It was his gospel, his message, they were to preach and not their own.

If an apostle is the representative of God on the earth, then it is God's right to chose and appoint the men that will represent him. Because he is the representative of God, only God can call a man to be an apostle. It is God's choice alone in the matter. An apostle can neither choose himself nor be chosen by other men. No man can decide for himself that he will be an apostle. God alone chooses the men who will represent him. He does this, of course, through Jesus Christ whom he has appointed head of the church.

Remember Paul's statement that " ... God hath set some in the church, first apostles," (ICor. 12:28). Even Jesus did not choose the twelve without first spending the night in prayer to ascertain his Father's will in the matter. He had to know whom his Father had chosen.

And it came to pass in those days that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of whom he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles.

Jesus told the eleven (Judas had defected at this time and had not yet been replaced, as he was later by Matthias) "ye have NOT chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you..." (John 15:16). Jesus was acting in his position as head of the church in choosing and ordaining the apostles, but even though He was head of the church, he would only appoint to office the men that God had chosen and given to him.

I have manifested thy name unto the men which THOU GAVEST ME out of the world: thine they were, and THOU GAVEST THEM (to) ME; and they have kept thy word.

Thus we see no man or council of men can take it upon themselves to set aside men and name them apostles. It is NOT an honorary title to be given to oldest, or the best. It is an office or ministry in the body of Christ and can be fulfilled only by those chosen by God. As Paul said of himself, he was "an apostle not of men , neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father..." Gal. 1:1

Some feel that the church has the right to choose its own leaders, even the office of an apostle. They believe the first chapter of Acts sets a precedence for electing men to offices in the church through the process of voting. A closer examination of this passage will show that the disciples did not vote here, neither are they the ones who chose Matthias to replace Judas in his office as an apostle. GOD HIMSELF CHOSE Matthias to be an apostle. The disciples merely ascertained who would qualify, then they prayed and God revealed his will to each one individually. When the prayer meeting was over the decision was unanimous. God had revealed to each one the same answer: God had chosen Matthias. There was no campaign, no nomination, no politicizing - only prayer to find out who God's choice was. the evidence is clearly stated in Acts.

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two THOU HAST CHOSEN That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell....."

There was no vote here of men deciding who was better qualified or who would be the best man. God showed them whom he had chosen and gave the answer to them. It was a unanimous decision by the Spirit of God, and not a political caucus. "they gave forth their lots" -- the answer that each received from God -- "and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:26). So we can see that even here, God chose the apostle. As it was said of the high priest, so can it be said of an apostle -- "And no man taketh his honour unto himself: but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Heb 5:4).

Other Bible teachers feel that the whole scenario here in Acts chapter one was a mistake. They feel that the disciples jumped the gun and went ahead of the Lord in choosing Matthias, and that Paul was the one chosen by God to take Judas' place and be numbered with the twelve. I believe this theory is based upon the idea that there could be only twelve apostles. For scriptural support they appeal to Rev. 21:14 where the new Jerusalem has twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. These, they say, are the foundations of the church, and as there are only twelve foundations, surely Paul must be one of these and therefore Paul is one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and there is room for no more.

The implications of this theory, however are far-reaching and substantial. The idea that it was God's plan that there were to be only twelve apostles, and the disciples did not understand this, and contrary to the will of God took it upon themselves to ordain others to be apostles, is indeed a bold and daring concept, especially in the light of all the New Testament tells us. First it would mean that the church started with leadership that didn't know what they were doing. That even after praying and asking God for guidance, none of the hundred and twenty present could discern the will of God or get an answer from heaven. Next it would mean that even thirty years later when Luke wrote the book of Acts he was still unaware that the early disciples had made a mistake, for he writes about it as an accepted event with no indication whatever that it was in any way improper or out of the will of God. Then it would mean that everywhere in the New Testament where other men are called apostles, that those calling them apostles didn't know what they were talking about either. This would include major writers of the New Testament. Finally it would mean that as there were only to be twelve apostles, there could be no apostles today or any time subsequent to the first century.

Before accepting such a theory we should examine how the apostles and the early church regarded the matter. If there was a mistake made, surely it should be corrected in New Testament times and not wait until our day to be corrected. If what was done in Acts chapter one was accepted by the early church and God chose other men to be apostles beside Paul, what right have we to question it two thousand years later?

How did the early church regard this? Let's examine the facts. First, Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, indicates that Matthias was accepted and recognized by the early church as replacing Judas, for he was "numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26). On the day of Pentecost there were eleven men standing with Peter thus making up the twelve: "But Peter, standing up with the eleven ..." Acts 2.14. Eleven other men were standing with Peter. Peter plus the eleven makes twelve. Matthias was standing with the other apostles. Further Luke uses the term "the twelve" sometime after Matthias was chosen, but before Paul was even converted. This would mean that it was an accepted and accomplished fact that Matthias was indeed recognized as one of the twelve.

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Further Paul himself makes a distinction between himself and the twelve, "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: ...8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1Cor 15:5, 8) Paul says Christ was seen of the twelve before he was seen by` him. If he were one of the twelve he would have seen him at that time and not "last of all". If you will notice the time frame in which Paul says Jesus was seen of the twelve you will know that Judas was dead and there were only eleven apostles at this time. They were regarded as "the eleven." Mark records it this way, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." (Mark 16:14). At this time Mark says he appeared to the eleven, but Paul, looking back, knew that Matthias had been "numbered with the eleven" apostles thus making twelve. He knew also that Matthias had been present when Jesus appeared after his resurrection, as this was the qualification for fulfilling the apostleship that Judas had left vacant. Thus Paul recognized Matthias as one of the twelve, when he said that Jesus appeared to the Twelve.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It is true that the twelve are distinct from the other apostles. The twelve are called "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev 21:14) because they stand in a unique relationship to Christ, having been with him throughout his entire earthly ministry beginning with John the Baptist, being personally trained by him, and witnessing his death, burial, resurrection and ascension. This was the criteria laid down by Peter in that first meeting after Christ's ascension.

Paul met none of these criteria! There were only two men that did. That was Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias. It is true that Paul had seen Christ, but this was only a vision (Acts 26:19). He was not an actual witness as these special apostles of the Lamb were. Paul saw the resurrected Christ in a vision, but John speaks of touching and handling him. His witness is of one who could give a personal account of the life and death of Christ, having been there with him through it all. Likewise Peter speaks of himself and the others of the twelve as being "eyewitnesses".

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The ministry of the twelve was to be distinctly to Israel. The twelve "... shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28), while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13). This did not mean that Paul could not preach to Jews. He did. In fact he always gave them first chance to believe. It was "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16). Likewise Peter preached to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7). But the ministry of the twelve was to the twelve tribes of Israel, and where it speaks of the twelve apostles being the twelve foundations of that new Jerusalem, it speaks of the twelve gates bearing the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (Rev. 21:12-14). Even though Peter was chosen to open the door to the Gentiles, his apostleship was preeminently to the house of Israel.

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The circumcision here is Israel. Peter was not the only apostle to the circumcision or to Israel, but he is preeminently the apostle to the Jews. Along with Peter, Paul mentions James and John, sharing with Peter that ministry, just as he mentions Barnabas sharing with him the apostleship to the Gentiles. Paul was preeminently the apostle to the Gentiles, but there would be other apostles sharing with Paul in that apostleship to the Gentiles. the living head of the church could give apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers as the need would arise. Paul plainly says he would do this after he went back to heaven. After he ascended back to heaven he still is choosing the men and placing them in the offices to which that he calls them. This includes apostles. He will give some apostles after he ascends.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Paul and Barnabas were two of these apostles Jesus gave after he ascended on high. Barnabas had been sent to Antioch by the church at Jerusalem to oversee the work there. He sought out his friend Paul to help him in the work at Antioch and they worked together there until he and Paul were separated for the work and sent out as apostles. Barnabas was separated and sent out the same time that Paul was (Acts 13:2-4). In fact Barnabas' name is placed ahead of Paul's in the beginning, showing that Barnabas was given the preeminence in the beginning of their work together. This is because, according to the way that Acts 13:1 reads, Barnabas was a prophet which, as an office in the body, is secondary, and Paul was a teacher, which is third in rank (1Cor. 12:28). In the original Greek of Acts 13:1 two different connecting particles are used (kai and te) which marks a distinction between three prophets, Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius, and two teachers Manaen and Saul. Later as they worked together as apostles Paul distinguished himself above Barnabas and is accorded first place. As Paul took the forefront his name begin to be placed ahead of Barnabas. Barnabas and Paul are called apostles together by Luke.

Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Paul recognized Barnabas' apostleship when he was defending his own apostleship against those who seemed to be questioning his office in the Lord.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

After Barnabas separated from Paul, Paul chose Silas as his traveling companion. In Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, he acknowledges Silas as an apostle also.

Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.

Although the salutation of First Thessalonians includes "Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus ..." (1 Thess. 1:1), if you notice the use of the personal pronouns in this epistle, it is obvious that the "we" throughout First Thessalonians did not include Timothy. Timothy's name is included as a courtesy, which Paul often does in the salutation of his letters, but he is distinct from the "we" in the rest of the epistle. Paul mentions the ordeal at Philippi, where he and Silas were beaten and thrown in jail (Acts 16:19-38). This tells us who the "we" is.

But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.

That the "we" of First Thessalonians does not include Timothy is further shown in chapter three where the "we" sent Timothy (verse 2) and where "... Timotheus came from you unto us..." (verse 6). Paul's use of the personal pronouns in this chapter is very precise and reflects what was happening in their mission at this time. Only when you understand the events that were transpiring (they are recorded by Luke in Acts 17 & 18) can you understand the precision of Paul's usage here. So we know that his use of "we" to include Silas as an apostle along with himself was no accident or mere courtesy.

That the early church recognized other men besides the twelve as apostles is evident in Paul's rebuke of the Corinthian church regarding false teachers that were being received there under the guise of apostles of Christ. If Paul knew that there were to be only twelve apostles, he could have merely dismissed these false teachers with a statement to that effect. But Paul doesn't do this. He says they are false apostles, giving credence to the fact that there are other apostles, some of whom would be counterfeits.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

This is further confirmed by the apostle John in the Book of the Revelation in his letter to the church of Ephesus, where he commended them for trying men who were claiming to be apostles. If the possibility were not there that men could be apostles, there would be no purpose in trying them to see if they were indeed apostles or not. Trying them would be superfluous.

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:

Thus we can see the position of the early church and the writers of the New Testament regarding apostles. They did not limit the apostolic office to the twelve alone but extended it to the other men whom God sets in the church as apostles. These where men who were called and made apostles after Jesus went back to heaven. This did not mean that the churches had to except a man as an apostle on his claim alone. There are certain criteria with which to try a man to know whether he is an apostle or not. Paul rebuked the Corinthian church because they did not do this, and John commended the Ephesian church because they did try them. Only God can choose an apostle. Only God can place him in his office. We cannot make or unmake apostles, but we can try men to know if they are apostles or not, if we understand what the office of an apostle is and what the qualifications are for that office.

For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Regarding the function of an apostle there are three important words in this scripture that we should consider. These are authority, servants, and work. To understand spiritual authority one must understand the relationship of these three words. In the world, authority is gained by dominance. Those who dominate are the ones who rule and govern, whether that dominance is gained by brute strength or by subtlety in outwitting others. This, of course, is according to the laws of nature. These laws have been discovered by modern psychology and sociobiology. When man rules by dominance, he is merely doing what comes naturally. It is the way of the flesh (our animal nature). But Jesus taught that it would not be this way among his followers. In the church, God places his authority in those who humble themselves to become servants ... the greater the service, the greater the authority.

41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship (dominion or dominance) over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

The world does not understand spiritual principles. God's men of authority are referred to as his servants. The wisdom of Solomon tells us that it is most unbearable to see a servant reigning. "For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a servant when he reigneth;..." (Prov. 30:21-22). A servant is not to reign, a servant is to serve. And yet it is in his servants that God places his authority. The concept of service or ministry may seem to be incompatible with the concept of authority, unless we understand that as a servant, an apostle is a delegated authority who does not have his own authority, but is a representative of God.

This takes the authority out of the man and places it in God himself. The duty of the man is to faithfully serve the one he represents. As a representative of God the apostle speaks for God. The authority is not vested in the person of the man, but in the word which God gives the man to speak as his representative. Thus God may not always vindicate the man but he will always vindicate his word. As Mark says, "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." (MAR 16:20). It was the word that the Lord confirmed, because it was his word. A man can be wrong, but God's word is always right.

Thus an apostle has the authority of God only if he speaks the word of God. If he speaks his own word the authority of God is not in it! The authority of God is in the word of God. When a man speaks his own word it has no more authority than anyone else of equal experience and consecration. The power then lies not in personal charm, natural ability to lead, or even in the fact that God chose him, but in his ability to represent God by knowing the will of God and speaking the word of God.

This is why spiritual principles are so important. The character of the man is important, extremely important, because God's representative must be completely faithful to his commission to represent God alone. He must give up his own will, his own aspirations, and even his own desire to speak for himself. This, of course, should be the goal of every office of the ministry, indeed of every Christian, but it is preeminently true of the apostle because he is the leader in all these things.

This is also the hardest thing for a man to do. The temptation to speak one's own mind or to express one's own opinion is overwhelming for most men. To resist such temptation requires great humility and humbleness of mind. The principles of spiritual authority are so contrary to the world and the flesh that Jesus even had a difficult time instilling in the twelve apostles what the authority of God meant as opposed to the authority of political rulers. They were constantly bickering over who would be the greatest and over and over he had to give them lessons on humility and humbleness.

And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

A few days later they were into it again over the same problem!! (see Mark 10:37-45). Spiritual principles are very difficult to instill into the hearts of men because it goes against the flesh. However the only way to greatness in the kingdom of God is through humbleness.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

It is because of these spiritual principles, that God could choose apostles at the sea shore, rather than at Herod's palace. He could choose from a tax collector's office in Capernaum, rather than from the doctors or lawyers in the temple at Jerusalem. Family connections and natural attainments have little to do with it. It is a matter of faithfulness and obedience that God looks for in the men that will represent him. These are the qualities to be desired in a servant. A servant must obey without question. His own desires do not enter into the picture. Faithfulness is being obedient under every circumstance. The spiritual qualities that yield obedience and faithfulness are humbleness, humility, and meekness. Without humbleness, obedience from the heart is difficult if not impossible.

Jesus is our example. He told his disciples to "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly (Gr. humble) in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. Mat 11:29. What an example of obedience and faithfulness that Jesus set for us through humbling himself to be obedient to his heavenly Father.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Humbleness and meekness are words that are very close in meaning. Humble and meek are synonyms with slightly different shades of meaning. Humble implies absence of vanity and arrogance, while meek implies the absence of wrath or vindictiveness. These are spiritual qualities that are prerequisite to total obedience to God and his word. Without humbleness a man would be lifted up in arrogance and pride when he is put in a position of authority. Before long an arrogant man confuses his own desires and commands with those of God. Without meekness he would be tempted to run over people, or be spiteful to his subordinates. This is why God seeks to instill these spiritual principles in those whom he would make leaders. the man in whom God places authority is the man least likely to assert or abuse his authority. "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves ... " (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

The more authority or revelation a man receives from God, the greater the temptation to be exalted. The man of God must be forever watchful that he doesn't fall into this snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). When a man gets exalted, he soon feels that he is different from other men. He comes to feel he can do no wrong. When he begins to do wrong and becomes disobedient, he will always find a way to justify himself.

A perfect example of the way a man can be lifted up and lose his standing with God is found in the life of King Saul. Remember these things in the Old Testament were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4) and are our examples of what we should and should not do (1Cor.10:6, 11). When God called Saul he was so humble and self-effacing, he couldn't understand why God would even choose him. Notice how meek he is when Samuel reveals he is God's choice, "And Saul answered and said, Am not I a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? wherefore then speakest thou so to me?" (1Sam. 9:21) Later when he was to be ordained as king of Israel, he hides himself, certainly a sign he was not aggressive or self seeking, "Therefore they inquired of the Lord further, if the man should yet come thither. And the Lord answered, Behold, he hath hid himself among the stuff." (1 Sam. 10:22).

How different that is from the man we find later. Saul's position came to mean more to him than obedience to God. He forgot that he was only a delegated authority and felt the need to assert his own authority upon the people. When he saw the people scattering from him, he was so concerned for his own position that he infringed upon the office of the priesthood in order to draw them back (1Sam 13:8-14). For this Samuel soundly rebuked him, but Saul was so obsessed with his position as king that he could do no more than offer feeble excuses to justify himself.

Saul's final rejection by God and his break with Samuel was occasioned during his campaign against the Amalekites. God had given certain instructions which Saul ignored. Samuel again rebuked him, pointing out that Saul's disobedience was the result of his being exalted from the humbleness which he had in the beginning when God had chosen him. It was because of his humbleness that God chose him in the first place, "And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?" (1 Sam. 15:17).

When Samuel rebuked him, Saul at first denied any wrong doing, claiming full compliance with God's commandments. When Samuel confronted him directly in terms that he could not deny, Saul then justified himself by blaming the people. "And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed... 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal." (1Sam 15:15,21) How cowardly, how demeaning it is for a leader to blame the people instead of assuming the responsibility for his actions, or wrong decisions. When Saul blamed the people and used them as a scapegoat to cover his own sins, he proved himself unfit to be the leader of God's people.

Saul was without excuse! Even if the people had pressured him, a leader cannot yield to pressures from the people. He must lead, not succumb to what the people desire. If it were true that he disobeyed God to appease the people, it only proves he was not the leader he should have been. How offending it is for a leader to put the desires of the people above the commandments of God. It is an affront to God!! Paul said, "...or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Gal. 1:10. When a preacher or leader caters to the desires of the people he ceases to be a spokesman for God and becomes a spokesman or figurehead for the people. He may cater to the people because he enjoys the benefits and prerogatives of his office to an extent that he fears losing these, more than he fears God. Sometimes the people rebel against God's authority, but the leader must stand firm. He must not fear what people can do!

And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

Saul's subsequent actions and the way he behaved in his dealings with David show us that he never understood what it met to be a delegated authority. After he obtained his office as king of Israel, the primary concern of his life became to keep that office at any price. This is where pride and arrogance lead one. How many leaders and preachers today are like Saul. Their only concern is with their own position and power. If it were God's will to put another man in their place, they would not willing submit to the will of God. This kind of man can't see the will of God. They must rule or ruin. All they can see is that they are the ones in charge and they want to keep it that way. Many "church bosses" who are not even ministers fall into this category. Once they obtain the authority over an assembly, it is almost impossible to uproot them and set the assembly in order. Some pastors would rather see the assembly destroyed than to relinquish their control over it, even though it may be obvious that God is no longer blessing them in this position.

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Authority in the church is not for the purpose of enhancing the life of the leader or to bestow benefits upon him. Leadership is ministry. Leaders in the church are servants and not dictators. Men must be prepared for leadership. If men are not prepared for the leadership offices, they will turn it to their own advantage as Saul did. They may love the prestige and honor of the office not realizing that leadership is for ministry or service. God has various ways to train men for ministry and leadership, but Saul experienced none of these. He was humble enough that God could appoint him as king, but he was not experienced enough to sustain that humility once thrust into a high position of leadership. It went to his head. If he had worked with Samuel and learned from him, he could have developed those attributes of character that are so necessary for spiritual leadership and authority. Instead he only wanted to use Samuel to consolidate his position as king (1 Sam. 15:30). Perhaps Saul failed in spite of his humbleness in the beginning because he was thrust into a high position of leadership without being prepared for it.

Many wonder why God allowed Saul to continue as king long after he had rejected him and chose David to take his place. Those years that David spent going through trials and temptations, as Saul pursued him and sought to destroy him, were years of testing and preparation for David. Would he stay humble and meek before the Lord, or would he get exalted as Saul had done? David passed every test. He qualified to be a leader of God's people. David was not thrust into a high position unprepared. He stayed meek and humble through it all, for he knew that without the Lord he was nothing. He must be guided by the Lord. He let the Lord promote him. He must never forget that he was only an humble shepherd. "And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him." (1Sam. 18:14) His reliance was totally on the Lord.

4 Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths. 5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

How meekly David behaved himself. Even after Samuel anointed him to be the king of Israel, David never pushed his own cause, but served Saul with all humility. He never rebelled or tried to forment rebellion against Saul. He never raised his hand to harm Saul in any way, nor did he encourage others to do so. David wanted only what God wanted.

Contrast David's attitude with that of Saul's. When Saul thought David was chosen to replace him, even though God was the one that chose David, he did his very best to destroy David. It didn't matter to Saul what God wanted. His own position and authority was all that mattered to him. He would destroy anything and everything that stood in his way.

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

How different is David's attitude when his son Absolom usurped the throne and sought to depose David. David knew that he was only a delegated authority, administering the rule of God. If God wanted to remove him he would humbly submit to whatever God wanted. There is no pride here. No arrogance. No self-seeking. Only humble submission to the will of God. How well David learned to submit to God as a delegated authority. Truly he was a man after God's own heart. Paul said "David ...served his own generation by the will of God ..." (Acts 13:36). He never rose up against Saul to obtain the throne, nor did he advance himself to keep the throne. His only concern was that the will of God be done. As he is driven from Jerusalem, how humbly he leaves. How willing he is to do whatever God requires.

And the king said unto Zadok, Carry back the ark of God into the city: if I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again, and shew me both it, and his habitation: 26 But if he thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold, here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good unto him.

2 Sam 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly (Gr. humble) in heart: ... Matt 11:29

Moses was another leader that God brought through hardship and difficulty to prepare him for leadership. Unlike David who followed the sheepfold, Moses was raised in the king's palace. Besides all the advantages of being a part of the royal family, "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," (Acts 7:22) Being also "exceeding fair" he advanced in Egyptian society as a man "mighty in words and in deeds."

According to worldly standards, even of the church world, here was a man showing outstanding promise. He was handsome, an eloquent speaker, a man of culture and education, moving in the highest circles. He had wealth and power (Heb. 11:26). What better man to choose for a leadership role. And besides all of this he had a genuine call of God on his life and he knew it. Anybody who knew him would say he was destined for great things. He even felt like everybody ought to be able to tell that he was the one that God had chosen to lead and deliver his people (Acts 7:25).

Moses had everything it took for success as a leader, everything, that is, except the only thing that really matters. He did not have authority from God. He had no spiritual authority. God gives his authority to his servants. Even though Moses was called of God he knew nothing about being a servant. He knew about ruling, and he knew about commanding, but he knew nothing about the spiritual attributes God requires in his leaders. After he had graduated from man's school, he still had to go to God's school. You cannot learn spiritual leadership from reading books, not even the Bible. It requires a certain kind of experience.

The major flaw in Bible schools or theological seminaries today is the idea that you can teach a man how to be a minister or preacher by taking courses in homiletics, systematic theology and a dozen other subjects. Reading the Bible is important. We should never minimize the reading or studying of God's word. But spiritual experience is when that word is incorporated into one's life until it becomes a part of him. Ministry then is far more than learning to perform certain tasks. Ministry is the outflow of a person who has experienced the grace of God in his daily life.

Likewise, preaching is far more than oratory. Moses was an orator. He was an eloquent speaker, "mighty in words" (Acts 7:22). Such a speaker can hold an audience spellbound. But preaching is more than learning how to gesture or modulate the voice at the appropriate places. Preaching is not quoting passages of scripture and then commenting on them. How vain it is to memorize scriptures and stand forth and expound from mere "head" knowledge. True preaching is when a man imbibes and assimilates the word of God into his personality and character, and then under the anointing of the Spirit of God pours forth that which has become a part of him. This is what we mean by experience. This kind of preaching will minister life, even if the speaker is not eloquent. Jesus had words of life (John 6:63, 68), even though he had not been trained in the theological schools of his day (John 7:15).

So we find Moses enrolling in God's theological seminary on the backside of the desert. His course of instruction lasted forty years. When we find him on graduation day he was a far different person than when he graduated from the University of Egypt. Gone were the royal family ties. No longer was he rich and powerful. He even lost his ability to speak eloquently. He protested "... O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." (Ex. 4:10) No longer did he feel like the man of the hour. Gone was all the pride and before us stands the meekest man upon the face of the earth. "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." (Num 12:3) The world would look at him and call him a "has-been", a failure. But God could look at him and say, "Now you're ready." Moses was now in a position that God could place his authority in him. Moses was meek!

Those who would have the authority of God may well look to Moses, or to David as examples of leadership and spiritual authority. These men were meek and humble. They were obedient to God, and they were faithful to God under every circumstance and under all kinds of pressure. When they did miss the mark, as each of them did, Moses at the water of Meribah (Ps. 106:32-33), and David in the matter of Uriah the Hittite (1 Kings 15:5), they humbly submitted to the judgment of God and the will of God. Thus God was able to give testimony concerning them.

And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

A young man aspiring to be a leader in the church today should realize that ruling is a gift of grace just as are the other offices in the body of Christ. He should understand that governments are set in the church by God just as all the other ministries. One cannot exalt himself to these positions and have the authority of God. He may have authority, but it is usurped authority. One should humble himself and pray and seek God for a real call of God on his life, and for a gift of grace to fulfill that call.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Those who are called to positions of authority or desire such positions must first learn what it means to be a servant. Remember, God only gives spiritual authority to his servants. He can begin to do this by serving in the local assembly to which he belongs. I'm not just talking about leading a prayer group or teaching a Sunday School class. I'm talking about doing any thing that needs to be done, from mowing the lawn to sweeping the floors. Many young preachers feel this is below their dignity. They are too proud for such menial tasks. They want to study their Bibles and preach, but the starting place for all the offices in the church is learning to serve. And this is especially true of those who would be leaders. Paul instructs Timothy not to ordain men to positions of authority who are novices. A novice is a beginner without the proper experience. Without the humbling effect of lowly service pride enters in and many preachers take on an arrogant and exalted spirit. They often look down on the people they are suppose to be serving.

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Rather than sending young men to Bible school or to college and seminary, young men should be apprenticed to proven men of God. Men who are experienced and faithful to their calling; men who are examples like Moses and David. When men go to seminary they often become "professionals" who know nothing of the "real" world where people toil and labor, and struggle just to live. Often the "Ministry" is regarded as another profession like that of a Physician or a Lawyer. Nowhere in the Bible do we find God sending men to Bible school. This was not God's way to train his ministers. Such methods will never produce another Joshua. Joshua began his career by becoming Moses' minister or servant.

And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God

Joshua learned to serve by serving Moses. Moses became his mentor and he became Moses' minister or servant. He might serve Moses in the most menial tasks that appear to have nothing at all to do with preaching or prophesying. This is God's way. It is contrary to the way the world thinks. It is death to the flesh. Often the tasks performed by the young men who became the servants to the men of God would be considered below the dignity of the theological students of today. Take for instance Elisha. Elisha was Elijah's servant. He was noted as the one who "poured water on the hands of Elijah."

But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.

To pour water on the hands of Elijah was a very humble task. And to be noted for that task, as Elisha was, could be very humiliating. Something comparable would be for a young minister today to wash his pastor's car or shine his pastor's shoes. Then instead of being referred to as the young evangelist, to be referred to as the pastor's shoe-shine boy. But the key to spiritual power and authority is humbleness and meekness which manifest itself in service. Elisha might be referred to as a Elijah's lackey, but then on the other hand, God gave Elisha a double portion of the spirit of Elijah. Humble service may seem like a high price to pay, but not when you consider the spiritual rewards!!

Joshua's life was dedicated to serving Moses. Even after Moses' death he was still referred to as Moses' minister or servant. "Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, ..." Josh. 1:1. Joshua was now a leader in his own right. He had served Moses well and qualified for the high position he now occupied. Yet so faithfully had he served Moses that he is still called Moses' minister. It is as though this is what Joshua is noted for. He wasn't called Joshua, the General, who defeated Amalek, although he was a general and did defeat Amalek (Exodus 17:9-13), nor was he referred to as Joshua, the warrior, who was ready to take on the giants in the land of Canaan, although in this too he gained a reputation as one of the faithful spies (Num. 13 & 14). No, he was known as Joshua, Moses' minister.

As Joshua served Moses he had no life of his own. How significant it is that he stayed in the tabernacle. He was making himself available for service. The work of God had become the single most important thing in his life. He was there to serve Moses at all hours, day or night. He was always at Moses side when Moses needed him. Odd as it may seem, he was learning to be a leader of God's people by learning to serve and minister to God's servant Moses in the most menial tasks.

And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

When the time came for Moses to die, he asked the Lord for a successor. The obvious choice, of course, was the man whom Moses himself had trained, who had the same spirit Moses had, and who had learned to be a servant to the Lord and to Moses. Joshua qualified to be in authority because he learned to be under authority. When Moses laid his hands on him to confer his honor upon him, it was not an idle gesture. I heard an old preacher once say, "Laying empty hands on empty heads will accomplish nothing." But Joshua was worthy of his position. He was worthy of honour being bestowed upon him. He had stayed by Moses side as his faithful servant and had served him well, and thus it was God's will that Joshua succeed Moses.

And Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, 16 Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, 17 Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd. 18 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him; 19 And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. 20 And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. 21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation. 22 And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation: 23 And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.

And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

As Joshua takes his place of leadership, God reminds him to remember the things that he had been taught by Moses, and to meditate in the law of God given to Moses. If Joshua will walk in the same steps of faithful Moses, God will be with him as he was with Moses. He is known as the servant of Moses, but he will become known as the servant of God. (Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8)

Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. 6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. 7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. 9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

We should not overlook some of the tremendous things Joshua could learn from the leadership of Moses as he worked at his side day by day. When Moses chose seventy men to help him bear the burden of leadership, and God poured his spirit out upon them, two of the men seemingly got carried away. To Joshua it looked as though Moses position as prophet and leader was being infringed upon.

And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. 29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

But Moses knew that he had nothing to fear from men being moved upon by the Spirit of God. Joshua did not yet understand that a true leader never has to assert his position or defend his right to rule. He never has to be jealous of younger men, or fear that they will rise up to displace him. He never feels the need to "dehorn" or "deflate" younger ministers, or cut their heads off when he feels they are exalted. To follow in the steps of faithful Moses, Joshua had to learn these lessons. If Joshua had been their leader at this time, he no doubt would have squelched the move of the Spirit.

This is a lesson that preachers today could well take note. How fearful men are of losing their positions. They want to make sure that no one else is esteemed higher than themselves. If someone else in the assembly or out of the assembly, as a visiting preacher, is given too much praise or honor, they feel the need to belittle or kill the influence of that person. Even men of great honor and outstanding servants of the Lord are slandered for the sole purpose of enhancing their own position in the eyes of the people. How defiling it is for leaders to demand the constant praise and applause of the people, or to resent others receiving honor and esteem.

Many leaders actually fear the moving of the Spirit! They feel that they alone are competent to be in charge; they do not trust the Spirit. They are careful to guard the services lest they get "out of control". Even among Pentecostal and Holiness groups who assert that they believe in the moving of the Spirit, they are afraid to open the services and let the Holy Ghost take charge. They have someone to lead the singing, someone to lead the prayer request, someone to lead the testimony service, and then finally they turn the service over to the preacher. All the way through there is control.

Even among those who don't go to such extremes as having someone "lead" every aspect of the service, the leader may instruct his people to watch him. If he accepts the speaker or what is being said or done in the service he will have signals with which to convey his approval or disapproval, and the congregation must then act accordingly. If he approves of what is being said or done the congregation can back it. If he disapproves, then the congregation is expected to reject what is being said or done. It is all under his control. He is God's thermometer. The Spirit is given no freedom to work as the spirit wills to work. "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." (1Cor 12:11). Such control will soon dry the Spirit up.

I have been in services where the leader had such control of the people that they were like trained dogs. He could make them "sit up", "roll over", or "play dead" by giving a certain signal. There are various techniques a congregation can use to show their approval or disapproval of a speaker. When the leader gives the "sit up" command, the people show interest, they listen, they respond to the speaker. When he gives the "roll over" command they might even shout. But when he gives the "play dead" command, the congregation sits there like a knot on a log. They may just stare into space, look down or pick up something to read. Or they may be blatantly rude to the speaker by talking out loud or laughing.

Such a leader is not growing people up in Christ to where they can "by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb 5:14). They must look to him for decisions of the simplest kind. A good teacher teaches people how to solve problems for themselves. He instills in them godly principles on which to base their decisions. People who are spoon fed all the answers will not know how to conduct themselves when confronted with the moral dilemmas of our day.

Just as a father hopes his children will exceed him by having a better education, a better job, an easier life with less pain and problems, so a true leader desires that the young men coming up under him will be better leaders, preach better sermons, have more power with God, and lead the people on to higher heights and deeper depths in God. A man with true leadership qualities will never be jealous of his position and authority!

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves ...

Often leadership is opposed, but God's man of authority should not argue or strive. Men strive because they feel the need to vindicate their own person. They take any opposition personally, not realizing that it is the authority of God they should represent and not their own authority. This is caused from pride. When men our filled with pride they will be the first for their own cause and the last to admit they are wrong or to apologize.

He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the Lord shall be made fat.

What could Joshua learn as an apprentice to Moses, when Moses' leadership and authority were opposed? Joshua could observe Moses' behavior first hand when his leadership was brought into question and his authority was challenged. What did Moses do? How did Moses respond? In every case Moses remained humble and let God vindicate him. Moses understood that he represented the authority of God and not his own authority. Learning to let God vindicate them is one of the hardest lessons for young ministers to learn. Some never learn it. They feel they must assert their own authority. I have seen men "demand" that they be given "full" authority before they take an office in the church or assume the oversight as pastor of an assembly. They cannot trust God to dignify and honor them. They must have the approval of men. Often you hear statements like, "I wouldn't even consider pastoring this church unless I can have full authority." And some pastors never tire of letting their people know who is in charge.

As we consider occasions when Moses leadership was seriously challenged we must realize that there are always two sides in every controversy and sometimes right or wrong on both sides. This is why those opposing a leader often feel justified in their stand. Take the occasion where Miriam and Aaron opposed Moses. Miriam and Aaron felt justified challenging the position of Moses because they felt Moses had done wrong in marrying an Ethiopian woman. When they "spoke against Moses" they did not feel that they were going against God at all. No, they felt they were standing for what was right! This was not a simple power play on the part of Miriam and Aaron. These two were also in high positions of authority, and they honestly felt that Moses was in the wrong. Often opposition in a congregation will come from the best people in the congregation, from those who want things done right and do not believe that the present leadership is doing it right. This is why those in authority must remain humble.

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) 4 And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. 5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. 10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. 12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb. 13 And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee. 14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again. 15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.

It is not wrong to want to see things done right. It was not wrong for Miriam and Aaron to be upset when they felt Moses had done wrong. They could have spoken to Moses, and on the basis of being his older brother and sister could possibly even reprimanded him privately. But they "spoke against Moses." It is one thing to be against the wrong that a leader may do, and yet another to be against the man God has placed in authority. Miriam and Aaron not only spoke against what Moses had done but they also "spoke against Moses." They were so offended by what Moses had done that they sought to minimize his authority by asserting their own. "And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?... " The implication of their words is that God not only speaks by Moses, he also speaks by us. Since we speak for God too and as Moses has disqualified himself you ought to listen to us now.

Clearly this was rebellion. How did Moses react to all of this. the scriptures simply state that "...the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." Moses did nothing. He never justified himself, he never defended himself, he remained silent. He brought no charges against Miriam and Aaron, it was God's authority that was being impugned, therefore let God deal with it. And deal with it God did. After God dealt with it, notice Moses' attitude remains the same. He is not vindictive nor does he feel the need to further punish Miriam and Aaron for their misdeeds. Through it all he remains the humble servant of the Lord.

Some, like Miriam and Aaron, have no qualms about criticizing or rebuking those in authority. They feel they are aligning themselves with the apostle Paul in contending for the truth, and point to Paul's rebuke of Peter when Peter came to Antioch. They point to Paul's statement in his letter to the Galations recalling the incident, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11) The actions of Paul here, they feel, sets a precedence for their own strong stand against authority. Reading this verse alone might give one the impression that Paul was perhaps rude in his contending with Peter. The phrase "I withstood him to the face" does indeed sound harsh. However when you read what Paul actually says to Peter you find he did not challenge Peter's authority at all. What he did do, in fact, was question Peter's behavior in the light of Peter's own preaching.

Notice that Paul does not reprove Peter with railing accusations but merely puts a pertinent question to him, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal 2:14) Peter no doubt felt the rebuke and sting of that question, for it went to the heart of the matter. Paul's stand caused Peter to reconsider his position, for we later find him defending Paul at the council in Jerusalem over this very question. In later years he also writes with affection commending Paul as "our beloved brother Paul" (2Pet. 3:15) Questioning someone's actions is far different than challenging his authority. We all have the right to question the words and deeds of our leaders when they seem to be contrary to the word of God. But we should be very careful with our own words lest we speak against those in whom God has placed his authority.

When they were rebuked by God Miriam and Aaron acknowledged their sin, repented and were restored. The case was far different with the gainsaying of Korah. In this incident terrible consequences followed the rebellion incited by Korah. Over fifteen thousand people lost their lives. It is a dangerous thing to oppose the authority of God.

The circumstances inciting this insurrection were also different than that which motivated Miriam and Aaron. The only complaint that Korah and his party seem to make is that Moses and Aaron are assuming too much authority and are holding themselves too high above the congregation. Many people have a problem obeying or submitting to authority. They want to be equal. It seems to be the inclination of the flesh to despise government. In the world governments are maintained by armed force as the only alternative to anarchy. This can be expected in the world, but God's people should be the first to recognize and submit to authority.

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: 2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: 3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? 4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

Korah's speech against Moses and Aaron sounds like that made by many of God's people who have never really known the authority of God or understood what delegated authority means. This includes members who will not recognize and obey their pastors. It includes pastors who will not recognize any authority greater than themselves, who operate independently and have no regard for the brotherhood and no respect for chief men among the brethren. It includes all the independent evangelist and ministers who have no home church and submit to no one but Jesus. These are people who have no conception whatever of what it means to be under authority. They oppose order and will not submit to it.

Korah's words are reminiscent of those who oppose order in the church, based on the assumption that because every member has a contact with God and can be led of the Spirit, there is no need for leadership. Korah said, "All the congregation are holy, every one of them and the Lord is among them." There is nothing inherently wrong with this statement. I have made very similar statements myself in the first part of this thesis. We must not let the truth of this statement obscure the motive behind it. The motive of Korah was not to motivate people to work for God because each and every member had a gift and an office in which to function. Korah's motive was to ferment rebellion against Moses and to enhance his own position and authority.

Moses, on the other hand, understood well the authority of God. He knew that God had called and chosen him for the position he was in. He did not get angry, lose his temper, or even defend his position. He simply fell upon his face before the Lord. He was not quick to reply. These were great men in the assembly, famous men, men of renown. These were the elite of the leadership of God's people, two hundred and fifty princes. Moses could not take their words lightly. This was no small matter. However after seeking the Lord he had an answer for those in rebellion. The Lord will show whom he has chosen.

Num 16:5-11 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the Lord will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him. 6 This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; 7 And put fire therein, and put incense in them before the Lord to morrow: and it shall be that the man whom the Lord doth choose, he shall be holy: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. 8 And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: 9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them? 10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also? 11 For which cause both thou and all thy company are gathered together against the Lord: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?

No man should assume more authority than what God has given him. Not Moses, nor Aaron, not Korah, nor any of the other leaders. Even if men are chosen to be leaders of God's people, they cannot exceed the authority which God allows them. These who were in rebellion accused Moses and Aaron of taking too much upon themselves, however after humbly praying to the LORD, the giver of authority, Moses knew that these were exceeding the authority that God had given them. They were already great men in high positions but they were not content with what God had given them. Often it is those who have already tasted power who want more, rather than those in the lower echelons of society. Korah and his cohorts were going beyond what God had given them, thus Moses' reply, "ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi." It was they and not Moses who were usurping authority. Moses was God's delegated authority. To stand against God's delegated authority is to stand against God. Jesus said "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matt 10:40). It is not possible to obey God and at the same time disobey God's delegated authority. Therefore Moses was able to make the assertion that "thy company are gathered together against the Lord." (verse 11) when they had "... gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron," (verse 3).

Next Moses sends for Dathan and Abiram, the co-conspirators with Korah. They refuse to honor Moses request for their presence. Instead they issue forth slanderous words. Usually slander contains an element of truth mixed with error. While it is true that Moses had not brought them into the promised land, they forgot that it was their own rebellion that stopped them from entering Canaan. They forgot too that Egypt was a place of bondage and cruel labour for them. How absurd to refer to it as a land that flowed with milk and honey. A man full of his own ways cannot see reality. How often people mess up their lives and then blame God. The New English Bible translates Proverbs 19:3 this way: "A man's own folly wrecks his life, and then he bears a grudge against the Lord." People refuse to obey God's leadership, they resent anyone telling them what to do, and then when their lives become a tangled mess they blame the one that did try to help them.

And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab: which said, We will not come up: 13 Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us? 14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up. 15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the Lord, Respect not thou their offering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.

Dathan and Abiram refused to come and reason with Moses. Communication had broken down. All they did was sit back and revile Moses. As long as people can talk and reason with one another there is hope that disagreements can be settled and reconciliation can take place. This stubborn spirit at last provoked Moses to anger. Moses knew if they were not willing to talk there would be no hope of restoration. Moses prays again. There is no hope of reconciling the ringleaders of the rebellion so he asks God not to respect their offering in order that the people might see that God was rejecting them and be dissuaded from following the rebels.

The disaster that follows this rebellion is a matter of record. Through it all Moses' concern is for the people that God has placed him over. He prays for them, he reasons with them, he exhorts them, he even gives them time to think it over and repent. In all of this Moses is not concerned with his own dignity nor is he sensitive to their slander and criticism. His only concern is faithfully represent the one who called him. "And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind." (Num 16:28)

All authorities should realize that they are only delegated authorities and not absolute authorities. As a delegated authority they should never assume more authority then what is given to them by the one commissioning them to be an authority.

We have used Moses as an example of leadership. We pointed out the various aspects of leadership that Joshua, as a young apprentice or trainee, could learn from Moses as he laboured for Moses and at Moses side as his helper. We hoped to stress the point that this was God's method of training his ministers, the men in whom he will place his authority. These attributes of leadership must be instilled in God's servants for the work of God to be successful. One reason the churches are in such a powerless and impotent state today is because of the crisis in leadership. This is admitted even in the denominational organizations. Men no longer train at the side of experienced, proven, and faithful men. Instead they are sent to Bible schools and seminaries. or they go it alone, and in the process develop an independent, self-sufficient spirit.

The authority of God is an awesome thing. How lightly men count it, even in the church. People do not fear to criticize or slander the leaders. And leaders do not fear to brow-beat and rail against the people. How careful ought men to be in the presence of God's delegated authorities and how careful delegated authorities should be that they do not abuse their authority!

This lesson too was no doubt driven home to Joshua in the experience of Moses. How often Moses interceded for the people. Sometimes it looked as though God would wipe them off the face of the earth, but Moses pleaded with him on their behalf, and God would spare them. (Ex. 32:9-14; Num. 16:21-22; Num. 16:44-50). Moses was so meek, so humble, so faithful to God through all the years of service in dealing with God's people in their murmurings, their complaints and their rebellions, I almost hate to mention his one failure. I only do so because more than any other incident in the Bible it shows clearly the awful responsibility of a delegated authority.

As the wondering in the wilderness drew to an end, Israel came to the desert of Zin, and there was no water there. The people gathered against Moses and Aaron, speaking harsh words, and making strong accusations against Moses. When Moses and Aaron went before the Lord, the Lord simply told him to take the rod, gather the people and speak unto the rock and it would bring forth water for the people and their livestock.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. 9 And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. 13 This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and he was sanctified in them.

What happened here? First of all Moses got stirred in his spirit. He got angry with the people. He had been angry with the people before, but this time it was different. At the other times God was angry and Moses was in harmony with God's anger. However this time God was not angry. The people had a legitimate complaint. They were in the desert and there was no water. Perhaps they were harsh with their words and hasty in their speech, but God understood and was not angry with them. But Moses got angry and was provoked in his spirit..

They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: 33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.

James says, "For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." (Jam 1:20) When Moses got angry, instead of doing what God commanded as a delegated authority must always do, he disobeyed the Lord. The Lord said speak to the rock, but Moses smote the rock. Then he railed upon the people with harsh words. These were not God's words, these were Moses' words. God could not overlook Moses' failing. His response was immediate. Moses will not be allowed to enter into the land of Caanan. With great heaviness Moses humbly submits to the judgment of the Lord. You cannot comprehend how great this punishment was for Moses unless you feel the pleading in his voice as he asks God to let him enter and is refused. It is ever in his mind for he mentions it again and again, even though he accepts God's judgment.

And I besought the Lord at that time, saying, 24 O Lord God, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might? 25 I pray thee, let me go over, and see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon. 26 But the Lord was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the Lord said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter. 27 Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

Other men did much worse and seemingly were punished much less. But to whom much is given, much is required (Lu. 12:48). The more authority God delegates to a man, the more he requires of that man. When you see a man reckless with his words, audacious in his rebuking and careless with his criticisms, you can mark it down that this man has no authority from God, or he is flagrantly abusing his authority and God will deal severely with him. It may appear that God takes no notice, but God will not forget those who abuse his authority.

It is God that establishes all authority. This is true of the home and of civil governments as well as the church. Every authority must operate as a delegated authority under the absolute authority of God. God is the only absolute authority in the universe. All delegated authorities must abide by the rules God has set for each or they will answer to God for it, whether it is the king on the throne, the father in the home, or the elders in the church. Besides those authorities authorized by God, we should realize that there is a great deal of illegitimate or usurped authority in the universe too, so that everything that appears to be an authority is not necessarily so.

God established the home when he created Eve and gave the prophetic command, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) He further included children when he "said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," (Gen 1:28). He made man the head of the woman saying, "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen 3:16). Thus God established authority in the home. This order is confirmed throughout the rest of the Bible.

There is a great controversy in today's society in which lines of authority are being questioned. The state or civil authority has intruded into the family with the assertion that children belong to the state. Others oppose this idea saying that children belong to the parents. Both ideas are wrong. Children belong to God just like adults do. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine..." (Ezek. 18:4) But children are placed in the care and supervision of their parents.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

When the state intrudes into this relationship it is violating or abusing its authority. The place of the state is plainly given by Paul. The state and the state alone can bear the sword. In the home the father can bear the rod (Prov. 10:13; 23:14), but not the sword. The only right the state has to intrude into the family is when it is for the punishment of evildoers. This would, of course, include child abuse and sexual molestation, as these are certainly evil deeds.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (Gr. authorities). For there is no power (Gr. authorities) but of God: the powers (Gr. authorities) that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Some in the church try to appropriate this scripture in Romans for themselves and apply it to preachers. But this is intruding into the area of authority that does not belong to the church. Authorities in the church cannot use violence or the sword to secure obedience. God only grants the sword to civil authorities. When those in the church use such carnal means they abuse their authority. When this passage in Romans is compared with a similar passage in First Peter we can see that Paul is indeed speaking of civil powers in this passage.

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Notice in both of these passages that the authorities mentioned are to praise those who do good and punish those who do evil. a case is made for the passage in Romans to be referring to spiritual authorities because the word minister is used. But it must be remembered that all delegated authorities are ministers, only in different areas of life. This is why civil authorities are called civil servants. The passage in First Peter clearly says king and governors. It is hard for us to accept civil rulers as God's ministers because so often they are corrupt, and they often do not do the job for which God ordained them. Nevertheless we must admit that God ordained civil powers and put the sword in their hands.

To further confirm that the passage in Romans is referring to civil government Paul says "For this cause pay ye tribute also." Tribute was a tax. And custom was a tax. Remember that Matthew sat at the receipt of custom. He was a tax collector. Tribute and custom were taken by the civil authorities not by preachers or ministers of the gospel. "... of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute?..." (Mat 17:25)

Some confusion has been caused because in modern English the word tribute can mean praise or credit. The Greek word translated tribute in these scriptures is strictly referring to money and the payment of taxes. Likewise the word custom in modern English is usually referring to "a long established practice." The word custom is used in the New Testament this way is John 18:39 and 1Cor. 11:13. However this is a completely different Greek word than that which is translated custom in the scriptures we are referring to. Here the Greek word is referring to customs tax, and has no reference at all to custom in the sense of a long established practice. So we can see that the whole context of Romans 13:1-7 has reference to civil or governmental activity.

The blood of a million martyrs cries out because religious authorities used this scripture to justify the use of the sword and violence in dealing with those they called heretics. Religious authorities also felt that the church could convert people by the sword. The heathen were mutilated and tortured in order to force them to accept baptism at the hands of Roman Catholic priests. When leaders in the church resort to such carnal means or even to coercion and duress they are certainly abusing their authority.

Another countless number cry out because the state intruded into the affairs of churches, wielding the sword where it had no business. The sword is placed in the hands of civil authorities "for the punishment of evil doers," not to impose the will of certain officials upon the people who are not considered politically correct. A most recent example of this is in our own country were the civil authorities burned men, women and seventeen children to death in an assault upon their living quarters in Waco, Texas. This incursion against David Koresh and the Branch Davidians was a politically motivated assault against religion. Regardless of how wrong this cult may have been, this was a flagrant abuse of authority.

When Jesus returns to the earth to establish the kingdom of God and "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev 11:15), then the saints will reign as kings and priests on the earth (Rev 5:10). At this present time however we are strangers and pilgrims with little or no civil authority and must past the time of our sojourning here in fear. (1Pet. 1:17; 2:11) And what did Jesus say about taking up the sword? "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36). And what did he tell Peter? "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt 26:52)

Jesus taught plainly that leaders in the church would not use carnal, worldly means to rule God's people. Those who are chosen by God to rule his people are the least likely to abuse their authority. Those who are great are the ones who are servants. You cannot be serving and abusing authority at the same time. The one excludes the other!

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship (dominion or dominance) over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation (Gr. stewardship) of the gospel is committed unto me. 18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power (Gr. authority) in the gospel. 19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

God's leaders rule by example and exhortation. Paul exhorted the saints to follow him. Paul had no desire to abuse his authority, but his purpose was to set an example and then exhort the disciples to follow his example.

For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power (Gr. authority), but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

God had given Paul great authority, but like Moses Paul was very meek and humble and wanted only to use his authority for edification and not destruction. There was no self-glorification in Paul, no petty contentions. Paul knew that as an apostle, he had the highest office in God's church, yet even an apostle rules by example.

For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

2Cor 13:10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power (Gr. authority) which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.

Pastors or elders were also given an exhortation as to how they are to rule God's people. Just as Jesus had told Peter, so Peter now tells those elders he has placed in authority over the flock of God. Don't rule like the great ones among the gentiles who exercise lordship over them, but rule by example. The word "feed" here means "to shepherd." How significant this metaphor is. A ruler in the church is to be like a shepherd gently caring for and leading his sheep.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Paul even instructs Timothy who is an evangelist, to be an example. We know that Timothy had great authority. Paul sent him on many missions to help establish churches or to handle situations where a strong man and a steady hand was needed. It doesn't matter what office a man has in the ministry, apostle, pastor, evangelist, he should rule by example and not by coercion. To do otherwise is to abuse one's authority.

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

We have examined God's method of training ministers, especially as it is exemplified by Moses and Joshua. God's way was to apprentice a young man to an experienced, seasoned, and faithful servant of God. Just as Moses trained Joshua to carry on his work, Paul likewise trained men to continue his work. There are certain principles that must be instilled in a New Testament preacher. God's method of training young leaders is still the same.

But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There are several important things mentioned here by Paul that he expected his young aid, Timothy, to learn from him as his mentor. The first thing he mentions is his doctrine. Young preachers must know the doctrine. The only way that this wonderful gospel can be passed on from generation to generation is for faithful men to learn the gospel and pass it on unchanged. "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2TIm 2:2).

Next Paul mentions his manner of life and his purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity and patience. This is Paul's character. A young preacher must not only learn doctrine, but he must develop character. "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (1TIm 1:16) Paul's life was a pattern and example for Timothy and the other young preachers to follow.

For years I emphasized the teaching of doctrine and exhorted the young men to learn their Bibles, not realizing that the manner of a man's life, his purpose, and the spiritual attributes of leadership must also be implanted in them. I seemed to take it for granted that every Christian should know that a leader must be faithful and holy and just, patient and longsuffering. Much to my dismay I found that these are things which do not just come automatically. Young men do not know how to act until the see it in action in a man of God. Young preachers pick up the spirit and habits, even mannerism, of the men they admire. If men are not blameless, faithful, just, holy, etc. what good does it do to have them memorize a lot of scriptures and expound to the people. When Paul gives Titus the qualifications for an elder or bishop he gives these moral and spiritual principles first, and then he adds they must hold fast the word and exhort (Titus 1:6-9).

Perhaps the success of Paul was in a large measure due to his ability to attract and train young men to help in the work of the gospel. These young men would begin as ministers or servants to Paul, just as Joshua was a minister to Moses and Elisha was a minister to Elijah. It was Paul's purpose to train these young men in doctrine, in spirit, and in character. Knowing how diligently Paul labored and worked for God, we can readily understand Paul's desire also to instill this same attitude toward the work of God in the young men who laboured with him in the gospel. The idea "don't do as I do, do as I say" never occurred to Paul.

Three of these young men who laboured with Paul are Titus, Mark, and Timothy. It is interesting to see how Paul laboured with these young men and how they progressed in the ministry under his tutelage. We can learn much about Paul's attitude toward certain things and what he expected of those who would serve with him. Much of what we know comes from bits of information scattered throughout Paul's letters and the Book of Acts and must be pieced together. But in this we can see the workings of New Testament Apostolic order.

The first of these young men was Titus. He was a Greek who appears to be from Antioch. He was a convert of Paul and probably worked with Paul in the Antioch assembly. When Paul and Barnabas go on their mission to Jerusalem to carry provisions collected by the Antioch assembly for the famine victims, they take Titus with them.

This was a mission of mercy, in which probably a large store of provisions was sent, and Titus no doubt went along to help Paul and Barnabas in transporting and distributing this food. It would be foolish to think they would send money. What good is money when there is a famine and nothing to buy. While there, Paul takes the opportunity to relate privately to some of the chief brethren the gospel he was preaching in the Gentile mission, because he was already meeting with considerable opposition.

Titus figures prominently in this trip because he was a Gentile. He probably drew quite a bit of attention in Jerusalem, much as a Jewish convert would among us Gentiles today. It is possible that he was befriended by John Mark because on leaving Jerusalem Mark, who was Barnabas' nephew, (some say cousin) went with Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch. We don't hear of Titus again until Paul's third missionary trip. We don't know why he didn't accompany Paul on his first two trips. Perhaps it was because at that time Paul's chief activity was in the Jewish synagogues and bringing an uncircumcised Gentile to service might hinder Paul's chances to preach the gospel. You will remember on his second trip when he added Timothy to his entourage he circumcised him because of the Jews in that area.

It would seem that possibly Titus was on missions for Paul during part of this period, even Paul's whole third journey, helping in the Gentile churches after they had been started. He was expecting to meet him at Troas, but it was not until he reached Macedonia that Titus joins him again. Titus had been on a mission to Corinth in connection with the collection for the poor saints. Titus had considerable experience in this area from his days at Antioch and the first collection for the relief of the famine victims.

How close Paul had become to Titus! How upset he was when Titus did not arrive at the designated time! You can feel the affection Paul has for Titus as he speaks of him in this letter.

Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, 13 I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. 6 Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus;

Titus became an invaluable aide to the apostle, because Titus had developed the same spiritual characteristics that Paul had.

Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you:

I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

One of the last writings we have of the apostle Paul is his letter to Titus. Paul had been released from prison in Rome and had gone to the island of Crete to bring the gospel to that area. It will be remembered that Paul had a brief stay in Crete over two years previous on his way to Rome as a prisoner. Paul had already made plans to visit Asia upon his release from prison. (Philemon 22). So he leaves the work in the hands of Titus to set the churches in order and ordain elders in every city as he had appointed.

This speaks well of Titus. Paul never had to worry whether Titus was going to get his own revelation and preach something different from what Paul had committed to his trust and care. "Walked we not in the same steps". The letter to Titus is a powerful document to an outstanding and powerful preacher.

When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from the relief mission to Jerusalem, they brought Barnabas' nephew with them. No doubt John Mark was a promising young man. He was a convert of Peter and probably heard Jesus himself preach. His family had a large home in Jerusalem where the disciples often met in the early days. Mark was used to great meetings and hearing great preachers. We are not sure why he went with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. He no doubt had heard of the great work being done among the Gentiles, and he could have desired to be a part of that. He was about the same age as Titus and could have become close friends with him. Then of course Barnabas was a relative that he seems to have been close to.

Whatever the reason for leaving Jerusalem and accompanying Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he seems to have done well there too. When the Holy Ghost separated Barnabas and Paul for their first missionary journey John Mark either asked to go with them or was asked to go. Here was a young man who needed further training in the ministry so he became an apprentice to Barnabas and Paul. On leaving Antioch Paul and Barnabas took John Mark with them as their minister or attendant. As a younger man no doubt he was given the task of handling the luggage, making arrangements for lodging or whatever other tasks were required that he could perform as a servant to Paul and Barnabas.

And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

However the journey no sooner got started when John Mark quit and returned, not just to Antioch, but all the way home to Jerusalem. Mark did not prove faithful as a servant to the apostles. We do not know why he gave up and returned home. Perhaps it was more work than he expected. No doubt there was a great deal of work and responsibility placed upon Mark's shoulders. Travel is those days was not like it is today when you can throw a few suitcases into an automobile and take off. Today anywhere you go are you are not far from a McDonalds or a Motel 6. The luggage had to be carried or if beasts of burden were taken, they must be cared for. These tasks would fall to Mark as a servant of attendant to Barnabas and Paul

Perhaps Mark left because Paul fell ill, making the journey more difficult for everyone. We know that Paul was severely sick by the time he reached the region of Galatia (Gal. 4: 13-15). It could be that being on the "field" was a much more difficult ministry than being at home. Perhaps he was expecting great crowds like he saw in Jerusalem and Antioch. Mark's home in Jerusalem had been a gathering place for the Christians from the earliest days. Then too, Mark was from a well-to-do family and perhaps was not used to doing menial tasks as his family had servants of their own. (Act 12:13, damsel here is from the Greek word paidiske (pahee-dis'-kay); Strong's definition is, "a girl, i.e. (specifically) a female slave or servant: translated in the KJV-- bondmaid (-woman), damsel, maid (-en).

Mark was also familiar with and on fairly intimate terms with Peter and the other apostles. Peter calls him his "son" (1 Pet. 5:13). Such proximity with prominent men often breeds pride or a superior attitude in younger men. Mark could have felt "why do I have to go through all of this when I've sat under the preaching of the greatest men on earth, the apostles of Jesus himself." This of course is speculation, for we don't know what it was that caused Mark to forsake the mission and return home.

But we do know the effect it had on Paul. Mark forsook the mission when they needed him the most. If Paul could forge ahead, even though he was terribly sick, what excuse did Mark have to leave. And with Paul in such a debilitating condition they needed Mark more than ever. This had such a lasting effect on Paul that when Paul and Barnabas were about to embark upon their second mission, Barnabas wanted to give his nephew, Mark, another chance, Paul refused!! Paul was so adamant in his refusal that it caused a split between Paul and his dear friend Barnabas. This tells us that Mark had no good excuse for leaving the work, and it shows how important Paul regarded the work.

And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

The work was too important to Paul to bring along a brother who had proven unfaithful, Paul would not tolerate a shirker or a slacker. One must be totally committed! Paul was a worker and he expected those with him to be workers too. There is no room in the ministry for a lazy man. Many choose the "profession" of the ministry because they think it is an easy life. They have the idea that ministers have a lot of free time and can do what they want with their time. But the gospel is a work. It must always be regarded as a work, the greatest, most important work on earth!

How lightly people today count the work of God. They are worse than Mark. They lay out of church for the most trivial reasons. They may have a headache or perhaps company arrived at the last minute. They stay home to visit with their kids. They stay home to watch the ball game on TV or to take their own kids to Little League. Any excuse is used to miss the services. They are too sick to come to church, but they are not to sick to go to work the next day. This shows they think that their fleshly carnal job is more important than the work of God. People like this wouldn't last long with Paul.

The work of God must come first and this was a lesson that Mark had to learn, and it is to his credit that he did learn it. Some ten to twelve years later, Paul writes to the church at Colosse recommending Mark (Col. 4:10). Then some time later he makes this significant statement.

Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

What had happened to Mark to cause Paul to have this totally different opinion of him. Obviously some great changes took place in Mark's life in the intervening years from the time Paul turned him down to the time Paul makes these statements about Mark. Again we can only speculate. No doubt Paul's rejection shocked Mark into reconsidering his own attitude and actions. We know that he traveled with Barnabas for awhile (Acts 15:39). We also know that he was with Peter when Peter wrote his letter from Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13).

There is a tradition based on early writers as Papias, Tertullian and Jerome to the effect that Mark was Peter's disciple and interpreter who recorded the teaching of Jesus as he heard them from the lips of Peter. This is how the Gospel According to Mark came to be written. It is recorded by Eusebius, the early church historian, based on the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria that the Christians at Rome urged Mark to write the Gospel and that Peter approved it:

So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over till they had pervailed on him: and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mark. It is said that when the apostle knew, by the revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches.

These traditions would agree with Peter's statement that he would "endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance."

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The things Peter mentions here are some of the things recorded by Mark. Scholars today recognize that Mark's Gospel is an eyewitness account, so this agrees with the tradition recorded by ancient writers as well as this statement made by Peter himself. Peter gave Mark the information and had him write his account of the Gospel that we could have it after his decease.

There can be no doubt that the preaching of Peter, especially as he relates the teaching of Jesus in the area of ministry and service began to work on Mark. It is significant that while Matthew and Mark both record the incident of Jesus showing the apostles the difference between political leaders and leaders in the church and both mention being a minister and a servant (Matt. 20: 20-28; Mark 10:35-45), in the teaching on "who is the greatest" (Matt. 18:1-5; Luke 9:46-48; Mark 9:33-37) Mark alone records the words about being "servant of all."

Mark came to understand about being a minister and a servant, and this is why Paul could finally say that Mark is "profitable to me for the ministry."

How wonderful it would be if disciples today could get on fire for God like those early disciples. There was more accomplished for the spread of the gospel by that first century church than any time in subsequent history. And it was because they put their hearts into the work. As they worked God worked with them. "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20) They preached everywhere. They were concerned with preaching. Preaching the gospel was the main activity of the early church.

On Paul's first apostolic journey the Holy Ghost had said "... Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:2) That work of course was the gospel, for Paul tells the Roman church that he had been "called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God," (Rom 1:1) How insignificant people count the gospel. Even in the churches more and more time and money is spent in building and operating recreation centers or family centers. The largest part of the budget may be for building elaborate and ornate buildings. Young people gather, not to pray and study their Bibles, but to play ball or to play games.

We need to catch the vision if the church of the last days is to be like the first church. Jesus said, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." (John 9:4) Jesus lived under a compulsion to do the work of God. Even when he was only twelve years old he was conscious of the work of God, "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49). Without such diligent devotion to the work of God he could never have said, "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (John 17:4)

Paul was able to make a similar statement when the end of his life and labours drew to a close: "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:" (2TIm 4:6-7) Paul was able to say these things because indeed he always esteemed the work of God of greater importance than his own personal comforts or safety. It was because of the high regard that Paul held for the work of God and his willingness to work and labor that he was able to say he was not behind the chiefest apostles.

I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

It was not that Paul's calling was greater or that his gifts were greater, that he was equal to the chiefest apostles. It was because his labours were greater. He laboured beyond all the others. He recognized himself as being the least. What humbleness, what humility:... "though I be nothing." Paul was so humble that he regarded himself as nothing. Paul attained to this position of being equal to the chiefest apostles by becoming the least, and working the most! He became the greatest apostle by becoming the greatest servant in the Church! A servant who worked and labored tirelessly for his Lord.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Rather than complaining about their circumstances, their deficiency of gifts, or their lack of talents, men should use to the fullest extent the grace that God has already given them. If we will use what God has given us, he will give us more. Remember the parable of the talents. Those who used the talents that God had given to them, increased, while he who hid his talent gained nothing. He was also rejected of the Lord and cast into outer darkness when called into account at the Lord's return. (Matt. 25:26-30)

After the contention between Paul and Barnabas over Mark, Paul chose Silas to travel with him in the same capacity that Barnabas had exercised. When Paul and Silas arrived at Lystra, a city in the region of Galatia, Timothy joined them in the same position that Titus and Mark occupied, that of servant or minister.

So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.

Timothy was probably converted on Paul's first mission to Lystra, and this was his second visit to that city. Timothy had been working with the elders in his local assembly, and had already developed a good reputation in his local area. It was no doubt because of these qualities that Paul chose him to travel with him.

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: 2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Paul's purpose was to teach Timothy the word of God so that Timothy might carry on the work of God as an effective and proficient preacher and teacher of the word of God. He writes to Timothy telling to hold fast to the things that he has taught him, and that this same gospel must be given to others also

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

But he was not only to learn the word of God from Paul, it was Paul's purpose that Timothy would also take on his spirit or attitude. He wanted Timothy to develop the same life style and spiritual attributes as faith, longsuffering, charity, and patience that Paul so distinctly manifested. He must be willing to suffer persecutions and afflictions for Christ's sake, and bear with and care for God's people as Paul did. He could only learn these things by being with Paul, serving Paul, and assimilating those characteristics that so distinguish Paul's ministry.

Under his tutelage Timothy became a trusted and faithful aide to Paul. Paul was able to send Timothy to various places with complete confidence and trust that Timothy would operate in the same manner that Paul himself would operate, teaching the same doctrine that Paul would teach. Paul had no worry that Timothy would try to establish his own independent ministry apart from the ministry of Paul, but would work faithfully under his direction and guidance. Timothy was not anxious to show that he could get an independent revelation from God in order to exalt himself, but taught the things he had received from Paul.

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. 20 For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state. 21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. 22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. 23 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.

Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; 2 And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellow labourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

Some ministers today have a problem working under the auspices of another minister, as Timothy worked under Paul. They would insist that God alone had the authority to send them anywhere. Men in the denominations are accustomed to having other men as their superiors. They are familiar with being placed or sent by their superiors to various fields of labour, whether it be pastoring a certain church, holding crusades or meetings, or other denominational activities. It is among the Free Church movement or the non-denominational churches that you find more of an independent spirit, where men insist that they have only Christ as their head, and therefore nobody tells them what to do except Jesus. If they are pastoring a church, they regard their church as being autonomous. If they are evangelizing or traveling from church to church, they go only as they feel led of the Spirit.

They hold to these opinions in spite of the fact that Paul had many men working under his leadership. Paul sent these men to various churches and localities to labour in the gospel under his authority, just as he sent Timothy.

But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: 22 Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts.

Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.

Still some men teach that a minister, actively working in the ministry should not recognize any authority above him other than Christ. They insist that a minister should "not have his head covered". This is terminology that means that a pastor should have no one over him except Christ. Often you hear derogatory remarks made about a brother who is working under the leadership of another or recognizing a brother being his superior in the gospel. Statements such as, "he is just a polly-parrot" or "he is just Brother so-and-so's water-boy."

Timothy did not have this kind of spirit. He obeyed Paul and served him as a son would his father. This is according to New Testament order. In the New Testament some men are recognized as "chief men" (Acts 15:22) and "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). We should be like Timothy and be ready to recognize our superiors in the ministry and never develop an attitude that we have outgrown our fathers in the gospel or don't need them and can go it alone. Even if a young minister has gifts that are superior to his father in the gospel, he must never flaunt his abilities but always show deference to those who are over him.

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

We now come to the actual work of an apostle. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with the subject of spiritual authority. We must never lose sight of the fact that all authority in the church must come from God or it is usurped authority. And God makes stringent demands upon those he gives his authority. No man should count it lightly to assume authority where none is given, nor should any man regard it lightly to disobey authority where God has placed it. These are the principles Jesus instilled into the hearts and lives of his apostles. These were necessary if they were to faithfully do the work for which he called them. That work is the work of preaching. They were his chosen representatives and they would represent him by preaching and teaching his word.

The verse in Acts two, above, describes the activity of the early church in those first days. This certainly describes a revival spirit. Continuous activity, praying, preaching and teaching, together with fellowship one of another and eating together. Another verse says "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:46-47) What great days!! People were being saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, and healed. A spirit of praise and worship prevailed, and central to all of this was the apostles' doctrine. Mark says "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20)

Some people are afraid of the word doctrine. They think that doctrine is what has caused all the trouble and division in Christianity. But the word doctrine simply means “teaching”, or to be more precise the content of teaching. Doctrine is what is taught. When people demand preaching without doctrine, they are asking for sermons without substance. Paul told Timothy to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2TIm 4:2). The apostles were teaching and the people that were coming into the church were attending to the things being taught and this produced the wonderful results mentioned here, The joy, the fellowship, the sharing of their possessions, and the praising and worshipping God, all of these things are the results of the preaching of the word of God.

All true preaching contains doctrine. One of the last things Jesus told his disciples as he ascended back to heaven was to go preach the gospel in all the world. This is often called the great commission. This was the express purpose for which called and trained them.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The apostles did not take Jesus' commission lightly. We can see how important the apostles viewed their task of preaching and ministering the word, when in the early days of the church, they called the disciples together and gave them instructions for the care of the widows and orphans that they might devote their full time to the preaching of the word of God.

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

This serving tables was in reference to providing food to the widows and orphans. What could possibly be more important than the feeding of widows and orphans? Only the ministry of the word of God! This alone is important enough to take the apostles away from the care of widows and orphans. Other men can serve tables, the apostle must minister the word of God.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word

No activity can substitute for the preaching of the word of God. This is the primary activity of the primary office in the church. When the church neglects the activity of preaching, men's souls are in jeopardy. We can never over emphasis the importance of preaching.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The picture I get of the modern preacher spending his days talking on the telephone, counseling with people or visiting in their homes to encourage them or to urge them to come to church, somehow just doesn't fit the picture I have of the ministry of the apostles. When Paul visited in the homes it was for the purpose of teaching, "And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house," (Acts 20:20). Occasionally there is a personal problem that cannot dealt with from the pulpit, but ninety percent of the personal problems people have today for which they feel they need special counseling would dissipate if they would pray and attend to the preaching of the word of God.

Men do not realize the importance of the word of God! They don't understand how God regards his word. They honor his name, but ignore his word! How great is the name of God! God's name is holy! His name is excellent!! God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. This is the third of the ten commandments. Yet God is not pleased if we merely honor his name, and ignore his word. We must also hear his word and obey it. God honors his word even above his name.

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

So often men give lip service to God while they completely ignore what he has to say. They have not understood how important God considers his word. The terrible shape that the world is in today is the results of generations of men ignoring or disobeying the word of God. Men in the church use the concept of grace for an excuse to negate the law of God and to annul the word of God. In other words they are "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness" (Jude 4), or a license to do as they please. They will meet this at the judgment.

Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

Even Jesus did not take it upon himself to preach his own doctrine and ignore the word of God. He preached the word that he had received from his Father. Furthermore because the word of Christ came from God the Father, these very words will judge men in the day of judgment.

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Not only did Jesus preach the word of God, but he gave his apostles that very word, and this was the word they were to carry into all the world. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:17-18). The apostles had the truth. The truth would sanctify or set them apart from all error. They were to be separated from every false and erroneous doctrine and teaching of men, and teach only the word of God. Then Jesus says "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:20-21) First the Father gave Jesus his word, then Jesus gave it to his apostles, and sent his apostles out to give it to the world.

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Can we now see why it was imperative for Jesus to instill into the apostles the spiritual attributes that we have discussed in great detail? Men must be faithful who handle the word of God. They cannot be self-willed or self seeking, or desirous of vain glory. It is an awesome responsibility to be put in trust with the word of God. We can save men by preaching truth or we can damn men by preaching error.

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The preaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus overthrew men's faith. What will happen to those whose faith is overthrown? Paul said they "have made shipwreck" (1 Tim 1:19). How tragic! What a loss! "...And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matt 15:14). Not only are the false teachers in jeopardy, but saints must beware of false teachers lest they too end up in the ditch with them. Notice it's the ditch that they fall into and not the kingdom. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure!!! If you are on the foundation you won't end up in the ditch. The only safe place for the people of God is to be built upon the foundation of God. It is sure! It is steadfast! It is immovable!

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The doctrine of Christ is called the apostles' doctrine because it is apostles to whom God commits the gospel. They are the ones whom he calls to represent him in the earth and to speak for him. The apostles lay the foundation. Paul said he was a wise master builder and had laid the foundation for the church at Corinth. But notice what the foundation is! The foundation of the apostles is not the apostles themselves. When it says foundation of the apostles it simply means the foundation which the apostles laid. The foundation itself is Christ. Christ is the foundation. The apostle lays Christ, not himself. The apostle represents Christ, not himself!

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The church must be built upon Christ. When Jesus told Peter "...upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18), it was after Peter had said, "...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus was telling Peter that the church must be built upon Christ, not Peter. True, Peter would be one of those masterbuilders who would lay the foundation, but the foundation itself is Christ. Jesus no doubt was referring to Isaiah's prophecy, for Isaiah spoke of a foundation being laid, and said that the chief corner stone is the foundation, a sure foundation. That stone it is none other than Christ himself. Peter would know the scripture that Jesus was referring to when he made this statement about building his church upon the rock.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Now when we say that the foundation is Christ, we are referring to the doctrine or teaching of Christ. Christ and his doctrine are inseparable. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9) The words "of Christ" are the simple genitive in Greek and does not mean the teaching concerning Christ, but the teachings of Christ himself. As Paul told the church at Ephesus "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:" (Eph 4:20-21) It must be kept in mind that the saints at Ephesus had never seen Christ or actually heard him in the flesh. They heard Christ and were taught by Christ when they heard Paul preach. When Paul preached the gospel and taught them the doctrine of Christ, they learned Christ and were taught by Christ.

We do not have to guess at what the foundation of Christ is. The foundation is the principles of the doctrine of Christ. There are six principles of the doctrine of Christ listed in the Book of Hebrews. These are the doctrinal principles that form the foundation of the church. For the church to be on a solid foundation it must be built upon these six principles. I would dare to say that most professing Christians could not even name these six principles, much less explain them.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

When Hymenaeus and Philetus erred concerning the resurrection, they moved those who followed them off of the foundation that Paul had laid. These six principles form the foundation and to be in error on one of these six principles places one in extreme danger of going into apostasy. A faulty foundation cannot stand. This is why true apostles are so important. They are commissioned by God and they represent God because they understand the doctrine of Christ. Paul was plagued by false apostles who were corrupting the minds of the saints by preaching another Jesus and another gospel.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Because of the ever present danger of false teachers in the church, and the corrupting influence they had on the saints, Paul waged a constant battle against them. His only weapon against error was truth. His only appeal was to the conscience of men. If men are not open and honest toward God, there is little hope of them receiving the truth. This is why Paul appeals to their conscience. The saints must be honest before God and recognize when a man is handling the word of God deceitfully. To handle the word of God deceitfully is to change the meaning of it to something different than what God intended when he gave it. Men must deal honestly with the word of God. Everyone must examine their own heart and conscience to know if they are deceiving their own selves by holding to teachings which are contrary to the word of God. When confronted with a scripture that contradicts his doctrine, an honest man will change his doctrine to conform to the scriptures, rather than changing the obvious meaning of the scripture to conform to his doctrine.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

We should all face the fact that there are not just a few but many who corrupt the word of God or handle it deceitfully. If this was true in Paul's day, how much more in our day. Many times men will preach a perverted gospel in order to get a following and have disciples of their own. Others preach for money and could care less about the truth of what they preach. Whatever the reason, Paul worried about the churches he had established going astray after false teachers. There has always been the danger of false teachers in the church, and men who are determined to establish their own doctrine at any cost, even if they must pervert the word of God to do it. Paul not only warned the saints but he let it be known that men who pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ bring a curse upon their own heads.

2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If men would take these scriptures to heart they might not be so anxious to beat a path to the pulpit and speak words that could do more damage than good. Paul gives Titus an admonition that could well be heeded by any minister today. Every minister should purge out of his doctrine things that cannot be substantiated by the word of God.

In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

Paul knew that while he was present he could protect the churches from these false teachers, but what would happen after he was gone? He did his best to put faithful men over the various assemblies knowing full well that the inundation of false doctrine could possibly destroy his work. He admonishes the elders at Ephesus to "take heed unto yourselves", because there was even the possibility that some of those he had placed in office would apostatize from the truth that he had given them. Likewise he instructs Titus to choose faithful men as elders or bishops in the churches of Crete because of false teachers subverting the saints.

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. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Now when the question arises as to whether there is a need for apostles today we should consider how easy it is for men to pervert the word of God. There is as great a need today for men with the gift and office of apostle as there ever was, because the word of God needs to be explained and expounded today as much or more than at any time in history. Some might object that there is no need for apostles today because we have the New Testament to explain the doctrine. But men were already twisting and perverting the writings of Paul the same as they were twisting and perverting the other scriptures.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

If they were twisting Paul's words while he was still alive, how much more now that he is not here to defend the gospel. As Paul said he was set for "...the defence and confirmation of the gospel." There needs to be men today who can fill up the gap and make up the hedge and proclaim the pure and unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a job for men with the apostolic gift.

Notice also that Peter says that there are things in the New Testament that are hard to be understood. Just because we have the New Testament does not mean there is no need for men who can explain the New Testament. The primary work or function of an apostle then, is the preaching and expounding of the word of God.

We learned in Part One of this treatise that every office in the body of Christ has a corresponding gift that enables each particular member to function in his particular office. The office of the apostle is no exception. As we have seen the function of an apostle is to represent God in the earth by preaching and expounding the word of God. When an apostle preaches the word of God he makes known the will of God. God expresses his will through his word, therefore the will of God and the word of God are the same. To know the word of God is to know the will of God. Because an apostle is one whom God has chosen to represent him in the earth, an apostle must know the will of God. If he does not know the will of God, how can he represent God? How can he be an authentic representative? He can't!! It is as simple as that!!! An apostle as a representative of God MUST know god's will.

The gift that an apostle needs to function in his office should be primarily concerned with understanding and knowing the will of God and being able to expound the word of God in a way to make the will of God known. The difficulty in finding the will of God lies in the fact that God hides his will in a mystery.

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Because God hides his will in a mystery, to understand the will of God requires revelation from God. The only way man can know the will of god is if God reveals it to him. The word mystery does not mean something that cannot be understood because it is incomprehensible or unintelligible. The word mystery, as it is used in the Bible, means something that cannot be understood by ordinary human reason or investigation. A mystery can be understood, but it can only be understood by revelation.

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

What can we know about God? The truth is, without revelation, we can know very little. We might discern that there is a creator by seeing the creation. Or that God is very great by considering the vastness of the Universe. Paul points this out in his letter to the church at Rome (Rom 1:19-20). But to know what God is like and what his will is, is something that we can only know if he chooses to reveal these things to us. God revealed many things to mankind through the ages, but Jesus Christ was the greatest revelation of God that was ever given. Jesus knew God and understood his will and could impart that knowledge to his disciples.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

God has given man some wonderful senses with which to communicate with his environment. How wonderful is the sense of sight or of hearing, or being able to touch things. But when it comes to understanding God's purpose and his will, our eyes and ears and all the reasoning power of the wonderful brain God has given us, are helpless. God must reveal his will to us. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (1Cor 2:9-10).

How important is knowing the will of God? In spite of the fact that God's will is hidden in a mystery, men think they know what God wants. They think they know what gives God pleasure or what displeases him. They are sure they understand his purpose. In reality they have no conception of the will of God at all. Man's sin and wickedness has perverted his thinking until our whole society and civilization has been thoroughly corrupted. Man's only hope is to forsake his own ways and thoughts and humbly seek God for mercy that he might teach us his ways and his thoughts

Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In the scripture above, Isaiah was dealing with the nation of Israel, but the same could be said of the rest of the world. It was because Israel had become like the rest of the world that God spoke these things to them. We who are acquainted with the true God and know the truth can look at the religions of the world and see the vanity in all of their rituals and ceremonies.

How vain it is to fall down before the idols of Hinduism and Buddhism, or to burn candles to the image of Mary the mother of God. There is little difference between the vain repetitions of the rosary and the chanting of monks in a Buddhist monastery in Tibet. Jesus said "...use not vain repetitions as the heathen do..." (Matt 6:7) We can see how far men can stray from knowing the will of God when we consider how men once thought it was pleasing to God to burn their babies as a sacrifice to Moleck (Jer 32:35), or to join in the sex rites of Baalpeor (Num 25.1-18), or to prostitute their daughters in the temple of Baal (Hosea 4:13-14).

These grosser forms of paganism keep popping up and are found in modern witchcraft, Satanism, and New Age religions. These perversions are the result of men who "...when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." (Rom. 1:21-23). In spite of so-called "progress" these forms of religion keep recurring.

Even for those who accept the Bible as the word of God, it is easy to get sidetracked, thinking that some peripheral issues are God's main concern. Some major sects may zero in on one truth almost to the exclusion of everything else in the Bible. While they may have the truth on a particular issue, it is hardly ever the thing that God is primarily interested in. How easy it is to miss the will of God and think that what is important to us is of paramount importance to God.

Some sects emphasize baptism to the point you would think that is all a person needs to do to be saved, while others preach faith so strong that it is almost a sin to think baptism or any kind of works are necessary. Others think that God is primarily interested in what we wear and how we fix our hair. They preach on these subjects night after night as though this alone is all the will of God. Or it could be what we eat or drink, or the keeping of certain holy days, or of using certain words or formulas in the prescribed ceremonies that gets the attention of God and fulfills his will. Most groups have one doctrine, right or wrong, which is the whole emphases of that particular movement. It is like writing a song with only one note. That one note may be good, or it may be a sour note, but in any case you need more then one note to make music. And knowing one subject, whether that subject is important or not, is far from knowing the will of God.

Knowing the will of God is of supreme importance to every human being on this planet. How else do we have assurance of entering the kingdom of God or of receiving eternal life except we know and do the will of God?

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Jesus told his disciples that it was given unto them to know the mysteries of God, but to them that are without, that is, those who were rejecting him, it was not given. To them who were without he spoke in parables. Many people think the parables of Jesus were simple little stories or homespun tales that Jesus used to illustrate the truth so that the simple country folks of his day could understand. This is far from the truth. He spoke in parables to confuse the critics! When he was in private with his disciples he explained the meaning of the parables to them. His disciples were the "babes" to whom God was revealing his will. The wise and the prudent were the scribes and Pharisees and the religious leaders who should have known the will of God, but they stumbled at the word because of their disobedience (1Pet 2:8). The apostles were going to be his representatives, so he had to reveal the will of his Father to them so that they could faithfully represent God in the earth.

Throughout Jesus' earthly ministry he was able to instruct and teach his disciples the word of God and reveal God's will to them. But men can only receive the truth as they grow in grace and knowledge, and mature in the things of God. Like babies they must begin with "the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby" (1Pet 2:2). This simply means they start with the simple things and advance to the more complex things. You start with the easy things of God and advance to the deeper things of God.

As Jesus' earthly ministry drew to a close, he still had many things to teach his disciples, but he knew that they had not reached the place of spiritual maturity to receive those things. As the Book of Hebrews says "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age..." (Heb 5:14) Full age means they have grown up and matured in the things of God. Jesus knew he had to leave this world before this would be accomplished in their lives. He told them he had many things to say to them but then were not able to bear them at this time, so he promised them that he would send the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost would take his place as their teacher. The Holy Ghost as their teacher would finish the job that he had started by guiding them into ALL TRUth as they were able to receive it.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 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.

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.

It is imperative that you understand that this promise made by Jesus to the apostles is not a general promise made to everyone. This is a definite promise made only to those whom the Spirit would work in this particular way to give insight into all truth. This is a promise made to those who hold the office of apostle, because an apostle is charged with representing God and must know the truth in order to faithfully represent God.

It should be obvious that receiving the Holy Ghost does not at the same time give a person the ability to understand the word of God. Witness the hundreds of different doctrines among the Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians, all of whom claim to have received the Holy Ghost! Many of these Pentecostals and Charismatics will not receive instruction from their pastors or teachers because they feel that the Holy Ghost is their teacher and they need no man to teach them. They feel like this scripture is a promise to them personally. Often baby Christians who have had the Holy Ghost for no more than a few years or even months, will spurn or ignore the advice and instruction of older Christians who are much wiser and more experienced than they. They actually feel that because they have received the Holy Ghost, they need not listen to anyone. They believe the Holy Ghost teaches them, and that is all they need. These misinformed Christians are appropriating a promise that does not belong to them. This is a promise made to the apostles so that they might function in the office of an apostle.

This promise that the Holy Ghost would be their teacher, while it was not a general promise to all believers, it was a promise to all apostles. It was not just to the twelve apostles only, but to all the men God calls to be his apostles. Paul said the Holy Ghost was his teacher, for the things that he spoke were the things which had been taught to him by the Holy Ghost. Paul, like the twelve, had been given the Holy Ghost as his teacher.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Paul had been trained in the Rabbinical schools by words which man's wisdom had taught, but now he was speaking words which the wisdom of the Holy Ghost taught. The difference between man's wisdom and God's wisdom is that man's wisdom is what man can figure out with his own mind and reasoning ability, while the wisdom of God can only be received by revelation. The wisdom of God has to do with the mysteries of God. Without the words of wisdom which the Holy Ghost teaches, man is powerless to understand the mysteries of God, because it is hidden from him.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The Holy Ghost has many gifts to impart to the church. As Paul says, "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1Cor 12:4). The gift in which the Holy Ghost operates to reveal the mysteries of God is the gift of the word of wisdom, because it takes the wisdom of God to understand the mysteries of God.

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

That the gift of the word of wisdom is for the understanding of all mysteries is further born out when we correlate the gifts with the offices and the operations or function of the gift in the office that is found in 1Corinthians chapter 12 and 13. We can see that the gift to understand all mysteries is the gift of the word of wisdom.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, [the gift of tongues] and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, [office of a of a prophet] and understand all mysteries, [gift of the word of wisdom] and all knowledge; [gift of the word of knowledge] and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, [gift of faith] and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, [office of helps] and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

We have seen that the primary function of an apostle is preaching and expounding the word of God to make the will of God known. We have seen that the will of God is hid in a mystery and can only be known by revelation. We have seen that Jesus promised to give his apostles the Holy Ghost as their teacher to guide them into all truth. We know that the Holy Ghost operates through the gifts of the Spirit. We know that one of these gifts is the gift of the word of wisdom. We can see that the gift of the word of wisdom is to understand the mysteries of God. Therefore it should be obvious that the gift for understanding the mysteries of God, which is the word of wisdom is the very gift that the apostle would need to function in his office.

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.

The key to understanding how the gift of the word of wisdom works is found in the words of Jesus when he made the promise to his disciples that the Holy Ghost would become their teacher. He said that the Holy Ghost would bring all things to their remembrance that he had taught them. Jesus had given them his Father's word. He had planted the word of God in their hearts. "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them..." (John 17:8). It was the word of God that he had taught them that the Holy Ghost would bring to their remembrance. This shows us that even though the Holy Ghost becomes the apostles' teacher, the word of God that Jesus taught them must be planted in their heart in order for the Holy Ghost to bring it to remembrance. If there had been nothing put into their memory, nothing can be brought to their remembrance. The Holy Ghost must have something to work with.

When Jesus was with his disciples he opened their understanding to the scriptures by expounding the scriptures to them (Luke 24:27, 32). Jesus taught them with his voice. They heard with their ears, and if their hearts were receptive they could understand. When the Holy Ghost became their teacher he would expound the word of God to them the same as Jesus did, except the Holy Ghost would not speak to them in an audible voice as Jesus did. Instead the Holy Ghost would expound the scriptures to them in their hearts and in their minds by bringing it to their remembrance. The process is the same, the way that it is accomplished is, of necessity, different. This is how the Holy Ghost teaches them the word of wisdom. The word of God becomes the word of wisdom when the word of God is put together in such a way that it gives understanding of the will of God that is hid in a mystery. Just being able to quote scriptures does not mean a person understands the Bible. The scriptures must be put together in a way that brings understanding. This is what the Holy Ghost does with the gift of the word of wisdom.

The first apostles, the twelve, had received the word of God from Jesus himself. However Paul had not been taught the word of God by Jesus. How would the Holy Ghost bring to Paul's remembrance the things that Jesus had said? We must remember that Jesus had only taught his disciples the word of God, "I have given them thy word ..." (John 17:14) So it was the word of God that would be brought to their remembrance. Although Paul had not been given the word of God by Jesus, still Paul had been taught at the feet of Gamaliel according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers (Acts 22:3). Paul had been taught the Old Testament scriptures at the feet of Gamaliel, but like his fellow Rabbis, he didn't understand the meaning of the scriptures. When Paul received the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost began to reveal the meaning of the scriptures to him, scriptures that he had been taught all of his life. The scriptures had been placed in his heart and the Holy Ghost could bring them to his remembrance.

The wisdom is found in the scriptures themselves. Paul told Timothy that from a child he had known the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. The scriptures are able to make one wise concerning salvation, but only if you understand them. Although Timothy had known the scriptures from a child, he learned the understanding of them from Paul.

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Timothy received the understanding of the scriptures from Paul, but Paul received his understanding of the scriptures from the Holy Ghost. Paul was very emphatic in declaring that his gospel had not been taught to him by his previous education and training among the Rabbis. Nor after he became a Christian, did he go to those who were apostles before him to receive his gospel. Instead he went into Arabia and there God begin to unravel the hidden mysteries of the gospel.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Paul had been taught the Old Testament scriptures from his youth. He had also heard the message of Jesus' disciples preaching concerning him. Paul knew enough about Jesus to preach Christ immediately after his conversion, "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." (Acts 9:20) One does not need to know the mysteries of the gospel to be converted, or to even preach simple messages about Christ. When Paul speaks of receiving the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ he was talking about more than the simple things which he no doubt had received from other disciples. He knew these elementary things before he went into Arabia. He had to know these simple things before he could even be saved. But when he went into Arabia, God began to reveal the full meaning of the gospel to him and gave him an understanding of the hidden mysteries of God.

The gospel that required revelation of Jesus Christ was not the simple historical truths to which many disciples were eyewitnesses, but the theological meaning of these historical events as they are found in the scriptures. To truly understand the gospel goes deeper than knowing the events that surround the life of Christ. Every Sunday School child may know the story of Jesus, but they certainly don't understand the mysteries of God. Most preachers don't understand these mysteries either and therefore they must preach the same simple messages over and over. While it is true that a preacher may be very successful in winning new people with a simple message about Jesus, his people never grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. As a result he may have a large church with a lot of people, but it is a church filled with babes in Christ that forever remain babes. I do not say this to shame any preacher. I just say it to point out how needful the gift of the word of wisdom is and how necessary the office of an apostle is for us today. The simple message of Jesus is needful to win the lost. But the deeper things of God are also necessary to bring the saints to perfection or maturity.

Paul told the church at Corinth that he delivered to them first of all that which he had received. It is logical to assume that Paul had gained a knowledge of the life and death of Christ by hearing those disciples who knew of these events. But knowing the historical facts of the life of Christ is far from understanding the theological interpretation of these facts. That Jesus died is an historical fact. That he died for our sins is a theological interpretation to that fact. That he died for our sins according to the scriptures is a revelation from the word of God.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The revelation that the Holy Ghost gave Paul was according to the scriptures. The Spirit revealed it to Paul by bringing to his memory the scriptures he had learned, along with his knowledge of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. An apostle receives his revelation according to the holy scriptures. Not only does he receive his revelation as the Holy Ghost teaches him the word of God, but when an apostle makes the revelation known to others, he must make it known from the scriptures. In the operation of his office the Holy Ghost teaches the apostle by the gift of the word of wisdom giving him insight into the meaning of the word of God. Then when the apostle speaks his revelation, he speaks FROM THE SCRIPTURES! This is the way God commands it to be done. When an apostle makes known the revelation he has from the Spirit, he MUST make it known by the scriptures.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Paul at the beginning of this letter to the Romans tells them that he wanted to impart to them some spiritual gift to them to establish them. The spiritual gift that Paul would impart to them was the gift of the word of wisdom. He could establish them by preaching the revelation of the mystery that had been given to him through the operation of the gift of the word of wisdom, that he had received as an apostle.

Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

The apostle has the authority of the written word of God behind him, because his gift operates in understanding and expounding from the written word of God, the holy scriptures. Thus in the final analysis the church must always be established upon the sure word of God.

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

The mysteries of God are revealed to the apostles and prophets. If you will remember the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. This shows us that the church is to be built squarely upon revelation, the two revelatory offices or ministries in the church being the apostle and the prophet. It is through these two gifted ministries that God makes known the revelation of his will to the church. Both of these offices are revelatory in function but different in mode of operation. Paul said "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers..." (1Cor 12:28).

The teacher is third because he does not operate by direct revelation from God. A teacher is one who has been taught the word of God, and understands the word of God, and has the ability to teach the word of God to others. As Paul told Timothy "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2.) Paul, as an apostle, received direct revelation from God. He then taught Timothy, who in turn taught others, who themselves became teachers. Thus the teachers were men who were taught the word of God by other men.

Because the prophet speaks from revelation of the Spirit, his office is placed in a very high position of importance as a ministry in the church. The prophet is secondary, above that of a teacher who is third in rank, yet below that of the apostle, which is first. The Spirit gives revelation to both the apostle and the prophet, but it is the manner in which they receive the revelation and the manner that they dispense that revelation that makes these two offices different and places the apostle first and the prophet second. It is the difference in operation that places the ministry of the apostle primary and the ministry of the prophet secondary.

We have seen that the apostle receives revelation in the word of God and that he speaks his revelation from the written word of God. The prophet on the other hand speaks as the spirit reveals things to him or as the Spirit moves on him. You will remember when Paul laid hands on the disciples at Ephesus the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:6). They prophesied as the Spirit gave them the words to speak. The prophet may be sitting in the service and the spirit speaks to him and as it is revealed to him he can speak it out. If while he is speaking the spirit reveals something to another prophet that is sitting by, the first may hold his peace. But each may prophesy one by one as the spirit moves upon them. Peter said concerning the operation of prophecy, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (1Pet 1:21). Prophecy is often instantaneous and immediate, as the spirit moves upon the prophet, even while he is sitting in the service. It is because of this immediacy that prophecy must be judged.

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.

When a prophet speaks, what he says must be judged. The reason that prophecy must be judged is because there are three spirits from which a man may prophesy. He can prophesy by the Spirit of God, in which case we must give ear and take heed to what he says for it is the same as God speaking. When a prophet speaks by the Spirit of God, it is God speaking and not the prophet himself.

Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet would they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands.

We must respond to a prophet who speaks by the Spirit of God as we would respond to God. Notice how the church at Antioch responded to Agabus' prophecy.

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. 28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. 29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: 30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Agabus did not use his rational mind to figure out that a dearth was coming by studying weather maps and climatic trends. It was revealed to him by the Spirit and he prophesied his message to the church at Antioch. The church judged his prophecy to be of God and acted upon it by gathering provisions ahead of time so that they were prepared when the disaster struck. They knew what was coming because a prophet revealed it to them by the Spirit of God. However, a prophet may also prophesy out of his own spirit. If a prophet prophesies out of his own spirit that prophet should not be harkened unto!

Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord; 3 Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. 5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord. 6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. 7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken? 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord God. 9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord God.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

And even worse than prophesying out of his own spirit, a prophet may prophesy from an evil spirit! This is the most dangerous because evil spirits have supernatural knowledge and people will marvel at what is revealed by these evil spirits an therefore can easily be seduced

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand. 11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice. 12 And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul.

And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

It is because of this possibility that a prophet can speak from his own spirit, or even from an evil spirit that prophecy must be judged.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So important is the judging of prophecy and the trying of spirits that God has provided a special gift of the Spirit to discern the Spirit by which one is prophesying. This gift is called the discerning of spirits. A person with this gift can discern, through the Spirit, if a prophet is motivated by the Spirit of God, his own spirit, or an unclean or evil spirit.

Another way to judge prophecy is to observe the results. It the prophecy does not come to pass as the prophet said, than that prophet did not speak by the Spirit of the Lord. This may not mean that the person is a false prophet. A false prophet is one who leads God's people astray with his prophecy. An immature Christian who prophesies out of his own spirit is not to be compared with a false prophet like Balaam, the son of Bosor, who led God's people astray, even though all that he said was true and came to pass. Remember Paul said that prophecies could fail because we prophesy in part.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This could mean that the one prophesying did not give the whole message because he failed to grasp what the Spirit was trying to convey. Or those that hear the message may not understand what the Spirit is trying to say. Paul was speaking of prophecy in the body of Christ failing, so we can see that even a true Christian may "miss it". Paul also said to prophesy according to the proportion of faith. Sometimes a brother or sister may extend themselves beyond their faith. I have seen a brother or sister begin in the Spirit of God and end up in his own spirit.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

We should not be too harsh in judging a brother or sister that has done this. But when one has a long record of prophecy that does not come to pass, he will lose his credibility, and so he should. Moses said that if one spoke in the name of the Lord and it did not come to pass, then the Lord did not speak the word of that prophet. That prophet should not be feared. This is the same as saying that he has no credibility.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

However if that prophet uses his prophecy to lead God's people astray from following the Lord, then that prophet not only loses his credibility, he is worthy of death. If prophecies fail, it may prove the prophet false, but prophecy coming to pass does not necessarily prove a prophet to be of God. Demons have supernatural knowledge and can give false prophets insight into many things, even future events. Fortune tellers, astrologers, and mediums work through these demon powers and we must never underestimate their powers. Often people are deceived and made to believe someone is of God simply because their predictions come to pass, while all the time they are operating under the inspiration of a demon.

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

The ultimate criterion for judging prophecy or a prophet is to take the words of that prophet, which he claims to be from God, and compare his word to the holy scriptures. We know without doubt that the holy scriptures are true. If a prophet contradicts the word which we know is from God, or tries to get us to do something that is contrary to the commandments and word of God which God has already given us in the holy scripture, that prophet is enticing us to follow other Gods. He may use the name of the Lord but he is following the god of this world and not the true God. Jesus said "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many" (Matt 24:5). They have the right name, but the wrong doctrine! When you preach the wrong doctrine and use the name Jesus, you are preaching another Jesus.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

False prophets will contradict the word of God. When a prophet teaches things that are contrary to the scripture, we know he is a false prophet and should be avoided. We had a prophet here at Mayfield once that prophesied that our women should all cut their hair. He said if they didn't cut their hair, God would strike them bald. Of course we knew the word of God teaches that it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair (1 Cor 11:5-15), so we judged him a false prophet. Would you believe that my wife's hair started falling out? She became quite alarmed, but I told her to hold steady, that we will stand on the word of God even if she went as bald as a billiard ball. Well she never went bald, but God let it appear that this man's prophecy was true in order to test us. He wanted to know if we will follow the word of God or be swayed by men. No matter how many predictions a prophet makes that come to pass, if he tells you to do something contrary to the word of God, that man is a false prophet.

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Here the standard for judging a prophet was the law and the testimony. This was the written word of God in Isaiah's day. The principle is established that we take a word that we are not sure of and compare it to a word we know is of God. While it may be true that a prophecy given by the Spirit of the Lord today is just as valid as one given by Isaiah twenty-seven hundred years ago, we must recognize the fact that a prophecy given today does not have the same certification as a prophecy contained in the scripture. Peter said that the prophecy contained in the scripture was more sure than his eyewitness account.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

By certification I mean given a seal of approval by an accepted authority. Our authority, of course, as Christians, is Christ himself, and Christ set his seal of approval upon the scripture.

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The apostle Paul likewise put his seal of approval upon the written word of God, and accepted it as his authority.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Thus we see the written word of God , the holy scripture, has strong certification and can be used as a standard to judge all prophecy and the prophet himself. No prophet , no matter how great he is , is ever above the written word of God. When he speaks as a prophet, what he says must be judged. Thus while the prophet is a revelatory office and is of great value, he must still be subject to the word of God.

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.

The office of the apostle is first because an apostle's gift is in the understanding and expounding of the word of God. The apostle speaks from the scriptures. The prophet is secondary because prophecy must be judged. He speaks from the Spirit, and we must judge if it is the Spirit of God, his own spirit or even if it is an evil spirit. An apostle has revelation from the Spirit, but he does not speak from the Spirit, he speaks from the word of God. This is why the apostle's gift takes precedence over the prophet's gift. The word of God that we have written in the Bible is the measuring rod by which we judge prophecy or any other writings. In fact all prophecy and writings that have been written must be judged by the scriptures.

It is because of this reliance upon the holy scripture that an apostle is the one who decides doctrine in the church. Remember it was called the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42), not the prophets' doctrine. This is because our doctrine must come from the scriptures and the words of Jesus and not from personal revelation

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

This does not mean that a prophet does not have the truth revealed to him. After all, the same revelation that comes to the apostle is given to the prophet (Eph. 3:5). What we are saying is that the prophet cannot decide doctrine for the church on his personal revelation. It is ONLY by appealing to the scripture that doctrine can be established. And this is the realm of the apostle's gift.

A good example of the way doctrinal disputes were handled in the early church is given to us by Luke in the Book of Acts. This incident shows us the operation of the different offices in a doctrinal dispute when a dispute arose over a point of doctrine and practice, the matter was taken to the apostles and elders. The prophets were not consulted at all. It might be asked why the elders were mentioned when the elder is the lesser gift than the prophet. This is because the elders have been taught the word of God by the apostles (Titus 1:9) and placed in governing positions under the authority of the apostles. They, like the apostles, were operating from the written word of God and not personal revelation.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

As the council convened, opportunity was given for others to speak. Notice that many were able to voice their opinions. Some had doubts, some opposition and objections, which they were allowed to air, but after all the arguing and disputing, an apostle, Peter, rises to speak.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

After him two more apostles speak, Barnabas and Paul. Finally, a fourth apostle, James, closes the matter by appealing to the scripture. It was not the apostles that settled the matter, but the apostles using the scripture.

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

It was only after the apostles had settled the matter with the scripture, that the prophets were utilized to confirm the position that the apostle had established. "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." (1 Cor 14:3).

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

This one example in the early church, plus the fact that a prophet is never consulted concerning doctrinal disputes, should show us that these things are beyond his gift. He can reveal and confirm, but he cannot decide doctrine. This can only be done by an apostle using the SCRIPTURES!

Not only does a prophet not decide doctrine, but neither is the office of the prophet ever spoken of as a ruling or governing office. It is true that many prophets were also rulers, but they were rulers in addition to being prophets, not by reason of being prophets. As we have said, prophecy must be judged, while rulers are to be obeyed. If every time a ruler gave an instruction, it was left to the saints to judge that decision and decide whether it was of God or not before they obeyed, it would not be long before the saints would be making the decisions based on their personal preference. If the ruler said something they did not like, they could simply say that the ruler was not speaking from the Spirit of God, or that what he said really didn't come from God.

Or, on the other hand, the prophet as a ruler could impose his will on the saints claiming it is a word from God, while in reality he was only his own desire or will, rather than the will of God. Therefore anything to be imposed on the saints of God by a ruler should be according to the scriptures. Rulers do not have a right to impose commandments on the people of God based on their personal revelation. Neither do saints have a right to ignore a ruler when given instructions from the word of God.

Another reason that the office of a prophet is not a ruling office is inherent in the very nature of the office itself. Paul says, "... ye may all prophesy ..." (1 Cor 14:31). But it is logical that "all" cannot govern. If everyone governs, then where are the governed. That some are to govern implies that there are those who are to be governed. There must be a distinction between those who govern and those who are governed, or else there is chaos and anarchy.

In the early days of the Latter Rain movement great numbers were claiming to be prophets. They recognized that the prophet is secondary while the teacher or pastor was third. Based on this, there were many in the congregations who were overriding the decisions and instructions of the elders, until in some congregations there was complete confusion. The pastor would say one thing and a "prophet" would counter him with a "thus saith the Lord". A prophet must be careful not to overstep his gift. His office is second, but his office is not a ruling office.

I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

A prophet is a minister with the gift of prophecy. To prophesy is to speak under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. God spoke in Old Testament times to his people through the ministry of the prophets. He used the prophets to bring a message to the people and reveal his will to them.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God communicated with different prophets using different methods. With some he spoke in dreams, others he used visions, and with some he put his words in their mouths and they spoke as the Spirit gave them the words. The Lord told Jeremiah, "Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer. 1:9) God spoke to Moses face to face like a man speaks to his friend (Ex 33:10). So we see that God had many different ways of communicating with his prophets, but regardless of how he communicated with them, the prophet had a message from God to give to the people.

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

We must recognize that the prophets received their message from the Holy Ghost. They spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Their purpose was to reveal things by the Spirit that could not be known by the reasoning power of the human mind. The purpose of prophecy was revelation from God. God revealed his will through his servants the prophets.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Just as God moved on Old Testament prophets to give them revelation for the people, the same may be said of New Testament prophets. New Testament prophets also speak as they are moved by the Spirit. Actually there is no difference between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets. Just as Old Testament prophecy was given by the Holy Ghost to reveal the will of God, so New Testament prophecy is for revelation from God also. In prophecy whether in the Old Testament or New Testament, something is "revealed" by the Spirit to the prophet. This is the whole purpose of prophecy.

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.

Some try to change the meaning of "prophesy" to make it mean something different in the New Testament than it does in the Old Testament, saying that New Testament prophesying is merely preaching or testifying. But here we can see it is the prophets who prophesy. There is a supernatural element present in true prophecy that is not found in simple preaching or testifying, something is revealed to the prophet that he gives to the church. The words prophecy, prophesy, and prophet are all from the same root word as you can see even in English. The work of a prophet is to prophesy, and what he prophesies is prophecy. And all of it is based on revelation from the Spirit of God.

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

The element of divine revelation makes prophecy extremely important, and a gift greatly to be desired in the church. Saints are exhorted to seek the gift of prophecy.

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

If Moses would desire that all of God's people were prophets, and Paul tells us to desire or covet to prophesy, then without doubt the gift of prophecy must be of great value. Not only this but the New Testament era is that new age of the Spirit in which God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh and prophecy is one of the manifestations of that outpouring. Moses could only desire that all of God's people could receive the Spirit and prophecy, but under the New Testament, that new age of the Spirit, the way was made for all of God's people to be filled with the Spirit and the various manifestations of the Spirit, including prophecy, is a part of that New Testament order. Remember Paul also said "Ye may all Prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1Cor 14:31). So prophecy should play a great place in the New Testament Church and New Testament order.

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Some are afraid that if we acknowledge that prophecy is the Spirit of God speaking directly to us, someone prophesying today might claim equal status with the written word of God. Not all of the Old Testament prophets were commissioned to write the Old Testament scriptures. God moved on some of the prophets to write their words down for future generations (Isa. 30:8; Jer. 30:1-2; Ezek. 43:11; Dan 12:4), and this is how we got the book we call the Old Testament. But for any man or woman today to claim that their prophecies or writings are of equal status to the holy scriptures, is presumptuous indeed. As we have already said, the holy scriptures have strong certification from Jesus and his apostles, and are to be used in judging any prophecy that is given today, so that the written word of God always takes the preeminence.

As long as the safeguards that we have mentioned concerning the judging of prophecy are observed, prophecy can be a great blessing to the church and we should always give free rein to the Spirit to move on the people of God in the manifestation of the gift of prophecy as well as the other gifts of the Spirit. We should not let doubt and skepticism cause us to despise prophesyings. Just be sure to prove all things. The Greek word translated "prove" here is the same Greek word that is translated "try" in 1John 4:1, where John says to "try the spirits" because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

And we should always keep in mind that prophecy is for the purpose of confirming the gospel (Acts 15:32). It is not an end in itself as some Charismatics seem to think. But the very purpose of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. As a prophet uses his gift for edification, exhortation, and comfort (1 Cor 14:3), it is to build men up in the gospel, to make them obedient to the gospel and to encourage them in the gospel. The preaching of the gospel, is called the testimony of Jesus. This is shown in Matt 24:14, where Jesus told his disciples that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness (testimony) unto all nations." The Greek word translated "witness" here is usually translated "testimony" in the New Testament. It is translated testimony in Rev 19:9, where the "testimony of Jesus" is called "the spirit of prophecy."

And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

This is to say that the spirit of prophecy is given for the testimony of Jesus. If the testimony of Jesus is the preaching of the gospel, then prophecy should in some way magnify, illustrate, or illuminate the preaching of the gospel. Prophecy should not be a play-thing for those who desire esoteric knowledge of the occult. Prophecy from the Spirit of God is not given for the purpose of fortune telling. Psychics, astrologers, and fortune tellers are a big business today, because people are curious about the supernatural. They want a contact with supernatural forces without obeying the gospel. People would be amazed to know that high government officials, including presidents of the United States, have consulted astrologers when making high level decisions. And then, there is that insatiable desire we all have to know the future, especially what is going to happen to us as individuals. Much of the growing popularity of the modern Charismatic Movement is the result of this curiosity and desire for the mysterious and arcane.

When the Spirit of God gives a prophecy it will be for the purpose of the gospel, either to give us additional revelation on matters pertaining to the gospel, the preaching of the gospel, or to give God's people information concerning their welfare. Actually there are two aspects of prophecy. One aspect of prophecy is for the revelation of the mysteries of God. This aspect of prophecy deals with the same revelation that an apostle deals with. Both apostles and prophets are given revelation of the mystery of Christ.

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

The other aspect of prophecy deals more with the temporal phases of life. A prophet often speaks to the personal circumstances of a person's life. This aspect of prophecy does not concern the gospel per se, but deals with us in our relationship to the gospel. Both aspects of prophecy deal with the will of God, but when we speak of the will of God, we must distinguish between the general will of God and the particular will of God. These are not Bible terms and I use them only for practical purposes. However, I will give Bible examples of both aspects.

The general will of God is the will of God that is revealed in the scriptures. It may be hidden in the scriptures in a mystery, but it is there none the less. An apostle, with regard to his apostolic office, is concerned with the general will of God. That is, he knows and expounds the mysteries of God from the written word of God, the holy scriptures. A prophet may be given a revelation of the same will of God as the apostle. In fact most of the Bible containing the will of God was written by prophets. But often a prophet is dealing with the particular will of God. This is the will of God that is not found in the scriptures. As important as the scriptures are for understanding the will of God, we must realize that all of the will of God is not written in the scriptures. We should know what part of the will of God is written in the scriptures and what part is not.

For example, the general will of God is that the gospel shall be preached in all the world. This is given to us in the scriptures, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matt. 24:14). But the general will of God does not tell us which part of the world that you or I, as an individual, am suppose to preach. For this I must seek God for myself and find the particular will of God for my own personal life. And you must seek God and find the particular will of God for your life. This is not written in the scriptures. The particular will of God is the will of God for each particular person as it applies to them as an individual. Obviously the particular will of God concerning every saint could not be written in the scriptures

An important principle we must always remember is that the particular will of God should never contradict the general will of God. God will never tell you to do something that violates his general will, as it is written in the scriptures. This important principle must never be forgotten! When people forget this, they often get themselves into serious trouble with God. For example, the general will of God teaches us we should not commit adultery (Mat 19:18). However, sometimes when a man gets exalted he feels like these rules do not apply to him. He feels that in his particular case he can have an another woman or even several women, besides his wife, and do this with impunity. Regardless of his particular circumstances or how many prophets or other ministers approve it, this violates the general will of God and thus also violates the particular will of God. The particular will of God can never violate the general will of God. What God reveals to you as an individual will never contradict what he has already revealed and given to us in the holy scriptures.

When I say that an apostle, as a representative of God, must know the will of God, I am referring to the general will of God. An apostle must know the general will of God. The general will of God is what he makes known when he expounds the scriptures. The general will of God remains constant, it is forever settled in heaven (Ps. 119:89). The particular will of God varies with the individual. It may be the will of God for one brother to go to China. But that is not the general will of God for everybody. It may be God's will for another brother to never leave town, or to go to Arkansas. Every Christian, regardless of his office, needs to know the particular will of God for his own life.

While an apostle may be able to tell another person the general will of God, it is not a function of his office to know the particular will of God for every individual. A prophet on the other hand may know the general will of God by revelation just as an apostle does, but he may also have revelation of the particular will of God concerning an individual or individuals. This is another difference between the prophetic gift and the apostolic gift. Thus we can see that the prophetic gift is of great value for the church, even today.

There are several examples given to us in the New Testament of how the prophetic gift worked in the early church. In all of these examples the general will of God could be known from the scriptures, but the application according to the particular will of God was given by prophecy.

For example, God called Paul to the ministry on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:16-19). But that call was later confirmed by a prophet in Antioch. We know that it was the general will of God to "send forth labourers into his harvest" (Luke 10:2). This is the general will of God, but this tells us nothing about the particular will of God for Paul. God dealt with Paul on a personal and particular level in calling him to be one of those labourers, and then to confirm Paul's personal call, a prophet spoke by the Holy Ghost.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

The same thing happened in the ministry of Timothy. Timothy was ordained to the ministry by the presbytery of the church at Lystra, after the Holy Ghost confirmed his call to the ministry through prophecy.

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

How comforting it must be for a minister to look back and remember the words of a prophet confirming his call to the ministry. It would be especially helpful when the enemy is trying to make us doubt that we were ever even called to the ministry. You can meditate on those words when every thing is going wrong and you see your labour dissipating before your eyes like the early morning fog in the bright sunshine. I know that in my own ministry I often recall the words of Bro. Willie Atwell when he told me he wanted to prophesy over me. I cherish the words he spoke to me that day in Tyler, Texas.

This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

These examples show us how the general will of God to call ministers to preach the gospel, and to give some apostles, some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers is fulfilled by the particular will of god working in the lives of particular individuals. And it shows us how the office of the prophet confirms this call through the gift of prophecy.

Another example showing how knowing the general will of God, from the scriptures, is different from knowing the particular will of God, by the Spirit, is related to us by the fact that we know from the scriptures that there will be famines in divers places (Matt 24:7). But Agabus, the prophet, knew by the Spirit that there would be a particular famine throughout all the world that came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. This prophecy was given for the welfare of the saints. With this knowledge they could prepare for the meager days ahead, and send the much needed relief to their brethren in Judaea.

Jesus warned his disciples that they would be persecuted and even killed for the gospel sake. Peter and Paul warned the saints of the same thing. This reveals to us the general will of God and that we should always be vigilant and prayerful knowing that we may have to suffer for the Gospel. However if a prophet can tell us ahead of time what is going to happen, we may have the option to escape the trouble. Just knowing that the saints are not out of the will of God when they suffer, may help us maintain our faith through hard times, but how nice it is to have the Spirit warn us ahead of time so that we can know what lies ahead and maybe even avoid it. The gift of prophecy will be especially useful in the tribulation period that lies just ahead.

Paul was warned several times by the Spirit through the word of prophecy not to go to Jerusalem. If Paul had heeded the warning, he would have avoided prison, at least for the time being. I am not judging whether Paul did the right thing or not in going ahead with his plans in spite of the Spirit's warning. What I am saying is that at least he knew what awaited him and he had the option to go or not to go according to what he felt in his heart that the Lord wanted him to do. You can almost hear a sigh of resignation as the disciples cease trying to persuade Paul not to go to Jerusalem, saying, "The will of the Lord be done."

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: 23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. 14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Another use of prophecy is in revealing the condition of hearts. We know from scripture that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). But think what an effect it would have on a sinner, or even a backslid child of God, who came into the service, if the Spirit of God would begin to move on one of the saints to prophecy, and they begin to reveal the secrets of his heart. We can preach about the condition of man and everybody knows that it is true, but when we begin to deal with a particular person's life and get personal, revealing things that only he and the Lord may know, that person is going to be affected. Not only would sinners be brought to the Lord, but God's people would walk more circumspectly, knowing that any secret sin could be brought to light by the spirit through the gift of prophecy.

But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth

All of these examples show us a very important and useful aspect of prophecy, that of revealing or confirming the particular will of God. However we do not mean to imply that the gift of prophecy is the only way that one can know the particular will of God. Neither are we to think that a Christian can't receive dreams or visions from God without the gift of prophecy. God can talk to any of his people through dreams or visions, or however else he chooses. God can even give a heathen man a dream, as he did to Nebuchadnezzar. A person does not have to be an apostle or prophet to hear from God. Every Christian must have his own personal contact with God. Still the gifts of the Spirit are given to the church so that those who are set in their respective offices in the church can minister God's grace to his people. A person cannot operate in a particular office without the particular gift that goes with that office. The gift that goes with the office of a prophet is the gift of prophecy, and the gift that goes with the office of an apostle is the gift of the word of wisdom.

And we must never minimize the importance of knowing the particular will of God for our own lives. Paul knew that it was the general will of God to set apostles in the church. He knew that the particular will of God chose him to be one of these apostles. He said that he was "...an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1). Not only did God reveal that it was his will for Paul to be an apostle, but God had a prophet, to whom the Holy Ghost revealed the particular will of God, confirmed it to Paul and the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2). All of this still did not reveal to him all of the will of God for Paul's life. Paul still had a daily walk with the Lord. Each new day brought new prospects. Paul still had to know where it was the will of God for him to preach. He wanted to be in the will of God as to where he preached. He prayed that it would be God's will for him to make a trip to Rome. If it could be God's will for him to go to Rome, perhaps the journey could be prosperous.

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

Sometimes Paul would endeavor to go into an area, but it would not be God's will for him to go there at that time, and God would forbid him.

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

Sometimes Paul did not know where he was going next. He had to wait on the Spirit to reveal God's will. the Lord would not reveal his particular will until Paul had reached a certain point on his journey.

And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

All of these experiences from the New Testament show us how important it is to know the particular will of God. They also show us that the particular will of God must be revealed to us through the Spirit and not through the written word of God. The particular will of God given to us through the Spirit will never contradict or disannul the general will of God given to us through the written word of God.

I have been showing how a prophet deals with the particular will of God as one aspect of the gift of prophecy. The other aspect of prophecy concerns understanding the gospel. Remember, we have already seen that the revelation of the mystery of Christ is revealed to the apostles and prophets (Eph 3:5). The difference in the apostolic gift and the prophetic gift is the manner of their operation. The apostle understands the mysteries through the gift of the word of wisdom, and makes them known by the scriptures, while the prophet may speak as the spirit moves him, or he may have a dream, or a vision as John had when he wrote the Book of the Revelation.

In this prophecy that John writes for us in the Book of the Revelation, we have a treasure of information concerning the plan of God, as John unveils for us the mystery of God. This is the same mystery that Paul writes about, but it comes to John as a vision and John is reporting what he has seen. This is the way prophecy works. Rather than reasoning over the scriptures or expounding the scriptures to give us an understanding, the prophet merely tells us what he sees.

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

While the operation of the apostolic gift is different that the prophetic gift, this does not mean that the same man cannot have both gifts. John was both an apostle and a prophet. The Holy Ghost divides these gifts to every man severally as he will (1Cor 12:11).

In closing this section on prophets and prophecy, I would like to mention an additional revelation on matters pertaining the welfare of the people of God that has been given in modern times. This concerns the use of tobacco. In recent years there has been a campaign by the medical profession against the use of tobacco because it was found to cause cancer, heart trouble and a host of other health problems. But years before all of this medical knowledge came to light God's people who had received the baptism with the Holy Ghost with the gifts of the Spirit came out universally against smoking, dipping, or the use of tobacco in any form. Our preachers have preached hard against it. When asked for a scripture, about the only thing they could give would be about not defiling the temple of God. The fact is, there is no direct scripture against smoking, but the Spirit of God let God's people know that it was bad for them, years before the Physicians knew.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

The subject of perfection requires more time and consideration than I can give it at this time, but it must be dealt with, if only in a limited measure, in any treatise on the offices in the church, because God gave the apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers "For the perfecting of the saints..." Not only for the perfecting of the saints, but almost every aspect of perfection involves the ministry.

Perfection seems to be an extremely difficult subject to understand, as most people, even learned theologians, will say that it is an unattainable goal. How often do you hear people say, "nobody is perfect"? And preachers tell the people, "A believers perfection will be reached only in the life to come." Or, "A Christian can never reach perfection." These are typical statements that you hear quite often. It is strange that with all the scriptures exhorting us to be perfect, preachers and teachers still unequivocally proclaim that it can't be done. Perhaps the strong disavowals made even by learned theologians concerning perfection is the result of totally ignoring these scriptures that command us to be perfect, or exhort us to go on to perfection. Or perhaps they do not understand what the Bible means by perfection, as well as not understanding human nature or the way God deals with human nature.

Are the learned theologians right in saying it is not possible for a Christian to be perfect? An examination of the contemporary theological views on the subject will reveal that most modern theologians agree with Augustine and Calvin that perfection is a goal that cannot be attained in this life. The following comments of five leading scholars from the various Protestant perspectives, on the subject of sanctification and perfection, seem to be typical of current thought. As much as they might disagree with one another, it seems that they are all united on this one point, that perfection is not possible for a Christian in this life. All of the following quotes from these scholars are taken from the book Five Views on Sanctification, (1987).

Dieter representing the Wesleyan perspective writes, "We should note that Wesleyanism is not perfectionism... and it certainly does not imply sinless perfection; it is probably more misrepresented at this point than any other." (page 91)

McQuilkin, who gives the Keswick perspective says, "Keswick has periodically been accused of teaching perfectionism, the view that it is possible to live without sinning... Keswick leaders have consistently, officially, and emphatically denied these allegations" (page 156)

Horton representing the Pentecostal point of view writes, "Like the Keswick leaders, we deny the possibility of 'sinless perfection' in this life." (page 192)

Walvoord, representing the Augustinian-Dispensational perspective says, "Each writer has disclaimed that there is any experience by which anyone can reach sinless perfection, and freedom from both deliberate and unconscious sins." (page 194)

Hoekema, a noted Calvinist scholar, representing the Reformed perspective says, "I also agree with Walvoord... that the believer cannot attain sinless perfection in this present life, and that such perfection will be reached only in the life to come." (page 230)

How do these teachers deal with the many scriptures in the Bible on perfection? Theologians seem to be perplexed by the fact that the Bible sometimes speaks of perfection as being an accomplished fact, while at other times it speaks of perfection as a goal toward which we should be moving. in order to explain this seeming discrepancy, the theologians postulate the theory of positional and experimental perfection. Some teachers term it "legal perfection" as contrasted with "literal perfection". Perfection being contingent upon sanctification, they explain that sanctification is both definitive and progressive. It is definitive in that it is an accomplished fact from God’s perspective, but it is progressive in that it must be worked out in the believers life.

According to this theory, as soon as he believes, a Christian has positional sanctification and is perfect by "the declarative act of God by which He pronounces the believing sinner righteous in Christ." (Five Views on Sanctification, page 72, “The Reformed Perspective” by Anthhony A. Hoekema, Published by Zondervan, 1987) Thereafter a Christian is perfect positionally, but experimentally, that is, in real life and in his experience, he is not perfect at all. Experimental perfection is a goal that the Christian must work toward. However it is a goal, they declare, that can never be reached or attained, at least not in this life.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the theory of positional and experimental perfection, but it appears to me that these learned theologians are saying that a Christian is perfect, but he is not really perfect. In reality he hasn't changed at all! It seems they are saying a Christian is free from sin, yet he can't help but sin! In spite of the fact that he is free from sin, he will go sinning the rest of his life. Is the theory of positional and experimental perfection logical, or is it a bit of theological sophistry? It is true that we must reconcile the scriptures that speak of perfection as being an accomplished fact with the scriptures that project it as a goal to be obtained. But the answer is found in considering the object of perfection in each of these scriptures, not in postulating a theory that is neither scriptural nor logical.

The ministry has an important part to play in almost every aspect of Christian perfection. But in order to understand the Biblical teaching on perfection we must understand that in the Bible the word perfect is applied to several different things. Our English word "perfect" is translated from the Greek word teleios (tel'-i-os). There are a few other Greek words translated perfect in our New Testament, but they relate the idea of perfection from a completely different angle, and we will deal with them later, but first we want to deal with teleios, as it is the main Greek word translated perfect and perfection in our New Testament.

The Greek word teleios means completeness, fulfillment, or reaching an appointed end or goal. It derives from the Greek word telos which means "end." Teleios can refer to any number of different things, but in any of those things, it refers to the completion or reaching the appointed end or goal of those things. The requirements for perfection in one thing would necessarily be different from the requirements for perfection in another thing. A perfect meal is certainly different from a perfect house, but by using the word perfect we mean that nothing is lacking or missing. It is whole, full, or complete.

The word perfect is applied to the will of God. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect (teleios) will of God." (Rom 12:2). The word teleios is used because it means the complete or full will of God.

The word perfect (teleios) is applied to the law of God. "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty,..." (James 1:25). Here again perfect means that the law is complete and nothing is lacking. It accomplishes the appointed end for which it was given. There are several other things in the Bible that the word perfect is applied to, but each perfection is different.

Even when perfect (teleios) is used in reference to a Christian, it is used in different ways when applied to different aspects of a Christian's experience. The word "perfect" is the same; it means complete, whole, or full, but it depends on what it is applied to that determines how it is to be interpreted. This must always be kept in mind if you are to understand the meaning of perfection as it is used in the New Testament.

I think where most teachers misunderstand the doctrine of perfection is they fail to consider the object of perfection. Two different scriptures using the word perfect may not be referring to the same thing. Our question should always be, what is the object of perfection in each scripture? If two different scriptures are dealing with entirely different aspects of Christian life and experience, then there would be two different objects of perfection.

We will consider the scriptures dealing with three different objects of perfection. The first will be the perfection of the conscience, second the perfecting of faith, and third the perfection of Christian growth. In all of these objects the word perfection (teleios) means the same thing: completeness, fulfillment, or reaching an appointed end or goal. In each aspect of perfection the ministry plays a conspicuous role. However the results of perfection in each case, as it is applied to each different object, is different.

We can discover the object of perfection by considering the context of the passage in which the word perfect is found. What is this passage in Hebrews talking about? When we examine this section of Hebrews, we find the writer is contrasting the old covenant with the new covenant and showing that the ordinances of the old covenant were only a figure that could never really take away their sins, and thus they were not made perfect as far as their conscience was concerned. So in this section of Hebrews we find the object of perfection is the conscience.

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

The blood of bulls and goats could only render ceremonial purity, however the blood of Christ brings real cleaning from sin that leaves the conscience pure. Sin defiles the conscience, making an evil conscience that must be purged to give one a pure or perfect conscience. The blood of animals could not do this, but the blood of Christ can.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The proof that the law could not perfect the conscience is found in the fact that the sacrifices were continually offered year by year yet the worshippers still had a conscience of sins. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away their sins. This required a greater sacrifice. This require the sacrifice of God's son, "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

This is why the scripture says that the law made nothing perfect! It is talking about the perfection of the conscience. The conscience could not be purged because the animal sacrifices could not take away sins. This does not mean that a person could not live a righteous life in Old Testament times, it means that their past sins could not be remitted until that perfect sacrifice was made, which was Christ.

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Many do not understand that the sacrifice of Christ was not for us only under the new testament, but extended back to redeem those who were under the first covenant also. Without the blood of Christ neither old testament nor new testament saints could be saved.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

But even though Christ redeemed those who were under the first covenant, that redemption could not come into effect until the death of Christ. This is why the scripture says that they without us could not be made perfect. This is the perfection that is brought about by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This is the perfection of the conscience through the remission of sins.

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Thus we find that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for sin. It is through this offering that our conscience is made perfect. As Paul said, "Now the end [or goal] of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned" (1Tim 1:5). So the perfection that is presented here is the perfection of the conscience by the offering of the sacrifice of Christ.

As this scripture clearly states, this perfection here is contingent upon sanctification. Those who are sanctified are perfected. While I do not want to go into an excursus on sanctification at this point in this thesis, it seems almost necessary to at least mention it in connection with the doctrine of perfection. In the minds of most theologians, it seems that Christian perfection is inexorably linked to sanctification.

The doctrine of sanctification has been a major point of doctrinal contention in modern times. Since John Wesley began teaching sanctification as a second definite work of grace, the evangelical sects have been divided into those who hold the Wesleyan view of sanctification as a second definite work of grace and those who retain with the Calvinistic view of progressive, howbeit never obtainable, sanctification.

I plan to deal with the rise of the Holiness Movement in Part IV of this treatise, and perhaps there deal more fully with the doctrine of sanctification. But suffice it for now to say that both views of sanctification, Wesleyan and Calvinistic, do not deal adequately with the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. As usual, in the hands of the learned theologians a simple doctrine becomes complicated beyond understanding. Simply stated, sanctification is being made holy, by being washed or cleansed from our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The offering of the body of Jesus Christ was for our sanctification. He gave himself as a sacrifice to take away our sins. We cannot sanctify ourselves. We cannot be sanctified by any ceremony or ritual. Only the blood of Christ can redeem us from all iniquity and purify us and make us clean and holy. Sanctification is exclusively a work of God through the Spirit. When we come to God we have nothing to offer in the way of righteousness. We can only plead the blood!

For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Thus we see that the perfecting of the conscience is not something we can do. It cannot be progressive because the blood of Jesus cannot be gradually applied. When he cleanses us, he cleanses us from ALL sin. Notice how that John ties the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing from sin together. Not only are we forgiven, but we are also cleansed. When does this take place? When we walk in the light and confess our sins!

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I have never read a book on theology purporting to explain the plan of salvation that did not place justification as the initial phase of redemption. Justification is then followed by sanctification, either as a progressive work continuing throughout life or as a second work of grace that finds fulfillment in an experience sometime after justification. However the Bible does not present sanctification this way. The Bible places justification after sanctification. In fact sanctification is what justifies a person before God. The Bible order is plain and simple, first we are washed. This is what sanctifies us. Then being sanctified, we stand before God justified.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would appear that most teachers and preacher have accepted the theologians explanation of justification and sanctification without question. What these theologians fail to recognize is that there is only one offering for sin. Christ offered himself once for all and there is only ONE sacrifice for sins. There is not one sacrifice for forgiveness and another sacrifice for sanctification. Now where remission, and the word remission means forgiveness (remission is translated from the same Greek word as forgiveness), of our sins is, there is no more offering for sin.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

If you could, just pause and consider the significance of the above scripture and let it sink deep into your heart!!! Try not to defend a position just because this is what we have believed all of your life. We can see that there is no offering for sin AFTER remission. If sanctification does not take place at remission, then there is no sacrifice provided for it. The writer of Hebrews bases his exposition of sanctification as a finished work on the exegesis of Jeremiah 31:33-34. The believer stands perfect forever in relation to his past sins which have been forgiven, because "...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

What if someone sins after being forgiven? If a person sins after he has been forgiven then he becomes defiled again and must get forgiveness for the new sins he has committed by confessing his sins and being cleansed from them "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9). This is why Jesus taught us to pray, "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name... Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors... " (Matt 6:9).

Jesus Christ is a propitiation for our sins who are in the church as well as the sins of those who are in the world. John exhorts us not to sin, but if we do sin, there is a provision made for us in the blood of Jesus Christ to have our sins forgiven. Thus we can remain in a state of sanctification if we stay under the blood of the covenant.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints...

Where does the ministry figure in sanctification and the perfecting of the conscience? First we must realize that this is not what Paul was speaking of when he said the offices of the ministry were given for the "perfecting of the saints." in Ephesians 4:12. This perfecting of the saints takes place after one becomes a saint. Sanctification is what makes a person a saint. The purpose of the ministry in this initial phase of the gospel is to turn men from darkness to God, in order for them to walk in the light and receive the forgiveness of sins and become saints, or sanctified ones.

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

It is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ" that brings men out of darkness. So the first job of the ministry is the preaching of the gospel. Jesus in praying for his disciples to be sanctified said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17). God freely forgives our sins, but only upon repentance. Some say the moment we believe then we are justified. While it is true that we must believe, there has to be enough of the truth believed to work conversion in us. At one point in Jesus' ministry there were a number of people that believed on him, but he tells them to continue in his word until they know the truth, and the truth will make them free.

As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

It is when men hear the truth and respond to it by obeying the gospel that God sanctifies them and sets them free from sin. Too often men have an historical belief in Jesus or even a philosophical belief in him, and are never truly converted. This is evidenced by the lives they live. They continue to live sinful lives, and there is no change made in them or the way they live. I have known of people even joining a church, and being baptized, going through the rituals of the church they joined, and yet through all of this they may have believed on Jesus, but they did not receive and believe enough truth to convert them. Paul asks, "...Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid...." (Rom 6:1-2). Conversion is not a judicial act of God that has no effect on a person. Conversion brings about a change in attitude and life style. Without this change, a person is not truly converted and hence not truly saved or forgiven from their past sins. In Romans 10:16 Paul defines believing the gospel as obeying the gospel.

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

In sanctification there is two parts, man's part and God's part. Man's part is obedience, and God's part is supplying the grace and the atoning sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ to purge our conscience and cleanse us from sin.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Proverbs shows us how sin is dealt with and the responsibility that is placed on God, on the preacher and on the sinner. God provides the mercy by providing the sacrifice of his son. God also calls men to preach this message of his son to the world. This is God's part. No one else can do this. Without this none of the rest is possible. Then it is the minister's job to make the truth known by preaching the gospel. Without a preacher, how can they hear? Finally it is the sinner's duty to depart from evil. This is called repentance and conversion. This then brings the forgiveness of God and the sanctification of the believer, changing him from a sinner to a saint. It is the work of God, through the ministry, wrought in the hearts of men, as men hear the word of God and believe it and obey it.

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.

Forgiveness is always contingent upon repentance and conversion. When men repent, God forgives.

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

So far we have been discussing the perfection that is wrought through sanctification of the believer. I hope you have seen that sanctification is an instantaneous work wrought in the heart at conversion that leaves the conscience perfect before God because of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ. I know that I have not dealt adequately with the doctrine of sanctification, but that would require a whole book in itself. I have given some very powerful scriptures, which if considered would adequately prove the point I am trying to make. My main purpose here has been to show the place of the ministry in the sanctification of the believer. His responsibility is to preach the word of the truth of the gospel. (Col 1:5)

For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God; 10 Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?

Perfecting the faith, of course, is the most obvious task of the ministry. The perfecting of our faith means completing or finishing it or giving a full account of it. Here at Thessalonica, to which the above letter was addressed, Paul was forced to leave the city before he had time to present the full implications of the faith. This is evident by the fact that they did not understand that the saints would be resurrected at the coming of Christ. Paul had preached the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and they had received and believed it. (Acts 17:2-3). But they had never understood the implications of Christ's resurrection for the believer. We do not know how long Paul was at Thessalonica. It could have been as short as three weeks or as long as six months. But even six months is not a very long time to establish a church and teach the doctrines of the Christian faith. His stay was probably around three months.

An important thing we can learn from this letter, is that a person can be a Christian without having a full knowledge of the gospel. These people in Thessalonica were the elect of God (1Thess. 1:4); they had received the word of God (1Thess. 213); they had turned from idols to serve the living and true God (1Thess. 1:9), but there are many important things in the gospel that they did not understand. They had the basic things to start. In order to be saved there are some basic things that must be believed. These constitute the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. A person may know very little doctrine when he gets saved, but he must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is what it means to confess Jesus as Lord. And he must believe that God raised him from the dead. I give these scriptures in both the KJV and the NIV.

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (NIV)

This faith makes a person a Christian. It takes something more than this to make a person a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Catholic, or any of the other various sects and denominations. If a person holds fast to this faith and joins a sect, he then becomes a Baptist, Methodist, etc. in addition to being a Christian. This is why a person can be a Christian and still belong to one of the various denominations, none of which are right, because denominationalism or sectarianism itself is wrong, and all denominations propagate false doctrine. While we cannot fellowship sectarianism, we still accept those people as Christians upon the profession of their faith. Jesus still recognized the church at Pergamos as holding to his faith, even though they had false doctrine!

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; 13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

When a person starts as a Christian there may be many things in the gospel that he is ignorant of. He may still believe teachings from his past that are contrary to sound doctrine or he may acquire false doctrine from teachers after he believes in Christ. This may not mean he ceases to be a Christian or is not sincere. However, false doctrine will lead to false practice, which at best will hinder a person's growth in Christ and at worse will cause that person to be lost. This is why Paul was so anxious to get back to Thessalonica to establish them in the faith. It was so important to Paul, that he was praying night and day to be able to return to them in order that he might perfect their faith.

Any preacher or any church that propagates false doctrine, places the saints in jeopardy. This is why it is so important for a preacher to be sure he is preaching the right thing. Too many preachers just assume that because this is the way our group believes, it must be right, instead of studying to make sure they are preaching the truth. When preachers preach false doctrine they do not perfect that which is lacking in a new converts faith, instead, they may be overthrowing it. The words of a preacher who preaches false doctrine may seem harmless at first, but it will slowly eat away like gangrene until faith is overthrown instead of established.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The church at Thessalonica did not understand the resurrection, and Paul was wanting to perfect that which was lacking in their faith. Even though they didn't have all the truth, Paul was moving them forward toward completion or perfecting that which was lacking. Those under the influence of Hymenaeus and Philetus were leaving the truth on the resurrection, they were going away from the truth. There is a difference in those who have never had proper teaching to perfect their faith, and those who have had the truth, but under the influence of false doctrine, leave the truth. This is departing from the faith. These that Paul mentions to Timothy were not people who backslide and went back into the world. These were people who continued to teach and preach, but instead of preaching the doctrine of Christ, they preached the doctrines of devils.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is one thing not to have had the opportunity to know the truth and another thing to hear the truth and then reject it or resist it. This makes a person reprobate concerning the faith. So to continue in the faith and perfect that which is lacking in our faith requires hearing the truth of the word of God and believing and accepting it.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Hymenaeus was one of those who concerning faith made shipwreck, not only for himself, but by continuing to preach and to teach his false doctrine he overthrew the faith of others. Paul tells Timothy to hold fast to faith and a good conscience. The perfection of the conscience gives one a good conscience, and the perfecting of faith, establishes one in the faith. These are the two objects of perfection we have discussed so far. Hymenaeus left the faith and he seared his conscience. What hope of salvation could such a one have? Timothy, on the other hand, was holding the faith and a good conscience and Paul was able to send him to establish a young church in that same faith by leading them onward and forward.

This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

God can "present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel..." (Col 1:22-23) This continuing in the faith will allow you to grow up in Christ, and this brings us to our next object of perfection, Christian growth.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting (katartismos) of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect (teleios) man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Now we come to the perfecting of the saints. We have seen that it takes sanctification to make a believer into a saint. Sanctification is the perfecting of the conscience. This perfection is wrought instantaneously by the blood of Jesus Christ upon conversion. After a believer becomes a saint, he must go on to the perfection of growth until he reaches maturity or full manhood, which is what a perfect man means. If you will remember, the word perfect (teleios) means completeness, fulfillment, or reaching an appointed end or goal. What is the appointed end or goal of growth? Is it not maturity or reaching full age? Physically and naturally a person is born as a babe, he progresses through youth until he reaches full age, which is full growth or maturity. This last stage is teleios, perfection, having attained the full limits of stature, strength, and mental power.

If the object of perfection here is growth, then reaching this kind of perfection would require development and time. It is not instantaneous or immediate. It is progressive. It is a goal that one moves toward day by day, as a person grows. This is true whether we are referring to growth in the natural or growth in the spiritual, for the same can be said of a Christian in regard to his spiritual growth (verse 15). He starts out as a newborn babe and, like a baby, should begin to drink the milk of the word, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" (1Pet. 2:2).

The perfect man is the full grown man, one that has reached his full height or stature. The spiritual stature of maturity is measured by the stature of Christ (verse 13). This is not referring to Christ's physical stature. It doesn't matter if a person is physically short or tall. This is measuring up to Christ's spiritual stature. I can remember as a child my mother making a mark on the wall to measure my height and that of my younger brother. Then periodically she could do it again and we could see how our stature was increasing. When we reach the full height of our stature we have come to the appointed end or goal of growth. This is teleios, perfection. The stature we are to reach is that of Christ. We need to put a mark on the wall where Christ stands and then every so often put a mark on the wall measuring our height and see if we are growing toward the fulness of Christ's stature.

Now, what part does the ministry play in this perfection of growth, in bringing the Christian to maturity or full age? In describing the part that the apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers were given for the "perfecting of the saints", Paul uses a different Greek word for "perfecting". The word "perfecting" here is translated from the Greek word katartismos (kat-ar-tis-mos'). Paul uses both teleios and katartismos in the passage given above from Eph 4:11-13. God gave "apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers for the perfecting (katartismos) of the saints ... Till we all come ... unto a perfect (teleios) man ..."

Katartismos has a different meaning than teleios. Katartismos is derived from artios (ar'-tee-os). Artios means fit or fitted in the sense of being entirely suited. When the preposition kata is added to artizo forming katartismos it intensifies the meaning. In Greek, prepositions are often prefixed to words to intensify the meaning of the original word. Thus katartizo (kat-ar-tid'-zo), the verb form of katartismos, means to fit completely or to adjust (make fit) thoroughly, hence it has the meaning of completely equipping or preparing. the term is used in the gospels where the disciples were mending (katartizo) their nets. (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19.) That is to say, they were making their nets completely fit or thoroughly prepared to catch fish.

Thus we see that in order for the saints to come to maturity or full growth, (perfection), the ministry must fully equip or thoroughly adjust, (perfecting) them. The ministry does this through the word of God. The minister uses the word of God to reprove, correct, and instruct the Christian, making them "outfitted" for all good works.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, (artios) throughly furnished (exartizo) unto all good works.

Exartizo (ex-ar-tid'-zo) is another word in the same word family as katartismos, in which the preposition ex, which means "out" is added to the root word, artios, giving the meaning of "outfitted". It is translated "throughly furnished" here in 1Tim 3:17 where it is used in connection with artios, which is here translated "perfect". This is the only place that artios is used in the New Testament and one of the two places that exartizo is used.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 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; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

The preacher not only reproves the Christian when he does wrong, but he takes the word of God and shows him the correct way and instructs him is righteousness. This is the same way we do our children as they grow up. This is part of growing up, and a very necessary part, if our children are to grow up to be responsible adults. As Proverbs says "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." (Prov. 29:15). this is true in the spiritual as well as the natural. This why the metaphor of growth is used by Paul and other Bible writers to describe the Christian's progress.

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. 13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

When growing up in our natural life there are various stages of development which are recognizable and have certain characteristics. In the natural it is easy to tell a little child from a young man or an adult. In a normal human being you can discern this by simply looking at their physical development. In spiritual growth there are also various recognizable stages of development. The difference in the natural and the spiritual is that naturally a person just keeps growing whether or not he develops mentally and socially. A person does not stay a baby, because his body just keeps growing. This is not true spiritually. A person can remain a spiritual babe until the day he dies.

As an earlier stage of spiritual development, John speaks of little children. The positive characteristics of little children in the spiritual is that their sins have been forgiven. This means they are sanctified. Also, as any baby in the natural, they have become acquainted with their father. Father and mother are usually the first people that a baby learns to recognize. But besides the positive aspects of little children there are also some negative aspects of being a little child.

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

The negative side of being a child is that a child is gullible. A child believes almost anything you tell it. Children believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and a multitude of other fairy tales that their parents and other adults tell them. It is the same with people who are children spiritually. They are easily convinced by every new doctrine that comes along. When you see people that are constantly changing their doctrine, and by changing I don't mean increasing in the knowledge of the truth, but just believing the last thing they heard, without investigating or inquiring whether it is scriptural or not, then you know those people are still children. God wants us to grow up to where we are not carried about by every wind of doctrine.

Another characteristic of children is instability. People who go from church to church, and never settle down and get under the burden of a local assembly are still children. They are like natural children who hate chores and want to play. And like children who soon tire of playing with one toy and want another, so these people are always seeking something new. They are never satisfied. When you see people who are constantly running here and there, it is a sign that they are children. You can never build a church with people who are children. Of course a church needs children and new babes should be born in it all the time, but there must be enough spiritually mature saints to take care of the children, or like natural children, they will soon perish. If a church is predominately children, the church will be a playground rather than the house of God. Thus we can see the importance of saints growing up. An assembly whose members are children is an assembly with no stability.

Perhaps we should make a distinction between the children and the babes in Christ. The chief characteristic of babes is carnality. Carnality manifests itself with such things as envy, strife, and division. People who nit-pick and belittle others are usually motivated by envy, and are trying to make themselves look good by making others look bad. If you find yourself resenting the good fortune of others, you are envious, and you are still a babe. When you see people continually bickering or an assembly torn with party spirits and different cliques, you know this is a congregation full of spiritual babies.

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for their lack of spirituality, making reference to the milk of the word that he has had to continue to give them, because they had not grown to the point they could handle meat. In many churches the minister is no more than a referee trying to keep peace between the various warring factions in his congregation. This is a horror to any preacher, and a snare to the Christian witness. This is the reason that it is so important to advance beyond this baby stage.

Milk is good, and as Peter says, newborn babes need milk to grow. (1Pet 2:2) We are not doing away with the milk, but we should grow to the place that we can handle more than milk. Those who use milk are unskillful in the word of God. It doesn't matter how long a person has been saved, if they are still on the bottle, they are still a babe. One old brother said, "Its a shame when you have to part their whiskers to give them a bottle.

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age (teleios), even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection (teleiotes); not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.

"Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age." The Greek word translated "full age" here is (teleios) perfect. If you have a center column reference Bible you will see a little number by "full age". In the margin by this number you will find the word "perfect". Full age means perfect, because full age is the completion, end, or fullness of growth. So strong meat belongs to them that are perfect, those who have grown up.

The strong meat is the deeper things of God. The milk of the word is the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, but most Christians today have only a slight knowledge of these fundamental principles. I would venture to say that most Christians could not even name these six principles, much less explain them. If these principles are the milk of the word, then we would have to say that many congregations are only getting skim milk, for they don't even know the principles. They used to call skim milk blue John. You could never fatten a baby on blue John.

Perpetual babyhood seems to be the predominant characteristic of modern Christianity. Carnality fills our churches and the people have very little knowledge of the word of God. Carnal Christians, who are babes in Christ, should lay aside their carnal habits and manners and began to earnestly desire the word of God. The only way that Christians can advance beyond the baby stage of carnality, with its envy and strife is for the preachers to begin to feed them with whole milk, and then with strong meat.

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

If Christians will began to earnestly eat the word of God, it won't be long until they will become "young men" able to overcome the devil. John said, "... I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one." (1 John 2:14). Young men are those who advance beyond the "little children" stage. No wonder most Christians are too weak to overcome the devil. They fail to get enough of the word of God to resist the devil. Those who really want to overcome, have got to get serious with God and desire his word more than their necessary food as Job did, "...I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." (Job 23:12)

God cannot teach us the deeper things of God as long as all we can handle is the milk of the word. The more we know of the word of God and the deeper we go in the knowledge of the Son of God, the closer we can come to the stature of Christ, which is perfection. The holy scriptures "...are able to make thee wise unto salvation..." (2 Tim 3:15). God desires to teach us knowledge and wisdom from his word. The strong meat of the word is the wisdom of God.

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

Philosophers and theologians could perhaps spend a great deal of time debating what wisdom is. They would probably all agree that the basic meaning of wisdom is knowledge, insight, or judgment, and then argue about the finer points of what wisdom is exactly. For a man to have true wisdom in the Biblical sense, means a man has insight into the will of God. The great value and premium placed on wisdom in the Bible issues from what wisdom can do for him that has it. It will deliver to him a crown of glory.

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. 8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. 9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

This crown of glory will be given to us when the chief shepherd appears (1Pet 5:4). Remember the parable of the ten virgins. Five were wise and five were foolish. The wise went in to the marriage supper and the foolish were shut outside (Matt 25:1-13). In order for us to go on to perfection we must be taught in the wisdom of God, so that we can know and do the will of God. No wonder Moses prayed, "So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." (Psa 90:12). We have only a few days of mortal life allotted to us, but a vast eternity stretches before us. We should not waste our days in trivial pursuits, but seek after wisdom, for wisdom is a tree of life. We can live forever, if we don't squander the time we have now.

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

The cry and desire of every Christian should be to be filled with the knowledge of God's will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. It is only through wisdom that we can understand what God wants of us, because wisdom gives us insight into the will of God. If we are to please God, then we must know God's will! By doing God's will we walk worthy of him.

For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Without doing all of the will of God, we can never be considered perfect or complete in Christ. And you cannot do the will of God if you do not know the will of God. So the first thing we need is a ministry that can teach us in all wisdom which gives us insight or knowledge of the will of God. We need men like the apostle Paul, who knew that in order to present every man perfect in Christ, he must teach every man in all wisdom.

Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect (teleios) in Christ Jesus:

Secondly, we ourselves must have a heart that is open and a spirit that is humble enough to receive this wisdom. Finally we must have the resolve and strengthening of the inner man by the Spirit of God to do his will, after we have heard it (Eph 3:16). Every step here is miraculous and beyond the ability of the natural man. No wonder Epaphras was praying earnestly for the Colossians that they might be perfect and complete in all the will of God.

Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect (teleios) and complete in all the will of God.

It is easy to see why that wisdom which is from above will make a man perfect and complete in all the will of God. Unlike the babes in Christ where there is envying and strife, those who grow up, or go on to perfection, manifest peace, mercy, gentleness, and all the good fruits that make us measure up to the stature of the fulness of Christ.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

The wisdom of God, then, is that strong meat that belongs to them who are of full age. It should be the goal of every babe in Christ to grow up and increase in spiritual stature until he manifests these wonderful attributes of the wisdom of God. As you can see the wisdom of God is quite different than the wisdom of the world. The wisdom of God is not being crafty or cunning. Often men who can manipulate and maneuver other men are considered wise. This is not the wisdom of God. If you react to a situation with the wisdom of God, you might be thought a fool by the world. The wisdom of God is not how clever or ingenious a person is. The wisdom of God is knowing and doing the will of God. The criteria for discerning the wisdom of God are these attributes named by James. These are the things that distinguish a babe in Christ from one who has matured to the meat of the word of God.

When we think of wisdom, we often think of it as a quality that cannot be taught, but can only be acquired by age and experience. This would seem natural, but alas, this is not always the case. Many men are old, and foolish.

I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. 9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.

It is the inspiration of God that gives understanding, not old age. The only advantage an older person has, is that he has had more time to study the scriptures, and put them into practice, for it is the scriptures which are given by inspiration of God. If a person who is young in age will attend to the word of God, that young person will advance beyond his elders. It is the inspired scriptures that makes us wise concerning salvation. To find true wisdom we should ask of God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

God gives us wisdom, but few understand how God gives wisdom. Often you hear people talk as if God must push a little button in your mind or turn a little knob in your brain before you can understand or have wisdom. They think that somehow you can go to the altar a dummy, and if you pray just right, you can come up a mental giant. I will not say that this could not happen, God is a God of miracles, but the normal and usual way that God gives us wisdom is in the form of words that come from his mouth.

For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

To gain this wisdom we must then hear with our ears. This is why though out the Bible we are exhorted over and over to listen, to hear, to pay attention to what God is saying. You can not gain insight into the will of God by ignoring the word of God. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). We must HEAR what God is saying.

But it must not stop at our ears. It must enter into our heart. The word of God is not a mental exercise, or something to excite our desire for mystical knowledge. It is not something men should read or study in order to argue and debate. We must apply our hearts to wisdom. Wisdom is not intellectual gymnastics; it is practical and affects the way we live!

When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; 11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

So we see that wisdom is taught from the word of God. Those who understand the word of God are those who have wisdom. If a preacher would teach wisdom, he must teach the word of God.

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

When we start studying the word of God we soon find we are faced with a tremendous problem. We find the Bible is a sealed book full of mysteries that we can't understand. Like any other field of knowledge we need a teacher to help us. This is where the ministry comes in. God calls men to preach the word of God to men and open their understanding to the will of God.

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver, to one that is LEARNED, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot, for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Reading and studying the Bible and being able to quote scriptures on various subjects does not mean that one understands the scriptures. The Bible is written in such a way that men are totally dependent upon God to reveal its meaning to them. The Bible is as a sealed book. Even though we have the will of God written for us in the scriptures, the scriptures are written in such a way that the natural man with all his learning and education just can't decipher what God has hid in them. He hid it from the "wise and prudent", not just the fools and ignorant. This is another fact that the denominational churches, with their Bible schools and seminaries, do not comprehend. If one could understand the Bible by reading and studying it, then why are there so many different opinions and interpretations of it? Each denomination and sect has its own version of what the Bible teaches. Paul said some were "Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7).

So learning does not insure the knowledge of the truth. Neither being learned nor unlearned, as far as the world is concerned, gives one the knowledge of the word of God. I do not mean to put a premium on ignorance. Every one should try to learn as much as possible about as many subjects as possible. History, science, languages, and other disciplines are all important subjects and we should know as much as we can about them all. Learning has its place, but learning alone does not insure one of the knowledge of spiritual TRUTH. But neither does being ignorant give one insight into the truth of God. The truth of God must come by revelation from God. The Bible is written in a way that confuses and confounds the mind of man. The truth is actually "hidden" in the Bible so that a man cannot understand it without the help of God. It is HID and it must be REVEALED!!!

The danger comes when man thinks that he can understand the word of God through his education and learning. Paul said that by wisdom the world knew not God. As the philosophers and wise men tried to figure out the things of God they actually went into more ignorance and greater darkness. Paul said they "...became vain in their imaginations, (Gr. reasonings) and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:21-22). Finally God says he will destroy the wisdom of this world. When we speak of wisdom we must always distinguish between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 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; 28 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: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ we see the wisdom of God. But all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in a mystery in Christ. Only as God reveals these things to us can we know them. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29)

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Because the wisdom of God is hidden in a mystery and men cannot understand it, those who are unlearned will twist or wrest the scriptures by changing their meaning to fit their own theories.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Those who change the meaning of the scriptures to fit their own fancy, corrupt the word of God and pervert the Gospel. What a responsibility is laid upon those who presume to teach the word of God! No wonder James said, " My brethren, be not many masters [teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." (Jam 3:1) Every man who would handle the word of God should realize that it is not they alone who stand in jeopardy, but they can speak "words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." (2 Tim 2:14).

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

This is why Jesus placed apostles in the church to represent him, and instructed them in the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Matt 13:10-17). And after Jesus returned to heaven he sent the Holy Ghost to continue instructing them in the mysteries of God through the gift of the word of wisdom. This gift would enable them to interpret the word of God and discern the wisdom of God that is hidden in the mysteries of God. This is why it is called the gift of the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom gives the apostle the ability to know the hidden wisdom of God, and understand the mysteries of God. Thus the apostle is made a steward of the mysteries of God.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

As a steward of the mysteries of God, an apostle is entrusted with the mysteries of God and it was his responsibility to dispense the knowledge or understanding of these mysteries to the saints. This is why Paul asked the saints to pray for him that a door would be opened that he might speak the mystery of Christ. This was Paul's stewardship and he was accountable for how he administered his stewardship. What an awesome responsibility! No wonder he asked for prayer.

Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: 4 That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

In order to make these wonderful mysteries known to the saints, Paul had to teach them in all wisdom. Thus we see the operation of the word of wisdom.

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation [Gr. stewardship] of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

The word dispensation is from the Greek word oikonomia (oy-kon-om-ee'-ah). It means stewardship and is translated stewardship three times, but it is also translated dispensation four times. This is the cause of some confusion because dispensation has come to mean something quite different from stewardship. However as you can see the word dispensation, contains the concept of dispensing. To dispense is to give out or distribute. It would be good for you to reread the section on stewardship on pages 25-28. Paul's stewardship was of the mysteries of God. The will of God is hidden in these mysteries (Eph 1:9). When Paul teaches the wisdom of God he makes these mysteries known and thereby makes the will of God known.

Without knowing the will of God we cannot go on to perfection. As Paul said. "...that ye may stand perfect (teleios) and complete in all the will of God." (Col 4:12). This is why it is so important to understand these mysteries, because they reveal the will of God. And this is why the office of an apostle, as one who can reveal these mysteries, is so important for our day, if the church is to go on to that perfection to which God has called it.

Notice the word "working" in verse 29. The word translated "working" here is the Greek word energeia: "according to his working (energeia), which worketh in me mightily" (Col 1:29). Energeia (en-erg'-i-ah), energema (en-erg'-ay-mah) and the verb form energeo (en-erg-eh'-o) are the words from which we get our English word "energy." We have already dealt with these words on pages 22-23 of this treatise, but they are so important for understanding the relationship of the particular gifts with the particular offices of the ministry that I will mention them again. These words are usually translated "working" or "effectual working," or variations of these. In 1 Cor 12:6 energema is translated "operations."

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. And there are diversities of operations (energema), but it is the same God which worketh (energeo) all in all.

This scripture shows us that for each different gift of the Spirit, there is a different ministry that operates or "works" in a different manner. To the Ephesians Paul says he has a stewardship or dispensation in which his ministry is the office of an apostle. This ministry is according to a gift in which the Spirit gives him revelation of the mystery of Christ. This was by the "effectual working" or operation of the gift in his office. The gift "works" to make him effective in his particular office. To understand the wisdom which is hid in a mystery requires the gift of the word of wisdom.

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working [energeo] of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

From this we can see that there was something working in Paul's life that produced the ministry of an apostle in him. That ministry was one of revelation wrought by the power of the Spirit of God. Paul then became a minister who was to fulfill his stewardship by preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ and making the mysteries of the gospel know. Further we will find that the same gift that worked in Paul's ministry, also worked in the ministry of the apostle Peter, the only difference being that Peter's ministry was to be among the circumcision or Jews, while Paul's ministry was to be among the Gentiles.

(For he that wrought effectually (energeo) in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty (energeo) in me toward the Gentiles:)

What could be clearer than these scriptures. The same gift of the Spirit was working in the ministry of both of these apostles. It was this gift of the word of wisdom which worked in Peter to the apostleship of the Jews, and the SAME gift that worked in Paul for the apostleship of the Gentiles. That gift was the Holy Ghost teaching them wisdom. Not only them but Paul mentions other apostles, as James, John and Barnabas, who also had received the same grace.

We do not mean to imply that Paul or Peter or any of the apostles had only one gift. We are merely trying to discover what gift is particular to the office of the apostle. In other words an apostle may have the gifts of healing, but so may an evangelist or a pastor or any one of a number of other offices. The same may be said of some of the other gifts. Philip the evangelist healed the sick, cast out devils, and did miracles (Acts 8:6-8). But there should be one particular gift that distinguishes the office of an apostle from all the other ministries. That particular gift is the gift of the word of wisdom that opens to them the mysteries of God so that they can make the will of God known in order that the saints can go on to perfection!

Someone may reply, "you say a lot about perfection, but you never tell us how to be perfect." Exactly!!! I could not tell you how to be perfect within the confines of this treatise. What I am doing here is laying out the order of God that it takes to bring the church to perfection. The saints must sit under the preaching and teaching of gifted men of God who can reveal to them the hidden wisdom of God, and give them an understanding of the will of God. This is either an apostle or one who has been taught the wisdom of God by an apostle. Once an apostle imparts the understanding of a mystery to other gifted ministers, they then hold that mystery and can teach it.

While the apostle is the first or primary office in the church because he is the representative of Jesus Christ in the earth, it is evident that there were to be other men whom God would appoint to help the apostles. These offices were to be in addition to the prophet. The prophet, as we have seen, was an office under the direct power of the Spirit, and as such had revelation from the Spirit just as the apostle. However we also saw that by the very nature of his office, the prophet was secondary. A prophet is not a ruling office or one to decide the doctrine of the church. Instead we find the office of the teacher associated with the apostle in ruling the church.

To fulfill his ministry as a steward of the mysteries of God, Paul had to dispense the knowledge and wisdom he had obtained by opening his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel. His calling was to give men an understanding of the word of God, but there are two things that are required to understand the word of God. Because the wisdom of God is hidden in a mystery, the first thing that is required is on God's part. God must give the revelation. God does this through his ministers, as they preach and teach the word of God. But it also requires something on our part. Paul told Timothy to "consider" what he said. This shows us that no matter how great the revelation we are hearing from God, if we do not have an open heart to consider what is being said, we will never get an understanding of God's revelation.

People are constantly saying that their hearts are open, but they never consider what is being said, especially if it contradicts what they already believe. They say that God will have to show them, but God can't show them because their hearts are hardened. What they don't understand is that unless their hearts are ready to consider what the Lord is saying they will never get it. God often chooses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and most men have their minds made up that it must come through a certain channel or they will not receive it. They are like the Pharisees who responded concerning Jesus "Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:47-48). They were so busy looking around at how others were responding, that they could not even consider that this might indeed be the very Christ.

Probably the greatest single detriment to people receiving new truth from God is tradition. There is something about the human being that wants to hold on to that with which he is familiar. We would rather have our old familiar customs and ways of looking at things, then have to adjust to something new and maybe uncomfortable. Jesus was in a constant battle with the tradition of the elders. The Jewish leaders could not receive what he had from God because it conflicted with their tradition. Peter called it a "vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers." (1 Pet 1:18) We should examine everything that has been handed down to us and receive it only after careful consideration. Just because it is a tradition does not mean it is found in the word of God. We all should examine what we have received from tradition and consider whether it is actually found in the word of God, or is it man's tradition? Paul said, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21).

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Jesus even had a hard time with his most faithful apostles when some of the things he was giving them contradicted what they had been taught all of their lives. The Jews of Christ's day could only see part of the prophecies in the Old Testament. They saw where the Messiah would come in glory and Israel would then be exalted and rule over the Gentile nations. But they could not see that Christ would be crucified. To them this was a great stumbling block. So ingrained was this teaching in the Jewish people that when Jesus told the disciples that this was going to happen to him, Peter began to rebuke him declaring that such a thing would never happen. (Matt 16:21-23). Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, and over and over he tried to tell his disciples what was going to happen to him. They never could receive it because the teachings they had received all of their lives would not let them. The result was that when he was finally arrested and crucified they were totally unprepared for it.

If they would have accepted what he said concerning his death, they could also have accepted what he always told them in connection with his death, that he would also resurrect. Therefore the resurrection was also something they had not expected. When he appeared to them he "...upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." (Mark 16:14) Unbelief and hardness of heart keep men from considering. In Mark 8:17-18 he is dealing with a different subject, but the principle is the same. When men harden their hearts, they may have eyes but they cannot see and ears but they cannot hear.

And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Sometimes men will not hear what God is saying until something shakes them up. Often men will not listen to the voice of God till they are driven to death's door. Or until some great tragedy overtakes them. Our nation may not hear the gospel message en masse until we have another great depression or until our country is invaded by foreign troops. With the disciples it was the death of Christ. This totally unnerved them. Now they were ready to listen to what he had to say. He was not saying something different. It was the same message that he had told them again and again. The message was the same, but the ones hearing the message were different. Now they were ready to listen to the message. First he meets two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He begins to chat with them, next he scolds them, finally he begins to expound to them the scriptures.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The thing that is so beautiful in this whole episode is their response. Notice they didn't know at this time that it was Jesus speaking. They thought it was a stranger. They were not responding because it was Jesus who was speaking. They were responding to his expounding the word of God. He was putting the scriptures together in such a way that their receptive hearts were understanding them. His preaching was the same, but now their hearts were open!

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Later that evening he appears to the others, and likewise expounds to them also the same scriptures. Notice the wording this time. In the first passage it says he opened to them the scriptures. In the second passage it says he opened their understanding. The meaning is the same. When the scriptures are opened to you, you understand. When your understanding is opened, the scriptures are understood. This is merely two ways of saying the same thing.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

And how did Jesus open their understanding? Did he do it by some mysterious force working in their mind? No! He opened their understanding by expounding the scriptures to them. As we have seen, wisdom can be taught, but in spite of how much has been taught or how great the teacher or preacher, understanding only comes when the heart is receptive and will consider what is being said. Only then can God give us understanding, but still the understanding comes from the scriptures being put together and expounded properly.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Paul used the same method as Jesus to give men an understanding of the word of God. He expounded the scriptures to them, going through all the Bible and putting the scriptures together in a way that gives understanding.

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

Too often preachers try to explain the scriptures rather than expound them. Usually when men give an interpretation of the scriptures they change the meaning of them. They forget that Peter said "... no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Pet 1:20) Private interpretations do not give an understanding of the word of God, but they twist and pervert the meaning and result in false doctrine. The preacher's job is not to give a private interpretation, but to put the scriptures together in such a way that they interpret themselves. He must do this because the scriptures are not written in a straightforward manner like a book on systematic theology with various subjects explained under the appropriate headings. The scriptures are like a puzzle, which require a minister with understanding to put the various pieces together in such a way that will give an honest and good heart an understanding. The preacher expounds the scriptures by taking a little from here and a little from there. As he adds line upon line and precept upon precept, those with open hearts gain an understanding of the knowledge of God.

However the very principle that gives understanding to an open and honest heart, is the same principle that hides the truth from those who will not humble themselves and believe the word of God. Isaiah goes on to say:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken and snared, and taken.

Thus we see from this scripture that the word of God was written in a way that some would be taught and come to knowledge and understanding, while others would be confused and confounded, because of the way it is way it is written and the condition of their heart.

It is the preacher's job to put the pieces of the puzzle together to form a picture that God intended. It is not his place to whittle away at the pieces to make them fit the picture he already has in mind. Nor should he have a lot of extra pieces left when he gets finished. Every scripture has its proper place and must fit into the picture somewhere. Too many preachers explain their doctrine in a way that sounds pretty good, however they often leave out a lot of scriptures that would change the picture completely. Our doctrine must fit the word of God, and not make the word of God fit our doctrine. And we must deal honestly with every scripture. We cannot sidestep, skirt around or ignore any of the word of God. Every scripture must fit someplace and it is the preacher's job to fit it in.

This is why we must have a ministry that has been taught in the word of God and can expound the scriptures to give the true meaning and understanding. Then every man who hears that ministry must have a good and honest heart, willing to accept and believe the truth as it is preached. Paul taught the word of God appealing to men's conscience to honestly consider what he was preaching. How can anyone in good conscience hear the word of God and not even consider what is being said. God will open your understanding through the preaching of the word.

Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

After the apostles and prophets, the other offices in the church were instituted as the need arose. This was foreshadowed by Jesus sending out the seventy (Luke 10:1-20), however the seventy held no official position in the church when it was inaugurated. When the need did arise for helpers, it was to supervise the distribution of food because certain widows had been neglected. To this office the apostles appointed seven men. The word translated "appoint" with reference to the seven is the same Greek word translated "ordain" in Titus 1:5, where Paul told Titus to ordain elders in every city.

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (diakonia) 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve (diakoneo) tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry (diakonia) of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

What exactly is this office to which the seven were appointed or ordained? Because the Greek words diakonia and diakoneo are used to describe the activity for which they were appointed, most denominations feel this was the establishment of the office of deacon. But this very same word, diakonia, is used in this passage with respect to the activity of the apostles, which was preaching the word of God. The seven were not appointed to some menial task or subservient position, but were placed in authority and ordained over the work to see that it was done properly and nobody was neglected. These men were to take the oversight of the Jerusalem assembly to relieve the apostles from certain phases of pastoral work so that the apostles could spend their full time in prayer and preaching the word.

The apostles then laid their hands on them to show a transference of some of their honor and authority to the seven. Although the seven are not called elders here, perhaps that particular designation for this office in the ministry did not come into use until later. The Greek word translated elder in the KJV is presbuteros (pres-boo'-ter-os). Presbuterion (pres-boo-ter'-ee-on), the Greek word referring to the collective body of elders is translated elders, estate of elders, and presbytery. The basic meaning of this word is senior, older or more advanced in years. Based upon the Jewish respect of age, the term also became an appellation of dignity. In the natural this would be chronological age, but in the spiritual it would refer to those who have grown up in Christ regardless of their chronological age. In the church it referred to those who had reached maturity in Christ and were given the responsibility of caring for the others. Later in the Book of Acts it has become the common designation for the ruling body associated with the apostles. The apostles were the first elders in the church of Jerusalem (1 Pet 5:1; 3 John 1), but the seven were to replace them in the local work so that the apostles could be more involved in the general work. We know that the seven were elders by considering the duties to which they were appointed in the beginning and comparing these with the continuing duties of those later designated as elders

In the beginning of the church the financial responsibilities were handled by the apostles. Money was brought to the apostles and distribution of the funds were made as every man had need. At first this worked well, because the apostles were able to handle it.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

But as the work grew the apostles did not have time to attend to this activity as well as taking care of their preaching responsibilities. As a result of this certain people were neglected and this was why the seven were chosen. Although it was a job dealing with the natural needs of God's people, the apostles did not set men over it who were business men or laymen. Almost prophetically when the twelve laid down the qualifications for this office it included being "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom." This did not mean that these men had the gift of the word of wisdom, or that they were well versed in worldly know-how and keen business acumen. It simply meant that they had been taught the wisdom of God under the ministry of the apostles and were well versed in the apostles' doctrine.

Although at first this office was to oversee the work of caring for the natural needs of God's people, we can see that these men were great preachers also, as is evidenced by the careers of Stephen and Philip. So thoroughly had Stephen attended to the teaching of the apostles that his detractors were not able to resist the wisdom that had been planted in his heart by the apostles.

As persecution against the church escalated, the church lost two of the seven. Stephen was killed and Philip escaped to Samaria where he held great revival meetings. Philip never returned to assume his office in Jerusalem, but settled in Caesarea. He was no longer involved in the local work at Jerusalem but became known as a noted evangelist. That does not mean that the work to which he was ordained ceased. No doubt other men took his place, for when the church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Saul with relief for the brethren in Judaea, they did not bring it to the apostles, but carried it to the elders. This shows us that the ones who handled the finances, caring for the distribution of relief, were the elders. Thus we can see that the responsibilities given to the seven are the same as those of an elder.

The larger the churches grew and the more scattered the work became, the greater the responsibility that was placed upon the elders. They not only took care of the financial affairs of the church, but they became guardians of the doctrine as well. It became the duty of the elders to look after the flock, caring for every phase of their lives: physical, mental, and spiritual. The elders became the pastors and teachers of the local assemblies. Their responsibilities are awesome! Not only must they care for the physical and economic well being of the saints who are under their ministry, but they must be able to preach and teach the word of God.

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbuteros) of the church.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episkopos), to feed (poimaino = to pastor) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

When Paul was at Miletus he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church, for what he thought could possibly be his last meeting with them. In this meeting he gives the elders a charge to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them the overseers. Paul says the Holy Ghost made the elders to be the overseers! The Greek word translated overseers here is episkopos (ep-is'-kop-os), the same Greek word that our King James Version elsewhere translates bishop. Episkopos is found five times in the Greek New Testament. The definition of the word is "overseer or superintenden." Some modern translations translate episkopos by "overseer" all five times, but the King James Version translates it "overseer" only one time (Acts 20:28) and bishop the other four times. (Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 2:25).

Bishop would be a good and accurate translation of episkopos, except that most people tend to think of a bishop as a high ranking church official with several churches under his jurisdiction. This idea comes from the development of a hierarchical system of church government that took place within Catholicism after the New Testament era, but it is not true at all of New Testament usage. The New Testament meaning of a bishop is an overseer.

Paul tells the elders (presbuteros) that the Holy Ghost made them the overseers or bishops. This shows us that the elder is not one office and the bishop a separate office. It is the same office. this is further shown by Paul using the terms elder and bishop interchangeably. That which he calls an elder in verse 5, he calls a bishop in verse 7.

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: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Most denominations, following the lead of Catholicism, separate the office of the bishop and the office of an elder into two offices saying the bishop is the higher office and the elder or presbyter is the subordinate office. The Catholics and Episcopalians prefer to call their elders "priests", and the Presbyterians like to call their elders "presbyters." The word "presbyter" is the Anglicized form of the Greek word presbuteros, which is the Greek word translated "elder" in the KJV. And the word "priest" is the shortened form of presbyter. It appears that the denominational leaders prefer to use the terms presbyter or priest rather than the word elder. Perhaps presbyter sounds more impressive and dignified than elder. However elder and presbyter are merely two translations of the same Greek word, and Paul plainly says that the Holy Ghost made the elders (or presbyters if you prefer) to be the bishops.

Furthermore the elders were "to feed" the church. The Greek word translated "to feed" is poimaino (poy-mah'-ee-no) and means to tend as a shepherd. It derives from poimen (poy-mane') the Greek word for shepherd or pastor. Poimen is found in the Greek New Testament eighteen times and is translated "shepherd" in every occurrence except one, where the plural is translated "pastors" (Eph 4:11). If the elders are to feed or to pastor the flock, then the elders would be the pastors. Thus elder (presbyter), overseer (bishop) and shepherd (pastor) are three terms that are applied to the same office.

Peter, like Paul, also tells the elders to feed (poimaino = to pastor) the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof. Taking oversight would make them overseers or bishops. Actually the elders are the under shepherds or under pastors, and Jesus Christ is the chief shepherd. Remember that pastor and shepherd are translations of the same Greek word. The elders were to "pastor" the church. This is why we never read of the pastor of a church in the New Testament. The elders of the New Testament church were the pastors that God promised to raise up and set over his flock.

Thus we see that the elders in the New Testament church were not just old men who were given the title of elder as an honorary designation. An elder in the New Testament church was ordained to the office of a bishop. The word "elder" refers to the man, and the word "bishop" refers to the function or office of that man, and "pastor" is one of his primary duties. The elders or bishops had the full responsibility of taking care of the church of God in every aspect of Christian life.

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Obey them that have the rule 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.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

One of the weighty responsibilities of elders as pastors and overseers is to rule the people of God. There is a crisis in leadership today in every area of our national life. We find it in the political, economic, and educational sectors of our society, as well as the religious. We cannot over emphasize the importance of leadership. As go the leaders, so go the people. It has always been this way.

For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

The times of apostasy in Israel was always when there was a wicked king or a weak king. The natural inclinations of the people is toward anarchy. This is because every man wants to do as he pleases. Nobody likes to be restrained! However, the majority of mankind realize that everybody can't do as he pleases or there would be total chaos. So they are willing to endure certain restraints in order that their neighbor will likewise be restrained. We tolerate a law against stealing because even though it restrains us from stealing, it also keeps our neighbors from stealing from us and thus our possessions are safe.

Once the laws of a society are established, a sword is placed in the hands of authorities to enforce them, and the educational and religious elements of a society are then utilized to instill the particular values of that society into its people. The appeal of the religious and educational institutions is to the conscience of man. The conscience does not inherently know good or evil. It only knows what it has been taught, thus the conscience of man is a powerful psychological tool that a society can manipulate to control its people.

The use of the sword to enforce the laws is a part of a psychological system called "rewards and punishments." Those who obey are rewarded and those who disobey are punished (1Pet 3:13-14). The system of rewards and punishments is also a powerful psychological tool used to manipulate mankind, not only by the governments, but also in the home, in the school, and in the work-place.

These two psychological tools, "rewards and punishments", which operates from without, and the conscience, which operates within, are the primary psychological tools used to bridle and direct the innate propensities of mankind. These are necessary because man's innate desire to please himself produces a natural aversion to anything that would restrain him!

The strong or the cleaver usually get control of the sword, and so most laws of the state are in the interest of the ruling class. This is why it was necessary for God to give Israel his law on the inauguration of the commonwealth of Israel. The law of God is different from the laws of man because the law of God is an expression of the righteousness of God, without regard for the class or social status of anyone. God's law does not favor the rich and powerful above the poor and helpless. God's law is absolute justice.

This does not mean that men will naturally and willingly obey the law of God. Because of the natural inclination of man to resist any restraints imposed upon him, whether by man or God, it is easy for leaders to lead the people into error. The people will gladly follow those who remove both the outward restraints and the inward restraints, and let them have their own way. Leaders can remove the outward restraints by removing laws which restrict behaviour, such as laws against adultery, pornography, or divorce. They can remove the inward restraints through the educational system and by utilizing the religious institutions to instill corrupted or perverted values into the conscience of the people. When the people are freed from these restraints they feel liberated, often celebrating their new found freedom. They do not realize that a corrupted society faces dissolution and that their joy will be short lived.

A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

The religious leaders, the prophets and the priests, are the guardians of the conscience, and when they teach lies and prophesy falsely, they take away the knowledge of God and corrupt the consciences of the people. The priests were the ones entrusted with teaching the law of God and when they were derelict in their duty the people had no guidelines by which to judge right or wrong.

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

Even worse than neglecting the law is when the prophets and priests teach things contrary to the law of God. They justify unlawful deeds by calling them righteous. For example, I was in a church in Kansas City and picked up some literature appealing to Gays and Lesbians. One of these tracts said, "If you are Gay or Lesbian, we are the church for you... God doesn't care whom we love as long as we love." Here is a church advocating a life style that is absolutely contrary to the word of God, which says that "...they which commit such things are worthy of death not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Rom 1:32). The schools and the media have also joined the assault against morality and Christian principles.

The Bible says that they who advocate these things are worthy of death, as well as those who do them. Our society today is filled with teachers and preachers who advocate free sex, gay rights, live-in boy friends and girl friends, all of which is fornication, and a host of other "liberalizing" ideas that they call righteousness. When the preachers and teachers tell them that these things are all right, unless their conscience has already been conditioned by truth, the people will feel a liberalizing sensation that they have been set free from old worn-out traditions and prejudices.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

To advocate Biblical morality and criticize the unlawful deeds that are so prevalent in our society today can land a preacher in jail. And no doubt it is going to get worse, for now some denominations are ordaining professing homosexuals to preach the gospel, and a man's marital status seem to be of little consequence. God will be against our nation as surely as he was against Israel when he sent them into captivity. What scripture describes our society any better than Hosea's diatribe against Israel?

Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. 2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

In spite of man's proclivities toward self gratification and the permissiveness of a society that is pleasure mad, God promised Israel, and thence the world, that he would raise up leaders that would lead his people right, and shepherds that would truly care for the flock and not just fleece the sheep for their own profit. The elders in the church are the shepherds God promised to raise up to feed and care for his people. The Holy Ghost made the elders to be the overseers or bishops of his people, to feed or pastor them.

2 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. 3 And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. 4 And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah says that the flock would not be lacking. The elders must be equipped to take care of all of the needs of God's people. I say again, what an awesome responsibility is placed upon this office of elder and pastor!!! No man should think of this office as "just a pastor" or "just an elder". His qualifications are formidable and his duties are colossal.

In as much as the elder is to rule by example and not as lords over God's heritage, high and exacting qualifications are placed upon those who would rule God's people. A pastor is not just a man that has the ability to talk and excite the people with his words or his personal charm. Nor is it a man who knows how to manage people and is therefore a good administrator. An elder must be a man who walks with God and lives an exemplary life.

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

To be a bishop one must first reach a maturity in God to where he is living a blameless life, totally dedicated to the Lord. He cannot be a man with an unlawful divorce or married wrong. Further, his wife and children must be faithful. How many times do people complain that the preacher's kid is the meanest one in the church? Or how often is his wife the worse gossip in the church? How often is it the pastor's wife who reveals the confidences told to her husband?

A bishop cannot be a boy just out of Bible school, or just learning to preach. That would be a novice. He can't have a bad reputation among the merchants of his community, because he won't pay his bills. How many times has the gospel been slandered because some preacher run up a big bill and then fled to parts unknown? He should not be associated with alcoholic beverages in any way, or be a pill popper. Nor should he run with the crowd that does these things. Some say they are trying to win the lost by hobnobbing with them. It usually works the other way around. You must be nice to sinners and kind to the ungodly, but you cannot buddy with them and party with them. Not if you want to be a leader of God's people. Shame on the preacher who belongs to the Country Club, or the Coon Club.

A pastor of God's people must be a patient man and not one who flies off the handle at the least provocation. Or one given to violent displays of anger if someone doesn't do to please him. Often you hear men behind the pulpit bawling out the people. Then you hear them brag on how they skinned their hide. He is to feed the sheep, not skin the sheep. A ruler must be just; he cannot be one who shows partiality in his judgments. His home is open to people. He will treat people nice who visit him whether they are rich or poor. He mixes with all kinds of people, and yet remains separate. He is holy.

He is not preaching for the money. He will be faithful to his calling whether he gets an offering or not. Pastoring and preaching are not a career choice with him, from which he has decided to make his living. He will preach if he has to work on the side to buy the beans. How many Bible school students or seminary students would choose the ministry if they knew that they would have to work at a side job to make a living? Take the money away and many preachers would quickly loose their calling.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

One of the principle functions of the office of a bishop or elder is teaching the word of God. The word doctrine means teaching, or rather the substance of the teaching. The purpose of teaching is imparting knowledge. This is true regardless of the field of study or subject matter one is involved in. The teacher is the one who teaches or instructs by imparting the knowledge of a subject, while the student, pupil, or disciple is the one who is learning by receiving this knowledge. This may all seem quite elementary, but many people do not understand or at least do not connect the idea of teaching with knowledge.

There are many fields of study in the world, but the word "teaching" means the same regardless of the field of study. It is the imparting of the knowledge of any particular field. A teacher of mathematics teaches mathematics, and the student, if he is adept and attends to what is being taught, learns mathematics. The same is true of any field of study from Aerology to Zoology. The field of knowledge which the elder teaches is not mathematics or electronics or any such field. The field of knowledge which an elder knows and teaches is the knowledge of God. For this purpose God has given us the scriptures. An elder, as a teacher in the church, teaches the knowledge of God by teaching the word of God. When we say an elder is labouring in the word and doctrine, we mean an elder is teaching or imparting the knowledge of the word of God and the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is his textbook.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

I say all of these things to show that a bishop is a teacher. When Paul listed the offices God set in the church, he names the teacher as being third in rank. But in this list he does not name the bishops or elders at all. This is because the bishops are teachers.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

All teachers are not bishops, but no man is qualified to be a bishop who cannot teach. Therefore a bishop comes under the category of teacher. In fact it is one of the qualifications that Paul gives for a man to be a bishop.

Actually the bishop comes under two categories. He comes under the category of teacher and he comes under the category of "governments". He must be both, because to function properly in his office as bishop or overseer, he must not only teach, but he must also rule. This is brought out in the other passage where Paul names the gifts of the ministry.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

Here Paul ties the gifts of pastor and teacher into one office. This is only hinted at in our English translation, but it is very obvious in the original Greek. I wish I could explain it, but unless you know a little bit about Greek it may be hard to understand. I will try none the less. In Greek there are two different conjunctions that can be translated "and". One is a weak conjunction de and the other is the strong conjunction kai. The weak conjunction joins apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors. But between pastors and teachers, we find the strong conjunction. This shows that the terms pastors and teachers are joined together in a different way than apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors. Besides this, all of the other gifts have the article preceding them except teachers. The article is before pastors and absent from teachers, again indicating that pastors and teachers belong together. It is not "some pastors" and "some teachers", but "...some, pastors and teachers." The one "some" joins the two gifts into one office. The NIV may be a little clearer. It translates this passage: "It was he who gave... some to be pastors and teachers". The elder or bishop is to be both pastor and teacher. The elders are pastors or governments in ruling, tending, and leading. They are teachers in instructing, admonishing, and training.

And we must not forget that God told Jeremiah that he would give his people pastors that would feed them with knowledge and understanding. These pastors would faithfully teach the word of God to his people. The elders are to be these pastors and teachers.

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Some denominations recognize the church must have elders, but they put men in as elders who are not even teachers. The Presbyterians do this by dividing the eldership into ruling and teaching elders. The teaching elders, they say, are ministers, while the ruling elders are, for all practical purposes, laymen. Presbyterians use the scripture in 1Tim 5:17 where it appears that Paul makes a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." But the next verse shows us that the double honor is financial support. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1Tim 5:18; see also 1Cor 9:6-12) All this is saying is that while all elders are teachers, some elders will be employed full time in teaching and preaching, while others will only be able to teach part time, because they will be labouring with their hands to support themselves and others (Acts 20:34-35).

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

For every office in the body of Christ there is a gift to operate that office, according to the duties required of that office. The office of a teacher is no different. In as much as it is the duty of a teacher to impart knowledge, his gift should be one that deals with knowledge. There is a gift, given by the Spirit of God, called the gift of the word of knowledge. The gift of the word of knowledge is the teaching gift that enables the teacher to teach with the ability which God gives. Just as an apostle must have the gift of the word of wisdom to function in his office, so a bishop, as a teacher, must have the gift of the word of knowledge to function in his office.

As obvious as this should be, few seem to see the connection. The Charismatic movement has produced a number of books on the gifts of the Spirit, most of which do not recognize the word of knowledge as a teaching gift. Most of the literature I have read on the subject, as well as most of the sermons I have heard dealing with the gifts, have set forth the idea that the word of knowledge is a gift in which the Spirit imparts supernatural knowledge of something, usually of a personal nature, that could not be known except by revelation. But we have already seen that this is the operation of the gift of prophecy. If these writers are indeed right, then we would have two gifts that do exactly the same thing and no gift for the teacher. The teacher being third in order of importance of the offices in the church, should certainly be endowed by the Spirit with a gift to operate in his office. If it is not the word of knowledge, than what gift is it?

As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

We must always remember that the work of the Lord, regardless of what aspect, should be supernaturally endowed by the Spirit of God. This should be especially true of those who speak the word of God. And the elders, who rule the church, are those who speak the word of God.

Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

With such a heavy responsibility placed upon the elders to watch over the flock, to care for them and to teach them, we can see how important it is for the elders themselves to be taught in the word of God. This is the work an apostle must do before he ordains the elder as bishop over an assembly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

The elders are not to teach or preach their own revelation, but they are to hold fast to the word of God that has been taught to them by the apostle. The church must never deviate from the apostles' doctrine. The church must be build upon the "foundation of the apostles and prophets", with the apostles alone establishing the doctrine of the church by the word of God, the written word of God, the scriptures. Paul describing his work as an apostle said, "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon." (1Cor 3:10).

Paul warns every man to take heed how he builds on that foundation. And then there are always those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, will move men off the foundation with theirfalse teaching. Paul expressed his fear that from among the elders at Ephesus, some would arise, leaving the things he had taught them, teaching perverse things in order to draw away disciples after themselves, as well as those from without who would devour the flock.

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. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Only when the elders hold fast to the word of God and the apostles' doctrine can the saints can go on to perfection or maturity under their ministry. The elders must teach the faithful word as they have been taught, and also guard the flock against the wolves that would come in. Thus we see the importance of this great office in the church. In the local assembly, government by elders is the only order which the Holy Ghost has ordained.

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:

Just as the twelve ordained elders in Jerusalem to assist in the work and oversee the affairs of that local assembly, so Paul ordained elders in the congregations that he established. The objective of the apostles was to establish local assemblies with shepherds or pastors to care for them, watch over them, and teach them the word of God, thus creating an environment in which each individual member can grow up in Christ and come to perfection or maturity. Not only this, but each local church must be a light to a world that is lost in darkness. The church should be sounding out the word of the Lord, so that this wonderful gospel of the kingdom of God can be carried to all the world (1Thess 1:8).

Only when we have local New Testament churches established, and governed by apostolic order, will God have the instruments he needs to accomplish the work of God for our generation. Naturally, everyone feels his way is right. But it is obvious that all the conflicting theories of the various denominations cannot be right. The partisans of some denominations make the claim that their denomination alone represents the true church of Jesus Christ. These claims are easily proved or disproved by comparing that denomination to the New Testament pattern. If it does not fit the New Testament pattern by following the apostolic order, then we should not hesitate to reject it as an impostor.

Many Bible students can see the obvious discrepancies between the man-made organizations of today and New Testament pattern. But rather than conform existing institutions to the New Testament pattern, they find it far easier to create theories to justify their denominational structures. In Part One we showed how each of the three major systems of church government, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Congregational, rejects the office of the apostle. They also reject the apostolic system of ordaining elders in every assembly.

Instead of ordaining elders in the churches to be the overseers (bishops) and pastors of the local assembly, the denominations have adopted the one-man pastor system to govern the local church. However the one-man pastor system of today is completely unknown in scriptures. Anyone reading the New Testament should be struck by the fact that the pastor of a church is never addressed, while elders are always mentioned. When an apostle founded a church, nothing was said about putting in a pastor. Instead, elders were ordained in each church (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit 1:5). None of the epistles was addressed to "the pastor". If it is addressed to a minister at all, it is addressed to "the bishops (overseers) and deacons" (Phil 1:1). And as the elders were the bishops, this letter was to the elders and not to a pastor. All of the New Testament churches had elders; none of them had "a pastor". This is because in the New Testament the elders were the pastors.

Because the duties of the elders are so great, and so much responsibility rested on their shoulders, there was always a plurality of elders in each local assembly. This was the New Testament order established by the apostles when they appointed the seven in the beginning at Jerusalem. This is the order that Paul placed in all the churches he founded. Paul told Titus to set the churches in order by ordaining elders in every assembly.

As a rule the elders were men raised up in the local assembly and were a part of that local assembly. They were not men sent in from the denominational headquarters as most pastors are today. There are various practices among the sects that are quite different from each other. Some pastors are appointed by a hierarchy, and some are voted in by the congregation. But even with all their variety, it is safe to say that none of them practice the New Testament order.

In the Episcopal type denominations a pastor is assigned to the local assembly by the bishop. This in itself is contrary to the scriptures, for we have already seen that a bishop in the New Testament was nothing more than an elder in a local assembly. A New Testament bishop was not one man over several churches, but was one of several elders over one church. In some Episcopal type denominations the congregation or their lay representatives are allowed to approve or disapprove the bishop's choice. But regardless of these small concessions there is no presbytery or eldership in each local congregation in the Episcopal system.

In the sects adhering to the Presbyterian form of government, the local church has elders, but these elders, called ruling elders, are laymen. The pastor is called a teaching elder or bishop. The government of the local church is called the Session and is composed of the pastor or pastors (some larger churches may have a senior pastor and one or more associate pastors), together with the ruling elders of the local church. The Presbytery consists of all the ministers and one ruling elder (a lay representative) from each church within a certain district. The presbytery has jurisdiction over the ministers and churches within that district.

The Presbyterian elders are different from New Testament elders, because in the New Testament there is no distinction between ruling elders and pastors. In the New Testament the elders are the rulers and the Holy Ghost made the elders to be the pastors. In the New Testament the presbytery is the body of elders in each local assembly and not the pastors from several assemblies gathered together with the lay representatives of the various congregations as in the Presbyterian system.

Presbyterian scholars appeal to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as an example of Presbyterian church government, but this council can in no way be construed as a meeting of the Presbytery, the Synod, or the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The council at Jerusalem was convened because certain men from Jerusalem had come to Antioch causing a great deal of trouble to the church in Antioch. The leaders at Antioch felt that they should go to the source of the problem and bring the matter to the apostles and elders who were the leaders of the Jerusalem church. There is no indication that there were any other assemblies represented here. This was not a council of all the bishops or all the apostles, but involved only the principles in the controversy.

The Congregational type churches sometimes call their pastor, "elder." They pride themselves on having a democratic form of government. However not one place in the New Testament do we find the church voting for its leaders. The apostles ordained the elders who were to rule the assembly. When the apostles could not be present, their representatives ordained the elders in the church as they were instructed by the apostle. And it was always a plurality of elders. No where do we find the congregation electing a pastor for their leader.

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.

"They" is not the church, but the apostles. Not one church in the New Testament can be produced with the one-man pastor system. You will search the New Testament in vain for such a system. Objections are based on human reasoning. Men reason that leadership cannot be plural. They give various objections like, "anything with more than one head is a monstrosity." That may be true, but those who say this, forget that Christ alone is the head of the church, and when they make the pastor the head of the church, they, themselves, create a monster.

Another statement made by the advocates of one man rule is, "Equal authority is no authority." If this is true, then who was the authority on the day of Pentecost when that church came out of the upper room with the power of the Holy Ghost? Jesus chose twelve men! Were these twelve men given the same apostolic office or was Peter indeed a Pope as the Roman Catholics claim? Or are we going to say that because the apostles had equal authority they had no authority?

Another common objection to apostolic order is that it wouldn't work because it is contrary to human nature, and the people want just one leader. But we cannot go by human reason. We must produce scripture to justify the present system or change the present system to fit the scriptures. Too many Christians are indifferent. They feel it just doesn't make any difference. But can we ignore God's pattern and build on the traditions of men and still accomplish what God has called us to do? Remember the HOLY GHOST made the elders to be the overseers!!

Of course God's system will not work in the hands of carnal men. But with men who are of the caliber and character outlined by the scriptural qualifications we have given; men who are not self-willed, men who are just, holy, and temperate, this system will work fine. It worked in New Testament times when the church spread to the four corners of the earth. And it made more progress for the truth under apostolic order than at any other time in its history.

There are ample scriptures that show that the eldership was always plural in New Testament churches. You will find that in every church where it is mentioned, "elders" are always in the plural, while "church" is always in the singular! The mother church at Jerusalem had a plurality of elders. One church, many elders.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Some who don't believe in the plurality of the elders try to explain these scriptures by simply saying that in New Testament times the church in a city was divided into little groups, because there was no place big enough for all the saints to gather together. Each group had an elder over it. Then when you take all these little groups together, there would be one church composed of several groups and several elders. They base this theory upon the fact that churches in New Testament times often met in private homes (Rom 16:5; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15). This idea seem plausible at first but is it true to the facts? Was the Jerusalem church too large to meet in one place? Not according to the record we have in the book of Acts.

Jerusalem had probably one of the largest churches in New Testament times. But did the Jerusalem church meet in small groups? When Paul and Barnabas come up to Jerusalem from Antioch to the council, the record says that they were received of the church. Church is in the singular, meaning one church. They were also received of the elders. Elders is in the plural, meaning more than one elder.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

The record shows us that all the people, a great multitude of them met to listen to Barnabas and Paul give their testimony concerning their mission and travels among the Gentiles. As large as the Jerusalem church was, if any church would need to be divided into small groups it would be this church. But here we find all the multitude together.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

I would not say that there were not house meeting and other smaller meeting going on in Jerusalem. The earlier record shows this to be true. But the same record also shows that they were together and were meeting daily in the temple.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Actually the activity of these early disciples could not be confined to one service in one place. As their souls caught fire they spread the message everywhere they went. They were in the grip of a powerful revival. Still the church met together with one accord. They met regularly in Solomon's porch, which was a part of the temple.

And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. 12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. 13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. 14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem for the conference the church was able to come together in spite of there being a very large number.

It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

There was no private home large enough to accommodate the multitude of the Jerusalem church. The scriptures shows that the disciples actually took over a part of the temple called Solomon's porch. This became the center of operation for the Jerusalem church, where the whole church came together on a regular basis. Acts 2:46; 5:12-13,42. There is no scripture that says the disciples met in small groups on a regular basis.

Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, and yet Paul and Barnabas was able to gather the multitude of that church into one place to teach them. There is no indication that this church was meeting in small groups throughout the city. In fact we have a brief description of one of their services in Acts 13. Here it mentions five men who ministered in that church, men who were prophets and teachers. The record also shows them meeting together.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Here was one church, assembling together in one place with Paul and Barnabas. After Paul and Barnabas return from their first apostolic trip, they gather the church together. Of course if they were together, they would have to be in one place. See also Acts 15:30

And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Another great city and great church was Corinth. We know that Corinthians were not meeting in private homes because Paul makes a distinction between their private homes and the church. They gathered together in one place for church in a meeting place which was distinct from their homes.

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

I mention these great cities to show that regardless of the size of the city, the record shows that the churches in these cities met together in one place on a regular basis. If this is true of the large cities how much more of the smaller cities and the smaller churches. The ordaining of elders in every church had nothing to do with the church meeting in little groups across the city. It had nothing to do with a church being small or large. Of course we could expect a larger church to have more elders than a smaller church. But every church should have elders. This was the apostolic order, established by the Holy Ghost. This is what the twelve did and this is what Paul did. and this is what Paul told his assistants to do. Paul told Titus to set the churches in order by ordaining elders in every city.

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:

When Paul and Barnabas established the churches on their first apostolic trip they left those churches in the care of elders. In Antioch, Derbe, and Lystra each church had elders. It does not say ordain an elder in every church, but ordained elders, [plural], in every church, [singular]. Modern usage would require ordaining one elder and not even calling him an elder, but referring to him as the pastor.

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.

Paul spent three years at Ephesus preaching the gospel, but when he left, he left the church in the care of a plural eldership. These elders were to take care of the church as pastors and bishops. No one man leadership here.

In the letter to the church at Philippi, Paul addresses the bishops, plural, not the bishop, singular. And remember, the elders are the bishops!

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

James tells the saints to call for the elders, [plural], of the church, [singular], when they are sick. Logically this would be the local assembly in which that person was a member. Surely this scripture does not mean to call the various pastors from different assemblies from around the country. The elders of the local assembly are to care for their people. The churches James established, like Paul, had elders in them.

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Never in the New Testament do we read of one elder over a church. If we are going to follow the New Testament pattern, we must have the plurality of the eldership. The New Testament pattern is clear, and as set forth in the scriptures incorporates these three principles:

We mentioned before that most denominations consider the choosing of the seven in Acts, chapter six as the instillation of the first deacons. This, we said, was the ordination of elders to assist the apostles in governing the Jerusalem church. If the seven were ordained as elders then what is a deacon? The word "deacon" is not a translation, but a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos. a transliteration is when a word is brought directly from one language into another language by changing the letters to the closest equivalent in the other language. Thus diakonos in Greek becomes deacon in English. A translation, on the other hand, is when a word in one language is given its grammatical equivalent in the other language. The translation of the Greek word diakonos is the English word "minister". (For a review of this word see pages 20-21)

In the denominations that have the Episcopal system of government, the deacon is one of the three orders of the ministry. The bishop is the first order, taking the place of the apostles. The presbyters (priests) are the second order, being ordained by the bishop, and the deacon is the third order, and are assistants to the priests. Historically the deacon was merely a stepping stone toward full ordination as a priest. In modern times some Episcopal organizations, as the Roman Catholic, have established a permanent diaconate which can include married men.

In denominations adhering to the Presbyterian form of government, the deacon is an office appointed to have charge of the poor and may perform other administrative, charitable, and community duties. They are, more or less, committed to the management of the temporal affairs of the church, under the supervision of the presbytery.

In the denominations following the Congregational system of church order, deacons are laymen, but have various duties depending upon the particular church or denomination. In some churches the deacons are the virtual rulers of the church, controlling even the pastor. In this case the pastor merely executes the desires and wishes of the board of deacons. Other Independents may not even have deacons at all, or have deacons with no specific duties.

But what is a Bible deacon? When we understand that the word deacon simply means minister, it should become clear the deacons are not a separate order of the ministry or laymen occupying an office in the church, but it is the ministry itself. Deacon is just another word for minister. The translators translated the Greek word diakonos, sometimes minister and sometimes deacon, but it is the same word. Minister or deacon is the general term used to cover all of the preaching offices in the church. An apostle is a minister or deacon, for Paul said he was a minister (diakonos), as was Apollos, and Timothy, who was an evangelist. All preachers are deacons or ministers regardless of their office.

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers (diakonos) by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister (diakonos) of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

If all preachers are ministers (diakonos), why then are the bishops and deacons addressed separately in Paul's letter to the Philippians? And why does Paul give the qualifications for a bishop separately from those of a deacon in his letter to Timothy (1Tim 3:1-13)? We must understand that bishops are indeed ministers (diakonos) just as apostles are ministers (diakonos), or evangelist. A bishop is a minister (diakonos) who has the oversight of a local assembly. In other words all bishops are ministers (diakonos) but not all ministers are bishops, just as all apostles are ministers but not all ministers are apostles. All ministers do not have the oversight of a local assembly. Only those who have the oversight of a local assembly are called bishops, yet there may be other ministers labouring and working in that assembly. So Paul addresses these other ministers who are a part of that local assembly as well as the bishops, who are the ruling ministers.

We must understand, then, that a deacon is not a separate office of the ministry, or an office given to a layman to help or assist the minister, but the office of a deacon is the office of the ministry itself. Any and every office of the ministry is the office of a deacon, whether he be an apostle, evangelist, pastor or teacher.

The work of an evangelist, like the office of the apostle, prophet, and bishop, is also greatly misunderstood by the denominational churches. To understand the function of each of these offices, we have considered the meaning of the "name" given to each office in the original Greek in which the New Testament was written. Then we discovered what these men actually did. We found out what their actual work was. If we can see how each of these offices functioned in the New Testament itself, then we are not left to speculate on the accuracy of the modern definitions of these various offices.

The common idea held by the sectaries is that an evangelist is one who travels around the country holding revivals. Or they consider him to be one who goes into new territory to preach to those who have never heard the gospel before. These ideas are so widespread and common that few people question them. But where do these ideas come from? Certainly not form the Bible! Because they do not know what a Bible evangelist is, some consider an evangelist to be a somewhat inferior office to that of pastor. Often preachers "evangelize" until they can locate. That is, until they can find a church that will hire them as a pastor.

Of course this is not true of all so-called evangelist. There are the big name evangelists who are known nation-wide and even world-wide. Often they head Evangelistic associations which are organized for the express purpose of promoting their own particular ministry. These organizations are built completely around the personality and abilities of this one man, who is usually a dynamic personality with the personal magnetism to move and manipulate crowds of people. However, there are no Evangelistic associations in the Bible. Evangelistic organizations are completely unscriptural. There is no Biblical authority for any organization other than the local New Testament church.

In order to understand what an evangelist is, we must forget about all the modern or traditional ideas concerning it and find out what the New Testament teaches about it. First, we will consider the meaning of the word "evangelist" itself. Then we will examine the work of the men who function in this office. While there are only two men who are unequivocally called evangelist in the New Testament, knowing the work of these two men will help identify others who were also evangelist in the New Testament as well as what should be expected of those who would bear that title today.

The word evangelist is from the Greek word euaggelistes (yoo-ang-ghel-is-tace'). Like the words apostle, prophet, and presbyter it is not translated from the Greek, but transliterated into English from the Greek. Transliterated words are merely Anglicized Greek words, that is, they are brought directly into English from the Greek. and are not really translations of the Greek. The definition of the word evangelist (euaggelistes) is “a preacher of the gospel.” A proper translation of evangelist (eauggelistes) would be "gospel preacher".

To help get an idea of the meaning of the word evangelist and the relationship of this word to the word gospel, I supply the following chart:

Greek	Transliteration	Meaning	Translation	times
euaggelion	evangel	(eu=good) and (aggelos=message)	gospel	76
euaggelizo	evangelize	(eu=good) and (aggelo=to bring tidings or announce) verb form of euaggeloioin	preach (ed) to, unto, in, etc, preach (ed) the gospel (to, unto, in, etc, ) bring (declare) glad (good) tidings declare	23 24 3 1
eauggelistes	evangelist	one who announces good tidings, that is a gospel preacher	evangelist	3

In the first column on this chart is the Greek word. Next I give the transliteration into English. These transliterated words, evangel, evangelize and evangelist, are quite familiar to most church going people, as they are in common use. Next I give the definition of the Greek word, then the way it is translated in our KJV. Finally I give the number of times the Greek word is translated a particular way.

The first Greek word is euaggelion (yoo-ang-ghel'-ee-on). It is transliterated into English as Evangel. But it is consistently translated "gospel" all seventy-six times it appears in the KJV. The word gospel is from Old English "godspel", which means good tale or good story, hence "good news". The Evangel is the gospel, the Good News.

The next word on our chart to consider is the verb form of Evangel, euaggelizo (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo). This word is transliterated evangelize. To evangelize is to announce, proclaim or preach the gospel. This word euaggelizo, evangelize, is usually translated by some form of the verb "to preach" or by the phrase "preach the gospel".

Euangelistes, the last word on the chart to consider, is transliterated Evangelist. We can readily see that he is the person committed to evangelizing, that is, one who announces, proclaims, or preaches the gospel!!! This is what the word means. An evangelist is simply and plainly a gospel preacher.

According to New Testament usage, then, an evangelist is a gospel preacher, for that is the meaning of the word. Thus, while the word evangelist is only found three times in the New Testament, we are not confined to three instances to know what an evangelist is or what he does. We know from the meaning of the word that the work of an evangelist is PREACHING the gospel.

One reason for the confusion concerning the work of an evangelist is the mistaken idea that preaching is an entirely different activity from teaching. Accordingly, it is said that preaching is directed toward unbelievers ONLY and is the work of an evangelist, while teaching concerns ONLY the saints and is the work of a pastor or teacher. This view, of course, sustains NO support from the scriptures themselves. Quite the contrary, in the Bible the two activities of preaching and teaching are spoken of as taking place at the same time. Actually, teaching and preaching are merely two aspects of the SAME activity.

This is not only true of evangelize (euaggelizo), this is true of all the Greek words properly rendered "preach" in the New Testament. In the Greek New Testament, if we gather all the words that refer to the exercise of speech for the impartation of truth, we would have eight or ten different Greek words. Most of them have been translated "preach" only a few times and would probably be better translated by another English word.

To mention these briefly: There is akoe with eight different translations in the KJV, most numerous being "hearing." This word is translated preach only once: Heb 4:2. The Greek word pleroo has seventeen translations in the KJV, usually "fulfill". It is translated "preach fully" in Rom. 15:19. Parrhesiazomai, to be bold in speech, has six translations, most numerous being "speak boldly." It is translated "preach boldly" in Acts 9:27. Dialegomai has the meaning of "dispute" and is so translated six times. It is translated "preach" only twice: Acts 20:7, 9. The Greek word laleo is translated "preach" six times, while it translated "to speak" two hundred forty-one times. There can be no doubt that "to speak" is its proper translation. Logos, the Greek word for "word" has twenty-six translations in the KJV. One of those times it is translated "preach": 1 Cor 1:18. Diaggello, "to declare", is used only three times in the Greek New Testament, once translated by the KJV as "preach": Luke 9:60. These words are all incidental to actual preaching.

There are only three different words with their cognates in the Greek New Testament that actually refer to preaching, as such. The first of these three, euaggelizo, as we have seen, means "preach the gospel." The word "gospel" is intrinsic in the very word itself. This word is often translated merely "preach" but this is not accurate unless it is understood that the object of the preaching is the gospel.

The other two Greek words are kataggello (kat-ang-gel'-lo), and kerusso (kay-roos'-so). Kataggello means "to proclaim" and is always so translated in the Revised Version. The literal meaning of kerusso is "a proclamation from a throne". It is the word spoken by a messenger on behalf of a ruler. Kerusso then is to proclaim as a herald.

Kerusso and kataggello, unlike euaggelizo need a message to complete their meaning. In euaggelizo the message is inherent in the word itself, the message being the gospel. Kerusso usually has the word euaggelion (evangel = gospel) as its object to complete its meaning. Kataggello has either the gospel (1Cor 9:14), the word of God (Acts 13:5; 15:36; 17:13), or some aspect of the gospel, as Christ, the resurrection, or forgiveness of sins (Acts 4:2: 13:38; 17:3; Phil. 1:16;18: Col. 1:28) to complete its meaning.

They didn't just preach! They preached the gospel. The emphasis should not be upon the idea of preaching kerusso or kataggello, but upon the evangel, the gospel, the message that was conveyed by the preaching. In the middle years of the twentieth century, the British New Testament scholar, Charles H. Dodd, made a tremendous impact on N. T. studies with his theory of "realized eschatology." Without venturing a critique of Form Criticism, let it be said that according to this theory there was a great emphasis placed upon the "kergyma" (Greek substantive of kerusso) in the New Testament. We only mention this because this theory did a great deal to substantiate the idea that teaching and preaching are two separate and distinct activities directed towards entirely different audiences. Dodd did this by emphasizing a dichotomy in the activity of the early church into preaching on the one hand and teaching on the other.

However, in examining ALL the occurrences of each of the three Greek words properly translated "to preach" (euaggelizo, kataggello, and kerusso with their cognates), it becomes apparent that the Bible writers used them indiscriminately in describing the SAME activity. While not technically synonymous, all these words denoted to the early Christians the same activity. Then all three of these Greek words which are translated preach are alike used in conjunction with the Greek word didasko (did-as'-ko), "to teach". Thus preaching (regardless of which Greek word is used) is connected to teaching to describe the ONE ACTIVITY that the disciples were engaged in, that of preaching and teaching the word of God. If we examine the various scriptures that use these words in conjunction with the word teach (didasko), we will find that both teaching and preaching were directed to both believers and unbelievers.

The activity of Jesus in the synagogues, by the sea shore, on the mountain and in the temple is described by the gospel writers as teaching and preaching. Both words are used together to describe his activity regardless of the group he is addressing.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching (kerusso) the gospel (euaggelion) of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching (kerusso) the gospel (euaggelion) of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel (euaggelizo), the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

Almost identical words are used to describe the activity of the disciples after the departure of Christ. They were teaching and preaching, and under the same circumstances.

And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached (kataggello) through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Reference here is definitely made to unbelievers being TAUGHT. This alone is sufficient evidence to show that teaching is not directed only to believers alone. Notice the results of this teaching and subsequent warning issued to the disciples by the authorities concerning this activity.

Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

This, of course, did not end the incident, because the disciples returned to the same activity of preaching and teaching until they were arrested again. It is interesting to notice that the terms teach and taught are used throughout in describing this activity of the disciples speaking to unbelievers. Notice the angel commands them to speak to the people, and they teach!

Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. 21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel and sent to the prison to have them brought.

Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Luke closes the incident by saying they were in the temple (public) and every house (private), teaching and preaching. Both activities going on together in both places!

And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach (euaggelizo) Jesus Christ.

That teaching and preaching refer to the same activity is borne out throughout the New Testament. Jesus sent his disciples out to preach. When they returned they "told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught. They equated preaching with teaching!

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (kerusso)

30 And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught.

Matthew, in his account, has Jesus "teaching in the synagogues", while both Mark and Luke said he "preached in the synagogues". This clearly is referring to the same activity.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

And he preached (kerusso) in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

Likewise, Paul and Barnabas taught BY their preaching of the gospel. When the gospel is preached, teaching takes place!

And when they had preached the gospel (euaggelizo) to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

We suggest the only difference between preaching and teaching as such, is that preaching IS teaching that moves men to a desired action and not merely to impart knowledge. And, so, these terms are used together to give a full picture of what was being done. Teaching alone could be referring to a mere mental exercise or the imparting of facts. But when used with the word preaching it includes the idea of moving men to act upon what is taught.

All these scriptures, showing Jesus and the disciples teaching unbelievers, destroy the theory that teaching is for believers only. Likewise, the other part of the theory that says that preaching is directed toward the unbeliever only, is contradicted by scriptural use of these terms. Preaching, like teaching, is said to be directed toward both the believer and unbeliever:

Whom we preach, (kataggello) warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

The way to perfection is through preaching and teaching. Certainly he was not writing to ungodly sinners in need of salvation. This preaching was to saints who needed more preaching in order to go on to perfection. Paul tells the "saints" at Rome, that even though their faith was spoken of throughout whole world (Rom. 1:7-8) he was ready to PREACH to them. Not just the sinners in Rome, but the church in Rome.

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel (euaggelizo) to you that are at Rome also.

It is further proven that preaching and teaching are but two aspects of the same activity or work by the facts that their subject matter is the same. Teachers teach the word of God. Preachers preach the word of God. The substance of preaching and teaching is the same -- the word of God.

And when they were at Salamis, they preached (kataggello) the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Peter says that the word of the Lord is preached when the gospel is preached. The gospel is God's word to us.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached (euaggelizo) unto you.

This is very a revealing scripture here, because the words translated "gospel is preached" is euaggelizo, "evangelized". This shows us that an evangelist is one who preaches the word of God. This same word, euaggelizo or "evangelize," is used when Luke describes the teaching activity of Paul and Barnabas:

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching (euaggelizo) the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Paul and Barnabas were evangelizing by teaching the word of the Lord. It should be obvious from all the scriptures given that the work of an evangelist, a gospel preacher, is to PREACH AND TEACH the word of God, for preaching and teaching are merely the two aspects of the same activity!! An evangelist, then, is a teacher!!!

That an evangelist functions in the office of a teacher is further borne out by the lists where Paul names the different offices. In Eph 4:11, evangelists are placed third on the list, after apostles and prophets. However in 1Cor 12:28, apostles and prophets are still listed as first and second, but teachers are placed third in importance, and evangelists are not mentioned at all, just as bishops or pastors are not mentioned. Remember we said that bishops were not mentioned because the bishops are included in the appellation of teacher. The same may be said of the evangelists. The evangelists are not mentioned in 1Cor 12:28 because they, like the bishops, are included in the appellation of teacher.

Timothy is one of the two men whom the New Testament designated as an evangelist. The word doctrine means teaching, either the activity of teaching or the substance of teaching. The word doctrine in found more times in Paul's letters to Timothy than any other book in the Bible. Here is Paul writing to an acknowledged evangelist, and what is he concerned with? He is concerned with the doctrine!! The work of an evangelist is preaching the word with doctrine. An evangelist must be able to preach and teach the doctrine strong enough to establish the saints in the truth so securely that the false teachers will not be able to move them from the faith.

Thus we can see that the work of an evangelist is not going from town to town holding revival meetings to win the lost by telling sad stories and speaking in mournful tones to move men's emotions just long enough to get them to an altar or shed a few tears. An evangelist preaches the word of God and establishes men in the truth. An evangelist preaches the gospel. True, an evangelist calls sinners out of darkness to God's wonderful light, but an evangelist is also given to the church for the perfecting of the saints. An evangelist preaches to both the saved and unsaved, both to the believer and the unbeliever.

The requirements of the office of evangelist are much greater than are generally presumed. First he must meet the general qualifications for a minister, called in the KJV, a deacon. Remember we found that a deacon is just the transliterated Greek word for minister.

Likewise must the deacons [ministers] be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon [ministry], being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon [ministry] well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This being the general qualifications for all ministers would include the evangelist. Then he must be able to teach and, like the bishop, he must be an example to the believers in word, in his manner of life, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Besides these things Timothy had prophecy that went before on him and a gift of the Spirit was imparted into his life with the laying on of hands by the elders of Lystra, his home assembly. They laid hands on him and ordained him and sent him forth to travel with Paul. If you will remember a similar procedure took place when the church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas as apostles. First there was prophecy, then they laid hands on them and sent them forth (Acts 13:2-3). Of course before a man is ordained and hands are laid on him for an office in the ministry, he must qualify by fulfilling the requirements for the particular office for which he is being ordained.

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things command and teach. 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The evangelist must be nourished up in the words of faith and good doctrine. This is similar to the instructions Paul gives for the bishop: "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus 1:9). To be good ministers both bishop and evangelist must attain to a certain proficiency in the doctrine of Christ. Thus the qualifications for the office of evangelist is not very unlike that of a bishop. This is because both of these offices are teachers. So, besides the apostle, there are other two teaching offices in the church, the one, a bishop or elder, the other, the evangelist. The bishop or elder is a teacher ordained over one local assembly. The evangelist, on the other hand, is a teacher concerned with the general work. A bishop is a teacher no matter where he is. He is as much a teacher in one assembly as he is another, but his authority as a bishop is only in the local assembly that he has been ordained over. In other words a bishop of one assembly does not have authority to govern the affairs of another assembly.

The bishop is a permanent office in a local assembly. The evangelists, while he is the member of a local assembly, may spend the greater part of his ministry travelling and working in other assemblies. Just as the elders work under the authority of the apostles, so the evangelists also work under the authority of the apostles. And while the evangelist has not been set over an assembly like the bishop has, the evangelist is in no sense inferior to the office of a bishop or pastor. In fact, Paul often sent one of the evangelist that worked with him into an area to establish a church, set it in order, and even ordain elders in it. An evangelist, operating under the auspices of an apostle, may even be sent into a church that already has elders in it to help that local assembly, to encourage and build it up. Or the apostle may send an evangelist to an assembly if there are problems in the local assembly that the elders can not, or will not handle, or to bring an assembly that was straying from the apostles' doctrine back to the foundation. In this case the authority of the evangelist supersedes that of the elders.

Paul asked Timothy to stay at Ephesus because false teachers were moving many of the saints from the foundation truths. Although Ephesus already had elders charged with overseeing the assembly (Acts 20:11,28), it appears they were not able to handle the situation, perhaps even some of the elders were apostatizing from the faith.

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Clearly Timothy, acting under the instructions of Paul, had authority over the Ephesian elders. This is not to say that every evangelist has the authority over the elders of a local assembly. It is only when an evangelist is acting under the auspices of the apostle that he bears the authority of that apostle. An evangelist growing up in an assembly and working in a local assembly would of course be under the authority of the elders of that local assembly.

We can assume that Titus was also an evangelist, because he was doing the same work that Timothy was engaged in. Just as Paul gave Timothy instructions for ordaining elders, he also writes to Titus instructing him set the churches in order and to ordain elders in every church. These examples show us that an evangelist sent by an apostle has the authority of that apostle to ordain elders in the churches that have need of local government and to set the churches in order, even if those churches already have elders. The evangelist works with the churches in assisting the apostles. When Paul could not be there he sent an evangelist like Timothy or Titus. Working under an apostle the evangelist has great authority.

These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

This is far different than the practice of the denominational churches, where the evangelist is subject to the pastor of the church. If that pastor wants to "give him a revival" then the evangelist can hold a meeting. Usually it is made clear that the evangelist will not "meddle" with any subject that the pastor feels is his prerogative. He is to stay clear of doctrine, and preach to the "lost". On the other hand, sometimes the evangelist is utilized to preach on a certain doctrine that the pastor, or movement to which they both belong, likes to emphasize. Such as "eternal security" among the Baptist, or "sanctification as a second definite work of grace" among the Holiness.

The failure of the sects to recognize the high position of the evangelist, is because they do not realize that evangelists were gifted men to whom the gospel was committed. Evangelist are first and foremost gospel preachers. They must have the gospel committed to them. Their value lays in the fact that they know and can expound, exhort, and teach the gospel. Evangelist are gifted, in as much as an evangelist must have a gift of the Spirit to operate or function effectively in his office as a teacher. a teacher is one with the ability to impart knowledge to men. All teachers are men with words of knowledge. The evangelists and bishops, both being teaching offices, need the gift of the Spirit called the gift of the word of knowledge to function as gifted teachers. Paul told Timothy "...neglect not the gift that is in thee..." Timothy had a gift from God that empowered him to work in the ministry as an evangelist.

The effectiveness of an evangelist will depend upon how much of the gospel has been committed to him and whether or not he neglects the gift that God places in his life to preach and teach the wonderful, glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. A man may draw great crowds with his personal magnetism, he may move the multitudes with his great swelling words, but a man who will commit himself to preaching the "...the word of the truth of the gospel" (Col 1:5) will attain a high standing with God, and be worthy of the respect and honor that should be given to those who labour in the gospel (1Thess 5:12-13).

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

There is no greater work than the gospel! Paul had a dispensation of the gospel committed to him. If you will remember the word dispensation means stewardship. As a steward it was Paul's duty to guard, protect, and defend that which was placed in his care, the gospel. And he must faithfully dispense it under the direction and discretion of the Holy Ghost. A man entrusted with the gospel must be faithful in his conduct, faithful in his commitment to God and faithful in his presentation of the gospel.

The gospel was committed to Paul's trust. Besides this he was enabled or empowered by the Holy Ghost not only to understand the gospel, but also to preach the gospel with power. Being faithful, God put him into the ministry. Faithfulness is of primary importance. If men are not faithful they will change the gospel that has been committed to them, as Paul said "...speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:20). This is why God looks for faithfulness.

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

There is no part of an apostle's work that is more important than preaching the gospel. Jesus last instructions to his apostles concerned preaching the gospel. It is called the great commission. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16). Jesus committed the gospel to the twelve, just as he committed the gospel to Paul. It is the basis of all apostleship.

In fact the preaching and teaching of the gospel is basis of all offices of the ministry. When the gospel is committed to a preacher, he becomes more than just a pulpiteer. He is a man that has been entrusted with the most precious commodity on the earth, the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. This is true whether that man is an apostle, a bishop, or an evangelist. The same gospel that is committed to each of these offices. The apostle does not have one gospel and the evangelist another different gospel. The difference between the apostle and the other teachers, as the bishop and the evangelist, is that the apostle is taught by Jesus Christ himself while the bishop and evangelist is taught by the apostle or by one who has been taught by an apostle.

During Jesus' earthly life he taught his apostles in person. After his ascension he taught his apostles through the Holy Ghost. He does this through a gift of the Spirit which is given to an apostle to teach him all things. (For a discussion of this review pages 87-93). Thus Paul, who never heard the teaching of Christ during Christ's earthly ministry was taught by revelation. He was taught the gospel by Jesus through the Spirit.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Timothy, on the other hand, was taught by Paul. It was the same gospel that was committed to Paul by Jesus, but it was committed to Timothy by Paul. Timothy still had to have the Holy Ghost. He was still a man called of God with a gift in his life. He had a commission and dispensation or stewardship entrusted to him, but he was taught the gospel by Paul.

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. 15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Furthermore, Timothy was instructed to commit what he had received from Paul to other faithful men. He was to teach them the same gospel. Not a different gospel, not his own version of the gospel, but the same gospel he had heard from Paul. And then these men were to teach others also. The gospel can be handed down, and if it is handed down to faithful men, it will not be changed or perverted.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

We hear people talking about the signs of an apostle. They look at the size of a man's congregation. They consider the buildings he has built. They wonder if he is performing miracles, and doing wonders. But they never ask the most important question of all. Is this man preaching the same gospel that Jesus preached? The most important thing in any preacher's ministry is, Has the gospel been committed to him? Healing the sick is wonderful! Raising the dead is marvelous! Even having a big church is nice. But the primary concern of every preacher should be, am I preaching the same gospel that Jesus and his apostles preached?

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

We are possibly the most preached to generation the world has ever known. Radio and television preachers can preach to millions at once. Church buildings from store front missions to multi-million dollar buildings can be found in every neighborhood and country side. At least this is true in America. But in all of this preaching going on today, very little is said about the kingdom of God. Perhaps the term "Kingdom of God" is used, but to most people it is just another vague religious phrase that has no definite meaning. We could venture to say that most church members have no conception at all of what the kingdom of God is; where the kingdom of God will be located; when the kingdom of God will come; or how the kingdom of God will be established!

The vast majority of church members, saved and unsaved, are totally ignorant of the fact that Jesus came preaching a definite and specific MESSAGE which the Bible writers term the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. This message, the gospel of the kingdom of God is the only message Jesus ever preached. Jesus not only preached this gospel of the kingdom of God, but he gave this same gospel to his disciples to preach. First he gave it to the twelve apostles, then later when he sent out the seventy other disciples to preach, he told them to preach this same message. In fact, this is the ONLY gospel he ever commissioned ANYONE to preach at any time or in any place.

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

The gospel of the kingdom was preached to the Jews first, then by Philip to the Samaritans. Later Paul carried this same gospel of the kingdom of God to the Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul did not have one message for the Jews and another for the Gentiles. It was this same message of the gospel of the kingdom of God! It was the message he started with, and we find him at the end of his ministry and he is still preaching the same message of the kingdom of God.

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Paul not only preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, but he declared that if anyone preached any other gospel than this, let him be accursed. To emphasize his point Paul repeats his statement! You could say a man who preaches or perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ is under a double curse. Those who think that it doesn't make any difference what a man preaches just as long as he is sincere ought to consider this!

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Not only was the gospel of the kingdom for the early church or the country of Judaea, but Jesus told his disciples to preach the gospel in all the world and further promised that this gospel of the kingdom would be preached in all the world before the end would come.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

In spite of these plain statements of scripture, many teachers are saying that we are under a different dispensation, and that the gospel of the kingdom is not for our day. Some say that the gospel for today is the gospel of the grace of God. But Paul used the term gospel of the grace of God when referring to the preaching of the kingdom of God.

But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

The gospel is the most important thing you will ever hear. We cannot emphasize too much the importance of this gospel. It is by this gospel that we are saved. It pleases God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The proclamation of the gospel calls men out of darkness into God's wonderful light. The way to salvation is through the gospel. What could possibly be more important to the human race?

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Being born again has become quite a popular phrase these days. But it would appear that most don't understand that it is through the gospel that we are begotten of God and born of the Spirit.

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

The word of God is the seed of the Spirit that gives us the new birth, and it is through the preaching of the gospel that the word of God is preached.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

There are some terms in the Bible we should recognize are used interchangeably. the Gospel, the Word, the Truth, are three of these words that are all referring to the same thing. Paul uses all three terms together in Colossians.

For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

This is why Peter can say we are born of the word of God. And likewise James says we are begotten by the word of God.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

So important was this gospel of the kingdom of God, that Jesus spent his last forty days here on earth speaking to his disciples concerning it. This was true to the very day he was taken up. It is strange how that Jesus was so concerned about the kingdom of God, but modern preachers don't seemed to be concerned about it at all. In fact most hardly ever mention it, except as some vague religious phrase the has little meaning to the average church member.

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

If a man is called to the office of an evangelist, he should be instructed in the kingdom of God and there is more to the kingdom of God than just knowing that Jesus saves. The gospel is an unsearchable treasure. But every evangelist preaching the kingdom of God, should know what the kingdom of God is; when the kingdom of God is established; where it is established; and how it is established. He should be able to tell men how to enter the kingdom of God, and what will keep men out of the kingdom of God. A man who is an evangelist should know all of these things. He should be a man filled with the treasure of the gospel.

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

It is good for a man to desire the office of an evangelist, just is it is good to desire the office of a bishop. He desires a good work. But there are qualifications for these offices that a man must attain too. And he must be a man who has had the gospel committed to him. Again we can see how important it is to have the ministry of an apostle to teach the bishops and evangelists.

We have discussed the major offices God set in the church: first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers. But before we leave Part II APOSTOLIC ORDER, and go on to Part III of this treatise, we should say a brief word about what we could perhaps term auxiliary gifts. Although these are helping gifts, they are, none the less, important gifts. Their purpose is to meet certain needs of God's people and to confirm the word of God.

You can never understand the order of God unless you understand that the word of God is primary. For example, the gifts of healing and the working of miracles are offices that derive from the apostolic office because their primary concern is to confirm the word that the apostle preaches and teaches.

And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The principle thing here is the word preached. The signs were to confirm the word. Because men misunderstand this very basic principle, a lot of unscriptural and unprofitable things are being done. Men have arisen with healing ministries and miracle ministries, and these are bona fide gifts and ministries that God gives to the church (1Cor 12:9-10,28), but too often these gifted men have used these gifts to establish their ministries outside the church of God, and have not used the gifts as they were intended, to confirm the word that is preached. Usually these men do not preach the word of God. All they have is an exhortation for men to believe God for a miracle or trust him for a healing. These things are good but they are not enough. People must be established in the word of God or the very purpose for these gifts is lost.

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

God put these gifts in the church to confirm the word and to edify the body, not to aggrandize an individual man. Every minister must operate within the context of a local assembly. Many men who have these more sensational gifts are prone to think of themselves above the confines of a local assembly. They spread large tents and rent huge auditoriums and of course the multitudes come, because men put value on things differently than God. No doubt on the scale of value, men would put healing first, then miracles and last the ministries of the word, but God puts miracles fourth and healing way down in the fifth place. God places the ministry of the word first.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Not to say that a man shouldn't spread a tent or fill an auditorium if he can, but he should do this for the purpose of preaching the gospel and making disciples of men, which will result in establishing New Testament churches, where the saints can go on to perfection.

If a man has the gift of healing or miracles this does not mean he has the ability or authority to establish New Testament churches. This is the work of an apostle and men that have these gifts should be working with an apostle. A Bible example of working in apostolic order is found in the ministry of Philip. Philip was a powerful preacher. He exercised both the gifts of healing and miracles. But Philip did not establish his own independent ministry. He worked with the apostles. He did not try to operate outside of his gift.

Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

Philip was an evangelist , but he was not a free lance preacher. He worked with a local assembly, the Jerusalem church, and was under the authority of the apostles. When they heard of the success of his campaign in Samaria, the church dispatched Peter and John to establish Philip's work under apostolic authority.

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John

So then the gifts of healing and miracles are to confirm the word that men might continue "stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." (Acts 2:42)

Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

The gift of exhortation is often confused with other gifts of the Spirit and offices in the church. Some who have the gift of exhortation feel that they are evangelist. This is because their preaching moves men and produces a revival, and they assume that this is what an evangelist does. They do not understand that an evangelist must have a deep knowledge of the gospel.

One reason for the confusion is that exhortation is a part of several of the other offices in the church. for example, evangelist, such as Timothy, are told to exhort as well as teach.

The same could be said of elders. They are not only teachers, but they must be able to exhort also.

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Peter and Paul, both as apostles, exhorted. We could hardly say that the apostles were merely exhorters, but exhorting was one of their functions.

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Because prophecy often contains an exhortation, some think that the gift of prophecy is nothing more then preaching or exhorting. Believing this they fail to understand and utilize the great gift of prophecy which is so needed in the church. A prophet may exhort, but his gift is far more than just exhortation.

But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

Even though apostles, prophets, evangelist, and bishops exhort, besides being used in these offices, Paul lists a separate gift of exhortation and places this gift in a list along side of the others. If it were exactly the same it would not be listed as being different.

So while the ability to exhort is a necessary part of these other gifts, there are some who do not fit into any of these other ministries, yet who none the less, demonstrate a marked ability to exhort. They have the gift of exhortation.

Actually the gift of exhortation is quite common, but usually not recognized as such. It would probably be safe to say that many preachers today exercise this gift, rather than the gift that they think they have. I say this because many preachers give very little teaching in their sermons. Often their sermons are no more than inspirational talks. I am not saying this to criticize inspirational talks. God knows we need all the inspiration we can get. I am just trying to show the distinction that the Bible makes in the teaching gifts and the gift of exhortation. Exhortations are sermons designed to persuade, incite and encourage. They appeal to the heart and will, not to the understanding. They are not to instruct and teach, although, of course, they may contain an element of instruction, especially instruction in things that have already been taught, but perhaps let slip or not completely obeyed. Exhortation moves and motivates men to perform that which they have been taught.

After exhorters have preached,. the people are moved to action. They are lifted up and encouraged, but as a rule they have learned little or nothing that they did not already know. How many times have you heard exhorters speak about Daniel and the lion's den, or David and his sling? These are stories you know well and probably have heard since childhood. Yet in the

mouth of an exhorter they become new again and again. They encourage you to go on! They build your faith! Exhortation is an important gift.

It is a tragic thing when men who are aptly endowed with the gift of exhortation are forced into ministries for which they are not gifted, such as a pastor, by well meaning colleagues, merely because they have the ability to move large crowds. A pastor requires more than exhortation. A pastor requires the ability to govern. An evangelist may exhort, but that office requires more than exhortation. An evangelist must be able to teach. When men are forced or pressured into positions for which they are not qualified, the end result is often failure. If the church would only recognize that the gift of exhortation is of great value in itself and recognize the men who have it, as having a valid ministry, these men could be effectively used to edify the church.

One word of advice to those who recognize the operation of this gift in their lives. Study your Bible. Learn the word of God. Know the stories of the Bible. Learn how God dealt with the men in the Bible and relate that to us today. We can learn and draw encouragement from the lives of Bible characters. In your preaching and exhorting try drawing your material from the Bible rather than your own experience. The stories in the Bible have far greater effect if utilized properly. Here is the advice that Peter gives.

There are three things recognized in the Bible as the oracles of God: The law of Moses (Acts 7:38) The Old Testament (Rom 3:2) and Christian doctrine (Heb 5:12) which is the New Testament. It is from these that an exhorter should draw the most of his material. Personal experiences may be interesting when told the first few times, but they soon lose their appeal and effect. Use your Bible. It is inexhaustible!!

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

"Helps" is translated from the Greek word antilepsis (an-til'-ape-sis); it means one who aids or assists. The verb form of this Greek word is antilambanomai (an-tee-lam-ban'-om-ahee) and is translated "support" in Acts 20:35. This is a very revealing scripture, because here Paul is telling the elders that they ought to work with their hands to "support" (help) the weak, and then quotes the words of Jesus that it is more blessed to give that to receive, showing that the support, that the weak would receive, required the elders "to give." From this we can see that the office of helps is fulfilled by "he that giveth". To the Roman church he calls this office "he that giveth" and to the Corinthian church it is the office of "helps".

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support (antilambanomai) the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

The gift of helps manifest itself in those whom God blesses with the ability to make money. Often men with this gift do not understand that God prospers them in order that they can use their money to help their less fortunate brothers and sisters in the church. God is concerned with every need of mankind, whether it be physical, financial, and spiritual. And God has provided grace to fulfil that need in the form of a gift. If all the members of the body would function in their respective offices using their respective gifts, there would never be a lack in the body of Christ.

I knew a brother whom God had blessed with the office of helps. He had the ability to make money and it seemed that everything that he did prospered. He didn't know that he had the gift of helps as one that giveth. Instead he spent his money on himself and tried to be a preacher which he couldn't do. As a result the body of Christ suffered and the man never fulfilled his ministry. Perhaps you can think of many examples of men not recognizing the gift that God did give them and trying to function in an office that God did not give them.

Akin to the gift of helps and possibly included in it is "he that sheweth mercy." (Rom 12:8). This gift is not difficult to understand when we understand the nature and extent of the mercy we are to show one another. Of course all of us need mercy from God for the forgiveness of sins, and all of us must show mercy to those who wrong us and to those who are in need, whether the need is spiritual or natural.

But there are those who are gifted to care for those in need, whether it be widows, orphans, the poor, or strangers, for these are the ones the Bible recognizes as being in need of mercy.

Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: 10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.

How much it would edify the body if there are those in it who are gifted to care for the aged or the infirm, or the poor. Who spend their time in doing good things for those most neglected, yet most in need. Think how it would help a church if there were those who were gifted to greet the strangers, see that they are cared for, and provided with shelter and provisions, if just for the night. This is a great and much needed gift and yet few Christians even know that this is an office in the body of Christ.

It is true that all Christians must give and show mercy and even exhort on occasion, but when we are talking about these gifts in the relationship to an office in the body of Christ, we are not talking about ordinary giving and ordinary showing of mercy, for that is expected of all Christians. we are talking about people who make a career, so to speak, out of doing these things. They are noted for them. Their place in the body is as obvious as that of a pastor. The problem is most people never even recognize this as a gift and office in the body of Christ.

We have all seen brothers and sisters who had the ability to greet new people who come into the assembly, and make them feel comfortable and welcome. They are gifted for that. The stranger is one whom God says we must show mercy.

There are people who open their hearts to the fatherless. They have a heart that reaches out to children who have no mother or father, or who have a mother or father who cannot, or will not care for them properly. They are gifted to care for these children. They love them like they are their own. Problem children, young people in trouble, all find a home with these people. They may not know it and the people in the church may not consider it, but these people have an important ministry and office in the body of Christ.

I knew a couple who went around every Sunday and gathered up a number of poor children. They would take them home and bath them, dress them up, and take them to church. Then again next Sunday they would do the same thing. We may need more preachers, but we also need many more saints with these wonderful gifts in their lives.

There are other important gifts that we have not dealt with, such as tongues and interpretation of tongues. But these are more common in our meetings. Maybe not as much as they should be. I can remember as a boy, standing outside the church at night, in those days before air conditioning, when the doors and windows were thrown open. I could hear them speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance. The hair on the back of my neck would stand up, and I would stand there in awe and wonder. This was before I myself received the Holy Ghost and spoke in that heavenly language, but I was no stranger to it even then. My mother had received the Holy Ghost before I was born. And my grandparents before her, and even my great grandparents. Now my mother and grandparents are all gone, but all six of my children have received the Holy Ghost and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them the utterance and even some of my grandchildren. This is six generations of my family that can bear witness to the miraculous power of God.

In Part I of this treatise (on page one) we proposed three questions as objects of this inquiry. We answered the first two of these questions in Part I, showing that the traditional or historical church is not the true church of Jesus Christ by comparing denominational Christianity with the church as depicted in the New Testament. We found that neither Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, nor the Protestant sects follow the New Testament pattern, having no characteristics that could possibly identify any of them with the church founded by Jesus Christ. In Part II we sought to describe in more detail the Apostolic order of the church as instituted by Jesus and his apostles. This Apostolic order, we also found, was completely lacking in denominational Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Now in Part III we must deal with the third and final question of this inquiry: What caused the church to go into apostasy in the first place? There have been some great and wonderful moves for restoration since the time of the Reformation, but none of them have dealt adequately with this question. In spite of all the valuable gains made by these various moves for restoration in modern times, thus far they have all fallen short of a full restoration of New Testament Christianity because they did not deal adequately with the cause of the apostasy. Failing to deal with the underlying cause, these movements each in turn became either stifled and ossified, or else they got preoccupied with some far out tangents that have nothing to do with the principles of the gospel and became merely another sect of Christendom. And it is inevitable that we who are laboring in the present Restoration Movement, will also fail if we do not become aware of that fatal flaw that caused the church to fall in the first place and move to correct it. We too will cease to be the body of Christ and become just another sect. It is our contention that if the cause of the apostasy is not recognized and corrected, complete or lasting restoration cannot be possible!

The English word apostasy is not used in our King James Version, but it comes from the Greek word apostasia (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah), which along with its verb form aphistemi (af-is'-tay-mee), is found several times in the Greek New Testament. It means to depart, defect, desert or forsake. Apostasy in its simplest form is when a person forsakes or deserts Christ and goes back into the world.

They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. "fall away" translates aphistemi

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing (Gr. aphistemi) from the living God.

An example of simple apostasy is Paul's helper, Demos, who loved the world more than he loved God. He forsook the work of the Lord, leaving the apostle Paul, and went back into the world. This is apostasy in its simplest form. Sometimes people who apostatize or "backslide" in this manner try to justify themselves, or keep up appearances by still going to church, but as often as not they make no pretense of religion. They simply leave God, leave the work of God and leave the church.

For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica...

However when we refer to the apostasy of the church be are not referring to the simple apostasy of a man leaving Christ and going back into the world. When we speak of the apostasy of the church we are referring to a congregation which leaves the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ to follow a preacher or teacher who has defected from the doctrine of Christ to teach his own doctrine. Too often these men continue to hold to the name “Christian” and present themselves as being the true representatives of Christ in the earth, all the while teaching things that contradict or conflict with the things taught by Christ and his apostles.

These false teachers seldom teach a completely different doctrine but will have some “new” insight or revelation that will pervert the gospel of Christ. This was the bane of Paul’s ministry. In every place that Paul founded new churches built upon the foundation of the doctrine of Christ, along would come the false teachers and false prophets perverting the doctrine of Christ and subverting the disciples. At first Paul was shocked by the successes of these false teachers to affect the steadfastness of his converts.

But later, after bitter experiences, he came to expect false teachers to come in, and even anticipated that some of his own converts would defect and try to gather a following around themselves by perverting the original teaching.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Teachers using false or perverted doctrines to draw away disciples after themselves is called heresy in the Bible. Most people when they think of a heretic, think of a person holding false doctrine. But believing false doctrine in and of itself does not make a person a heretic. One becomes a heretic when false doctrine is used to divide God's people and form a sect. The word translated “heresy” in our KJV is transliterated from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is). Hairesis is transliterated heresy four times in the KJV, but hairesis is translated "sect" five times. Biblically speaking a heretic is a sectarian, as "heretic" and "sect" are from the same Greek word.

Thus the apostasy of an individual, whether it be forsaking the doctrine of Christ completely or merely perverting the doctrine of Christ, can lead to the apostasy of the church, which is heresy or the forming of a sect. Men apostatize or forsake the doctrine of Christ, or more likely, they pervert the gospel just enough that it still has the semblance of Christ's teaching, in order to draw disciples after themselves. These disciples will form a party within the church. If this condition is allowed to persist it will result in that party leaving the church, or if the false teacher is powerful enough he may subvert the whole congregation, as Paul warned Titus concerning some ... “Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” (Titus 1:11). Heresy, or the forming of a sect, is the final step in apostasy. When we speak of the apostasy of the early church we are referring to this heresy or sectarianism and the rise of the sects that resulted from following apostate teachers.

The steps in the apostasy of a church are first dissension, then division, and finally separation or heresy, which is the forming of a sect that is Christian in name only. Paul employed three different Greek words for these three steps. Unfortunately the King James Version is not consistent in translating these words and it may be hard to see a progression toward apostasy, unless we consider the original Greek.

The first Greek word to consider is dichostasia (dee-khos-tas-ee'-ah). This Greek word is a noun that comes from a verb meaning to cause to disagree, set at variance. In the KJV dichostasia is translated division twice (Rom. 16:17 and 1 Cor. 3:3), and sedition once (Gal. 5:20). These are unfortunate translations of dichostasia because neither of them impart to the English reader the true meaning of dichostasia. The English word “division” is used to translate a different Greek word schisma, which is actually the second step in the apostasy of a congregation. And our modern use of the word sedition is a little strong as a translation of dichostasia. Our modern use of the term "sedition" generally implies armed violence or insurrection as in the overthrow of an existing government. Sedition is used in this sense to translate another Greek word, stasis (stas'-is). stasis is translated "sedition" in Luke 23:19,23 and Acts 24:5 and "insurrection" in Mark 15:7.

To translate both dichostasia and schisma by the same English word would not let the English reader discern a difference in these two words, and they are different. So it would be less confusing if dichostasia were translated "dissension" and schisma were translated "division" to avoid the confusion caused by translating two different Greek words by the same English word. In our modern tongue dichostasia would better be translated "dissension" and schisma translated "division" to show a difference in these two Greek words.

Dichostasia (dissension) occurs when men take issue with the original apostolic teaching. In the early church “...they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship...” Acts 2:42. In as much as the doctrine of Christ is based upon revelation, there is no room for theological speculation in the church of Christ. Teachers then, or now, cannot go beyond that which is revealed by God and written in the holy scriptures as the oracles of God. In those early days of the church men were accustomed to the speculations of the Jewish scribes and later to the philosophical speculations of the Greeks. What set Jesus apart from the scribes is that he spoke as one having authority and not founding his teachings on speculations or questions but on revelation from God the Father.

Deviation from the apostles’ doctrine can only lead to divisions in the body and hence cannot be tolerated. In his letter to Rome Paul says to mark those who cause dissension (dichostasia) from this doctrine and avoid them.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions (dichostasia=dissension) and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Paul knew that if the church at Rome had been established upon sound apostolic doctrine, those who would take issue with, or "dissent" from the teachings of the apostles must be avoided. He knew that dissension would eventually lead to a division when the dissenters had gathered a following.

We can see this happening at Corinth. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he is dealing with this very problem. Their carnal condition in which there was envying, strife, and divisions (in the sense of dissension (dichostasia) was tearing that church apart, causing divisions (in the sense of schisms schisma).

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions (dichostasia) are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions (schisma) among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies (hairesis) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Paul pleads with the Corinthians that there be no divisions (Gr. schisma) among them. The factors that brought on these divisions (schisma) were the dissensions (dichostasia). The only way to end the divisions is to stop the dissension by all speaking the same thing. And this is what Paul pleads for. The members of the church should all speak the same thing.

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 (schisma) among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Thus in the church of Christ there is room for neither the Protestant principle of every man interpreting the Bible for himself, nor the Orthodox principle of a group of men as an ecumenical council of bishops, nor yet for the Roman Catholic view that equates the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church of equal authority with the very scriptures themselves, and the Pope as the final authority for interpreting both the scriptures and the tradition of the church. The fact is, Peter tells us that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. This means no private interpretation, whether it be one man or a group of men.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

When men dissent from the doctrine of Christ they are to be avoided. Paul tells us that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, not Popes, nor Councils, nor an individual’s conscience. Christians should expect their teachers to consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine which is according to godliness. Any teacher who fails to do this is probably more interested in gaining followers than he is in the truth.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“He is proud.” This shows us the motivating force of those who refuse to adhere strictly to the words of Jesus and the apostles. They are motivated by pride, that is, an exalted sense of their own importance. This is why Paul classifies dissension (dichostasia) as one of the works of the flesh.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions (dichostasia) , heresies (hairesis)

If dissension (dichostasia) is the first step in the apostasy of the church, then it follows logically that division (schisma) would be the next step. Those teachers who dissent from the original doctrine in order to draw a following may gain supporters which will then form a party within the church. This causes a division among the disciples.

In our KJV schisma is translated "division(s)" five times, "rent" twice, and "schism" once. Schisma means a rent or split; a division into parties. You can get an idea of what a schism is by the way schisma is translated in Matt 9:16 and Mark 2:21. In these scriptures the Greek word schisma is translated "rent"

No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent (schisma) is made worse.

A rent in this garment is a tare, but not torn completely away, otherwise it could not be made worse. when disciples rally around certain leaders or certain doctrines, it will bring about a rent or tare, a schism in the body of Christ. This division creates a party spirit in the church in which it is impossible for the members to have the proper care one for another.

That there should be no schism (schisma) in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

The desire of Jesus was that his disciples would be one as he and the Father were one, “... that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11). The metaphors that Paul uses for the church emphasize the oneness of God’s people. The church is “one body” (Eph.4:4). The concept of the church being a body shows that it should be intimately joined together to function properly, “...the whole body fitly joined together and compacted...” (Eph.4:16), not factional and divided. The church as a building is “...fitly framed together.” The church as bread is to be one loaf, “For we being many are one bread, and one body...” (1 Cor. 10:17). As sheep “...there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

To avoid a schism, we must "all speak the same thing" with no dissension from the original doctrine. Dissension is the first step. When we fail to speak the same thing and began to preach diverse doctrines, it leads to a schism or division in the body. This is the second step in the apostasy of a congregation. If the division is not arrested and is allowed to continue, the schism, which is a rent or tare in the body, becomes torn completely away and separated to become a sect or heresy. And heresy is the third and final step in the apostasy of a church.

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 (schisma) among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The word sect as we have already seen is from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is) from which our English word heresy comes. hairesis is translated "sect" five times in the KJV and is transliterated "heresy" four times. When torn completely away, a schisma, "rent" or "division" becomes a hairesis, a "sect". So heresy or the forming of a sect is the final step in apostasy. Like dissensions (dichostasia), heresy is also a work of the flesh and shows the working of carnal-minded and self- seeking men in the church.

First, we must realize that this scripture does not apply to those in the denominations. A denomination is already a sect and leaving one would not be heresy. The situation is somewhat altered today from New Testament times, inasmuch as most Christians do not belong to a church with Bible doctrine or Bible order, and to leave such a church would not be departing from the faith. Many modern day sects were not built as a result of men leaving the truth. Rather, they were often built as a result of men finding truth or actually recovering Bible truth. In these cases the leaders of the new sect do not see themselves as sectarian. They see themselves as defending the truth and keeping the church pure by separating from false doctrine. They felt the need for establishing an organization to protect the truth and keep out the defiling elements of erroneous teaching. It is true that Christians must be separate, but Christians cannot be sectarian. It often seems that there is a fine line between sectarianism and separation, therefore it is important that we distinguish between sectarianism and separation.

Christians are to separate from the world. They are to separate from sin and the ungodly elements of society. But they are not to separate from each other by becoming members of a sect. Sectarianism separates Christian from Christian. Sectarianism builds fences to divide God's people from each other. This is contrary to God's will. When Christians are divided into warring factions it hinders their testimony. Jesus' great intercessory prayer for his disciples in John, chapter seventeen, was that they may all be one in order that the world believe their testimony.

That they all may be one; ... that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

His disciples were to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8). As witnesses they must all speak the same thing. When witnesses disagree, their testimony is cast in doubt. How can men believe in Christ when there are so many divergent voices speaking for him. What will men believe? This explains why after nearly two thousand years the task before the church today is greater than when it began. With the divisiveness and bitter quarrels among Christians, no wonder we have so little impact upon the heathen world. How can they believe?

Instead, heathen religions are advancing beyond even nominal Christianity. The Muslim religion, once thought moribund, is today one of the most aggressive and energetic religions in the world. Uriah Smith, a Bible expositor of the last century, wrote almost a hundred years ago, "Mohammedanism is an effete system, which has ceased to be any important factor in the world's progress." Daniel and The Revelation, 1897, Page 565. How wrong Smith was! The Muslim religion today is one of the strongest and fastest growing religions in the world. The Muslims in the United States currently outnumber members of the Assemblies of God three to one. In the United Kingdom there are more Muslims than Methodists and Baptists combined. In France they are the second-largest religious group with more adherents that all Protestant denominations combined. (These comparative sizes of the Muslim movement are from The Last of the Giants by George Otis, Jr. written in 1991).

And then there are the Hindus, another heathen religion, who regard America, bastion of fundamental Christianity, to be a missionary field. They are actually sending missionaries here --- and they are having success. Eastern Religions, under the guise of the New Age Movement, are having more impact and effect upon our youth than Christianity! But in the countries that are dominated by these religions, Christians are having little effect, if any at all.

Some regard Western Civilization as proof of the Church's success, and we must admit that Christianity and the Bible have had a civilizing effect on mankind, but World War I , the Holocaust, and Word War II have shown us how fragile the thin veneer of civilization truly is. And remember that in spite of the large memberships given by the religious census, the vast majority of our people are only "nominal" Christians, who hardly attend church services at all or attend only in the most perfunctory way. They are NOT true converts to the Christian religion. Most were born to the Christian religion by natural birth and not by spiritual birth.

Sectarianism has been a scandal on Christianity. H. Richard Niebuhr regards Denominationalism as an "unacknowledged hypocrisy" of the Christian church, and writes of the "ethical failure of the divided church." (H. Richard Niebuhr: The Social Sources of Denominationalism). Charles Clayton Morrison, another world renowned ecumenist, writes of "Denominationalism As Sin" also says, "A sectarian church not only shuts its own faithful in and other Christians equally faithful out; it also shuts its own truth in and other truth out. Its own truth cannot get out to win its way on its merits, and the truth held by others cannot get in to enrich the truth and perhaps correct the errors of those who hold it... Denominationalism isolates truth and coddles error." (Charles Clayton Morrison: The Unfinished Reformation p.42). Other theologians and church leaders equally deplore this blight upon the Christian religion! Many have worked and are working diligently and unselfishly in the Ecumenical Movement which began with the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910. This was the first really international conference of a multi-denominational character, and which has resulted in the founding of the World Council of Churches in 1948.

Much as we admire the efforts of these conscientious and benevolent men, we must ask, "Is ecumenism really the answer?" Ecumenism keeps the structure of sectarianism while promoting cooperation among the various sects. Jesus program was different. We know that Jesus desired, and prayed for unity, but we do not find him trying to unite the various sects of his day! There were various sects in existence in the time of Christ. Some are mentioned in the New Testament. Some are mentioned by the historian Josephus. The New Testament names the "sect of the Pharisees" and the "sect of the Sadducees":

Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest SECT of our religion I lived a PHARISEE.

Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the SECT of the SADDUCEES,) and were filled with indignation,

But there is no indication that Jesus tried to get the Pharisees and the Sadducees together, or to even cooperate with each other in any way. Nor did he himself join either sect or try to cooperate with either faction in any way. Instead we find him warning his disciples against them and their doctrine. It was Jesus stated purpose that he had no intention of uniting the various elements of society.

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Jesus would only unite men around truth. This would even divide families. He simply would not unite men around kinship. This would eliminate solidarity based on race or national origin that is so prominent in today's society. In today's society there is an increasing ethnic and race consciousness that is dividing people into hostile communities. When Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one, he first prayed for them to be sanctified or set apart that they might be one. John 17:11-23. First they must be separated from everything else, and the dividing principle was TRUTH, not race, not nationality, not social customs or traditions, but truth: "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." John 17:7.

Rather than uniting the various factions of his day, Jesus' disciples must stand apart. It would seem to be a divine principle that God wants his people separated from those who do not serve him.

20 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the water; and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve me. 21 Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are. 22 And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth. 23 And I will put a division between my people and thy people: to morrow shall this sign be.

This is also exemplified is the laws he gave his people that forbids making covenants or even intermarriage with those that served other gods: Ex. 23:32, Ex. 34:12,15-16, Deut. 7:2-6. This was an Old Testament principle, but it is carried over into the New Testament. Jesus himself was "separate from sinners" Heb. 7:27. Paul in quoting the Old Testament promise of God says: "Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate..." 1 Cor. 6:17

The dividing line in the New Testament is those who believed the preaching of Christ and his apostles would be separated from those that did not believe. The first church was gathered around the teaching or doctrine of the apostles. The various sects have always had extraneous doctrines upon which to base their fellowship. But anything more than the apostles' doctrine is too much, and anything less than the apostles' doctrine is too little.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The apostle Paul separated the disciples from those who would not believe the apostolic preaching:

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. 9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

The idea of separation is inherent in the very word "church". Not the English word church, but the Greek word which is translated church in our common version. The Greek word is ecclesia (ek-klay-see'-ah) and it means a CALLED-OUT assembly. To assemble with the church of Christ, the people of God, you must first "come out". Come out of the world John 17:16 ; Come out of sin 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Come out of darkness 1 Pet. 2:9.

This principle of separation would immediately exclude from the church of Jesus Christ those who do not believe in Christ, such as the Hindus, the Buddhist, the Muslims, and of course the Judaist. While it is obvious that Hindus, etc. must be excluded from our concept of the true church of Jesus Christ, how far should this separation extend? Of those who profess to be Christians many think the true church includes both Catholics AND Protestants. Others think it is just the Catholics, or just the Protestants. Still others feel it could be only one of the hundreds of sects into which Protestantism is divided. But the church of Christ must not include any sect. It must be separate but non-sectarian. The proof of that is that all those who are following Christ are welcome. There is no membership book, for their names are written in heaven. There is no Creed or Confession to agree to other than "Jesus is Lord.". There is no book that one is bound to, other than the Bible. No doctrine, other than the doctrine of Christ. You cannot join it for "...the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47 )

Of course the body of Christ will be looked upon by the denominational churches and the secular society as just another sect. The New Testament Church was considered a sect by the outsiders. Paul knew and acknowledged that they were calling the true church a sect.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, (Greek hairesis, a sect) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

The Jewish leaders meeting with Paul also regarded Christianity as a sect. Those who are backed by long years of tradition, often feel their tradition is sanctified by time rather than truth, and become defenders of the status quo. They then feel like any move that challenges their estate or tradition is a sect. The length of time a church or movement has been in existence, or its size, or if it has gained acceptance in society are not what determine if a church is a sect or not.

But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

Outsiders regarding the true church, the body of Christ, as just another sect often tag names on it, sometimes for distinction but often in derision. This was done in the time of Paul and it will be done today. Sometimes those names are acceptable and are worn with honor by those bearing them. Other times they are meant to be slanderous.

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

In spite of the fact that Paul preached and taught against sectarianism he was still regarded as the ringleader of a sect. True to form, those in the body of Christ today, who stand aggressively against sectarianism, will be considered just another sect by outsiders because the body of Christ must be separate. Outsiders do not understand the difference between separation and sectarianism.

What would motivate a man to leave the established order and start a new sect. We can see that dissension (dichostasia) and sectarianism (hairesis) are listed as works of the flesh. This shows us that sectarianism arises from fleshly desire. perhaps it is loving to have the preeminence as Diotrephes.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 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.

These are some of the fleshly motivations that Paul could have had in mind when he classified dissension and heresy as works of the flesh.

Men may be led into dissension and heresy from fleshly reasons, but in doing so they open the door to seducing spirits and doctrines that have their source from devils or demons (1 Tim. 4:1). Carnally minded men are easy prey to demonic spirits that can easily deceive them.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from (Gr. aphistemi) the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Jesus had anticipated that his message of the kingdom of God would not advance unopposed. He warned his disciples what to expect from the world.

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

But he also taught his disciples that the enemy was more cunning and crafty than simple overt opposition. The real danger lay in the enemy sowing the seeds of apostasy right in the very church itself. This is clearly taught in the parable of the tares. Here Jesus teaches his disciples that besides the good seed of the kingdom being sown in the world, the enemy, which is the devil, would sow tares right among the wheat. Thus the real source of false teaching is Satan himself. It is through demon spirits and with the instrumentality of false prophets and apostate teachers that the doctrines of devils are sown right among the wheat.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The good seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11), and produces the children of the kingdom, which is the wheat. The tares must be the result of the preachers preaching the doctrines of devils because the sower of the tares is the devil. This parable shows us that false doctrine will be sowed right along side of the true gospel, and will even grow together. Jesus is showing the course of this age.

The apostasy will enter "while men slept." This passage can mean either of two things. The metaphor of "sleeping" is used to depict both death, (John 11:11-14; 1Thess. 4:13), and it can also stand for a state of slothfulness or indolence. (1Thess. 5:5-7; Eph. 5:14). This metaphor could be referring to the death of the apostles, upon which there were not enough defenders of the truth to hold back the onslaught of false teachers. But more likely it is referring to those of any age who become unconcerned, and indifferent. If the ministry to whom God commits the gospel is not awake and vigilant, ready always to watch over God's husbandry, tares can be sowed right in the church and wolves can devour the flock of God.

The apostle Paul recognized this and admonished the elders of Ephesus to be alert. It was their job to watch over the sheep and make sure that wolves did not come in to destroy the flock of God. These wolves are false prophets. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15). Paul knew that after he left the scene of action, men would take advantage of the situation to promote themselves, and therefore the elders must not sleep or nap, but be ever alert, ready to defend the gospel.

Not only wolves from without the assembly, but even men that Paul had taught and instructed could apostatize by perverting the gospel in order to get a following. Paul instructed Titus to ordain elders in Crete who were faithful to the word of God that Paul and Titus had taught them, that they might withstand these teachers who pervert the gospel and subvert the hearers. Paul says their mouths must be stopped.

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

If their mouths must be stopped, what did Jesus mean in the parable of the tares (verse 30) by "Let both grow together until the harvest..."? He certainly did not mean that we are to ignore wrong or false doctrine. Sin, unrighteousness and false doctrine must always be dealt with by the ministry. We can understand what these servants were asking and Jesus' reply when we see what the ultimate end of the tares was "...bind them in bundles to burn them". But this is not the job of New Testament preachers. This takes place at the judgment at the last day. In this present evil age there will always be sinners and apostates among us. It is not our job to burn them at the stake as the Roman Catholics did during the Inquisition. We must preach the gospel, and we cannot jail men, hang them or burn them if they will not accept it, as was done by the Roman Catholics, the Protestants in Europe and to a lessor extant even in America. We can only exhort and convince.

These tare sowers are the ministers of Satan, but they don't preach in Satan's name. They come in the name of Christ, but they preach Satan's doctrine. What is even more deceiving is they don't preach an entirely different gospel, but they pervert the gospel of Christ just enough that they can still call it Christian. This is why Paul calls them deceitful workers. And this is why the elders of the church and the ministry as a whole must be alert and diligent in their duties to God and the church. These tare sowers must not be allowed to proceed unopposed. Though we cannot oppose them with physical violence, we must oppose them with the sword of the Spirit.

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: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Neither can New Testament preachers submit to these tare sowers or these wolves in sheep's clothing. Like Paul we must be set for "the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (Phil. 1:7, 17). Not using carnal weapons as knives and guns, but with "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17), we must "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3).

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

In another parable Jesus likened the apostasy to leaven which is placed in the gospel meal until the whole was leavened. Many modern expositors interpret the leaven to be the gospel which will gradually permeate the whole world until the whole world is converted. But leaven in the Bible is always symbolic of that which is bad or evil, and never of good. If the gospel is the leaven, as many expositors claim, and will slowly convert the whole world, then not only is the symbol of leaven used differently here than any where else in the Bible, but this parable itself would contradict the teaching of all the other parables Jesus gave.

This parable is among a series of parables of the kingdom found grouped together in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew. All of them teach that in this present evil age the gospel will never be completely victorious. There will always be a mixture of good and evil and the final and lasting victory will be at the end of this age when Jesus Christ returns to rule and reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The first parable in this passage is the Parable of the Sower. The sower goes forth sowing good seed, but only one-fourth of the good seed sown is productive. This is a far cry from the whole world being converted. The second parable is the Parable of the Tares, which we have already discussed at length. Here again the sowing of the good seed is sabotaged by the enemy deliberately sowing tares among the wheat. This again depicts something less than complete or full victory for the gospel in this age. Then in the Parable of the Mustard Seed we find the birds of the air lodging in branches of this greatest of herbs. When the church is at its greatest, that wicked element enters and lodges there. Here the birds have already been given as a symbol of the wicked one in verses 4 and 19 of Matthew 13.

If these first three parables depict a mixture of good and evil, of victory mingled with defeat, of successes overshadowed by subversion, then we should not expect the fourth to give us a picture of the gospel converting the whole world.

Furthermore history confirms what these parables teach. Even to this present hour, the task before the church is overwhelming. In spite of all the preaching and religious work through the centuries, more evil is being promulgated today than ever before. The gospel has been hindered, opposed, and suppressed, rather than marching forth victoriously to convert the world.

It stands to reason then, that the symbolism of leaven here in this parable must be consistent with its use every other place it is used in the Bible. It is a symbol of that which is evil or corrupting, rather than that which is good. The thing which is good in this parable is the meal. Like the wheat, the meal is what has value. The leaven affects the meal and we must let the scriptures interpret whether that effect is good or evil.

The first place leaven is mentioned in the Bible is in connection with the Passover. The passover is a type of redemption and deliverance from the world. A type of salvation. Jude says that the Lord "...saved the people out of the land of Egypt..." (Jude 1:5). When the passover was instituted they were to put away leaven out of their houses. Putting away the leaven as they left Egypt is a type of repentance when a convert leaves the world. If a person did not put away the leaven that person would be cut off.

15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.

Paul said, "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor 5:7). Christ, as our passover, had no leaven in him, that is, no sin or evil. Furthermore, under the law they were to offer no sacrifice with leaven. Again Christ as the sacrifice for our sins could have no leaven in him. To be accepted he had to be free from all leaven. Likewise when we offer ourselves to God on the altar of consecration, we must first purge out all the leaven from our lives if we expect our sacrifice to be accepted by the Lord.

25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire.

17 It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.

12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

To offer a sacrifice with leaven was would be symbolic of making a profession while still holding to your sins. Jesus said "Except ye repent, ye will likewise perish." When we come to God it must be in repentance, forsaking all of our sins, if we want God to forgive us. Offering a sacrifice to God with leaven is indeed defiling.

4 Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years: 5 And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord God. 6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord.

The only exception under the law when leaven was allowed to be used was the two wave loaves of the firstfruits. When you understand what these two wave loaves typified then you can understand why they were baken with leaven. The wave loaves typify the church in this present evil world, which should be pure, but will always have an element of wickedness and evil that will need to be constantly purged out, like purging out the leaven at passover. Of course once the loaf is put into the oven the heat stops the work of the leaven. And it often takes the fires of persecution to put an end to the evil that had entered the church.

17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Lord.

There were two firstfruits of the harvest offered under the law, and they must not be confused. The first firstfruits was the wave sheaf which was to be brought before the Lord the day after the first Sabbath following passover. This firstfruits had no leaven offered with it for this firstfruits typifies Jesus Christ and this day of firstfruits typifies the resurrection of Christ from the dead. This type was fulfilled exactly for this is the exact day that Christ rose from the dead. He was crucified on passover, raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and presented to the Father as a wave offering Sunday morning following his crucifixion in exact fulfillment of the type.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. 13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. 14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The other firstfruits was fifty days later and was called the feast of weeks (Exodus 34:22) in the Old Testament and Pentecost in the New Testament. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost was poured out thus inaugurating the church as the body of Christ. By receiving the "firstfruits of the Spirit" (Rom 8:23), they become "a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (Jam 1:18). Thus this second firstfruits represents the church. That there were two loaves signifies that the church is his witnesses, just as the two witnesses in Rev 11:3 represents the church.

15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord. 17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Lord. 18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the Lord, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Lord. 19 Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. 20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. 21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

In these types and shadows the Holy Ghost is showing us that leaven must constantly be dealt with as an evil that must be purged from the church or burned in the oven of persecution. The idea that the kingdom of God is itself the leaven which will quietly and gradually work until the whole word is permeated with the righteousness of the kingdom, not only fits no prophecy in the Bible, it also fits no reality of history. Jesus continually prophesied persecution and apostasy throughout this age until the end, and Paul and the other apostles likewise saw a constant struggle against evil and apostasy until Christ returns in a cataclysmic overthrow of this evil world. And so far these prophecies have been true to history. All that remains is the final tribulation and Christ's return to end it.

In the interim the ministry of the church must labor untiringly to keep the church pure by purging out the leaven, as leaven always symbolizes that which is bad, evil or undesirable.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the Leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul speaks of the leaven of malice and wickedness. but Jesus also called the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees leaven and warned his disciples to beware of it. Thus the early church encountered both wickedness as well as false doctrine. Often the false doctrine was used to justify the wickedness. Eventually every wrong teaching will lead to wrong actions. This is why doctrine is so important. Deeds are the children of Ideas. Sometimes the most innocent sounding doctrine can lead to behavior and practice that is objectionable and contrary to the teachings of the word of God. And it may have started with a doctrine that was just a little in error.

5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

This parable holds the key to the apostasy of the church and why we have not been able to recover from it in spite of all of our diligent and honest efforts. The leaven was hid. The leaven was so well hidden that the apologists of the various restoration movements have failed to discern it to this very day. it is almost a consensus among restoration writers that the apostasy was the result of the union of state and church under Constantine, the growing power of the Roman bishop, who became known as the Pope, and because the church in order to win the heathen began to adopt many of the pagan practices, often merely giving them Christian names. Accordingly, the second and third centuries are considered a glorious time when the church of Christ went forth conquering the paganism of the Roman Empire and the apostasy was not accomplished until the fourth century with the Emperor Constantine's adoption of Christianity. This view has gained wide acceptance among those believing in the Restoration of the Church as attested by these prominent and influential writers on the Restoration.

Little by little, at first in stealth and silence, and then more openly as it increased in strength and gained control of the minds of men, the mystery of iniquity carried forward its deceptive and blasphemous work. Almost imperceptibly the customs of heathenism found their way into the Christian church... The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century, caused great rejoicing; and the world, cloaked with a form of righteousness, walked into the church. Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed. Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ.

In about 325 A. D. the early church married Roman paganism. It was an unholy marriage; something pagan, something sacred. God walked out during the ceremony.

Page 25: For two hundred years after the death of the Apostles, the churches of Christ were free---congregational in polity.

Page 28: Beginning in the third century a tragic change takes place---an orientation away from Christ and definitely toward Church.

Page 32 Constantine, in order to make Christianity attractive to the heathen, transferred into the Church their religious ornaments and symbols. Pagan temples were dedicated to the Apostles and the Patristic Fathers. Votive offerings were introduced as were incense, candles, lamps and holy water. Asylums, holy days and seasons with indulgences for sin became common. Processions, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, and jeweled reins and badges of ecclesiastical office rivaled those of the priests in pagan temples.

The great teachers of the past and even those of the present who are laboring for restoration could see the various unscriptural innovations that have been introduced into Christianity through the centuries and have sought to build churches free from these errors. But this is merely pruning the branches while the root remains unchanged. Rather than dealing with the leaven that caused the problem in the first place, these teachers are only dealing with the effects of the leaven. The very reason these unscriptural and pagan practices and doctrines were able to enter the church in the first place was because of the leaven that was hid in the early church and has been working all along. If this leaven is not recognized and purged out, many errors may be purged out, but as often as not, many errors will remain and new errors will take the place of the old errors.

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

When you examine the doctrine of these various parties, certain characteristics stand out. Little information is given concerning the Herodians as they are only mentioned in two incidences and in both of these they join with the Pharisees to oppose Jesus. The first in Mark 3:6 they seek to destroy him. In the second (Matt. 22:16, Mark 12:13) they try to catch Jesus in his words so that they might have somewhat to accuse him of. The Herodians would seem to be more of a political party than a religious party. Even the question they confront Jesus with concerns a volatile political issue. When Jesus mentions Herod, he calls him "that fox", which indicates the cunning and craftiness of political intrigue. This Herod was Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great. The Herodian party completely disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state, Herod the Great's grandson, Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13) being the last of the Herodian line.

However political intrigue did not end with the Herodians, just as it never began with them. Politics is ever present with us, but certainly politics has no place in the body of Christ. If the leaven of politics is allowed to work, it will thoroughly corrupt the church. The leaven of politics was certainly at work in the church at Corinth along with the dissensions we already mentioned. They were dividing over personalities as well as doctrine. Some were saying "I am of Paul", others were saying "I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." (1 Cor. 1:12) In as much as Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ all taught the same doctrine, this division had to be purely political.

Politics is one of the prominent features of Denominationalism today. If the political aspect of Denominationalism were removed, many denominational structures would completely disappear. And there can be no doubt that the political leaven was a contributing factor in the fall of the church just as the political loyalties of today are keeping various factions of Christians separated. When men who believe the same thing divide over leadership and personalities, this is evidence of politics in the church. This often results in power struggles that divide God's people. It should go without saying that political alliances and political string pulling has no place in the church of Jesus Christ.

Few people understand the essence of political power. When the people follow a man because of his charisma, (not charisma in the Bible sense of the gifts of the Spirit, but charisma in the sense of personal magnetism), then these people are politically motivated. Most of humanity will follow a man because of his personality, rather than because of the truth he has. Herein lies the extreme danger of politics in the church. When a man gains leadership through political means, he can lead the people into all kinds of error, because they are not built upon the truth, the word of God, but are built upon the personality and influence of a man. No leader should expect unquestioned loyalty from his people. If he falls into error who can correct him, if he cannot be called into question by those whom he leads? He not only deceives his followers, but he deceives himself. And if the blind lead the blind they will both fall in the ditch.

The doctrine of the Sadducees seems to be a form of rationalism or what we today term modernism. It would appear that modernism is quite antique. The Sadducees did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection. It would seem that they did not believe in anything supernatural. Josephus tells us that the Sadducees had little influence with the common people but numbered their adherents among the rich Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chap. X, Sect. 6. Also Book XVIII, Chap I Sect. 4. And Luke informs us that the high priest and his circle were of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17).

Inasmuch as the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection to a future life, they seemed to be preoccupied with this life. They were not aggressively opposed to Jesus until he came to Jerusalem and confronted the power structure of which they were the head. Up until that time most of the conflicts Jesus had were with the Pharisees. After this the main antagonist of Jesus and of the early church was the sect of the Sadducees. They are primarily responsible for crucifying Christ and persecuting the early church in Jerusalem. Because the Sadducees became the determined opposition and enemy to the early church, the leaven of the Sadducees had little or no influence in the early church and thus played little part in the apostasy of the church.

While they had little influence on the early church, there has been a resurgence of the basic tenets of Sadduceeism in modern times. It has manifested itself in the so-called Enlightenment in Europe in the 18th century, and the rise of Theological Liberalism in America in the 19th century. Today almost all of the major denominations are divided into conservative and liberal factions. The liberals first denied the reality of spirit beings such as a literal devil or demons. Then angels had to go. The next thing the liberals had a problem with was the resurrection, both the literal resurrection of Jesus and a future literal resurrection of the saints. Finally many liberals are having a problem believing in a personal God. Thus the final consequence of Theological Liberalism is Christian Atheism or at the very least religious agnosticism.

While few liberals see themselves as Sadducees, many of the tenets the liberals of today hold would be quite congenial to the Sadducees of Christ's day. And while no sect of the Sadducees exists today, those who deny the reality of the spirit-world, such as evil spirits or demons and the devil, could well be named Neo-Sadducees. As long as the rationalist remained on the outside of the church as avowed enemies of the church, they could do little damage inside the church itself. It is when they work on the inside of the church as unbelieving believers that they do the most harm.

In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

The leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy, but this is not hypocrisy on an individualistic level. This is hypocrisy systematized into a system of doctrine. The leaven of the Pharisees is the "doctrine of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:12). This hypocrisy is not like a case of a man slipping around doing wrong on the sly, and then acting like a saint when he is around church people. This hypocrisy is the whole fabric and fiber of the Pharisaic doctrinal system.

For example the Pharisees were covetous. This violates the tenth commandment: "Thou shalt not covet..." (Exodus 20:17). Rather than just excepting the fact that they were greedy, and confessing their sins and asking God to forgive them, the Pharisees felt the need to justify their sinful behavior before men.

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

The method the Pharisees used to justify their sinful behavior was to interpret the scriptures in a way that tended to abrogate and nullify the original intent of the scriptures. These scribal interpretations then became the basis of their doctrinal system know as "the tradition of the elders" or simply "the tradition."

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The major conflict Jesus had with the scribes of the Pharisee party was over their interpretations or exegesis of scripture. While I have heard many brethren acknowledge that opposition to Jesus did not come from the secular segment of society as much as it did from the religious element, it seems these brethren have never considered the form this opposition took. It was in the form of doctrinal disputes which rested squarely upon the scribal exegesis of scripture as it differed from that of Jesus.

The average Bible student may not be familiar with the word exegesis. Exegesis is the explanation or critical interpretation of a text. We use the word exegesis to distinguish between reading for inspiration or enjoyment and studying for the real understanding of a particular text. Exegesis is necessary for any literature of significance, but especially for literature that was written in another era, as our Bible was.

As early as the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the book of the law was already requiring exegesis. The circumstances of life had changed, the society had changed, the meaning of many words had changed since the law was written, and it was necessary for the Levites to explain the law, taking in consideration all of these changes. This explaining of a text is what we mean by exegesis.

...and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

The scribes in the days of Christ, and after, claimed to continue the tradition that began with Ezra the scribe. We often think of a scribe only in its primary meaning as one who copies manuscripts, but the scribes in New Testament times were far more than that. Their main concern was the study, interpretation, and exposition of the law of Moses, called the Torah, and the other sacred writings. The scribes were also called lawyers (Mt. 22:35, Luke 7.:30 10:25 11:45 14:3) and Doctors of the law (Luke 5:17 Acts 5:34). The interpretations of the scribes based upon Rabbinical exegesis were collected in what is called the Talmud.

The Talmud became the authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising, in the broader sense of the term, the Mishnah, which is the first written summary of the Oral Law, and the Gemara, (called Talmud in the more restricted sense of the term). The Gemara is an explanation and commentary on the Mishnah. The part of the Talmud called the Mishnah covers the period from Ezra the scribe, c.458 BC, to Yehudah Ha Nasi, (Rabbi Juda, the Prince), (c.135-220 AD).

In the time of Christ the Mishnah existed in ORAL form, not being written down, it was committed to memory by Rabbinical scholars and passed orally from generation to generation until the time of Rabbi Juda, who collected, codified, and committed it to writing, finishing about 219 AD. the scholars of the Mishnah were called Tannaim, the Tanna (singular of Tannaim) being a teacher of Jewish law. There are some hundred and seventy-five scholars distinguished as Tanna which are named in the Talmud. Rabbi Juda, the Prince was the last of the Tanna.

The part of the Talmud called the Gemara extends from about 200 AD to AD 498 when the Talmud was closed by Rabbina Abina, the last of the Amoraim. in Talmudic terminology the Amoraim were those Rabbis who compiled the Gemara, Amora (singular of Amoraim) means an interpreter or lecturer in Talmudic law. The Rabbis of the Amoraim are much greater in number than that of the Tannaim, being around eighteen hundred. The Amoraim, and their students, discussed and analyzed the Mishnah. Their questions, discussions, and solutions make up the Talmud. But, of course, the Gemara part of the Talmud was much later than New Testament times as well as much of the Mishnah.

The words "Talmud" and "Mishnah" are not found in the New Testament. The interpretations of the scribes, which later formed a part of the Talmud called the Mishnah are referred to in the New Testament as the "tradition of the elders" (Matt. 15:2 ; Mark 7:3).

What started with Ezra as a legitimate method to explain the law, became with the scribes a method to interpret the law in a manner that allowed them to circumvent the original intent of the law and in its place substitute a multitude of other commandments. This system for circumventing and nullifying the law by "interpretation" was the hypocrisy of the Pharisaic system. And this is what Jesus referred to as the leaven of the Pharisees.

The main goal of exegesis should be to interpret scripture so as to discover the original intent of any particular passage of scripture. Faulty exegesis would be that which gives a false interpretation of scripture. There were two techniques developed by the scribes for the interpretation or mis-interpretation of scripture. One was a literalism that amounted to sophistry. Every insignificant detail of scripture was assigned a meaning of deep significance. the other principal exegetical technique of the scribes was the allegorical method. Allegorical means having a hidden spiritual meaning transcending the literal sense of the text. It is more common to call this method spiritualizing a scripture, but to use the word "spiritualize" in this context gives the false implication that the person using this method is giving a "spiritual" interpretation and therefore is a spiritual person while someone interpreting a scripture literally is only using his carnal mind to understand and interpret the Bible. So instead of using the term "spiritualize" we call this method the allegorical, which is a more accurate description of this method.

We should recognize that neither a literal nor an allegorical interpretation of the scriptures is necessarily "spiritual". The scriptures contain some things that can only be taken literally. But it also contains allegories. To get a spiritual interpretation of the scripture goes beyond whether it is figurative, allegorical, or even symbolical. To illustrate this I would like to take an exam-ple of a scripture and give first the literal interpretation, then an allegorical interpretation, and finally show what a spiritual interpretation is, and how it differs from both literal and allegorical.

The scripture I will use is in Paul's letter to church at Corinth, because I have actually heard this passage interpreted both allegorically and literally. There are people who adhere to the strictly literal interpretation and there are those who follow the allegorical interpretation that I will present. I am only giving one allegorical interpretation that I am familiar with. There are probably others.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Simply stated the literal interpretation is this: It is a shame for a man to have long hair. And a woman should not cut her hair inasmuch as it is her glory. Furthermore for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered or with long hair is to dishonor his head, which is Christ. And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered or with her head shaved or her hair cut off, she dishonors her head which is her husband. This is the literal interpretation of this scripture and to fulfill it, the man must simply get a haircut and the woman just simply does not cut her hair. This is the way that many people interpret this scripture especially among the Holiness and Pentecostal people. They feel that this scripture is concerning hair, regardless of the spirit or attitude a person has, he or she has not violated this scripture if their hair is right.

Briefly stated, an allegorical interpretation would break the scripture down into its details, and assign a meaning to each of its components. Hence, the woman would be the church, because the church is often symbolized by a woman. The man, accordingly, is the minister or pastor, because he is over the church as its head. The hair has nothing to do with real hair, it is merely symbolizing a covering. From this, many more ideas can be drawn regarding the relationship of the pastor to his congregation. Because this scripture, if interpreted allegorically, has nothing to do with a literal woman or literal hair, then there is no scripture compelling men to cut their hair or forbidding women to cut theirs. How a man or woman wear their hair is of no concern as far as the Bible is concerned if this scripture is to be interpreted allegorically.

To interpret this scripture spiritually has far more in it than either the literal or allegorical method would imply. First, it teaches us that there is only one absolute authority in the universe, and that is God. All other authority is delegated authority. As a delegated authority a man cannot countermand a higher authority and go against the commands of God or Jesus. Then it tells us that God's order for the home is that Christ is the head of every home. The husband as a delegated authority is the head of his house under Christ. According to God's order the woman is to obey and submit to her husband as her head, and as a symbol of this submission she lets her hair grow long. Further It also teaches there must be a distinction in the sexes, the man having short hair and the woman having long hair to show this distinction. Unisex is contrary to the order of God.

In order to fulfill this scripture then, a woman could not just have long hair. She must do every thing that the long hair implies. Likewise a man could not just have short hair as a literal fulfillment would require, but he must do everything that being the head and covering of his wife implies. Thus a spiritual interpretation implies far more that a literal application. And an allegori-cal interpretation to be true, could not contradict other scriptures but must be in harmony with the rest of the Bible. An allegorical interpretation is too arbitrary and subjective to establish a doctrine without further scriptural support, especially if the allegorical interpretation contradicts other scriptures.

For example, the allegory given above violates several other scriptures. In the first place, Christ alone is the husband of the church. The pastor is never called the husband of the church, and to say that he is called the husband here as an allegory, contradicts other scriptures.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Also, Christ alone is the head of the church. The pastors and other ministers are to be leaders of the church, but not the head of the church. There is a difference in leadership and headship as we discussed in Part 1 of this treatise.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

And besides the flagrant contradiction to the above scriptures, an examination of the details should be enough to show that the allegorical interpretation given above is not a true or spiritual interpretation of that portion of scripture. For instance this scripture says that the woman was created for the man and not the man for the woman. We see that this is exactly true regarding the family that God created in the beginning. Eve was made as a help meet for Adam and not the other way around. If we follow through with an allegorical interpretation, it would mean that the church was made for the preacher, when in fact God gave the ministry to help the church. That is what ministry means. Thus the allegorical interpretation turns this scripture completely around and gives the opposite meaning to that which was meant by Paul when he wrote it.

This example, of course, is taken from the New Testament, but this is exactly what the scribes were doing with the Old Testament. They were interpreting the scriptures, using both literal and allegorical methods, in order to make them mean something other than what God intended for them to mean when he gave them. The scribes and the Pharisees developed methods of exegesis that allowed them to totally nullify and rescind many of God's commandments and yet all the while claiming that they were giving the true and spiritual interpretation of the scriptures. Often these interpretations would be exactly opposite of what was originally intended.

Investigating these scribal or Rabbinical techniques might be of no more than historical interest if it were not for the fact that the very methods of exegesis created, developed, and propagated by the scribes was the leaven of the Pharisees that was hid in the gospel meal from the early days of the church until the whole was leavened. These methods were adopted by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church and were the principal methods used by them it interpret and explain the scriptures until the time of the Reformation and are even in use today by Christian Expositors. Frederic W. Farrar, who traced the various methods of exegesis through history from the these scribes to modern times, says "The Christian expositors inherited the fatal legacy of Palestinian and Alexandrian methods. There is hardly an error in their pages which cannot be traced back in principle to the Rabbis or to Philo." (Frederic W. Farrar: History of Interpretation p. 11).

Philo was a Jewish philosopher, contemporary with Jesus and the apostles, who was from Alexandria, Egypt, the city that Apollos came from (Acts 18:24). Philo is mentioned by Josephus, but little is known of his personal life. He lived from about 20 B.C. to about A.D. 50. C.D. Yonge says of Philo in the preface to his translation of Philo's complete works: "In his religious opinions he appears to have been a Pharisee, to the principles of which sect some portion of his fondness for allegorical interpretation may perhaps be owing." Philo differed from the Rabbis of Palestine and Babylon in his endeavor to reconcile Greek Philosophy with Moses and the law, but he followed their method of exegesis. So along with the Talmud we have the writing of Philo to ascertain the exegetical techniques of the Pharisees.

Most Christians are not familiar with the Talmud or Philo, and therefore do not realize when Jesus is dealing with Rabbinical exegesis. the sermon on the mount, recorded in chapters five, six and seven of Matthew, while it is regarded as the Magna Charta of the kingdom of God, is none the less a scathing diatribe against the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. Here Jesus is not dealing with the law directly, but with the law as interpreted by the scribes. It seems that most Bible students assume that here Jesus is showing the difference between the law and grace. Or between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. But Jesus was not abrogating or abolishing the law, as should be obvious by the statements he makes concerning the law at the beginning of this sermon.

In fact Isaiah had prophesied that "... he will magnify the law, and make it honorable." (Isa. 42:21). And that is exactly what Jesus is doing in here in this great sermon. Jesus condemned the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees because they, being preoccupied with the outward form and observance of the law, had completely missed the spirit of the law. This is evident in his dealings with the scribes and Pharisees throughout his ministry. At a later time in an even more searing attack on the scribes and Pharisees, he brings out with devastating clarity why he condemned their righteousness.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Knowing Jesus' perspective, when we read his statement in the sermon on the Mount, that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, we understand that it is not that our righteousness must exceed in quantity but in kind. Their righteousness was exterior, outward for men to see, and not of the heart in the spirit. In order to exceed their righteousness, the law must be in our hearts, and we must serve God with our spirits, and not just our lips.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So the sermon on the mount is not dealing with the law as contrasted with Jesus' message of the kingdom or the message of grace. The sermon on the mount is dealing with the law as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees contrasted with the law as it was meant to be understood by God in the beginning. A more sound exposition of the sermon on the mount in Matt. 5, 6, and 7 will reveal this is true.

Notice how Jesus introduces these rabbinical explications with "it was said by them of old time". "It was SAID" points to the oral law. When Jesus made reference to God's word, he introduces his quotes with "IT IS WRITTEN".

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

"Them of old time" is not referring to the law or the prophets, but to the elders. The phrase "...it was said by them of old time" is referring to the "tradition of the elders" and not the law of God. At first it might appear that Jesus is dealing with the law, but that is because the tradition of the elders was based upon the law, but with the scribal and Pharisaic additions or interpretations.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

While "Thou shalt not kill" was one of God's commandments and part of the law, the rest of this clause was a rabbinical comment on the law. Jesus shows that God's intent struck at the very heart of murder by going beyond the bare literal commandment to the motivating principle that causes murder. Verse 22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Murder is the result of anger, especially anger that is allowed to fester into bitterness. Thus the remedy is to be quickly reconciled to your brother before anger can fester into hatred.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Jesus' way of dealing with the law became the standard for Christians and the early church. Thus Paul, understanding Jesus' teaching, said, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:" (Eph 4:26). Anger must be dissipated before it festers into hatred. Apostle John also follows Jesus interpretation saying, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer..." (1John 3:15).

The scribes, not seeing the spiritual aspect of the law, were following a strictly literal interpretation of this commandment, in order to limit its application! They did not understand that one can keep the literal commandment and yet all the while his heart be completely filled with hatred, lust, and evil. Jesus was teaching his disciples the spiritual application of the law. "The law is spiritual..." (Rom. 7:14). To obey this command in its strictly literal sense would allow one to do all sorts of things to someone he "had it in for", short of actually killing him.

This is further shown in the Pharisees' treatment of another precept found in the law, which Jesus also deals with in this sermon.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

While "love thy neighbour" is a part of God's law, the rest of this clause, "hate thine enemy" is found nowhere in the word of God, neither in the law nor the prophets. Rather this is an example of rabbinical exegesis based on one of Hillel's seven rules of hermeneutics called the law of inference. [Hillel was one of the greatest Rabbis among the Pharisees. He was the grandfather of Gamaliel, another great Rabbi, who was Paul's teacher (Acts 22:3).] This again also shows us that Jesus was not abrogating or nullifying the law itself, but was dealing with the rabbinical commentaries found in the so-called oral law, created and propagated by the scribes and Pharisees. Such a precept as this, of course, gave a person the right and justification to have all kinds of ill-will towards one he considered his enemy, and even to do all sorts of bad things toward him. In as much as you had to love your neighbour, the question then dissolves upon "Who is my neighbour?" This is exactly the question the lawyer put to Jesus when confronted with this commandment.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

This was more than just a question! Notice it was a means to "justify himself". The scribes engaged in hair-splitting and in questions and strifes of words (1 Tim. 6:4). No doubt this was a major question for discussion to be argued and debated among the scribes of Jesus' day. One scribe could no doubt pervert enough scriptures in the law to show that the Gentiles were not his neighbor, and therefore he had no obligation to love the Gentiles. It would therefore be no sin to mistreat or hook and crook a Gentile. Another scribe could limit it even farther and show that the Samaritans were not his neighbor and therefore he need "...have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4:9). Still another scribe could zero in on the difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and feel that as a Pharisee he need have no compassion or good-will toward the Sadducees. There is no end to where they could go with this one question.

Jesus let this lawyer answer this question himself by giving him the Parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable Jesus demonstrates that being a neighbor has nothing to do with a man's race or ethnic origin! Or with what a man believes! Or to which sect or church he belongs! The Pharisees narrowed the commandment to include almost no one, but Jesus knowing the spirit of the law and understanding God's intention, broadened it to include everyone that you had opportunity to do good toward. It is no wonder that when Jesus had finished the "Sermon on the Mount" the people were astonished at his doctrine. His method of exegesis was profoundly different than that of the scribes.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Another leading question among the scribes in the days of Christ was, "...which is the great commandment in the law?" Mat. 22:36. Jesus' answer to the scribes seems obvious to us, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." (Mat. 22:37-38). But the answer that Jesus gives was not so obvious to the scribes. For example, Canon Farrar tells us, "In the tract Shabbath we are told that the most important law was the one about fringes, so that, on one occasion, R. Rabba, having accidentally stepped on and torn his fringe while mounting a ladder, would not move until it had been mended." (Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, 1885, Page 50). This is just another example of how they were meticulous about matters of no consequence but neglected the really important things. This too was one of the condemnations that Jesus had against them, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Mat. 23:23)

Many students of Bible history and New Testament background material are familiar with the conflict between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai over the question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Mat. 19:3). This was another question the scribes also put to Jesus. The fact that they were constantly questioning Jesus was not unusual, nor exclusively directed toward him. This was one of their techniques and an identifying characteristic of the scribes. Thirty years later Paul mentions these techniques as something for teachers in the church to avoid. "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9).

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing,...

While the leaven of the Sadducees and the leaven of the Herodians would be corrupting and detrimental to the church, these groups had little input into the early church. The politics and rationalism that later entered the church were from other sources. There is no mention of the Sadducees or Herodians entering the church in the early days, or at any time, for that matter. However the Pharisees did enter the church in great numbers. And as the Pharisees became a part of that early church, the doctrine or leaven of the Pharisees also found its entrance into the church. Thus in spite of Jesus' warning to "... beware of the leaven of the Pharisees..." The leaven of the Pharisees did indeed enter into the early church and began to work "until the whole was leavened," just as Jesus had warned in the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13:33. Thus it was the leaven of the Pharisees that became the leaven that was hid in the meal as we shall see when we study the New Testament, especially Acts and the letters of the apostle Paul.

The corpus of Paul's writings consist of some thirteen letters, or fourteen if we include Hebrews, which is assigned to Paul by tradition, but does not bear his name in the letter itself, which Paul said is a token in all his letters (2 Thess. 3:17). These letters, when placed in the chronological order and correlated with the book of Acts, depict to us a fairly accurate picture of this great struggle that Paul had to keep the church free from the corrupting influence of false teachers. In almost every case the conflict was the result of the intrusion of the Pharisees.

In those early days the Pharisees began to form a party within the church that became known as "the circumcision". Technically the terms "the Circumcision" and "the Uncircumcision" were used as designations to distinguish between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:11). Actually, all of the Jews in the early church were "the Circumcision", for at this time it is safe to assume that every man in the Jerusalem assembly was circumcised. Inasmuch as every male in those early days in the church was indeed circumcised, it would be superfluous for Luke in recording the events in the book of Acts to use the term "they of the circumcision" if he did not mean to distinguish more than the simple circumstance of being circumcised. It should be obvious that the term came to be applied to the party which were not merely circumcised, but put a great emphasis on circumcision and the outward conformity to the Mosaic law with its Pharisaic restrictions.

When Peter opened the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, Luke notes that "... they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:45). And later when rehearsing the matter to the church in Jerusalem "...they that were of the circumcision contended with him Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11:2-3). As every man in that church was circumcised, the term "they of the circumcision which believed" must have a deeper meaning than just including those who were circumcised. In other words it was used to designate a certain party within the Jerusalem church who were strong advocates of circumcision.

But they also went beyond the Mosaic statute regarding circumcision, as written in the law of Moses, to include all the Pharisaic restrictions connected with circumcision which were supposedly based upon the oral law or the tradition of the elders. This is evident from the fact that the scriptures nowhere forbid the Jews eating with the uncircumcised except for the holy things (Ex 29:33; Lev. 22:10) and the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43). Not eating an ordinary meal with an uncircumcised man was a Pharisaic restriction, based upon Pharisaic interpretations of the law. The Circumcision Party was the sect of the Pharisees that still held to the scribal or Pharisaic traditions or customs which were based upon their methods of exegesis. Notice that the great multitude of Jews which believed were not only zealous of the law, but also walked after the customs, which would be the additions that the scribes added to the law.

And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Pharisees were noted for their zeal. Even Jesus took note of this characteristic of the Pharisees, saying that they would "compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matt. 23:15). That is real zeal! Paul said as a Pharisee he was "... exceedingly zealous of the traditions..." (Gal. 1:14) Zeal being an outstanding characteristic, it is little wonder that the Pharisees would interject their doctrine whenever given the opportunity. Thus we see that as they entered the church in great numbers, their presence as a party within the early church soon began to make itself felt. So overwhelming was their zeal, that they seem to dominate the mother church in Jerusalem. For a while it appeared that even the apostles would be carried away by the force of their influence.

How the Pharisaic leaven entered the early church and eventually brought about the apostasy of the church seems to be overlooked by otherwise perceptive Bible students today. And it is no wonder, for the apostle Paul seems to be the only one in his day who was alarmed over the growing influence of the Pharisee or Circumcision Party in the churches. Paul could clearly see the dangers of the leaven of the Pharisees. Perhaps this is because Paul himself had been a Pharisee and knew that the methods they used to interpret the scriptures was in striking contrast to Jesus' method of exegesis.

That many Pharisees believed and entered the church would, in itself, be a wonderful thing. Remember, one of the greatest men in the Bible, the apostle Paul, was a Pharisee. And one can only appreciate Paul's commitment to Christ when you consider his background. Paul was not only a Pharisee but the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). This means Paul had been raised as a Pharisee. Paul's family was so firmly entrenched in the Pharisee sect that although they lived and had their family business in Tarsus, Paul was sent to Jerusalem to be educated. His teacher was the famous Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), who was the foremost Rabbi of that day and the grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel's official title was "Rabban," a designation implying greater authority than that of "Rabbi." (Zvi Cahn: The Philosophy of Judaism, pp. 167-169). Thus we can see that Paul was thoroughly grounded in the methods of exegesis that the scribes and Pharisees used to interpret the scriptures. In fact, before his conversion Paul was becoming a very important Rabbi himself, advancing beyond many of his peers (Gal.1:14).

As a Rabbi of the Pharisees, Paul had accepted the Pharisaic methods of exegesis of the law with all its scribal interpretations as found in the tradition of the Elders (Gal. 1:14). He plainly tells us, "...as touching the law, a Pharisee" (Phil. 3:5). But he also tells us that this is one of the things he counted "... but dung" in his letter to the Philippians, where he enumerates the things he gave up for Christ. Paul, being a Pharisee and knowing the dangers of the Pharisaic leaven more than the other apostles, took a firm stand against it.

It goes without saying that Paul became an enemy to unbelieving Jews, who did their best to destroy him from the beginning of his ministry (Acts 9:23). This was no doubt in part due to Paul's overbearing zeal. While he was a Pharisaic Rabbi, Paul was "exceedingly zealous" of the "traditions of my fathers". When he became a Christian that same fervent zeal was transferred to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Luke says, "Straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues..." (Acts 9:20). And Paul, himself, in referring to this period of his life says, "...But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus (Gal 1:15-17).

Many expositors assume that Paul went into Arabia for contemplation and study, but this is merely supposition with no supporting evidence. Arabians are mentioned in Acts 2:11, as being among those who came to the feast of Pentecost. So we know there was a large number of Jews or proselytes in Arabia among whom Paul could preach the gospel. Paul mentions the governor under Aretus the king sending a garrison to apprehend him when he left Damascus. We know from Josephus (Antiq. XVII, x, 9; XVIII, v, 1) that Aretas was king of the Arabians. If Paul were in Arabia merely for quiet contemplation, why would the civil authorities be after him?

Evidently the preaching of Paul had stirred a civil disturbance in Arabia, as he was to do so often throughout his career everywhere he went. After his arrest in Jerusalem years later, the orator, Tertullus in bringing his accusations against Paul, called him "a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world..." (Acts 24:5). While Tertullus' accusations are certainly false as far as Paul moving the Jews to sedition, the ruckus that was raised over his preaching might make it appear to the civil authorities that Paul was indeed a trouble maker. We cannot deny that Paul was an extremely aggressive preacher of the gospel, which brought him into conflict with unbelieving Jews, and because of his persistence, he could well be considered a pestilent fellow. Not only were the civil authorities after him, but Luke tells us the Jews of Damascus were also trying to kill Paul. Perhaps they were working together to apprehend Paul, but he escaped both by being let down in a basket outside the city wall (Acts 9:23-25 and II Cor. 11:32-33). Thus Paul moved by his great zeal began immediately to preach the gospel and wasted no time in getting started.

As we can see the unbelieving circumcision were in conflict with Paul from the early days. However it does not appear that the Circumcision Party within the church were opposed to Paul in these early days. At least neither he nor Luke mentions it. It is possible that he was still preaching circumcision at this time. He mentions that there was a time when he did preach circumcision. "And I, brethren, if I yet (still) preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?..." Gal 5:11. But he does not make it clear if this was before or after his conversion. We should not expect Paul to have a full revelation of the revolutionary truths of the gospel all at once, any more than the other apostles did. He, like they, had to be taught. Paul had to be taught even if he was being taught by revelation, the Holy Ghost being his teacher (Gal 1:11-12).

The first three years of Paul's ministry were in Arabia and Damascus. He was converted in AD 32 or 33, and so was in this area until AD 35 or 36. These first few years he seems to be preaching the simple message that Jesus is the Christ, and he used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus fulfills the promises concerning the Messiah. I call this message simple only in comparison to the deeper truths that Paul later taught. Using the Old Testament scriptures to preach Christ convincingly as Paul did would in itself be an outstanding accomplishment that few preachers today could equal, even after many years of study. And Paul did this from the beginning of his Christian experience (Acts 9:19-22). His purpose would be to prove that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. This would include the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ.

After a short visit to Jerusalem Paul went to Tarsus, his home town, and seems to have remained in that area for the next seven or eight years (Acts 9:30; 11:25). That is from AD 36 to 43. What his activities were at this time we are not told. He no doubt spent a great deal of time in study and prayer. He would need to understand the Scriptures in the light of the revelation of Christ. This would require a complete reeducation and reorientation of what he had previously believed and been taught. Knowing Paul, there is no doubt that he also spent a great deal of time preaching, but probably in connection with the synagogues in the towns of Cilicia, the country in which Tarsus was the major city. He mentions his work in Cilicia following that in Arabia and Damascus (Gal 2:21).

In the mean time Peter had opened the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, which the Circumcision Party at Jerusalem at first opposed, but considering that God had given the Gentiles the gift of the Holy Ghost without them receiving circumcision, what could they say. This opened a whole new area of opportunity for the preaching of the gospel. This is not to say that there were not Gentiles in the church before Peter carried the gospel to Cornelius. There were. In fact one of the first elders in the Jerusalem church was a Gentile named Nicolas of Antioch (Acts 6:5). But these Gentiles became Jews first. They were proselytes. A proselyte was one who had accepted the Jewish religion, was circumcised and kept all of the dietary and other Mosaic regulations.

Besides the proselytes there was another class of Gentiles that accepted the God of Israel without full commitment to the law or circumcision. These were called "God-fearers". These two classes were later called "Proselytes of the Sanctuary" and "Proselytes of the Gate". There were great numbers of these "God-fearers" throughout the Roman empire as well as proselytes. The Monotheism and high moral standards of Judaism attracted many sensitive and conscientious people. In the case of Cornelius, Peter declared that a God-fearer, which is the class Cornelius fell into (Acts 10:22), was accepted with God (Acts 10:35).

Although Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, the real mission to the Gentiles was launched in Antioch. The church in Antioch was started by certain men of Cyprus and Cyrene who had left Jerusalem at the time of the persecution instigated by Paul before his conversion. At first they preached to Jews only, but expanded their mission to include the Grecians, probably upon hearing of Peter's expedition to Caesarea and the conversion of Cornelius and his household. The term Grecian simply means those who have adopted the Greek language and/or Greek customs. The context where it is used must determine exactly of whom it is speaking. In Acts 6:1 Grecian refers to Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem, probably Jews of the Diaspora, as opposed to the native born Jews who spoke primarily Hebrew.

However in Acts 11: 19-20 the Grecians seem to be contrasted with the Jews and therefore is probably referring to God-fearing Gentiles or Greeks connected to the synagogue. These would be people of the same class as Cornelius.

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. 19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.

Upon hearing of this great move of God, the Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. Barnabas, upon seeing this multitude of Gentile believers, no doubt thought of his friend Saul of Tarsus. "Saul" is Paul's Hebrew name. Barnabas had befriended Paul in the early days after Paul's conversion, and most likely had been with him in Damascus. Barnabas was well aware of the message that Jesus had given Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:27), and would know that message included a commission to go to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17-18). And since God was doing a great work among the Gentiles in Antioch, it was only natural that Barnabas would think of his old friend and seek him out. It was propitious indeed that the Jerusalem church chose Barnabas to go to Antioch.

Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch probably 43 AD. It was sometime during the year 43-44 AD that the prophet, Agabus, came from Jerusalem. Luke tells us this was about the time of Herod's death and Herod died in 44 AD. The famine of which Agabas prophesied struck Judea in 46 AD, at which time Paul and Barnabas were chosen by the church at Antioch to carry relief to the saints at Jerusalem. This was fourteen years after Paul's conversion, and was his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem. Most modern commentators identify Paul's second visit of Gal 2:1 with the council visit of Acts 15:2, following the lead of J.B. Lightfoot, that great nineteenth century British Bible scholar. But this questions the integrity of Acts and calls into question either Luke's knowledge of the events or Paul's memory of them. And it is totally unnecessary, because the events recorded by Luke in Acts and the events depicted by Paul in Galatians harmonize very well when attention is paid to the details of each.

To integrate Acts and Galatians, accepting the information provided by both, gives us an accurate and detailed description of what actually occurred and also some insight into Paul's first dealings with the Circumcision Party, the "sect of the Pharisees which believed." Paul's first conflict with them was when they came to Antioch sometime after Paul had come there in AD 43 but before the famine in Judea AD 46. Up until this time we have no evidence that Paul had any occasion of conflict with the Circumcision Party. After all he had been a Pharisee himself. But they came to Antioch and appear to been working in an underhanded way to impose their doctrine upon the Antioch saints. When Paul discovered this, he confronted them straightway, and his encounter with them at this time seems to have been brief, but he does feel like is in important enough to seek an interview with the apostles about the matter while he is in Jerusalem on other business, the distribution of the famine fund from Antioch. Paul was satisfied that this interview was in his favor.

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 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: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

In recording the events of this period of time in the Antioch church, Luke does not mention this intrusion of false brethren. Why should he? Luke stays with the strictly important events transpiring at the time. At this time these false brethren had come in privily, unawares, and Paul's strong stand against them seemed to have squelched their efforts, at least for the time being, so that they offered no real threat. Paul mentions it to the Galatians because he is showing how these Pharisees come in surreptitiously to sow their damnable doctrine. As Jesus said, the leaven was hid.

Neither does Luke mention Paul's meeting with "them which were of reputation", in recording the events of this second visit as Paul does in his letter to the Galatians. Again, Paul met with them "privately". This meeting was for Paul's own benefit, and was not the purpose of his trip to Jerusalem. Luke gives us the purpose he went to Jerusalem, to carry the relief for the famine victims. Paul merely took advantage of his being Jerusalem in an enviable position to meet with the Jerusalem leadership. This meeting was strictly a private affair between Paul and the apostles. This alone should be sufficient to show that Paul is not referring to the council visit which took place later and involved the "whole church" (Acts 15:22).

The pillars of the church confirmed Paul's ministry and encouraged him to continue his work among the Gentiles. Only they asked that he and Barnabas would continue their present ministry there in Jerusalem to the poor, those suffering from the great famine. This Paul tells us, he was eager to do.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

In keeping with the request of the apostles, Paul and Barnabas personally administered the relief they had brought to Jerusalem. In as much as the famine was a continuing thing, we can assume that this took some time. When Paul and Barnabas had finished their ministry to the famine victims they returned to Antioch. No doubt Paul was satisfied that the problem he had encountered with the circumcision party was to be of no great consequence. After all, the pillars of the Jerusalem church had sanctioned his and Barnabas' ministry among the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning of the conflict which Paul had with the Circumcision Party that consumed his time and energies right up until his dying days. Paul took his stand against the leaven of the Pharisees as it entered the early church, but that leaven just kept working, as we shall see, "...until the whole was leavened".

It wasn't long after returning to Antioch from Jerusalem that Paul and Barnabas embarked upon their first extensive mission beyond Antioch and Syria. This was probably in early 47 AD. It is possible that this mission lasted two to three years and Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch probably in July or August of 49 AD.

Paul's next encounter with the Pharisee party is after his and Barnabas' return from this first apostolic mission into Galatia. This was a major confrontation in which Peter and even Barnabas were temporally swayed to the side of the Circumcision. Perhaps the Circumcision Party had taken advantage of Paul's long absence to infuse their leaven. Their previous attempt had failed because Paul did not submit to them for one hour, and the truth of God prevailed. But without Paul there to defend the truth, it appears that these Pharisees were able to make intrusions into the doctrine that Paul had taught the church to at least form a rationale from which to launch their attack on Paul at this time. It seems certain that the leaven had been working for some time, because the whole Jewish segment of the church was carried away with the dissimulation, taking Peter and even Barnabas with them.

It was left to one man, who knew the dangerous turn the church was taking, to stand for the truth. It seems that Paul alone recognized that if the Circumcision Party were to prevail, the truth of Christianity would be lost. Paul stood. He stood firm, even publicly rebuking Peter. With Paul standing firm, it was decided by the church to take the issue to Jerusalem.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

It would be hard to conceive of this incident occurring after the council in Acts 15, where Peter makes a public declaration of his own position with regard to circumcision and the Gentiles. But it should be obvious that at this time it was not a settled issue with most of the church or the leadership. In fact it was probably the forgoing events and Paul's strong disputation with the Circumcision Party and his public rebuke of Peter that motivated the church at Antioch to send Paul and the others to Jerusalem to consider this question.

The council at Jerusalem took place at the end of 49 or beginning of 50 AD, and was certainly a victory for Paul. The whole leadership in Jerusalem concurred with Paul's position and tried to distance themselves from the envoys of the Circumcision Party that had gone to Antioch. In the letters the apostles send out as a result of this council, they even charge the Circumcision Party with teaching subverting doctrines.

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Paul took the letters, not only to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, but also to Galatia when he next visited there, shortly after the council. For Paul the issue again seemed to be settled, and he probably felt that his conflict with the Circumcision Party was over, inasmuch as the Jerusalem council was totally in his favor. There is no evidence that the Circumcision Party had made inroads into the Galatian churches at this time. The letters sent out by the apostles were not addressed to the Galatian churches, but the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Yet Paul brings the letter written from Jerusalem with him for the Galatians to read for themselves. Paul probably delivered them to the Galatian churches as merely a precautionary measure. There can be no doubt that Paul felt that with the result of the council and the unanimous decision of the Jerusalem leadership, supported by the letters which they sent out, that the circumcision issue was closed and that the churches in Galatia were firmly established in the faith (Acts 16: 4-5).

Upon leaving the region of Galatia, which would include the cities of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, Paul launched a mission into new territory, rather than returning to Antioch. He was forbidden to preach in Asia by the Holy Ghost, God directing his paths to open the European mission by going to Philippi. The times spent in Phillipi, Thessalonica, and Berea were brief compared to the almost two years at Corinth. Luke gives us two datable events from this period: The edict of Claudius which most scholars place in AD 49 or 50, and the Proconsulship of Gallio which falls between May, 51, and May, 52. Paul arrived in Corinth shortly after the edict of Claudius, we know, because on his arrival he meets with Priscilla and Aquila, who had recently come from Rome because of this edict. .

In the earliest letters we have from Paul's hand, First and Second Thessalonians, which were written from Corinth, about AD 51, shortly after Paul had started the work in Thessalonia, Paul acknowledges the opposition of the unbelieving Jews (1Thess. 2:14-16), which are his main antagonist at this time. But he does not mention the Circumcision Party within the church, again confirming the idea that Paul felt the conflict with the Pharisee Party was over.

After spending the next two to three years evangelizing Macedonia and Achaia, Paul departs from Corinth in the spring of AD 53 in time to be at Passover in Jerusalem. After a brief visit to Jerusalem, Paul returns to his home church in Antioch to find, much to his chagrin, that the Circumcision Party has not been deterred at all by the Jerusalem council, but has made serious inroads into the churches of Galatia. Paul probably hears this news upon arrival at Antioch. We know that if Paul had received this news earlier he no doubt would have made provisions to stop in that area on his way to Jerusalem.

Hearing of the situation in Galatia is no doubt shocking news for Paul. He seems stunned. He says, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." (Gal. 1:6) Paul can scarcely believe the report, he marvels that such a thing could happen. It is as though the Galatians have been bewitched; someone has cast a spell over them (Gal 3:1). He will go to Galatia as soon as he can, but the situation is critical, so he dispatches this letter to help stabilize things until he can get there.

Of the collected letters we have from the pen of Paul, Galatians then would be the third, being written in AD 53. The letter to the Galatians is a strategic document in our understanding of Paul's controversy with the Pharisee party in the early church. In many of his other epistles he touches on the subject, but in Galatians he is dealing almost exclusively with the intrusion of the Circumcision Party into the churches with the leaven of the Pharisees.

Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

In this letter we learn of Paul's first encounter with the Circumcision Party, which we have already mentioned. They had come to Antioch and were surreptitiously teaching their doctrine. This was just as Jesus had warned his disciples, the leaven would be hid. When he said "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" he meant to be on the look out for it, to watch for it. It will come in an unguarded moment and begin its subversive work until the whole is leavened.

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:

The Galatians knew of council at Jerusalem and the decision of the council, for Paul had delivered the letter of the apostles and elders shortly after the council had taken place. So they would certainly have firsthand knowledge of that whole affair. But evidently Paul had never felt the need to explain the events that led up to the council at Jerusalem. There would have been no need for him to do this, for up until this time the churches in Galatia had been unaffected by the Circumcision Party. Therefore in chapters one and two of Galatians, we find Paul giving them the background of the controversy that led finally to the Jerusalem council.

The council should have put an end to their proselytizing activity, but these zealous Pharisees will not desist, they merely change their strategy. No doubt Paul had felt that the letter from the Jerusalem leadership would insure no further conflict with the Circumcision Party. However this is not the case. The Circumcision Party simply put a different interpretation on the letter than what is actually implied by the letter itself. They could point out that the original controversy revolved around whether one could be saved without being circumcised.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

The Circumcision Party had to concede that the Gentiles can be saved without circumcision, but actually the position of the Circumcision Party is little changed, for while they must make concession to the decision of the apostles that the Gentiles can be saved without circumcision, they are still holding to the concept that unless they are circumcised and keep the law of Moses they are in the same position as the God-fearing Gentiles were in relation to the synagogue. That is, they are not full members of the Israel of God. This new position the circumcision now take is that the Gentiles might be saved, but in order for them to go on to perfection, they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. That this is the position they now take is evident by Paul's retort in the Galatian letter!

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Their tactics now were to exclude those who would not conform to the ceremonial rituals of the law and circumcision. Although the nonconforming Gentiles might be saved they could be no more that a mere adjunct to the people of God unless they too became zealous followers of the Circumcision Party.

They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.

In the letter to the Galatians we can follow the assertions of the Pharisee party by observing Paul's defense step by step. It is an amazing and powerful defense. And it is a devastating blow to the circumcision parties' premises. First of all, it would appear that the Circumcision Party asserted that although Paul was the founder of the churches in Galatia, he was merely acting as an agent of the apostles and church in Jerusalem. Otherwise, they could point out, why would Paul deliver the letter of the apostles and elders to the Galatians with “the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). To counter that claim Paul gives the background of the Jerusalem letter, showing that it was written from an entirely different perspective. The letter was written to exonerate the leadership in Jerusalem from any responsibility for the Circumcision Party going to Antioch. These men had no such commission. They were acting independently of the Jerusalem church. And the assertion that Paul is merely an agent of the apostles is proven wrong by pointing out the fact that he had a very limited contact with the apostles, and when he did contact them they added nothing to him, and they, for their part, acknowledged Paul's gift and commission to the Gentiles. Paul received his apostleship independently from the apostles at Jerusalem.

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Evidently these Pharisees were making the accusation that Paul was a men-pleaser, and as such that he changed his message, preaching first one thing than another. Paul retorts that if he changes his message, the Galatians are to hold to the original message, for it came to him as a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. If he now preaches another gospel, he places himself, as well as others, under a curse. Paul is so confident of his call and message that he says even if an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel than what he originally preached in Galatia, let him be accursed. Such strong language should convince the Galatians that Paul was not wavering and now preaching something he failed to give them when he established the churches there. This is the substance of the first two chapters of the Galatian letter.

Further the accusation that Paul was still preaching circumcision, might seem plausible in view of the fact that on Paul's last visit there, he circumcised Timothy when he chose Timothy to travel with him (Acts 16:3). What would this be but evidence that in order for Timothy to enter into that higher level of service he must submit to circumcision. Yet their accusation that Paul himself was still preaching circumcision as the higher walk, was baseless in view of the fact that Paul was still being persecuted. If he were yet preaching circumcision, why was he still be persecuted?

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Paul then demolishes the Pharisees' argument for circumcision in a powerful theological exposition of the place of the law, of justification and faith, and of the promises made to Abraham. He closes this letter by assuring the Galatians that they are indeed a part of the "Israel of God" without being circumcised. When we consider the conflict that is taking place here and how the Pharisees are denying the Gentiles a place unless they are circumcised, we understand more fully Paul's use of this phrase, the Israel of God, here as he closes this letter (Gal. 6:15-16).

We cannot overemphasize the importance of this letter in Paul's controversy with the Pharisees. Although this battle raged on for several years, the strong arguments that Paul uses here, some of which he utilizes and refines in his letter to the Romans, eventually destroys the doctrine that circumcision is necessary for salvation, or perfection, or for being a full member in the kingdom of God. Soon after dispatching this letter Paul visits Galatia in person. Luke simply says that he "...went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples." (Acts 18:23)

After leaving Galatia, Paul begins his mission in Asia, making Ephesus his headquarters. There is no doubt that this area had been on his mind for some time, and in his first attempt to evangelize here he was "...forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia." (Acts 16:6) Now the door is opened and he spends the next three years there (AD 53-56).

Although Paul could hope that he had put an end to the averse influence of the Circumcision Party, this was too much to hope for. Whatever his successes in Galatia, while Paul is busy at Ephesus, the Circumcision Party arrive at Corinth. Although the Pharisee Party is not the primary problem at Corinth, their presence there is further dividing the church and adding yet another party. Concerning them, Paul could say "For there must also be heresies among you,..." 1Cor. 11:19) and Paul does deal with these heretics in his correspondence to the Corinthian church, but not nearly to the extent that he does in his letter to the Galatians.

Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is lost (1Cor. 5:9) and our First Corinthians is his second letter to Corinth and was written from Ephesus in the spring of AD 56. Second Corinthians was written later that year, probably from Philippi, and contains a much stronger attack on the Pharisee Party. Their presence here is not as strong as it was in Galatia, for the Corinthian church is divided into several parties and the Circumcision Party is only one of many. This was probably the party that said "I am of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12). It is highly doubtful that Peter (Paul uses Peter’s Jewish name, Cephasis) was or had been at Corinth. It is more likely that the Circumcision Party was claiming Peter as their authority as they formerly claimed James to be. This does not mean that Peter endorsed them, they were merely using his name to gain influence. Peter's name would be more effective than James, whom they formerly claimed as their champion, because they could point out to this predominantly Gentile church that Peter was indeed the apostle to the Gentiles, more so than Paul, because Peter is the one whom God chose to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles as Peter himself had said (Acts 15:7).

They could also use the letter sent out by Peter and James after the council at Jerusalem to show that Paul was deviating from the apostolic doctrine by not teaching the Corinthians "...to abstain from meats offered to idols..." (Acts 15:29). This was a specific directive of that letter and it appears that Paul neglected to inform the Corinthians of this point of doctrine. Paul deals with this question at length in 1Cor. 8:1-13 and 1Cor. 10:19-33. Paul's original position was that "... meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (verse 8). Paul was still holding to his original position, but for the sake of a weak brother's conscience, they should put on charity and not abuse their liberty in Christ. Therefore Paul recommends that for conscience sake, it is better to abstain from meats offered to idols, if indeed they are informed that the meat was dedicated to an idol. This is certainly not the position of the Circumcision Party, nor is it the position of the Jerusalem letter, which the Pharisee party could well point out in declaring the difference between Paul and Peter.

Evidently the preaching of circumcision itself is having little effect on these Gentiles, which is understandable because an adult Gentile would not be favorably inclined to receive circumcision. And Paul deals briefly with it.

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Perhaps Paul's letter to the Galatians, in which he demolishes the Pharisees' argument for circumcision, was already having an impact beyond Galatia, for the Corinthians are certainly discussing Paul's letters and the letter to the Galatians is one of his most powerful apologies regarding circumcision and the Circumcision Party. The Circumcision Party readily admitted that Paul's letters were hard to refute, but they declared that in person Paul was not so formidable.

For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

It might be thought by some that Paul was here dealing with the difference in his oratorical style as compared with the philosophical schools of Athens that the Corinthians would be familiar with, but this passage begins a section of Paul's letter to the Corinthians in which he deals with the false teachers of the Circumcision Party. This is evident because first of all, these false teachers are Hebrews (2 Cor. 11:22). Secondly they were preaching another gospel, just as they were doing at Galatia (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal.1:6). Then, they were glorying after the flesh, which is the same accusation Paul clearly makes against the Circumcision Party in the letter to the Galatians (2 Cor. 11:18, Gal.6:13). And they are trying to bring the Corinthian saints into bondage, another charge against these Pharisees which Paul leveled at them in Galatia (2 Cor. 11:20, Gal. 5:1). Also he wishes they were "cut off" although he does mitigate his statement here in Corinthians from that in Galatians (2 Cor. 11:12, Gal 5:12), which is very harsh in the Greek. From all of this evidence we know that Paul is dealing with the Pharisee or Circumcision Party that is corrupting the minds of the Corinthians with their false doctrine.

Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6 But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. 17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. 19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. 20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. 21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. 22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

Second Corinthians was written after Paul left Ephesus, probably from Philippi in the fall of AD 56: It was shortly after this letter that Paul penned the letter to Rome. In the letter to the Romans Paul enlarges and refines his arguments formulated in the letter to the Galatians. In this great letter Paul quotes or alludes to over sixty Old Testament scriptures. He shows the place of the law, the position of Israel after the flesh, why they fell and how they can be restored. At this time he is still praying for his brethren after the flesh, that they might be saved (Rom 10:1). Perhaps by being provoked to emulation by the conversion of vast numbers of Gentiles (Rom. 11:14). Also Paul is bringing a substantial gift from the Gentile churches, perhaps hoping that this will help heal the breach that is developing between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. (Rom. 15:31; 2 Cor. 9:12-13; Acts 24:16)

In spite of all the opposition Paul has received from his own people, both in the church and out of the church, his great love and concern for them moves him to make this last great effort to win them. It is for this purpose that Paul is endeavoring to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost AD 57. However when Paul gets to Jerusalem, it would appear that the influence of the Circumcision Party is prevailing, and Paul, contrary to the principles he propounded in the letters to Galatia, Corinth, and Rome, makes one last compromise and finds himself in the temple with his head shaved, offering a sacrifice according to the law.

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The only way we can understand Paul's actions in this situation is to remember the strategy that he told the Corinthians he used as guidelines in dealing with the different groups of people. Paul would go to any lawful lengths to win people to Christ, sometimes, perhaps, too far.

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Right or wrong this was Paul's modus operandi, and he followed through with it. However this last ditch effort to conciliate his countrymen is in vain, for Paul is arrested in Jerusalem and spends the next two years incarcerated in Caesarea, and another two years a prisoner in Rome on false charges brought against him by the Jews in Jerusalem.

Sometime during the two years while he is in bonds at Caesarea, he writes the letter to the Philippians. Probably in AD 58 or 59. Traditionally Philippians is assigned to the Roman imprisonment, and this is accepted by most scholars, including J.B. Lightfoot. But the whole situation that Paul is in does not "fit" the Roman imprisonment, but rather his imprisonment at Caesarea. First of all Paul speaks of the things that have happened to him as being in the immediate past, and of his being in a position that he is facing or could face death (Phil 1:20). We know that he faced death constantly after his arrest in Jerusalem and for as long as there was any possibility of him being returned to Jerusalem (Acts 21:31; 23:12, 20-21, 27; 25:2-3). Once he appealed to Caesar this threat was over. His appeal to Caesar was two years after his arrest. So Philippians had to be written within that two year period. Further, although he faces death he is confident that he will not be put to death at this time (Phil. 1:24-25). Why does he have this confidence? Undoubtedly because that shortly after his arrest "...the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." (Acts 23:11)

There are two scriptures on which scholars base the theory that Philippians was written from Rome. The first is Phil. 1:13, where Paul speaks of the "palace", which some interpret to be Caesar's court. The Greek word for "palace" here is praitorion (prahee-to'-ree-on), and Strong says it is of Latin origin; the praetorium or governor's court-room (sometimes including the whole edifice and camp). In the KJV it is translated: (common, judgment) hall (of judgment), palace, praetorium. Praitorion in the New Testament means a governor's palace, and there was no governor's palace in Rome. Praitorion means the same thing here in Philippians as it does everywhere else it is used in the New Testament. (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28,33; 19:9; Acts 23:35). So actually this scripture would be the strongest argument against Rome instead of for it.

The other scripture is Phil. 4:22, where Paul speaks of Caesar's household. But this could refer to any saints who are in the service of Caesar, and is probably referring to the household of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, who would naturally be sympathetic toward Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.

More importantly for locating the time and place that this letter was written is the marked change in attitude and tone from the previous letters and from the letters that follow it, Colossians and Ephesians, which are written later from Rome. Gone is Paul optimism and conciliatory spirit. Those who were the "...BELOVED for the fathers' sakes." in Rom 12:28, have become "...Dogs" in the Phillipian letter (Phil. 3:2). Neither does the Philippian letter offer an apology against the Circumcision Party inside the church or the Jews outside the church. Paul has exhausted his arguments concerning the doctrines of circumcision and the keeping of the law in his letters to the Galatians and Roman Church. In the letter to the Philippians he is strictly personal. Paul is chafing under his chain, for not only is he in bonds because of the Circumcision Party to begin with, it would appear that rather than seeking Paul's release, they were using his imprisonment for a means of reprisal against him, no doubt because of his compelling opposition to their position (Phil. 1:15-18). There is no evidence that the church at Jerusalem tried in anyway to secure Paul's release, even though they knew him to be innocent. It is no wonder that Philippians contains stronger invective against the Circumcision Party than any other of Paul's letters.

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

After two years at Caesarea, Paul is sent to Rome to stand trial before Caesar's judgment seat. This was about AD 59. Luke indicates that Paul was a prisoner in Rome for two whole years (Acts 28:30). If he arrived in Rome in AD 60, the time of his release would be in AD 62. Sometime near the close of this imprisonment Paul writes the letters to the Colossians and Philemon.

That these two letters were written and sent at the same time is obvious by comparing them with each other. Both were written to the same place, one addressed to the church, the other a personal letter to Philemon, in whose house the church at Colossae met. Both were carried by the same messengers. Of the six companions with Paul that send greeting in Colossians, five send greetings in Philemon. In the personal letter Paul asked Philemon to prepare a lodging for him, for he is expecting release from prison at any time. This would indicate that Paul's trial before Caesar's judgment seat was over and he was expecting a verdict in his favor.

Colossians was probably written just after Passover time, AD 62, as the cross seems to be in the forefront of Paul's mind, much as the Spirit is on his mind when he writes Ephesians; which would indicate that Ephesians was probably written with Pentecost in view. Paul seemed always conscious of the seasons as they relate to the gospel. Ephesians enlarges upon Colossians, and many of the same themes are covered, howbeit, without the distress concerning false teachers that we find in Colossians. While a little time separates the composition of the two letters, both Colossians and Ephesians were sent at the same time by the hand of Tychicus.

There is no invective or vituperation in these letters. This shows us that Paul's anger, if not annoyance, has assuaged. The reason for this should not be hard to understand. Paul's two years in Rome have been productive. It would also appear that circumcision has probably ceased to be a major issue. There is no doubt that Paul's "weighty and powerful" letters helped repudiate this unnecessary remnant from the Mosaic economy. Paul makes only brief mention of circumcision in Colossians, the first instance referring to circumcision of the heart (Col 2:11), the second instance stating that we are one in Christ, whether we are circumcision or uncircumcision (Col 3:11), and the last instance referring to his Jewish coworkers as the circumcision (Col 4:11). In Ephesians, Paul only mentions the circumcision in the flesh made by hands, to contrast them with the Uncircumcision (Eph. 2:11). Here he is only using these terms to distinguish between Jew and Gentile.

However it must not be thought that when the church finally purged out the doctrine of circumcision, that the leaven of the Pharisees was also purged out with it. It is at this very juncture that Bible students fail to grasp the significance of Jesus' parable, when he said that the "leaven was hid". It seems to be the consensus of opinion that when Paul dealt with the question of circumcision, and with his powerful letters, totally obliterated that doctrine from the church, that all of the Pharisaic or Judaizing influences in the church were eradicated from the mainstream of church life, except for a few isolated sectaries, as the Ebionites who continued to practice circumcism. But this is because these Bible students or Bible scholars do not know what the leaven is. The leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy. When the circumcision was gone, the hypocrisy remained. The Pharisees' insistence on circumcision was merely one manifestation of this hypocrisy.

As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

The leaven was not the doctrine of circumcision itself, or any particular false doctrine. The leaven was what produced the false doctrine. You may rectify a false doctrine, but if the leaven that produced that false doctrine is not purged out, other doctrines, equally false, will take its place. Although circumcision as a requirement in the plan of salvation was finally repudiated by most, if not all, of the churches, the circumcision or Pharisee Party was still very active. And while they ceded on the point of circumcision, it appears from Paul's letter to the Colossians that they continued to emphasize the other ordinances of the law based on their traditions.

Paul had dealt with the place of the law in the economy of God in the two great letters, Galatians and Romans. In the Roman letter he deals with the moral aspect of the law, and in the Galatian letter he deals with the ceremonial or ritual portions of the law, which are the ordinances. The Pharisees minimized the moral aspect and expanded the ceremonial part. But Paul called the ordinances or the ceremonial part of the law the elements of the world.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The word translated elements is the Greek word stoicheion (stoy-khi'-on). It is translated elements here in Galatians, and rudiments in Colossians. It is somewhat difficult to explain. The simplest way I can think of to impart its meaning is that it is elements or rudiments in the sense of the ABC's of anything. Today we might speak of the ABC's of Physics, or the ABC's of Electronics which would be the rudiments of a subject. The ABC's of the law of Moses was the "...meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). These were the simplest parts of the law for they were object lessons, or pictures. A child learns to recognize and understand pictures before he can recognize and understand words or abstract statements.

The law itself is spiritual, but it had some "carnal ordinances" (Heb. 9:10), and a "worldly sanctuary" (Heb. 9:1), and a priesthood which was made "after the law of a carnal commandment" (Heb. 7:16). All of these carnal aspects of the law were given as "a figure for the time then present" (Heb. 9:9), and served as "a shadow of things to come" (Col. 2:17), "a shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10:1). In as much as the ordinances were mere shadows, in this respect they could only be "weak and beggarly" (Gal. 4:9) when compared to the reality! Paul, therefore, likens the law to tutors and governors, a schoolmaster whose whole purpose was to bring us to Christ, and as such were only to be temporary.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The Pharisee Party, on the other hand, not understanding the purpose of the law, put great emphasis on these ordinances, not only observing them but enlarging upon them and expanding them. These ordinances, which Paul regarded as only the elements or rudiments, were major themes for the Pharisee Party in the church as they had been for the Pharisees who opposed Christ during his ministry here on earth. It would seem that although the doctrine of circumcision was in abeyance, the teaching of the other ordinances were still being strongly advocated by the Pharisee Party and was gaining influence at Colossae. So toward the end of Paul's Roman imprisonment Paul, hearing of this influence, sends a letter to Colossae in which he deals with this subject.

And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 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.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 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, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

These words by Paul to the church at Colossae, are surprisingly reminiscent of the words of Jesus to the Pharisees some thirty years before. Notice the use of the words tradition, and commandments of men. Notice too the subject-matter that the Pharisees of Jesus' day were preoccupied with, and that which Paul is dealing with. Are they not the same? .

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men. 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. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. 14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Who can deny that Paul is dealing with the same tradition that Jesus dealt with, the tradition of the elders, which the Pharisees held. Pharisaism was far from being dead and far from being confined to unbelieving Jews as Bible scholars and expositors seem to think. The same Pharisaism that Jesus confronted, Paul was still having to deal with some thirty years later. There is a tendency among some Bible scholars to regard the Jewish influence at Colossae as coming from the Essenes rather than the Pharisees. (For this point of view see J.B. Lightfoot: Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.) These scholars consistantly call the Circumcision Party "Judaizers" and are almost unanimous in their belief that Paul completely expunged Pharisaic Judiaism from the early church. They see the Colossian heresy as incipient Gnosticism developing from Essenism. (see also A.T. Robertson: Paul and the Intellectuals).

Other scholars, equally as learned, regard the Colossian heresy as a Gnosticism of Iranian origin, contemporary with early Christianity. This Gnosticism would be completely of a Gentile origin entering the church through Gentile teachers. Some scholars see this Gentile Gnosticism joining with a Jewish element in the church and this is what Paul was dealing with. (For this point of view see William Barclay: The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon and F.F. Bruce: Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free.)

While these theories find supporters among various scholars, we cannot ignore the facts given to us by Paul in his letter to the Colossians, regardless of how attractive these theories may be, or the weight of scholarship behind them. Paul was definitely dealing with the Pharisee Party as we can see by comparing his statement here in Colossians to the almost identical statement made by Jesus to the Pharisees in Mark.

However, when Epaphras reported to Paul the conditions existing at Colossae, Paul could discern a new ingredient intruding into the church. In the Hellenistic cities of Macedonia, Asia and Achaia, where Greek philosophy was an important influence (1Cor. 1:22), the teachers were developing a "Christian" philosophy. But they were basing their philosophy on the tradition of men, (which is the terminology both Paul and Jesus use in referring to the tradition of the elders), rather than the teachings of Christ. The reason for this is not hard to find. The tradition of the elders was fluid, and rabbinical exegesis allowed for speculation based on human reason, as long as the scribe was able to anchor that speculation into the law, either the Written Law or the Oral Law. Both Jew and Gentile teachers were adopting the Pharisaic method of exegesis and interpretation of scripture. The combination of Greek philosophy with Pharisaic sophistry was producing an extremely virulent strain of false doctrine.

Before his four years imprisonment, Paul was planning a journey to Spain. He mentioned this plan in his letter to Rome (Rom. 15:24). Whether he ever made that trip we do not know. Perhaps some ancient manuscript or inscription will be unearthed that will tell us more of Paul's last years. In as much as he asked Philemon to prepare a lodging for him in anticipation his release, it would appear that he changed his mind about the trip to Spain or at least postponed it, for Colossae, the home of Philemon, was in the opposite direction from Spain. When Epaphras brings news that false teachers are working in Colossae and that the Pharisee Party was again making serious inroads into these churches, we can understand why Paul felt the need to change his plans and return to Colossae instead of going on to Spain.

While Paul could not go to Spain on his way to Colossae, he could, however, stop in Crete, and it appears this is what he did. While a prisoner on the way to Rome two years previously, he had spent a little time in Crete (Acts 27:7-12) and probably had made some contacts, which he could now enlarge upon. But he is pressed for time, which shows us the seriousness of the problems in Colossae, and perhaps the other cities in Asia, for he leaves the work in the hands of Titus, and Paul moves on and later writes to Titus from Macedonia or Achaia. This shows us that Paul left while the work was in the preliminary stages, something Paul does not do without reason.

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:

If Paul were released from imprisonment in the summer of AD 62 he could have spent the fall in Crete, leaving Crete before the sailing season ended (October or early November). After Paul leaves Crete, he could go on to Colossae as his plans had been, staying at the home of Philemon, probably through the winter and spring of AD 63 and dealing with this Pharisaic assault intruding into the church at Colossae, and possibly the other churches of Asia, specifically Laodicea (Col. 2:1) and perhaps Hierapolis (Col. 4:13). Paul had told the Colossians of the "great conflict" he had for them of Colossae and Laodicea. From the context of his letter to Colossae, we can see that Paul was filled with anxiety concerning the false teachers who might be seducing these churches with enticing words.

For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; 2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknow ledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

8 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.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Colossae stood on the most important trade route from Ephesus to the Euphrates. Laodicea was ten miles to the west, and Hierapolis was six miles north of Laodicea. Both Hierapolis and Laodicea rivaled Colossae as commercial centers, Laodicea becoming the most wealthy of the three being a financial and banking center. Hierapolis was noted for its hot medicinal springs and besides its commercial importance had a medical school. With the intermingling of peoples and cultures in these centers of commerce, the study of Hellenistic philosophy had a great impact. Hierapolis was distinguished as the birth place of Epictetus (c.AD 50-138) the famous Stoic philosopher. While Epictetus himself was only a boy when Paul came to Colossae in AD 62, there can be little doubt that Hellenistic Philosophy already had a popular appeal, especially with the demise of classical pagan religion among the educated.

Paul had confronted the philosophers of the Stoics and Epicureans at Athens and apparently established no church there. And in Corinth he felt an opposition from those enamored with philosophy, but he determined not to deal with them on the level of philosophical discourse which had not been successful at Athens (1Cor. 1:17-2:5). But this opposition from those disposed to philosophy in Athens and in Corinth was on the outside of the church. Now in Colossae certain teachers in the church were taking the worst of the Jewish religion (the weak and beggarly elements) and combining it with the worst of Greek philosophy (theosophic speculation) and using rabbinical exegesis to substantiate their doctrinal speculations by the holy scriptures.

After spending some time in Colossae to deal with this intrusion, Paul goes to Ephesus. Ephesus was not far from Colossae. Colossae had been evangelized during the three years Paul was at Ephesus when he opened the work in Asia back in AD 53 (Acts 19:10). Conditions in Ephesus had greatly deteriorated since Paul had written to them from prison the year before. The letter to Ephesus does not express the same anxiety that Paul is feeling toward the Colossian church as he writes the letter to Colossae, even though these letters were written about the same time, and both deal with many of the same doctrinal issues. This would indicate that the apostasy threatening Colossae had not yet reached Ephesus. The letter to the Ephesians is perhaps the most lofty of Paul’s letters, and he deals with the issues in a more composed way, for there is no conflict in Paul’s heart regarding Ephesus as there is regarding Colossae. However when Paul arrives in Ephesus he finds that some have defected from the truth.

The leaders of this apostasy in Ephesus seem to be Hymenaeus and Alexander (1Tim. 1:20). Alexander was a Jew of Ephesus involved with the church from its early days (Acts 19:32-34). Hymenaeus may have been from Colossae, as he not only adopted the methods of Pharisee party, but like the false teachers who had assailed Colossae, he was seeking to join Pharisaic exegesis with Greek philosophy. Paul dealt with these two when he got to Ephesus by turning them over to Satan (1Tim. 1:20), excommunicating them from the church. Then to make sure that the influence of these men did not continue to subvert the disciples, Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to oversee the church when he went into Macedonia (1Tim. 1:3).

The fall of AD 63 finds Paul in Macedonia. From Paul's letter to Titus written from Macedonia, we can ascertain conditions Paul is finding in the churches he is visiting, which are probably similar to the conditions he had found in Asia. False teachers of the Circumcision Party have made critical intrusions in some places, even subverting whole houses with their false doctrines. In as much that many of the churches met in houses, the implication could be that not only the households, but the churches that met in these houses were being turned away from the truth. You can feel the urgency in Paul's words in this letter, "...whose mouths must be stopped" (Tit. 1:11). Paul is writing this letter, then, to remind Titus that he had left him in Crete to establish order and to ordain faithful men as elders in the churches of Crete; men who have been taught the word of God, and have the ability to protect those churches against these false teachers. The Cretians are known to be gullible, and Titus must take measures to insure that the apostasy does not destroy the work there in Crete as it is doing in Asia and Macedonia.

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The “commandments of men” is Paul's term for the tradition of the elders. Jewish fables is referring to a technique the scribes used to interpret the scriptures upon which the tradition was supposedly based. The word "fables" is from the Greek word muthos (moo'-thos), from which our English word myth comes, and means a fiction; something that is not literally true to fact. These fables of the scribes must not be thought of as fables in the sense of Aesop's Fables, which are tales with animals, men, gods and even inanimate objects as characters, that points up in its analogy the weaknesses or follies of man to illustrate a moral lesson, which is usually explicitly stated at the end. When fables are presented as fables, they can be useful in teaching moral principles, especially to youth. But the fables of the scribes that Paul is referring to here, were fabrications and fictions in the form of legends and allegories presented by the scribes as the true explanations of divine truth. The fables of the scribes were derived from the imagination and ingenuity of various Rabbis. For example, observe how the scribes manipulate the scriptures to prove that David had leprosy, which is not true at all, but is a fabrication, a fable of the scribes. This quote is from the Talmud.

For six months David was afflicted with leprosy; for it is said (Ps. 51:7), "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." At that time the Shechinah departed from him; for it is said (Ps. 119:79) "Let those that fear thee turn unto me." that this ailment lasted six months is proved from 1 Kings 2:11, where it is said, "And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; seven years he reigned in Hebron, and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem;" whereas in 2 Sam. 5:5, it is said, "In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months." The reason why these six months are omitted in Kings is because during that period he was afflicted with leprosy.

The machinations of the Circumcision Party in the churches are easily identified. They revolved around legal disputes, striving over questions of the law, hair-splitting questions and arguing over the meanings of words. Anyone at all familiar with the Talmud can see the multitude of foolish, insignificant, and trifling questions that the scribes dealt with. Sometimes one or two words in the law, or perhaps a simple commandment is stretched beyond all logic and reason to apply to conditions for which it was never intended. The problem was not in men doing away with the scriptures, but by wresting and twisting the scriptures they pervert the word of God to the subverting of those who would listen to them. This is the activity that Paul tells Titus to avoid, for such activity is a prelude to dissension and division, and will finally result in heresy. And these are the techniques of these teachers of the circumcision.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

When Paul writes this letter to Titus he is in Macedonia or Achaia, and his plan is to spend the winter in the city of Nicopolis on the west coast of Macedonia. He has not reached Nicopolis yet, for he speaks of Nicopolis as "there" when he says "...I have determined there to winter." (Titus 3:12), instead of "here". Paul is possibly in Corinth, for he is probably sending his letter to Titus by Zenas and Apollos who will be traveling through Crete, and Apollos has been associated with Corinth since before Paul started the work in Ephesus in AD 53. First Timothy may have been written near the end of his stay in Nicopolis, for in his letter to Timothy he expresses hope of seeing Timothy soon (1 Tim. 3:14). Most likely this would be in spring of AD 64. This would mean that the letter to Timothy was probably written a few months after the letter to Titus. This letter to Timothy is extremely important in our understanding of how the leaven of the Pharisees came to be "hid" in the early church.

As long as the Circumcision Party was strictly a Jewish movement its influence was limited, for soon the Gentile converts far outnumbered the Jewish converts. Therefore in order for Jesus' words to be fulfilled that the leaven was hid in the meal, till the whole was leavened (Matt 13:33 ), it would require that the leaven of the Pharisees be absorbed by the Gentiles teachers also. If we will keep in mind that the leaven of the Pharisees was not circumcision in itself, but their method of interpreting the scriptures, we can see how the Gentiles could abandon circumcision, and yet still subscribe to Pharisaic exegesis. We can see this happening, first at Colossae and then at Ephesus.

When Paul, on his final trip to Jerusalem back in AD 57, had warned the Ephesian elders concerning false teachers coming in among them, his chief antagonist were the teachers of the Circumcision party. We know this because almost all the polemics in his letters written before the Roman imprisonment are directed against these teachers. But he also warned the Ephesians that men of their own would rise up, perverting the gospel for personal gain, whether it be monetary gain or a place of preeminence.

When Paul left Antioch to evangelize Cyprus and Galatia, the Circumcision Party came in to subvert the disciples at Antioch. When he was gone from the churches of Galatia for a few years, alas, but who should show up to bewitch the saints, but the Circumcision Party. The same is true of the church in Corinth. These wolves in sheep's clothing appear in every place that Paul begins a work for God. These Pharisees show up seeking to draw away the disciples from the truth. So Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders was not superfluous.

But now, as Paul writes to Timothy, it appears that it is men in the Ephesian church who have turned aside, speaking perverse things. For Alexander, although he was a Jew, had been in the Ephesian church from the earliest days and was probably one Paul’s converts. We do not know the background of Hymenaeus, except that he had left the faith to espouse vain jangling. If he were once in the faith, then most likely he was converted under the ministry of Paul. But now he has been seduced and enticed to become a teacher of the law and perhaps have his own following, rather than a preacher of the gospel under Paul. Thus in Paul’s letter to Timothy we can see how the leaven of the Pharisees, the exegetical methods of the scribes, is being espoused by men who were probably Paul’s own converts.

The phrase "teachers of the law" is one word in Greek, nomodidaskalos (nom-od-id-as'-kal-os), and is used in only two other places in the New Testament, Luke 5: 17 and Acts 5:34, where it is translated "doctors of the law" and is definitely referring to Jewish Rabbis, and not New Testament teachers. Seeking to emulate the Rabbis, these fledgling teachers at Ephesus were adopting the Rabbinical techniques of exegesis or interpretation.

As Paul warned Titus against Jewish fables, now these Gentile teachers were adopting the use of fables to explain the scriptures. As we have seen, fables is fictionalizing the truth by turning historical events, literal facts, or explicit commandments into allegories, the so-called spiritualizing of scripture, which even today its practitioners call giving the scriptures a spiritual interpretation. When one can ignore the obvious meaning of a scripture and in its place substitute an allegory, under the guise of being spiritual, the interpretation of a scripture is then left to the imagination of the interpreter. If every teacher is left to follow his own imagination, then of course, disputes will arise over whose interpretation is the right one. This is why throughout the Gospels the scribes are continually questioning Jesus. They are trying “to catch him in his words” (Mark 12:13). These questions were not directed at Jesus exclusively or exceptionally, they were the standard method that the scribes used among themselves when dealing with each other. This was their modus operandi! Each question could have a host of answers, each based upon the ingenuity and imagination of the interpreter. Thirty years later these neophyte teachers of the law and heirs of the Pharisees from among the Gentile were engaging in the same tactics that Jesus confronted.

We have seen some of the things that motivate men to apostasy (see pages 195-196), such as the love of money or preeminence and pride. We could also include the desire to dominate, or the reluctance to submit to authority. But while these men are motivated from fleshly desires, their doctrines have their origin from demon spirits. Paul had already referred to the teachers of the Circumcision Party as Satan’s ministers (2 Cor. 11:15). The Gentiles teachers are likewise giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons and using the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, to pervert the truth. And these are not men from the outside but Paul’s own men.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from (Greek: apostatize from) the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

In order to give their false doctrines credibility, false teachers will use the scriptures to validate their errors. Their lies are the doctrines inspired by demons or lying spirits. Their hypocrisy is using the scriptures in a dishonest way to substantiate their false doctrines. This is the hypocrisy of their system. They make the Bible appear to be saying something that it is not saying by interpreting it so as to change the meaning. When someone changes the meaning of a scripture by interpreting it falsely he is dealing with the scriptures dishonestly or hypocritically. These false teachers did not do away with the scriptures, they perverted the scriptures. This is what we need to understand about the leaven. The leaven is placed IN the Meal. The meal represents the true gospel. The leaven does not supplant the meal, it corrupts the meal. This is why Paul told the Corinthian church that there are many who corrupt the word of God. They corrupt the word of God by putting a false meaning on the scriptures.

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

And as the leaven is hid in the meal, so Paul has renounced these hidden things of dishonesty. Dishonesty speaks of hypocrisy, and when men change the word of God to mean something different than God intended, they are not being honest with the word of God, but they are handling the word of God deceitfully.

This is why Paul says that the Circumcision Party were preaching another gospel, which is really not another gospel but a perversion of the gospel. They did not renounce the scriptures, they wrested and perverted them. They did not do away with the scriptures, they simply changed the meaning of them by interpreting them.

Another question we might ask is what would make these Gentile congregations susceptible to these Jewish teachers or to those who sought to emulate the Jewish teachers? The church at Ephesus was predominately Gentile. So much so that Paul could refer to the church as "... you Gentiles" (Eph. 3:1) when he wrote his letter to them in AD 62. No doubt there was a minority of Jews remaining in the church, but it was essentially a Gentile congregation. Why would the Gentile churches succumb to the subversions of the Circumcision Party or to a teacher like Hymenaeus who was seeking to emulate the methods and techniques of the Rabbis.

First we must understand the place the Old Testament played in the New Testament church. Paul told Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15). And of course the only holy scriptures that were in existence when Timothy was a child were the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44), what today, we call the Old Testament. The Bible of the New Testament church was the Old Testament. This is the Bible Peter, Paul, and all the apostles preached from. When Paul considered the advantage the Jews had over the Gentiles, first and foremost was that the scriptures had been given to them.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Because the oracles of God had been committed to them, the Jewish scribes had a long tradition of teaching the law of God. Even Jesus had said, “...The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (Matt 23:1). Their reputation as teachers of the law was boasted, even among the Gentiles. Undoubtedly it was this reputation that the Jewish scribes had in the early church of being teachers of the law that gave them influence and prestige even among the Gentile churches.

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Hymenaeus had turned aside from Paul’s method and manner of handling the word of God and adopted the vain jangling of the Pharisaic rabbis. These men can always find an audience among those that have itching ears, and too often even the saints who are not established in sound doctrine will seek out teachers to satisfy their vanity (2 Tim. 4:3-4). And although Hymenaeus had been dealt with by Paul, his influence was still strong at Ephesus and his Party was still opposing Paul and the church there that was standing by Paul under the oversight of Timothy. Paul warns Timothy to avoid any intrusion from this Party.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The word translated science here is the Greek word gnosis (gno'-sis) which means “knowledge”. This is the name the sect of the Gnostics applied to themselves. We do not know if Hymenaeus was the founder of this sect or just one of its early leaders. It is certainly under his influence that this sect had its beginnings among the assemblies founded by Paul in Asia. Paul dealt with him in person while at Ephesus. When he leaves Ephesus he leaves Timothy in charge to guard against this man and his party, the Gnostics. Not only this but he later writes to Timothy to remind him not to neglect to do this very thing. Shortly after this when Paul is arrested and is awaiting execution in a Roman prison he writes to Timothy again, because it appears that Hymenaeus’ influence had continued to grow (2 Tim. 2:17).

We have no information as to how, where, or when Paul was arrested or the circumstances surrounding his arrest. When Paul pens First Timothy, probably in the spring of AD 64, he is hoping to return to Ephesus shortly (1Tim. 3:14-15), however he does mention the possibility of a longer stay where he is. It is difficult to know for certain his itinerary, but it does appear that he was finally back in the area of Ephesus, because he tells Timothy that he had left Trophimus at Miletum [which is near Ephesus] sick (2 Tim. 4:20), when later he writes to him from Rome after his arrest (2 Tim.1:16-17).

It is possible that after revisiting Timothy at Ephesus he was finally going to fulfill his long delayed plans to visit Spain. Perhaps on his way to Spain he made the inopportune stop in Rome at the height of the persecution which was instigated by Nero, and was arrested there. On the other hand there is a tradition that he even visited Spain. This tradition is based upon a statement by Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians, written about AD 96, that Paul “...had reached the farthest bounds of the West...” (Clement: To the Corinthians, verse 5). If Clement were referring to Spain as the farthest bounds of the West and that Paul did indeed go there, then we must assume that it was a very short visit, because in this letter to Timothy, the mention of his leaving Trophimus at Miletum sick, and leaving his cloke at Troas with Carpus (2 Tim 4:13, 20), sound like recent events. In any case Paul is in Rome and in prison.

Although Paul often suffered at the hands of local and provincial governments, the policy of the imperial government of Rome seemed to favor Paul. Perhaps this was because of his Roman citizenship, but this could also be owing to the fact that Judaism enjoyed a privileged status in the Roman Empire and at first the Imperial Government saw no distinction between Judaism and Christianity as the earliest Christians were Jews and Jesus himself, the founder of Christianity, was a Jew.

However after A.D. 64 this all changed. On July 19, 64 fire broke out in Rome that devastated ten of the fourteen precincts of the city. As rumors spread that the Emperor himself had instigated the arson, Nero looked around for a scapegoat and found it in the Christians. In as much as the general population had no knowledge or understanding of Christianity, it was easy to blame the Christians, and a severe persecution broke out against them that continued until the death of Nero in A.D. 68. A contemporary historian, Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117), provides us with the common view held among the pagan population at that time.

..But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Even if Paul had not been arrested in connection with the fire in Rome, the sentiment of the Imperial Government no longer favored him, and when Paul writes his final letter to Timothy from a Roman dungeon, sometime between A.D. 64 and 68, he knows that the time of his death is close at hand (2 Tim. 4:6-8). There is no anticipation of release as there was during his first imprisonment at Rome. Paul’s chief concern in this his last letter is that the apostolic teaching be preserved in the hearts of faithful men. Already a great defection has taken place under the leadership of Phygellus and Hermogenes. And the influence of the Gnostics was continuing to grow under the leadership of Hymenaeus and Philetus. It will be left to men like Timothy to hold fast in the face of all this apostasy.

Not only must Timothy be faithful to the teaching, but he must gather around him faithful men to whom he can impart the same message, so that the work can go on in spite of apostasy. Timothy must teach the same doctrine as Paul. Then the men that receive it from Timothy must be faithful men too, so that they do not go aside to establish their own doctrine. Thus there can be a continuity and continuation of gospel preaching.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

If the saints are not established in the doctrine of Christ, they will not endure sound Bible teaching, but will desire to hear teachers who can tickle their ears with fables. Thus by using the methods and techniques of the Jewish scribes, the Gentile teachers were able to bring in all the perversions that we fine in later centuries. As long as preachers and teachers stayed strictly with the teachings of Christ as given by the apostles, there could be no room for theological speculation. But with the rabbinical techniques of spiritualizing or allegorizing the scriptures through fables, anything could be taught, even if it were a direct contradiction of the scriptures themselves.

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 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; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Another great casualty of the the Neronian persecution was the apostle Peter. While modern scholars are still arguing over whether Peter was ever in Rome, it is almost the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers that both Peter and Paul were in Rome and that both were martyred there. Possibly some feel that to admit that Peter was in Rome would lend validity to the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter was the first pope. However being martyred in Rome or even teaching and preaching in Rome should not lend any credence to the idea that Peter was a pope, for we have already seen in Part One of this treatise that there was no such office in the New Testament Church. In fact nowhere in the New Testament is such an office even mentioned or implied. This is purely the device of a man-made system.

The first great persecution against the church outside of the Jews was that instigated by Nero. First Peter was written to Christians who were suffering from this persecution. This would not be local persecution that they might suffer under Jewish antagonism, but a general persecution from Gentiles. And the accusation brought against them as “evildoers” (1Pet. 2:12; 3:16; 4:12-16) agrees with Tacitus’ testimony as given above. Paul likewise was accused of being an “evil doer” in his arrest at Rome (2 Tim. 2:9). These similarities would indicate that Peter was writing during the same persecution that put Paul in prison. The salutation that he is “Babylon” (1Pet. 5:13) would also indicate Rome if we keep in mind that John wrote the Book of the Revelation shortly after this time in which he calls Rome “Babylon the Great” (Rev 17:5).

To further prove that this Babylon is Rome, we need only follow the movements of Mark, for Mark is with Peter when Peter writes this letter. Mark was in Rome with Paul during Paul’s first imprisonment there. Toward the end of that imprisonment Paul mentions to the Colossians that Mark may come to them (Col. 4:11). Evidently Mark was still in this area when Paul writes Second Timothy, for Paul tells Timothy to bring Mark with him when he comes to Rome from Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:11). Perhaps Mark had been left in Colossae, as Timothy had been left in Ephesus to help in the work there because of threat of false teachers, as Paul mentions to Timothy that Mark is profitable to him for the ministry. If Mark came to Rome to be with Paul when Paul sends for him, then this would place Mark in Rome during the Neronian persecution.

As we said, the early Christian writers outside the New Testament agree that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome. Clement of Rome writes in AD 96 of the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul as though he had first hand knowledge of their fate, he himself being an elder of the church in Rome (To the Corinthians verse 5). Ignatius writing in his letter to the Romans some fifteen or twenty years after Clement, mentions that both Peter and Paul being in Rome (verse 4). Eusebius the first Church Historian quotes Papias of Hierapolis (c.60-c.130), a disciple of John and companion of Polycarp, and Dionysius of Corinth (c.180) to the effect that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome (Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica, iii.39, ii.25).

While Paul is writing to primarily Gentile converts, Peter is writing to the dispersed of Israel, that is, the diaspora (dee-as-por-ah'), which are of Jewish origin rather than Gentiles. The diaspora were Israelite residents in Gentile countries. By the time of Christ and the apostles the Jews of the diaspora must have been several times the population of the Jews in Palestine.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed (diaspora) among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

The area of Peter’s labors seems to have been north and east of the area of Paul’s labors, with some overlapping in Galatia and Asia. But the main thrust of Peter’s ministry was to the Jews. (Gal. 2:7-8)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered (diaspora) throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

James also writes to the diaspora. However James’ letter was written considerably earlier than Peter’s. James’ letter had to be written before A.D. 62 because according to Josephus, James was martyred by the Jewish High Priest, Ananus, soon after the death of Festus. (Antiquities of the Jews, xx. 9.1) which was in the year 62. It was probably written much earlier that that, because these Christians were still meeting in the synagogue. (See the margin of James 2:2 where the Greek word for synagogue is translated “assembly”.) But it was probably written after Paul’s letter to the Galatians in A.D. 53 and was written to offset the temptation of some to use Paul’s letter to the Galatians to abuse their Christian liberty, using the concept of faith to neglect their Christian duty. (James 1:22-27; 2:13-26). I mention James’ letter to show that the diaspora were the twelve tribes of Israel who were not resident in Palestine.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad (diaspora), greeting.

There is an important passage at the end of Peter’s second letter to these predominately Jewish Christians. First it shows us that even unto the end of both of their ministries, Peter was in agreement with Paul and recognized his letters as being authoritative. This shows us that Peter, like Paul, preached the same gospel to the Jews as he did to the Gentiles. But more important than this, for our purposes here, it shows us that the false teachers that were now corrupting the churches were men who ostensibly accepted Paul’s writings. These teachers were using Paul’s letters the same way as they used the Old Testament scriptures.

Rather than directly opposing Paul, these false teachers began to pervert his words also, just as they did the other scriptures. This would indicate that these were men who had once been in Paul’s assemblies but now had apostatized from Paul’s teaching, yet all the while claiming to be in agreement with him. As Paul told the Ephesians “...Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30).

Most likely then, these would not be teachers of the old circumcision party, the sect of the Pharisees, who had fought Paul so long and so hard. They would never admit that Paul’s writings were authoritative. These must be of the class of men that Paul told Titus and Timothy to deal with and to restrain, men who were enamored of the methods and techniques that the scribes and the Pharisees used to interpret the scriptures. It is ironic indeed that these men were now using the methods of the Jewish Rabbis to interpret the writings of Paul.

As for the original Pharisee party which was in the early church, it appears that their original stronghold, and the source of much of their prestige was the church at Jerusalem and the ritual that surrounded the temple there. We must remember that the elders at Jerusalem, with James presiding over them, insisted that Paul offer a sacrifice in the temple to appease the circumcision party (Acts 21:18-26). When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, the circumcision party lost much of their prestige and prominence. Even before the destruction of Jerusalem, we can see from the Book of Hebrews that many of the Christian Jews were going back into Judaism, as the whole book or letter is an exhortation to Jewish Christian showing the superiority of the new covenant under Christ over the old covenant. They must understand that Christ fulfilled the law, and the old covenant will soon pass away.

The sect of the Pharisees outside the church actually gained in influence from the destruction of Jerusalem, because without the temple as a rallying point of national solidarity, the Jewish people had only the synagogue to look to as the unifying force of their race. And the synagogue was the domain of the Rabbis. It is the synagogue, and the Talmud as the object of study in the synagogue that has kept the Jewish people together for the past two thousand years and given them a sense of national identity.

The old Pharisees party within the church were know by later writers as the sect of the Ebionites. The term “Ebionite” is of Hebrew origin and means “poor”. They could have taken this name from the sayings of Jesus (Matt.5.3) or from James (Jam. 2:5). Or it could have been a name tagged on them by outsiders, as the term “Christian” was first applied to the disciples at Antioch by outsiders. Origen says they earned the title of ‘poor’ by their mean and beggarly conception of the Person of Christ. At any rate the sect of the Ebionites continued until the conquest of Syria by the Muslims. The Ebionites rejected the writings of Paul, continued to practice circumcision as necessary for salvation, at least for the Jews, and the keeping of the Sabbath. This identifies them as a continuation of the sect of the Pharisees in the church at Jerusalem.

In Peter’s first letter he is primarily concerned with the welfare of the saints who are suffering in the great persecution of Nero. They must endure this suffering even as the sufferings of Christ, and they must follow Christ’s example of suffering. In his second letter Peter knows that his own martyrdom is near and his primary concern here is that the saints hold fast to the truth they have been established in, assuring them that he had not used the cunningly devised fables, which is the method of the circumcision party, when he preached the gospel unto them.

12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Peter’s warning concerning false teachers is very similar to Paul’s warnings regarding the Circumcision Party. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, said they had brought in their doctrine "unawares" , coming in "privily" (Gal. 2:4) so Peter warns that these false teachers will privily bring in their damnable heresies. Paul said they would speak “...lies in hypocrisy” (1Tim.4:2), and Peter says that they use “feigned words.” Paul says they are “teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Titus 1:11) and Peter says they “make merchandise of you”. We can see that Peter is dealing with the same problems that Paul is dealing with, that is, the apostasy that had its origin in the Circumcision Party.

The Book of the Revelation was probably written toward the end of the Neronian persecution, as the fury of the persecutors began to wane, in as much as John was exiled to the isle of Patmos, rather than being martyred as Peter and Paul were. It was written perhaps in A.D. 67 or 68. In the opening chapters of his book John addressed the seven churches of Asia. From John’s admonitions to the various churches we can see that false doctrine was rife among the churches. In verse after verse John rebukes and admonishes them. False doctrine and immoral conditions are on every hand. A sect was forming in the church in Pergamos around the teaching of the Nicolaitanes. Although there has been much conjecture over who the Nicolaitanes were, we know nothing of this sect except that Irenaeus, over a hundred years later, said they were followers of Nicolas, one of the seven first ordained, referring to Acts 6:1-6 (Against the Heresies 26:3). And that God hated their deeds and their doctrine (Rev. 2:6, 15).

Jude writing in the same vein as Paul, Peter and John, urges the saints, not only to hold fast to the things they had been taught by the apostles, but to contend, which means to argue, debate, dispute, maintain, assert, fight, for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We do not know the exact time that Jude wrote his letter, but it was probably written just after Peter’s second letter, for he makes use of Peter’s letter (Jude 17), but before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, as he makes no mention of that prodigious event in his examples of God’s judgments. Jude, like Paul and Peter, also mentions that these false teachers have crept in unawares. It is just as Jesus had warned, the leaven will be hid. And as John warns, their teaching leads to immorality and sinful conduct.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The unity of the early church was held together only in so far as the churches were faithful to the apostolic doctrine. Doctrine is the cement that holds a people together, for how “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Once this cohesion was lost due to the successful intrusion of the Pharisee Party into the early church with their “rabbinical” exegesis of scripture, the proliferation of false doctrines began to split and divide the churches into various factions and sects. Every ambitious teacher could interpret the scriptures in a way that would suit his own private interpretation.

The reason there is a difference of opinion regarding the understanding of a scripture lies not in the scripture itself, but in the method of interpretation of that scripture, in the method of exegesis. The leaven of the Pharisees was their "method" of exegesis. They interpreted the scriptures in a way that was not true to the original meaning that God intended. We have seen from our investigation of the New Testament documents, that the leaven of the Pharisees was a hypocrisy which was a systematized hypocrisy in which they nullified the commandments and word of God by erroneous interpretation or faulty exegesis of scripture. And we have seen how this method of exegesis that was used by the Rabbis became the leaven that not only corrupted the Jewish segment of the church, but became the method that was finally adopted by their Gentile students, until the whole church was corrupted with the leaven of the Pharisees, just as Jesus had predicted in the Parable of the Leaven in Matthew thirteen. Thus the apostolic era closes with apostasy dividing the churches into various sects following various leaders.

According to tradition John survived the Neronian ordeal and lived into the reign of Trajan, after A.D. 98, the only one of the twelve apostles to die a natural death. John’s last letters, written possibly twenty to thirty years after the Book of the Revelation, show us the continuing apostasy and the problems with false teachers.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Again, the only security for the church is to adhere to the doctrine delivered to them by the apostles. John makes his teaching, which is the apostolic teaching, the criterion for sound doctrine and the way to tell if a prophet or teacher is to be accepted. Those that hear John, that is that accept his teaching, are the ones who are following God. To reject John, or any of the apostles for that matter, is to reject the doctrine of God and of Christ. Teachers and preachers who have defected from the truth, will stand in opposition to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of Christ.

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Further, both John and Peter base their knowledge of the doctrine of Christ, not only on their office as apostles, but also on their status as eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry. And Peter, James, and John substantiate Paul’s apostleship, and Peter recognizes Paul’s letters as scriptures.

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Thus again we are brought back to the New Testament writings as a criterion to judge all doctrine. The fact that a man holds the office of Apostle should be sufficient to validate his teaching. However, inasmuch as there are false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13), and many who claim apostolic authority without the gift and commission from God to be apostles (Rev. 2:2), it is necessary to have something beyond the claims of a man or men, and that something is the New Testament itself. Therefore no man today can establish doctrine on the authority of his own apostleship, but must resort to the writings of the New Testament, and our contending must be based on the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. (ASV)

These false teachers and deceivers will split and divide the church. Therefore the true disciples must take a stand against them, and the safest way is to not let them get a foothold in the first place. The disciples were not to receive these false teachers into their house (in these early days most of the churches met in homes) or bid them God speed. The modern attitude that doctrine doesn’t matter, does not reflect the same attitude that John or Paul had. They knew that false doctrine is detrimental to the life of the church.

John’s first letter deals primarily with the sect of the Gnostics. As we have seen, the first mention of the Gnostics was by Paul in First Timothy 6:20, where this name is used in connection with Hymenaeus and Alexander (1Tim. 1:20), who are later joined by Philetus (2Tim. 2:17). The word Gnostic is derived from Greek word gnosis, which literally means knowledge. This is the name that this new sect applied to themselves. The KJV translates gnosis by the word science here in First Timothy, thus the average Bible student using the KJV would not know that Paul was referring to this new sect that was forming among Paul’s churches.

Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus were at Ephesus when Paul writes Timothy about dealing with them, but apparently the heresy began at Colossae, for this is where Paul first deals with it. Gnosticism had its origin when Gentile teachers adopted the Rabbinical methods of interpretation in order to use the scriptures to substantiate various tenets of Greek Philosophy. Most Christians are not even aware of the existence of the Gnostics or that the Gnostics rivaled the Catholics as the leading sect of Christendom for the first two or three hundred years of the Christian era. Up until the nineteenth century the only source of information for this powerful movement was found in the writings of those who opposed them, chiefly the Catholic apologists, Justin Martyr (c.100-165), Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (ca. A.D. 180), Hippolytus, (ca. A.D. 230), Origen (c.185-c.254), and Tertullian (c.145-c.220).

In the nineteenth century, three original Gnostic codices, written in Coptic, were acquired (codices are handwritten manuscripts in book form) giving for the first time a first hand knowledge of Gnosticism. Then in 1945 some Egyptian peasants discovered a large jar in an old cave that contained thirteen codices containing fifty-two or fifty-three treatises written in Coptic most of which have proven to be Gnostic writings dating from around A.D. 140 to 400. These are known as the “Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts” from the place they were discovered in Upper Egypt (Andrew K. Helmbold: The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible).

Some modern scholars have advanced the theory that the Gnostics derived from a pre-Christian movement of Persian origin, although there is no historical or archeological evidence for the existence of such a movement. All of the Gnostic writings that have been found are from the second century and later. But these scholars have rejected the Pastoral Epistles of Paul as being genuine, and therefore they must find the source of Gnosticism outside of the New Testament. When one accepts the integrity of the New Testament and understands the cultural climate of the Hellenistic cities of the first century, in which philosophy was much more influential than it has become in modern times, it becomes obvious that all of the elements of the Gnosticism of the second and third centuries, for which we do have documents, were present when Paul first confronted Gnosticism and John later dealt with it.

Paul recognized the influence that philosophy played among the Greeks. Paul’s statement that “...the Greeks seek after wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22) is a reference to this philosophy influence. The word philosophy means the love of wisdom, from philo = love and sophia = wisdom. Besides the Stoics and the Epicureans mentioned in Acts, the greatest school of philosophy was Platonism. The Greek Philosopher Plato (428-348 B.C.) had opened a school in Athens called the Academy, which was still famous and influential in Paul’s day. In fact the Academy continued to function until the Emperor Justinian suppressed the philosophic schools in 529 A.D. The Academy is the ancestor of the universities as they developed from the Middle Ages onward.

Plato must be recognized as the greatest philosopher who ever lived, if by greatness we are speaking in terms of influence. The writings of his predecessors exist only in fragments while the works of Plato have come down to us nearly complete. Besides his influence on Christian theology, Plato established the problems and agenda that even modern philosophy must deal with. Some of the chief elements of Gnosticism were taught by Plato.

First there is the very name of the movement itself, Gnostic, from gnosis or knowledge. Reading the dialogues of Plato, one is struck by the fact that for Plato true knowledge is the path to Virtue and the Good. This is emphasized over and over. The Gnostic dualism of reality and appearance; soul and body is pure Platonism. Even the Gnostic doctrine of the demiurge as a subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world finds its origin in the Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas. The emphasis on development and care of the soul and the denigration of the body is also found in Plato as well as other Greek philosophers.

Working from these philosophic tenets the Gnostics developed a system of ontological dualism, in which there was an opposition between an ineffable, transcendent God and a demiurge who created the material universe. Often this demiurge was identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The material creation was viewed as evil, and the flesh, being a part of that material creation, is inherently evil. The common conclusion of all Gnostic sects and the distinguishing feature of Gnosticism as it developed was that since the flesh is inherently evil, Christ, as the messenger sent from the transcendent God, could not himself have been flesh. Thus they denied that Christ came in the flesh.

My description and explanation of Gnosticism is very simplistic in view of the elaborate and sophisticated systems of theology which they developed as depicted in the literature of the second century. But the fundamental elements that would identify a group as being a part of the Gnostic movement are those elements mentioned above of ontological dualism, the evil nature of the body or flesh, and denial of the flesh of Christ.

The practical consequences of their view that the flesh is inherently evil developed along two contrasting and divergent lines. Some Gnostics believed that although the flesh was inherently evil, it must be overcome and the only way to overcome the flesh is to deny it every pleasure or satisfaction. Hence these Gnostics practiced an extreme form of asceticism and taught to abstain from all pleasures, especially those pleasures of a culinary or sexual nature. Based on this principle, they forbade marriage and taught to abstain from meats as Paul mentions in his letter to Timothy concerning these teachers.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Other Gnostics took an opposing point of view. They taught that since the flesh is inherently evil there is nothing that can be done about it. The flesh is merely a prison house of the soul which will be shed at death thus liberating the soul or spirit to go to its true destiny. Therefore it is really of no consequence what the flesh does. The true God is not interested in what the body does, hence many of these Gnostics manifested extremely libertine behavior, and profligate life styles.

There can be little doubt that Jude was referring to teachers of a profligate sect of Gnostics when he warned of certain teachers who had stealthily come into the assemblies with perverting doctrines. These men turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and give their followers a license to do whatever they please. Furthermore the Gnostics deny the Lord God by saying that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is a demiurge or lessor deity, rather that the true God. They deny the Lord Jesus Christ by saying that Christ never came in the flesh.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The history of the church immediately after the apostolic period is to a great extent veiled in obscurity. We do not have a book of Acts for this period as we have for the apostolic church. Nor do we have a collection of letters, as Paul’s collection, from which we can glean information. It would seem that of the apostles only the John survived the Neronian persecution. From the destruction of Jerusalem to near the end of the first century, we have only the writings of the Apostle John. These include only three letters and John’s Gospel. Yet in these we have a most powerful polemic against the Gnostics.

John attacks the Gnostics primarily on their pernicious view of the flesh of Jesus Christ and with a vehemence that justifies Jesus’ name for him and his brother: Boanerges, the sons of thunder. The Gnostic view that the Christ could not unite with the flesh because matter was evil, struck at the very heart of the Christian doctrine of salvation as it is presented to us in the scriptures. It is only through the blood that Jesus shed on the cross that mankind has salvation (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor.10:16; Eph. 1:7; 2:15-16; Col. 1:14, 20; Heb. 2:14; 9:14; 1 Pet.1:19). To accommodate their philosophical position regarding the flesh, different Gnostic teachers explained the flesh of Jesus in different ways. One group held that Jesus and the Christ were two separate entities. Jesus was a normal flesh and blood man upon whom the Christ descended at his baptism in the form of a dove. This Christ departed from Jesus before his crucifixion and it was only the man Jesus who suffered and died. Another group believed that the human aspects of Christ were only apparent and not real. They believed that Christ only appeared to be flesh and that he only appeared to suffer and die on the cross. This doctrine is know as docetism.

John opposes both of these Gnostic points of view. Against the first view he affirms that Jesus IS the Christ and not that the Christ temporally dwells in Jesus: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (I Jn 2:22). And it is the blood of Jesus Christ that brings redemption. “...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (I Jn 1:7). Against docetism he asserts that Jesus Christ did indeed come in the flesh and is not just an appearance or apparition. John says he heard him, saw him and handled him. To deny that Christ came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The Gospel of John is noticeably different from the other three Gospels. John’s Gospel is the most philosophical of the Gospels. And little wonder, it was written by John to offset the influence of false philosophy, especially that of the Gnostics. The other Gospels taken together are called the Synoptic Gospels because they take a common view of the work and ministry of Christ, and while they are definitely theological in content, they do not deal with the philosophical issues raised by the Gnostics. But this powerful book was written by John to combat the errors that were invading the churches from the philosophical standpoint, the Gnostics in particular.

In the prologue to his Gospel John gives an exposition of the doctrine of the “Logos”. Philo was the first writer in ancient times to develop the doctrine of the “Logos.” The context of John’s exposition shows that he was not dealing directly with the writings of this Jewish philosopher, but with Philo as he was being used by the Gnostics.

We have already mentioned this Jewish philosopher, Philo (page 212). Philo was not a Gnostic, but like the Gnostics, he was a Platonist. And Philo was quite adept at using the Pharisaic methods of exegesis, especially the use of allegory (fables), which was the method of interpretation the Gnostics had adopted. Therefore it is quite feasible that some Gnostics were using the writings of Philo to support their positions especially their hermeneutics.

John identifies the Logos (translated “Word”) with Jesus Christ and goes on to declare that the Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us. This is a direct attack upon Gnosticism, for the Gnostic teaching was that Christ only appeared to be flesh or that the Christ was a spiritual entity that only temporally dwelt in the flesh of the man Jesus.

What Paul’s powerful letters did in combating the sect of the Pharisees, John’s powerful writings did to combat the sect of the Gnostics. But in spite John’s powerful polemic, the Gnostic movement continued to expand. What began with Hymenaeus and the heretics at Colossae and Ephesus proliferated into a number of divisions and sects. Modern scholars can list twenty-five or more separate groups classified as Gnostics (Andrew K. Helmbold: The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible, page 28). The second century was the heyday of the Gnostic movement. Only the Catholic movement rivaled the Gnostics in numbers and influence among the Christian sects.

After the second and third century the Gnostic movement began to diminish, due in large part to the opposition of the Catholics, who were developing a highly structured organization with a centralized authority and a rigid theology. The Gnostics from the first had been extremely divisive, divided into numerous sects, each group with its own special doctrines, being united only by the common Gnostic teaching we have outlined above. Most had little interest in outward organization, and many were unwilling to separate at all from the Catholic church.

The best organized of the Gnostics were the Manichaeans, and hence they were the most enduring and tenacious of the Gnostic sects, persisting until the fourteenth century when they succumbed to the Catholic Inquisition. This sect was founded by Mani or Manichaeus (A.D. 216-ca.277), an Iranian philosopher who received his early education in a Gnostic Community in southern Babylonia. He claimed to receive his first revelation at age twelve and was called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ at the age twenty-four. Mani claimed to be the last and highest prophet of God and the Paraclete promised by Christ.

The Manichaeans flourished until the sixth century. Even Saint Augustine was an auditor of the Manichaeans for nine years before his conversion to the Catholic church. Their organization was finally destroyed by severe persecutions. They were banished by Valentinian III and put to death by Justinian, but remnants of them survived until the eve of the Reformation under different names in various locations at different times. The Cathari were Manichaeans, as were the Bogomiles in the latter part of the eleventh century in Bulgaria. In western Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth century they were called Albigensians after the town of Albi in Languedoc, the center of their greatest strength.

However, even though the Gnostics as an organized group have disappeared, many of their ideas are still prevalent today, because theologians are still grappling with the same questions that confronted the early Christians and are coming up with the same answers that the Gnostics did. Questions like: What is the origin and source of evil? What is the nature of the flesh? What is the nature of the Christ and in what form did he come? How should the scriptures be interpreted?

Gnosticism was only one manifestation of the fusion of Greek philosophy and Pharisaic sophistry. Tertullian (c.145-c.220), the great Apologist, who was first a Catholic, then a Montanist, recognized philosophy as the fount of heresies, but he failed to understand the part played by rabbinical exegesis in adopting the scriptures to pagan philosophy.

PAGAN PHILOSOPHY THE PARENT OF HERESIES. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFLECTIONS FROM CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE OLD SYSTEMS OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHY,

These are “the doctrines” of men and “of demons” produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called “foolishness,” and “chose the foolish things of the world” to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the Aeons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better God, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a God of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed — Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions — embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,” and “unprofitable questions,” and “words which spread like a cancer?” From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.” He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

Although we must agree with Tertullian’s assessment of the influence of philosophy in the spawning of heresy, we must also understand that most, if not all, of these various sects, forming from the time of Paul, used the Pharisee’s methods of interpretation of the scriptures to justify their departure from apostolic doctrine and order. In other words, although the different sects were developing different systems of doctrine, based on different systems of philosophy, they all used the same method of hermeneutics, and that was the methods developed by the Rabbis of the Pharisees. Few have realized the significance of rabbinical exegesis in promulgating heretical doctrines.

The end of the apostolic age was a time of the proliferation of sects and cults. Celsus (fl.180 AD), a pagan, observed that Christians were "split up into ever so many factions, each individual desiring to have his own party." About 187, Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity. The idea that there was one great church, termed “The Christian Church” emerging from the first century, with a few heretical sects, as the Gnostics, opposing it, is not true to the facts of history. Rather there was a multitude of sects, each claiming the authority of Christ, each calling itself Christian, the same as it is today! So, we should not think of first and second century Christianity as one congruous, organized, whole, marching forth to convert the Pagan world. there was no monolithic organization that could be called "The Christian Church" existing at this time, but rather there were a number of churches. Some of these churches were holding faithfully to the apostles' doctrine, but the majority, more or less, were being infiltrated and influenced by various apostate teachers.

The Gnostics were a vigorous movement, but toward the end of the first century another movement took shape that eventually all but superseded the Gnostics and the other sects that had formed. This was the Catholic movement. We must understand that the Catholic movement was not “the Christian Church”, but a sect developing among the churches, the same as the Pharisee movement was a sect that developed among the churches in the days of the apostles. The Catholic sect was by no means the only movement vying for authenticity in these early days. Only because the Catholic party gained ascendancy over these other sects that were forming at the same time is the Catholic sect regarded by historians as the Christian church, while the other sects are looked upon as being the early Heretics from the Catholic faith. Hence what is generally called “the History of the Christian Church” is in reality a history of the Catholic sect.

All of the literature which we have after John’s Gospel and his three letters, except for those ancient manuscripts that have been discovered in modern times, are documents that have been preserved by the Catholic church. The Catholics had little interest in preserving the literature of the opposing sects, but they did preserve much of the writings of their own early apologist and polemicist who wrote against the other sects.

The Apologist were those like Justin Martyr and Tertullian who wrote in defense of the Christian faith against a hostile government or leaders of Jewish or pagan religion and philosophy. The Polemicist were writers like Irenaeus and Origen who wrote in defense of the Catholic faith against other Christians whom they felt to be heretical. It is from these writings that we have most of our knowledge regarding the so-called heretics. We must always keep in mind that the information we have regarding the various so-called heretics is being supplied to us by their enemies.

Fortunately for us, the Catholics accepted all of the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures and hence they have been preserved. Some of the other sects rejected various portions of the Holy Scriptures. The Ebionites rejected Paul’s writings. The followers of Marcion accepted only ten of Paul’s letters, the Gospel according to Luke and Acts. Some Gnostics rejected all of the Old Testament. Besides the New Testament documents, a few documents written at the end of the first or beginning of the second century have been preserved. After the New Testament scriptures the next Christian writings that we have are from a group of men called the “Apostolic Fathers”.

The Apostolic Fathers are those early Christian writers who supposedly had contact with the apostles themselves. There exist a number of documents which have been minutely examined by scholars, especially the great British scholar J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) in his work on the Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot finds the designation, “Apostolic Fathers”, appropriately applied to only three writers. These are Clement of Rome (fl.c.90-100), Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (d.98/117), and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c.70-155/160).

The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very significant in that they give us insight into the origin of the Catholic sect. While the Gnostics were primarily concerned with doctrinal issues of a metaphysical nature, the Catholic sect was primarily the result of an important departure from the New Testament order of church government, plus an innovative idea concerning the nature of the church. Further departures from the faith took place as Catholic theology developed under the influence of teachers with philosophical training.

The Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement of Rome is the earliest of these writings we have after the apostolic era and was written about 96. Clement of Rome is thought by some to be the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, and is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church to be the third Pope after Peter, following Linus (Mentioned by Paul in 2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus. Of the works ascribed to Clement, Lightfoot accepts as authentic only “To the Corinthians” known as First Clement.

The occasion of Clement’s letter was a dispute over leadership in the Corinthian Church. It appears that certain elements in the church were trying to depose the eldership or presbytery of the Corinthian church: “...It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes utterly shameful, and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters”. Clement appeals to ancient order of the Corinthian church. And in spite of the Roman Catholic claims that Clement was a Pope, Clement himself makes no such claim. In fact he claims just the opposite. Clement is merely one of several Elders in the church at Rome, and throughout this epistle a bishop and a presbyter are one and the same office. Furthermore, there is a plurality of these elders, both in the Roman church and the Corinthian church. This is significant because it shows us that at least some of the churches were still following New Testament order.

Clement I Verse 42 ( All quotes of the Apostolic Fathers are taken from J. B. Lightfoot’s Second Edition of the Apostolic Fathers. The emphasis are mine)

So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be BISHOPS and DEACONS unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning BISHOPS AND DEACONS from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their BISHOPS in righteousness and their DEACONS in faith.

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the BISHOP’S OFFICE. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all --these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For I twill be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the BISHOP’S OFFICE unblameably and holily, Blessed are those PRESBYTERS who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: fore they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh SEDITION AGAINST ITS PRESBYTERS.

... only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed PRESBYTERS.

Ye therfore that laid the foundations of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the PRESBYTERS, and receive chastisement unto repentance.

It might be added that not only was Clement pleading for the original New Testament pattern of leadership to be upheld and obeyed, but the epistle itself is model of simplicity with a lack of sophistry and allegory that typifies so much of the later literature. Clement gives a series of exhortations backed up with about 150 quotations from the Old Testament, which is reminiscent of the New Testament epistles.

The next of the Apostolic Fathers was Ignatius. Ignatius left us a series of seven letters written on his way to Rome to face martyrdom. Four of these epistles were written from Smyrna where Ignatius was entertained by Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. The remaining three letters were written later from Troas which was another stop on his journey toward Rome. There is a remarkable difference in Clement’s letter and the letters written by Ignatius. In all of Ignatius’ letters, except his letter to the Romans, his major emphasis seems to be the importance of the Bishop. The bishop is like God, apart from the bishop there is no Church, all things in the church depend on the bishop. Ignatius elevates the bishop above all, and, with Ignatius, we find for the first time in any Christian literature a distinction is made between the office of the bishop and the presbytery.

...Onesimus, whose love passeth utterance and who is moreover your BISHOP......submitting yourselves to your BISHOP and PRESBYTERY, ye may be sanctified in all things.

For your honourable PRESBYTERY, which is worhty of God, is attuned to the BISHOP, even as its strings to a lyre.

Let us therefore be careful not to resist the BISHOP, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God.

... to the end that ye may obey the BISHOP and the PRESBYTERY without distraction of mind..

... Damas your godly BISHOP and your worthy PRESBYTERS Bassus and Apollonius and my fellow-servant the DEACON Zotion, of whom II would fain have joy, for that he is subject to the BISHOP as unto the grace of Godand to the PRESBYTERY as unto the law of Jesus Christ.

... the BISHOP presiding after the likeness of God and the PRESBYTERS after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, and the DEACONS also...

In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the BISHOP as being a type of the Father and the PRESBYTERS as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.

He that is within the sanctuary is clean; but he that is without the sanctuary is not clean, that is, he that doeth aught without the BISHOP and PPESBYTERY and DEACONS, this man is not clean in his conscience.

Do ye all follow your BISHOP, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the PRESBYTERY as the Apostles; and to the DEACONS pay respect, as to God’s commandment. Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the BISHOP. ... Wheresoever the BISHOP shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal (catholic) Church. It is not lawful apart form the BISHOP either to baptize or to hold a love-feast.

It is good to recognise God and the BISHOP. He that honoureth the BISHOP is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the BISHOP rendereth service to the devil.

Give ye heed to the BISHOP, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons.

Another amazing thing is that the only letter in which Ignatius does not emphasize the office of the bishop, or distinguish between the bishop and the presbytery is in his letter to Rome. This would indicate that Rome had not yet succumbed to this innovative form of church government that was being advocated by Ignatius, and perhaps Ignatius did not feel comfortable in attacking the position that the Church at Rome had previously taken in their letter to the Corinthians. For Clement was writing as a spokesman for the Church at Rome: “The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth...” Ignatius seems to be familiar with the letter “To the Corinthians,” in which Clement unequivocally designates the office of the bishop and the office of the presbyter to be the same. This would explain why Ignatius does not promote this innovation in church polity in his Roman letter as he does in all of the others.

The Roman Church finally did succumb to this innovation, and Hegesippus, who visited Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus (fl. 155-66) compiled a list of the episcopal succession at Rome. The purpose of this list was to show a succession of bishops, that is, a list of the Popes back to Peter. Irenaeus (fl. c.175-c.195), later bishop of Lyons, visited Rome a little later, and wrote under Pope Eleutherus (c. 175-190) also giving us a list of the Roman bishops to his time. We do not know whether he compiled his own list or copied the list of Hegesippus. Hegesippus list survives only as it was used by Eusebius. The Eusebian catalogues are found in his Chronicle and his Ecclesiastical History. In both these works the order of the Roman bishops is the same, but there are differences in the dates of accession and the years of their office.

The Eusebian Catalogues give the order, first Linus, followed by Anencletus, then Clement who was third in the succession. Then Euarestus, followed by Alexander, then Xystus, who is succeeded by Telesphorus, then Hyginus, then Pius, then Anicetus, who was Pope when Hegesippus compiled this list as used by Eusebius. Irenaeus’ list agrees with Eusebius, and Augustine follows Ireanaeus. (J.B. Lightfoot: The Apostolic Fathers, Part One, Volume 1, Pages 201-216).

Not only does the Eusebian lists very as to the accession dates and terms of office, there is another ancient list of the episcopal succession at Rome that changes the order of the early bishops. This is the Liberian catalogue which places Clement second, after Linus and followed by Cletus, then Anacletus (Some scholars feel that Cletus and Anacletus are the same person), followed by Aristus, then Alexander, succeeded by Sixtus, Telesforus, Higinus, Anicetus, then Pius. (J.B. Lightfoot: The Apostolic Fathers, Part One, Volume 1, Pages 246-345). To further complicate matters Tertullian and most of the Latins place Clement as the first successor of Peter as the bishop of Rome (Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume II, Page 165).

There can be little doubt that both Hegesippus and Irenaeus were trying to establish the episcopal succession at Rome as evidence of Monarchical Episcopacy, and the discrepancies among these early lists is the result of trying to make Linus and Clement, and perhaps Anacletus serve consecutively, as Monarchical Bishops instead of serving as bishops concurrently as a part of the presbytery of bishops in the church of Rome that existed from the days of the Apostles to the end of the first century. This is why first one and then the other is listed as the first bishop of Rome. Both Linus and Clement, according to the various traditions, were ordained as bishops of Rome by either Peter and/or Paul. These traditions can only be reconciled by recognizing that both Linus and Clement were follow-elders, and served as bishops together in the church of Rome. This would harmonize with Clement’s letter To the Corinthians in which he clearly asserts the plurality of the presbytery, and that the presbytery and episcopacy are the same.

But it should be obvious that a movement was underway to establish a Monarchical Episcopacy among the churches at the very time that Clement wrote his epistle to the Corinthians. It is even possible that this was the cause of the trouble in the Corinthian church. By the time that Ignatius wrote, twenty years after Clement, this movement toward a Monarchical Episcopacy had gained such momentum that every church to which Ignatius wrote, except the Church at Rome, had succumbed to this heresy. The sectarian name that Ignatius gives to the churches which have embraced this heretical system of church government is “the Catholic Church”.

Wheresoever the BISHOP shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the CATHOLIC Church.

Just as Ignatius was the first Christian writer to make the distinction between the presbytery and the episcopacy, he is also the first Christian writer to mention the Catholic Church. While his letters are the first that we have which advocate the Monarchical Episcopacy as the only legitimate system of. church government, evidently John was dealing with an incipient Monarchical Episcopacy in his last letter in which he deals with Diotrephes.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 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.

It may be true that there is always a tendency in the church, or in any organized group of people for that matter, for men to strive for a leadership position. At first thought it might seem that is the problem that the Apostle John is having with Diotrephes. Diotrephes was assuming the position of a one-man leadership, which is exactly what a Monarchical Episcopacy is, but more than that, Diotrephes was taking to himself powers that later literature attributes to the office of a monarchical bishop. This is the power to excommunicate without the procedures that Jesus taught in Matt. 18:15-17. Jesus taught that an offending party must be brought before the church. If the offending party will not hear the church, then let him be as a heathen man and a publican. This is the power Jesus gave to the church and not to any one man in the church as Diotrephes. Clearly Diotrephes was playing the part of a monarchical bishop, and it is possible that we are only seeing the seeds of this system with Diotrephes. But with Ignatius there is little doubt that he is an enthusiastic advocate and propagator of the Monarchical Episcopal system of church polity.

Polycarp, the third and last Christian writer to carry the name of Apostolic Father, is designated by Ignatius as “... bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans...” (The Epistle of S. Ignatius To Polycarp, verse one), and instructs the church to “...Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons.” Notice, he calls Polycarp THE bishop, for in Ignatius’ system there is ONE bishop, but he speaks of the presbyters and deacons in the plural. One bishop, but many presbyters and many deacons under that one bishop.

However, it is difficult to assess Polycarp’s sentiment with regard to Ignatius’ system, for in his one extant letter, “To the Philippians,” Polycarp does not explicitly state that he is the bishop, In fact from reading Polycarp’s letter, one would gather that Polycarp was still holding to the New Testament order of Presbyters and Deacons in the local church, with the presbyter and bishop being the same office. Polycarp does not mention the bishop as distinct from the presbytery, and even seems to count himself among the presbyters at Smyrna.

Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him, unto the church of God which sojourneth at Philippi...

Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submitting yourselves to the PRESBYTERS and DEACONS as to God and Christ.

But we also know from this letter that Polycarp had a very high esteem and regard for Ignatius. Polycarp, having been a disciple of the apostle John himself, may have been reluctant to enthusiastically embrace the monarchical system that Ignatius was championing. Whether or not Polycarp himself finally accepted Ignatius’ system, we know at a later time the church at Smyrna of which he was a bishop certainly considered itself a part of the Catholic movement. We know this from a letter written by the church shortly after Polycarp’s martyrdom in 155 or 156 AD.

The Greeting:The Church of God which sojourneth at Smyrna to the Church of God which sojourneth in Philomelium and to all the brotherhoods of the holy Catholic Church sojourning in every place...

...remembering all who at any time had come in his way, small and great, high and low, and all the Catholic Church throughout the world...

...this man, the glorious martyr Polycarp, who was found an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our own time, a bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.

...our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour of our souls and helmsman of our bodies and shepherd of the Catholic Church which is throughout the world.

The Catholic sect not only changed the form of government of the church from the New Testament order to that of a Monarchical Episcopacy, but we can see from the Letter of the Smyrnaeans that they also introduced an innovative idea of the very nature of the church itself. Notice these verses written by the Smyrnaeans speak of the Catholic church and not the Catholic churches. It is absolutely essential to understand this innovative use of the word church as it differs from its usage in the New Testament. We have already seen in Part One of this treatise that neither Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox nor Protestant churches have New Testament order or government in their churches or organizations. In Part Two we examined the New Testament to discover what that order and government should be. Now we will again examine the New Testament to ascertain what it teaches concerning the church, comparing the New Testament to both Catholic and Protestant views.

The English word church has accrued various meanings. Often it is used with the meaning of denomination as when speaking of “The Baptist Church” or “The Methodist Church” when referring to “The Baptist Denomination” or “The Methodist Denomination”. Other times the word church is used when referring to Christianity as a religious movement, as when historians speak of the history of “the Christian Church”, when they are in fact, referring to Christianity in general, often including all the various sects of Christians. The word church can even refer to the meeting house or building where the people congregate. These are the ways that the word church is commonly used, but it is never used this way in the New Testament.

In the New Testament the word “church” is used to translate the Greek word ekklesia (ek-klay-see'-ah). The Greek word ekklesia does not have the same latitude of meaning as the English word church. The Greek word, ekklesia means literally "a called out assembly or congregation". ekklesia is found 115 times in the Greek New Testament, and in the King James Version it is rendered “church” 112 times and “assembly” 3 times. The three times it is translated “assembly” are in Acts 19: 32,39,41, where it is referring to the ruling body of a Greek city-state. All of the times it is translated “church”, it is referring to the church of Jesus Christ except in Acts 7:38 where it is referring to the nation of Israel when they were “called out” of Egypt, and “assembled in the wilderness.

The word “church” in the New Testament is NEVER used in the sense of “denomination” or with reference to a sect or a “movement.” All of the modifying phrases used in connection with the word “church” are to show ownership or origin, as in the “church of God” (Acts 20:28; 1Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:6, 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1Tim.3:5; 3:15), and “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Or to show composition, as in the “churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. 16:4), “churches of the saints” (1Cor. 14:33), and “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23). Or to show location, as “the churches of Galatia (1 Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1Cor. 16:19), “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1), “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2), “the churches of Judaea” (Gal. 1:22), “church of the Laodiceans” (Col. 4:16), “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1), “the church of the Thessalonians” (2 Thess. 1:1), “the church of Ephesus” (Rev 2:1), “the church in Smyrna” (Rev 2:8), “the church in Pergamos” (Rev 2:12), “the church in Thyatira” (Rev 2:18), “the church in Sardis” (Rev 3:1), “the church in Philadelphia” (Rev 3:7), “the church of the Laodiceans” (Rev 3:14).

ekklesia is not an ambiguous term in Greek as the word church is in English, but is used by the New Testament writers in a very precise way. In keeping with the literal meaning of church (ekklesia) as "a called out assembly or congregation", the Bible writers always use the word church as a gathering of the people of God in one location, whether that location is a certain city or the gathering of the saints in glory. Sometimes the word church is used in the abstract or generic sense, but when the abstract fines concrete expression it is always a particular assembly gathered here on earth or the general assembly gathered in glory.

In spite of the Biblical use of the word church the Catholics came to view the church as a particular denomination which is worldwide in scope, hence the name “Catholic” which means universal. The Catholic doctrine could be called “the universal visible church” doctrine. To counter the Catholic doctrine of a universal church, Martin Luther and other Reformers advanced the doctrine of “the universal invisible church”. When Luther, denying that the Church of Rome was the Holy Catholic or Universal Church, was asked, “Where then is it?” He replied, “It is invisible.” And this doctrine has been adopted by most of the Protestant sects. Actually the foundation for the Protestant doctrine is found in the Catholic doctrine that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ. If the church is “Mystical” than there would be some validity to the concept of an invisible church. The main difference between the Catholic and Protestant view is that in the Catholic view you must be a member of the church to be saved, and the Protestant view is you must be saved to be a member of the church.

Still if the primary meaning of the word church, as a translation of ekklesia, is a called out assembly or congregation, then a universal church, visible or invisible would be an unassembled assembly, or a non-congregated congregation. This is a contradiction of terms! Should we not rather see the church as a LOCAL ASSEMBLY, as the very definition of the word would require? The only place you will ever find the true church is on a local level!

Aside from all to the theorizing by both Catholics and Protestants, we must ask ourselves, “Is there a scriptural basis for the concept of a universal church, whether it be visible or invisible?” Before its use by Jesus in the New Testament, ekklesia was used about 100 times in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, in which it is usually used to translate the Hebrew word meaning “assembly”. Its first use in the New Testament is found in the mouth of Jesus “...I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18).

The Protestant interpretation is that the church Jesus refers to here is that universal invisible church. The universal invisible church comprises all the saved, without reference to time or place. But what the Protestants must realize about the "invisible church" is that an invisible church is really no church at all. An invisible church never meets; it never assembles, it cannot pray, sing, or worship, it has no ministry nor any outreach. An invisible church is nothing more than the figment of someone's imagination. Is this the kind of church that Jesus purposed to build? Is this the church that the gates of hell would not prevail against? Clyde Patton (the brother to whose memory I have dedicated this book) put it very concisely in a sermon in Houston, Texas a few years back, “The church is not a mystical body. You can't find that in the scripture. That's men's idea. Where in the world do you get any scriptures on a mystical body. No where in this Bible can you find a mystical church. But it's made up of hair, hide, bones, and eyeballs, nostrils, and ears, yeah that's it, men and women, boys and girls, that's what the church is made up of."

The Catholics would interpret Jesus’ reference to the church here in Matthew sixteen as referring to themselves, because this very scripture goes on to say that he gave the keys of that church to Peter, and no one can enter the church unless Peter opens the door and lets him in. And, of course those keys given to Peter have been handed down to Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome. Therefore it is only though the bishop of Rome and those bishops who are in fellowship with him that one can enter the church. This goes right back to Ignatius’ doctrine that the Catholic church is where the bishop is and without the bishop there is no church.

However, is either one of these views justified? Was Jesus referring to a universal church here or was he not rather using the word church here in the generic sense. As when Paul said “...the head of the woman is the man.” The use of woman and man here is abstract or generic. It is not referring to any one particular woman or man, yet it can only find its fulfillment in particular men and women. In the same way, the generic or abstract use of the word church can only find its concrete fulfillment in the building of particular assemblies. This is bore out in the next occurrence in which Jesus uses the word church. And this is shortly after he announces he will build his church. In this statement concerning disputes he tells his disciples “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matt 18:17) It should be obvious that the sphere of the church here cannot be universal. It must be limited both in time and place. It must be local.

The use of the plural, churches, throughout the scriptures precludes the idea of a universal church, whether visible or invisible. If a church is not universal, then what are the scriptural boundaries or dimensions of a church? The scriptures themselves are very plain in this matter. When we examine the circumstances in which the plural is used, the boundaries of the church become quite plain. Compare these two scriptures: