Returning Biblical
Education to the Local
Church
It has always intrigued me that the early Christians made such unstoppable progress despite their lack of a professionally-trained clergy. Perhaps there are some lessons we can learn from them today.
I think, for example, of a church in Hawaii that I was a part of many years ago. It offered classes designed for “laypersons,” and many of us eagerly attended them. I can still remember my lessons as well as my teacher, a Mr. Cook. He was a mentor and a model, and not merely a lecturer. The result? An unquenchable appetite to go even deeper in my studies of the Christian life.
Often I am invited to teach in church-related Bible schools, many of them in the Two-Thirds World. And I am delighted to do so. The local church in America seems to have forgotten its responsibility to disciple its members. “After all, we have our seminaries.” That is a dangerous attitude. The seminary classroom can be a place of magnificent learning, and often is. But every care must be made to avoid a learning experience that fails to give our students an idea of what it costs to follow Jesus. We must not forget that the early church had no formal educational institutions or professionally-trained academics, and yet it turned the world upside-down in a mere 30 years.
There were many good reasons for this. Someone once said that the three greatest dangers of a seminary education are extraction, expense, and elitism. A clerical culture develops. Writes Abbé Michonneau in his book Revolution in a City Parish (pp. 131-32):
Our seminary training … has put us in a class apart…. Usually it means that we feel compelled to surround ourselves with those who will understand our thought and our speech, and who have tastes like our own…. We are living in another world, a tidy clerical and philosophical world.
“Clergy” becomes a whole way of living, an ecclesiastical subculture. The church, however, predates the seminary and will outlast it. The book of Acts reminds us that the earliest church leaders were homegrown nobodies. They were not parachuted in from the outside with all of the proper credentials. They were already full participants in their congregations – they had homes, they had jobs, and they had solid reputations. If at all possible, I think we too would do well to train people for leadership in our local churches, equipping them for evangelism and other ministries, thus complementing the work of our seminaries and Bible colleges. The early church knew that leadership is best learned by on-the-job training, not by sending our most promising leaders off to sit behind a desk.
There is a real need today for ministry to become de-professionalized. Let us not forget the sufficiency of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide even the simplest believer into truth. Any church can, if it is willing, follow the pattern of the early church in this regard. It can begin by ensuring that its shepherd-teachers are steeped in the Word of God and able to teach its magnificent truths to others. Happy the church that, like the Berean congregation, can listen sensitively to the Holy Spirit as He speaks through the Scriptures! It is interesting to observe how many people have signed up for the Greek class I am offering in my local church. All are welcome, and I am expecting a broad array of students. I cannot help but think of the example set for me so many years ago by Mr. Cook. He had a true pastor’s heart, and he knew the Word. He was a mature Christian who walked daily and deeply with his Savior. And what of his students? They came from all walks of life, but each was prepared to listen and discuss and study and learn.
Let there be no pay for teacher and no fee for student! Equally, let us use ordinary language in our teaching and avoid the jargon of the academy. You have to get the right instructor, of course, otherwise the enterprise will be counter-productive. But I am not talking about someone with a doctorate in theology. And there is no need to professionalize or formalize the instruction either. I think it is fair to say that the tendency of American churches is to pay inordinate attention to matters of incorporating, financing, and staffing their new “Bible Institutes.” I am suggesting that it would be a waste of time and resources to hire a registrar, faculty, and administration. Let us look to those in our congregations who will volunteer their time and talents for the work. What a rare and attractive thing it would be to offer solid biblical instruction without the paraphernalia so often deemed indispensable by professional educators.
I would like to make it clear once more that I am not saying we should not have seminaries or Bible schools. What troubles me is that we so often equate a formal biblical education with true biblical understanding. It seems to me that it is time to say “Enough!” to the fallacious notion that a degree in theology makes one qualified for leadership in the church. Throughout the Scriptures the summons is given to forsake conformity to the world’s wisdom and to pursue the wisdom that is from above. Paul reminds us that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3), and that we “are complete in Him” (Col. 2:10). Call this the “sufficiency of Christ,” if you will, but it is insufficiently acknowledged. A major exception was the sixteenth-century Anabaptists in Europe. It was their devotion to the Scriptures that set the Anabaptists apart from their Reformation counterparts. They listened to the Word of God with humble reverence. They were anxious to obey it too, whatever the cost to them personally. Elsewhere I have noted that they believed in “the Bible as a book of the church instead of as a book for scholars,” and in “a hermeneutic of obedience instead of a hermeneutic of knowledge.” The Anabaptists well understood that we learn to apply the Word not in the abstract milieu of the classroom but in the world. And when we truly understand the truth of God’s Word, it shapes our entire life and worldview.
I believe one of the greatest needs of the contemporary church is conscientious obedience to the words and teachings of Jesus. Mature Christian discipleship is possible only where there is submission to the full biblical witness to Christ. And there is nothing in a formal education that guarantees such obedience. Indeed, there is much, I think, that impedes it. As an example, take a course in Acts I once taught at a Bible college in a developing country. The students were much more inclined to bring their notebooks to class than their Bibles. Their studies clearly were geared more toward a grade than toward life. When final exam time came, things took an interesting twist. In part one of the exam I intended the students to write out from memory certain verses with their Bibles closed, while in part two they were to answer questions with their Bibles open. The students strenuously objected to this policy, pleading with me not to expose them to the temptation of cheating on part one. My answer was gentle but unyielding: “If I cannot trust you not to cheat on this exam, you do not belong in this Bible school and certainly not in any form of Christian ministry.” In a similar incident that occurred while I was teaching Greek in another institution (again in the Two-Thirds World), my request to allow my students to write a take-home exam was met with the dean’s demurral: “Impossible. They can’t be trusted.” And this in the largest theological college in that country! In saying this, I have not forgotten the human tendency to cheat on exams. Yet these were Christian adults, not children. It is plain that if we cannot trust our brightest theological students to exercise self-control and honesty in exam-taking, we certainly cannot entrust them with pastoral oversight.
We in the church of Jesus Christ are always in danger of magnifying titles and degrees and forgetting that a formal theological education guarantees neither sound doctrine nor mature character. The essential mark of Christian leadership is love not ability, humility not arrogance, wisdom not knowledge. We must cease viewing knowledge as an end in itself, but must pursue the mind of Christ, remembering that “truth is in Jesus” (Eph. 4:21). I wonder if anything is more urgent today, for the building up of the Body of Christ, than that its leaders should be, and should be seen to be, men who have “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).
The crucial thing is that local churches take discipleship seriously. And it is neither biblical nor helpful to abdicate this responsibility to institutions of higher education, as valuable as they are. The seminary exists to serve the local church, not vice versa. So when opportunity occurs to return biblical education to your local church, I say grasp it with both of your hands!
January 8, 2009
David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.
This is one the best things I’ve read in a while… The only part I don’t get, is when he says that we shouldn’t do away with Seminaries altogether, after making such a solid case for why they produce a “culture of the clergy” that is so counter to the essence of the gospel…
To me, as long as we allow for people to be charged money to learn the Truth, whether it be in a seminary, or a local assembly, we are prostituting the gospel. The culture of clergy will never be able to dissipate so long as we have a tolerance for there being certain places where people pay thousands of dollars to learn what, as the author of this article articulated so well, men of no formal education we’re able to understand, and take to the world around them, in the early days of the church….
Daniel,
I think there are certain aspects of the Christian faith that may need seminal education. Especially things such as textual criticism. Many who go to seminary never become pastors some become educators. Also just because we have had men who have understood without seminary doesn’t mean seminary has no benefits. Just like when I look for a dentist, surgeon and even a mechanic. I want to ensure that he has reached certain benchmarks that qualify him.
Seminary is “a” way to do that. Seminary is what you make it. I think it “can” have crippling effects, but it also “can” have positive and fruitful effects. It depends on the individual.
One thing that I can agree with is that “unlearned” men (as the Sanhedrian called them in Acts 4) turned the world upside down. Why? Because they were convinced after walking with, touching, and eating with the risen Lord that what He was calling them to was worth the risk of their very lives. And I will take a convinced man, with the passion Paul speaks about in Philippians 3 before I take an educated men any day.
Lionel
The recent slew of ecclesiological articles suggests to me that the present burden on your mind is for the church,its structure,purpose and organic life.
As to the specific matter of education in the church,I am convinced that there are 3 basic types of Christian- the faith,the theological,and the balanced Christian.
The faith man believes that all that you need is an unswerving faith in God.Read God’s word,they say,and live a life of faith in what God has to say in the Bible,and that is all you really need.No concordances,bible dictionaries etc for the folks.My wife,like yours,is one of these folks.She never stops asking me why I bother spending hours online conversing theology with strangers,when I could join her for more prayer!
The other extreme are the ‘pure’ theologians.They will debate the exact type of barley bread that was present at the miracle feeding of the 5,000.They will speculate on the type of material Jesus was buried in.They have little time for prayer or waiting on God.
The 3rd type are the more balanced ones who appreciate that both elements are essential for the Christian life.I have seen first hand the destruction and error that leads from unreflective faith in Nigeria.The other extreme are the theologians who are prepared to speculate on the number of angels that can stand on a pin-head.
The most important word here is balance.I have little doubt that Mr Cook had some form of theological education,outside the church building,the type given to clergy.On the other hand there is need for less of the erudition in Greek,Hebrew,biblical interpretation etc we see in the church today.Combined with the distinctive,awe-inspiring dressing of the traditional clergy it puts the clergy above and distinct from the the flock they shepherd,making the priesthood of all believers an impossibility.Once again,the crucial need of our times is balance.Simplicity is not necessarily always achievable in all circumstances.
I suppose I should clarify, that my first comment was not directed at the instruction, or the content of education, found in Seminaries, but rather at the practice of charging people money for what they learn. I’m glad that there are schooled people, who can read Greek and Hebrew, and be a part of the body who can serve the rest of us in those ways…
My real question is how do we continue to encourage that kind of knowledge and study among the people who are gifted by God in that way, without relying on the model of a professional institution? My point is that having institutions of learning, which cost considerable amounts to attend, probably reinforce the business-model of church more than almost anything. I mean, if people go into debt in order to learn those things, that what choice to they have but to seek some form of professional clergy position afterwards? Sure, there are those that don’t, but we are talking about things in a general sense here, not just the few exceptions… The Seminaries, in their current form, only perpuate the greater system, which relies on “accredited” individuals to lead their church-businesses… See my point?
Daniel,
I can only bob my head in total concurrence with your second paragraph friend! It is a “charge people” to learn the great truths while Jesus says “freely you have recieved” though I guess they didn’t get it free either.
Daniel
In the book of Acts there is the record of the new convert who shortly after conversion went out boldly to publicly preach.However it soon became clear that his knowledge was limited,and he was therefore called aside by a Christian couple,who then schooled him on the finer points of doctrine.
The truth is that experiential living f the Christian life,prayer,theology etc all have a part to play in developing us to maturity.I am convinced that what needs to be restored in the church of today is balance of all these influences.
There is,and here will continue to be a distinct professional clergy,who will need to be trained.Training costs money.The real challenge in my opinion is to ensure that the immediate direct relevance of the training is never lost,and that the shepherding role of the clergy is not overshadowed by esoteric erudition,inaccessible to the majority.The alternative model you seem to espouse may lead to a half-baked clergy.How can an ill informed shepherd lead the flock aright?
Lionel
We need to carefully consider when we say that unlearned men in Acts turned the world upside down.Come to Nigeria today and see how unlearned preachers have some of the largest congregations in the world.
Part of the problems with such Pastors as David Oyedepo would not exist ,if he had a proper theological training at the start of ministry,I believe.Unfortunately,he fell entirely under the influence of Copeland and Hagin.Copeland indeed was at his church a few months back.And this is reputed to be biggest enclosed church in the world!
The move of the Spirit is of course essential,to do His work.Knowledge and skill are also indispensable in ecclesiological work,also.
I hear you Daniel.
Leadership, Authority & Ministry – Portions taken from the writings of Jon Zens
Clergy / Laity Distinctions
The New Testament teaches leadership among the people of God, but not in a way that leads to the “clergy/laity” conclusion.
The root words from which we derive the English words “clergy” and “laity” are found in the New Testament, but our usage of “clergy/laity” is far removed from the New Testament concepts.
The English word “clergy” is related to the Greek word “cleros”. It means “a lot or inheritance”. For example, in 1 Peter 5:3 the elders are exhorted not to lord it over “the lots” (Greek: ton cleron), which refers to the entire flock of God’s people.
Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of “cleros” used to designate a separate class of “ordained” leaders. Instead, it refers to the “inheritance” (Greek: clerou) laid up for all the saints (Col. 1:12; Acts 26:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in the New Testament as God’s “inheritance”.
We have utterly perverted and turned upside-down the New Testament teaching by using the term “clergy: to refer to a special elite group of church leaders.
This English word is related to the Greek word “laos”, which means “people”. The Greek word “laikos”, which means “laity”, is not found in the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether “saints, bishops, or deacons” (Phil. 1:1), are the “people” (“laos”) of God. “People of God” is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
It was not until the third century that “clergy” was employed to designate a limited number of persons who functioned in the Christian assemblies.
One of the worst outcomes of the “clergy” doctrine was that it communicated the notion that without the “clergy” present there simply was no church. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and many other church practices, could not happen unless a “clergyman” was present.
Because the New Testament knows nothing of “clergy” the fact that a separate caste of the “ordained” permeated our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the New Testament very seriously.
The “clergy” practice is a heresy that must be renounced. It strikes at the heart of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape Jesus’ kingdom was to take when He said, “You are all brethren”. Since it is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13).
Tunji,
I must’n not be careful. Just because their are wolves who disguise themselves as sheep has no bearing on what we see in the scriptures. Uneducated men turned the Roman empire upside down with the Gospel. Where should I be careful with that? Pragmatism doesn’t set the standard for biblical truth the scriptures set the standard for biblical truth and here is what Educated men thought of the Apostles:
They had been with Jesus!
Spend time with Jesus and save your money! No need for seminary, just spend time with Jesus!
Lionel and Hutch
We are looking at 2 extremes here,neither of which I believe is a correct stance.The choice really is not a stark one between faith and reason.
What is called for is a balanced life that appreciates that both are required for healthy Christian growth.
Tunji,
Not really. The burden of proof rests with you. Show me in the scriptures where seminary or some form of formal education is even remotely hinted at. So balance ain’t the issue, we are not encouraging blind open your bible and pick a verse. However, show me seminary, show me formal education, of any sort. As Hutch says “spend time with Jesus”. Unless you can prove us otherwise.
Hey Hutch, and Daniel,
Remember the word Nicolaitans? Look up the meaning of that word and then remember what Jesus said about it in Revelation.
Interesting very very interesting.
Steven O.
Steven-
Yes, Christ said He hates the Nicolaitans and their deeds.
There are many Nicolaitans among us.
Tunji-
Just for clarification, I am by no means against studying Gods word in order to be an approved workman.
I just believe strongly that the scriptures spell out a mode and method of education that produces results that are far superior to anything a seminary education could ever provide.
I love studying God’s Word and have had the privilege to do so on a daily basis for the past twenty years, it is my passion. My goal at one time was to go to seminary, I used to think it was important, now I think it is destructive and harmful to the church.
I would like to make a few observations to put my reasoning into context: The church predates the invention of seminary by hundreds of years and the church predates all of the major codifications or systems of theology such as Covenant Theology and Dispensationalist by hundreds of years, fourteen hundred and eighteen hundred respectively.
Yet, before the institution of seminary and codified systems of theology popular today, God’s Word tells us that His Spirit will lead His Children into all truth.
God did not promise His children something that He could not deliver or that they could not obtain.
Scripture is clear regarding how the child of God understands, learns and applies the Word of God.
The first issue is that spiritual truth is spiritually discerned. An unbeliever can read and study God’s Word but not with the comprehension that a born again child of God will have. When a person becomes a child of God amazing things take place, he or she becomes a new creation in Christ, he or she is indwelt by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit and sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
Now the child of God has a new nature and an internal motivation and teacher and comforter Who is the very Spirit of God! He is the ultimate teacher, He is the ultimate professor and He is so much more!
God’s Word tells us many things about the ministry of the Holy Spirit I will mention a few here: He leads God’s children into all truth, He bears witness of Christ, He supernaturally illuminates scripture so that as God’s children read and study it, they can comprehend it, and more importantly He supernaturally empowers God’s children to apply it their lives as they submit to and walk in the Spirit.
Jesus says that those who abide in Him will have the mysteries of the Kingdom of God disclosed to them.
No wonder, the thing that these men and women who turned the Roman world upside down had in common was that they had spent time with Jesus.
The same holds true today, those who spend time with Christ will know God’s Word; Will loves God’s Word as their very spiritual meat and drink and Christ will disclose to us the truths about His Kingdom.
So we see that all of God’s children, every one of them has a resource available to them that is far superior to a seminary education. All of God’s children can understand God’s Word; they hear His voice and follow Him.
Now for a little bit of contrast before I continue, no one is arguing against the importance of God’s Word or the need for His children to study it, but an equally important thing to consider is what motivations both positive and negative are given in scripture for studying God’s Word.
Many are given, but a common repeated theme is so that we can be approved workmen who need not be ashamed.
There are many people who study God’s Word merely as an intellectual or educational pursuit who should be ashamed of themselves. How do I know? I used to be one of them! Why should they be ashamed? Because although they study God’s Word for the accumulation of information, they are only stockpiling knowledge that never is appropriated into Wisdom. Wisdom being knowledge skillfully put into practice. This can be represented in a number of ways, but one glaring example is that they study God’s Word and have advanced degrees yet their conclusions regarding ecclesiology and the priesthood of the believer are diametrically opposed to what is portrayed in the scriptures.
Back to my line of reasoning: We have determined that all of God’s children have the ultimate resource for understanding God’s Word and that all of God’s children can understand God’s Word by abiding in Christ and studying His Word while being tutored by the Holy Spirit.
Scripture is also clear that some of God’s children will be specifically gifted as teachers and discerners, in fact these people are themselves referred to as gifts to the church. NOTE: These gifts are not superior to any of the other gifts, we pay lip service to this but most churches say it but practice something very different.
These individuals use their gifts of teaching and discernment just like the rest of the body to build each other up and to also equip the saints for the work of the ministry.
Did you notice that again? See the goal and motivation, not to impart knowledge alone but to equip each other to do the work of the ministry so we can be approved workmen.
A good question is: What is the work of the ministry? That is for another post, but I will say that if someone who confidently calls themselves a shepherd does not know the answer then that local congregation is in big trouble. Knowing what we are supposed to be equipped to do individually and as a local body is critical to being obedient to the great commission.
Many of these individuals with these spirituals gifts are present in all local assemblies and the best and most skillful are usually not the ones with the titles, degrees or paid staff salaries.
Again, there are some very specific goals and motivations given for studying God’s Word .
So, we study God’s Word individually for the purpose of being approved workmen and a plurality of gifted teachers within a local body teaches with the goal of equipping the body to do the work of the ministry.
We also learn more about God’s Word and how to apply it by hanging out with and spending time with people (fellowshipping) with folks like Lionel, Steven, Br. Lawrence D, Javetta etc. etc. Iron sharpening iron.
Now as has been pointed many times elsewhere on this blog:
1. In scripture, preaching is for unbelievers, teaching is for believers
2. The scriptures know and teach nothing of a one man pulpit ministry
3. Most men who call themselves shepherds are really just paid public speakers
The church was never at a disadvantage or in lack of anything prior to the man-made invention of the seminary education, Christ is still sufficient.
BTW, you do not need to go to seminary to learn the original languages or to properly study God’s Word.
Tunji,
Can you please explain to me what you meant by “the finer points of doctrine”?
The bible only tells us that Aquila and Priscilla “explained to to him the way of God more accurately.”. I doubt that they taught him:
1. The Trinity vs. Arianism, Sabellianism, Docetism, etc.
2. The Hypostatic Union (is this really 1a?)
3. Calvinism vs. Arminianism
4. Apologetics
5. Christian Psychology
6. Harmatology
7. Eschatology
8. Anthropology
9. Any other ism or ology I didn’t mention.
These are all things taught in seminary and I doubt they were covered. Though I could be wrong.
But as far as Apollos himself was concerned the bible describes him as:
1. a Jew
2. an Alexandrian
3. an eloquent man
4. mighty in the Scriptures
5. instructed in the way of the Lord
6. fervent in spirit
7. speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus
8. being only acquainted with the baptism of John
9. speaking out boldly in the synagogue
He didn’t seem to need what would be classified today as a “Christian Education”. He just needed the rest of the story. He had the first 100 pages and they just gave him the last 10. And, as far as I can tell, what Aquila and Priscilla explained to him didn’t:
1. cost him thousands of denari
!
2. cost him four to six years of classroom instruction
3. force him to write any discertations, essays, or best-selling books (except maybe Hebrews, sorry Big L, LOL!
4. give him any letters behind his name
5. give him any preeminence in the assembly of believers (except amongst some in Corinth and they were soundly rebuked for doing so by Paul)
In other words, maybe you should rethink using Apollos’ situation as an example for the necessity of seminaries or a professional clergy. Or their usefulness in the Body.
And since Christ is the only true shepherd and we’re all in the flock, then we can rest assured that He is never ill informed about anything.
Just a thought.
Bro Lawrence D
1 The finer points of doctrine,we are not given specific details of.I would not wish to speculate on the specifics,but it certainly entailed some sort of schooling or training,although this may not have been of the formal school or class type available in seminaries.
2 As to the presence of a profesional clergy,you may wish to recall that Levites were set apart by God to serve Him full time.This sounds like professional clergy to me.Also,read again the calling of the disciples in the gospels.Jesus aked them to leave their lay jobs.
What I do find objectionable is the unnecessary pomp we surround the priesthod with today,their awe inspiring dressing etc.We may consider aspects of an institution objectionable,without wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I personally have a Bible College education(not resident seminary) and looking back consider it to have been of tremendous value.
Hutch and Lionel
1 I did not suggest that knowledge is superior to the wisdom of God.I did not by any means revile the work of the Holy Spirit.I do not accept the suggestion of Nicolaitism.We are not saved by accumulation of knowledge or degrees.I did not suggest that we complete our salvation by erudition.
2 Walking in the light of truth does not necessarily entail going to school,and I did not say it does.But,pray,even if we do not refer to it as a school,the Levites were trained in the required liturgy and mode of worship,were’nt they?What of the account of Saul,who joined the band of prophets from the school of prophets?
3 Taken to the extreme,we dont need theology blogs such as this one,or do we?Simply read the Word!
Tunji,
Please do not be in any offended if I misread you. I apologize in advance.
1. We are given the specifics in a sense. We are at least pointed in the right direction concerning Aquila and Priscilla basically filling out what was missing. In no way could it or should be seen as anywhere near being extensive or structured, like seminary and bible college.
2. Comparing the Levites in the Temple in Israel to a professional clergy in the Body of Christ today is not at all going to hold water. There’s just no comparison. In short, the Church is a Body not a building, the sacrifice has once for all been made (Jesus Christ), Christ is the last and only High Priest, Tithing is no longer required but rather we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, etc. The full functioning priesthood of all believers CANNOT exist at the same time as a professional clergy. It is absolutely impossible. And I could go on and on showing how absolutely different the Temple is from the Church!
3. When the disciples weren’t working (which they all later returned to doing) who took care of their needs? Jesus Himself. Not people (except for the little boys lunch and those who invited Jesus into their homes). Not tithes. Not salaries. The Creator of all. The reason that you see clergy, in the way it is defined today, is because that is what you were taught. Go back and look at the meaning of the word in the original language and you find something totally different.
4. I have the ask you the same question I asked in a post over on my blog, “What do we do with a dead baby?”. I wrote it in response to this crazy phrase that’s thrown around any time someone wants to defend what we call “church” and it’s structures, today.
5. I’m glad you went to Bible College and I too value the education you received there. Don’t get the idea that I think it was worthless. But I value you, Tunji, as a member of the Body of Christ regardless of your education. We are members one of another. That allows me to disagree with you on this issue without being upset. You are my fellow priest!
Tunji-
You are appealing to the fulfilled and abolished old covenant to support the error of a maintained special caste of ministers.
can you point out the new covenant scriptures that use the term/word “clergy”?
You will be very suprised at how that term/word is used in the scriptures.
Refer back to the quote I posted from Jon Zens above regarding the use of that term in the Word of God.
Here is an excerpt from another excellent resource written by Carl Ketcherside on the issue of the better priesthood under the new covenant, the Royal Priesthood of Every Believer with one Great High Priest the Lord Jesus Christ Himself:
No careful student of the early congregation of believers can fail to be impressed with the simplicity of its worship and functioning. Imbued with a fervent zeal, motivated by a common purpose, possessed of a deep love for each other, “all the believers kept together” and “among all those who had embraced the faith there was but one heart and one soul” (Acts 2:44; 5:82). In such a company each felt under compulsion of spirit to do all he could to edify his fellows. None served for gain. Those who had personal property and real estate sold their possessions and distributed to all who had need; no one thought of threatening the needy with eternal destruction if they did not support a privileged class.
In the original church of God there was no distinction between clergy and laity. God’s clergy (portion or lot) consisted of God’s laity (people). Every member of the “laity” was a member of “the clergy” and vice versa. Every person in the divine arrangement was a minister of God. One “entered the ministry” by coming into the Christ. The holy and unblemished church can never be restored until those who love the Lord recapture in the fullest sense the picture of a “priesthood of all believers” free from the taint of a special caste.
The religious world in general has lost the pattern of the corporate worship of the original community of baptized believers. The early church gathered around a table; the modern church sits before a pulpit. The Lord placed the table in the church so it could remember its debt to him; the clergy placed the pulpit in the church to bring it in debt to them. In the early church they all spoke one by one; today all the speaking is done by one. Then the spirit was kindled; now it is quenched. Then they claimed to love each other and talked about Jesus; now they claim to love Jesus and talk about each other. In those days all exerted an effort to exhort; now all must be exhorted to exert an effort.
The primitive disciples did not ask the world to come and get the gospel, they took it to them. They gathered to eat the Lord’s Supper, then scattered to preach the Word. Wherever there was a Christian and a sinner, there was a gospel meeting. They announced the glad tidings to masters and mistresses, friends and neighbors. They did it simply but fervently. They told about Jesus, his death and resurrection. They testified of their faith in him. They preached him in chariots along the road, in prison cells, by river brinks, in private homes, in hulls and in synagogues. The whole earth was their auditorium, the thing at hand their pulpit.
Tunji
Nicolaitans : “Conquering the laity” That is what we have today.
Lionel
I do not believe that there are significant differences in our positions.
1 We agree that certain aspects of the Christian faith may need a seminary education.
2 We agrre that because we have men who have done without a seminary education,it does not necessarily mean that seminary education has no benefits.
3 We agree that seminary education can have both positive and negative effects.It alldepends on the context.
I believe that what is of prime importance,as already stated,is that ‘the immediate ,direct relevance of the training is never lost,and that the shepherding role of the clergy is not overshadowed by esoteric erudition,inaccessible to the majority’.
In all this,the work of the Spirit is of prime importance.We are dependent on the leading of the Spirit.
I agree that discipleship as education in the local church is a must. I have one observation to add to your discussion and one contention.
The observation is that discipleship goes beyond mere theological education. One doesn’t truly know the Bible until he truly knows Christ. It’s possible to have faith in Christ without having a deeper theological understanding of Him. We need discipleship to grow in our faith as we learn better who our Lord is. But this actually requires learning.
That’s where my contention comes in. You wrote, “…let us use ordinary language in our teaching and avoid the jargon of the academy.” It is understood that people who have only drank milk don’t have the vocabulary. But if you are teaching Greek, you are increasing their vocabulary. Theology has a vocabulary that must be taught in order to apprehend the deeper things. One untrained has simple categories. The “deeper things” have more refined categories, but these categories need names so we can discuss them. For example, we know there is a difference between “justification” and “sanctification”, but many don’t know the difference and you can’t explain the difference when the only category your students have is “saved”.
Jim Pemberton
I greatly appreciate the simplicity and balance inyour words,sir.Thanks.
Brother Lawence D
1 Given your interpretative presumption,I am not surprised at the conclusion you reach.With the assumption of a radical discontinuity between the OT and the NT,you probably could reach no other conclusion than that the OT is moribund,and should be done away with.And with the doing away with the OT,the distinctive clergy of the OT would also need to be done away with.
2 With the passages in Hebrews one may reach the conclusion that the OT is of no use to the christian today.But what if this is not entirely accurate.What if a radical continuity is also a possible hermeneutic.Please check for example Matthew 5:17-19.The passage strongly suggests a continuity,not discontinuity.The point really is that neither stance is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.It all depends on the perspective from which we view the matter.
3 I am not quite sure we can discount the strong hints at a clear leadership pattern in the NT,and in a manner that suggests a priesthood.Are we to ignore that Paul and Timothy for example were ‘professional’ missionaries and church planters.Are we to ignore the exclusive calling out of the first disciples.
4 The fact is that the NT does not give us one but several models of church planting,administration and growth.We had the house churches,the early worship in synagouges,at least until they were put out of the Temple,open air worship etc.Today,the Church of Christ must continue to be a living,growing,dynamic organism.
5 On the comparison of Temple and Church,I believe that the lack of parallel between them crumbles when we accept a radical continuity between the two covenants.
6 The churh of Christ continues to evolve,with all its imperfections.What God loves are not perfect persons or church,but willingness and obedience.
7 Do have some patience with my strident tone in the last post.It arises from the deep love I have for the Church of Jesus Christ.
Brother Lawrence D
Hutch
1 I would like to dwell a bit further on the matter of radical discontinuity,using a selective exposition on Hebrews,if you would allow me.The relevant chapters are 1,2,3,8,9 and 11.
2 Chapters 1,2 and 3 -The author establishes the superiority of Jesus Christ to the prophets and angels.This is all established from selected OT passages.The intention is to establish this to his audience who all,assumedly,are steeped in the OT tradition and doctrine.In chapter 3 people are warned to be obedient to the new revelation of God’s will,noting the often severe punishments that were meted out to disobedient folks in times gone by.
3 Chapter 8- The uniqueness and centrality of Jesus to the new covenant is stressed,as well as justifying the need for a new covenant.’For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant,no place would have been sought for another’-v 7.If we stopped there we might well conclude that it was the covenant itself that was defective,but the narrative goes on’But God found fault with the people and said…’.In verses 8b-12 He then stresses that it is the disobedience of and misunderstanding of the old covenant that God frowned at,and then decided to institute a new covenant with man.
v13- ‘By calling this covenant’new’,he has made the first one obsolete,and what is obsolete and ageing will soon disappear’.In conidering chapter 11,we will dwell further on this.
4 Chapter 9- v1-5-Brief consideration is given tothe mode of worship under the OT.And then in v10 is said of the mode of worship’They are only a mattter of food and drinkand various ceremonial washings-external regulations applying until the time of the new order’.Considered by and of themslves,the fulfilment of the ritual worship might be considered to be all that God wanted of Man-this is what several men thought.
5 Chapter 11 confirms what God wanted a
Brother Lawrence D
Hutch
I will complete the comment soon.Technical problems at this end.
Brother Lawrence D
Hutch
1 Chapter 11 confirms what God really wanted of man,in both covenants- faith.We are taken through dozens of OT personalities who demonstrated the required faith.The point really is that included in their acts of what might otherwise be ragarded as ritualistic worship,are profound acts of faith.
The men of the OT held up as examples were demonstrating the kind of faith required of post-resurrection NT man.The seeming dichotomy between OT and NT simply fades away!
2 a Abel demonstrated faithful obedience by giving the required type of sacrifice.
b Noah acted in faith by obeying God ‘blindly’.
c Abraham acted in faith by leaving all behind and going to a strange land.Also by the willingness to sacrifice the child of promise.
d By faith the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.They might as well have been paralysed by fear,in spite of the word from God,etc.
3 The point is that in pointing to the NT the OT’s basic requirement is the same-faith.It is man that reduced faith only to a system of ceremonial worship.The rather hollow dichotomy between the OT and the NT is seen to actually be non-existent.
Tunji-
I am quite familiar with Reformed Covenant Theology, but I reject its conslusion of one covenant of redemption due to teh repeated promise and proclamation, that a better and superior covenant has come.
It is a new covenant of internal motivation not the old covenant of external restraint.
One brings life the other brought death.
Here is a “little” something regarding Matthew 5.
LAW LESSONS
Lesson 16- JESUS AND THE LAW- Part 2: WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 5:17?
Now we are going to deal with a passage of scripture that has long been used as THE primary argument for the continuing validity of the law of Moses for Christians. No matter how many NT passages we can turn to that clearly teach the abolition of the law of Moses at the cross–no matter how many passages speak of our freedom from that law–no matter how forcefully the NT makes the case that the law is no longer binding — no matter how logical and scriptural our arguments concerning Jesus and the law — this one passage is the final refuge of those whose other arguments have all been destroyed.
MATTHEW 5:17-19: 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I have been confronted with this passage scores of times, and it is always cited as the supposedly clinching proof in the argument that the law of Moses is still in force. In this passage — it is argued — Jesus said that the law would never go away. He said that anyone who broke it and taught others to break it would be least in the kingdom. He said that he did NOT come to destroy it, but to fulfill it.
The argument is: Doesn’t this passage prove that the law is still in force? Doesn’t it say that Jesus came to fulfill the law — and that means to obey it, and to keep it in force — and therefore, so should we? Doesn’t this passage say that the law is unchangeable and still binding? Doesn’t this say that the law is eternal and perpetual and universal? Doesn’t this prove that we are still under the authority of the law? Doesn’t this prove that Jesus did NOT abolish the law at the cross?
If any of you have any trouble believing that this is the argument that is constantly being made from this passage [I doubt that any of you do -- it is well-nigh universal], all you have to do is look up this subject on the net, or in some commentaries, or in some preaching texts — or listen to preachers on the radio or on TV — or just ask some preachers and Bible teachers — and see what answers you get. Just read some of the posts on the Gothard list! I have probably been challenged with this reference a dozen times on that list alone!
Those who argue for the continuing authority of the law of Moses consider this their strongest text in the NT in support of law-keeping. “Jesus came to fulfill the law, and that means obey it and keep it in force — and so should we. He said it would last forever.” But — after carefully studying the passage in context, I am confident that it teaches no such thing. In this lesson and the next, I am going to show you five solid facts that refute this interpretation of the passage, and that prove that the passage actually is in complete harmony with everything we have argued about the abolition of the law.
FACT #1 = “THE LAW” IS THE WHOLE LAW, NOT JUST THE 10-C, AND NOT JUST THE “MORAL LAW.”
Let’s go back to those first lessons again and remember what we learned. Do you see now why I said that understanding what “the law” means is the key to about 95% of the arguments about the law? “The law” is the WHOLE law, in all its details. It is not just the 10-C. It is not just the so-called “moral law.” It is the entire law-code of Moses.
If Jesus is saying here that “the law” is still in force, and that we Christians are obligated to obey “the law” — then he is saying that the ENTIRE law is still in force, and that we are obligated to obey the ENTIRE law. And you know what that means, don’t you? That means that we are all UNDER that law, which means that we are all automatically under the CURSE of the law, since the curse is pronounced on everyone UNDER that law who does not perfectly obey the whole thing (JAMES 2:10; GAL. 3:10).
In addition, if Jesus is saying here that the law is still in force for the Christian, then this would be a flat contradiction of all those other passages we have studied that say the exact opposite — that we are free from the law, not under the law, delivered from the law, dead to the law, etc. So — either Jesus contradicts EVERYTHING said about the law by his own spokesmen, the writers of the NT — OR — he is NOT saying that the law is to remain in force, but he is saying something else entirely.
Since the Analogy of Scripture teaches us that the Bible will not contradict itself, we can be sure that one or the other of these two opposing ideas is false. And the analogy of scripture also teaches us that we derive our doctrine from the many clear passages on a topic, and not from a few isolated passages that we can interpret to conflict with the general tenor and the many passages that clearly teach otherwise. We have already shown, in detail, that the NT clearly teaches that the law of Moses was abolished at the cross, and is no longer in force. Therefore, we must discover how and why so many are misinterpreting this passage in MATT. 5 to say the opposite — and we must discover what Jesus was really saying, after all.
In further proof that Jesus was speaking of the whole law — read what he goes on to discuss immediately after this statement. What follows in chapters 5-7 has come to be known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” Notice the various parts of the law that he mentions: murder, animal sacrifices, adultery, divorce, swearing of oaths, eye-for-an-eye, love of enemies, etc.
Are all these things in the 10-C? No — but they are all in “the law.” Are they all in the “moral law”? What about animal sacrifices? What about the swearing of oaths? Would Jesus say NOT to swear oaths if that were a moral law, still binding today?
Some argue that Jesus is here speaking about the 10-C. But that is manifestly absurd. Is he saying that he came to fulfill the 10-C and all the rest of the OT (the Prophets), but NOT the rest of the law of Moses? It is amazing the lengths that some people will go to in order to avoid the plain facts.
Now, here’s my point, one more time. If every jot and tittle of the law is still binding now and forever, then we ARE obligated to obey the WHOLE law, in all its minute detail — NOT just the 10-C, and NOT just the “moral law.” This means we must keep the Sabbath, exactly as commanded in the law, and celebrate the feasts and the new moons, and perform animal sacrifices, and burn incense, and obey the food laws, and all the rest of it. Who does all this today? No one — not even the Jews.
FACT #2 = “THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS” MEANS THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT — NOT JUST THE LAW OF MOSES.
The second reason this passage cannot be teaching the continuing authority of the law of Moses is found in the phrase Jesus uses in vs. 17 — “the Law or the Prophets.” This is the term used by the Jews of the time to refer to the totality of what we now call “the Old Testament.”
The Jewish Bible was divided into “the Book of the Law,” which included the five books of Moses, and “the Book of the Prophets,” which included all the books written by the prophets, along with the historical books and the poetry books. Sometimes the poetical books were listed separately under the title “the Psalms.” Every Sabbath day, portions from the book of the law, and also from the prophets, were read in the synagogues. You will find these titles sprinkled throughout the NT to refer to the Jewish Bible. For example:
GAL. 3:10 = the book of the law.
ACTS 7:42 = the book of the prophets.
ACTS 13:15 = after the reading of the law and the prophets.
So “the law and the prophets” became the common term for the entire OT. Here are some more references to check out: MATT. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; LUKE 16:16,29,31; 24:27,44; JOHN 1:45; ACTS 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23; ROM. 3:21.
All these passages refer to “the law and the prophets” or to “Moses and the prophets” — meaning: the entire OT. Now — listen to Christ again, in MATT. 5:17:
* Do not think that I have come to destroy THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
And then, after his resurrection, with the two men he met on the road to Emmaus:
* LUKE 24:27: And beginning at MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
* LUKE 24:44: Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in THE LAW OF MOSES ADN THE PROPHETS AND THE PSALMS concerning Me.”
It is obvious that he is referring to the entire OT. And so — this is exactly what he means in MATT. 5:17, as well — the entire OT. Surely he wouldn’t be saying that he came to fulfill the “moral law” only. As a matter of fact — those who argue that Jesus fulfilled the “ceremonial” law only, and that he meant to keep the “moral law” in force, have no way to deal with this passage coherently.
They want to have it both ways. They want to have Jesus fulfilling and ending the ceremonial law, while, at the same time, arguing that his statement here about fulfilling the law is a declaration that the moral law is still in force. But — if to “fulfill the law” means to keep it in force, then to fulfill the ceremonial law means to keep the ceremonial law in force. If that were true, we would be required to sacrifice animals today. On the other hand, if to “fulfill the law” means to complete it and end it, then it means to complete and end the WHOLE law, not just the ceremonial law. It won’t do to change definitions IN MID-VERSE to fit the theory!
No — Jesus came to fulfill the entire OT – and that CANNOT mean that he came to keep it in force perpetually, for that would mean the perpetuation of the entire OT – in all its details. I ask again – when and where in the scripture did God give anyone the right to reinterpret his laws and change the meaning before setting about to obey them? The scripture only gives us two choices: if we are under the authority of a law, either we obey ALL of it EXACTLY as it is commanded to be obeyed, or we are BREAKING it.
FACT #3 = “TO ABOLISH” IS NOT THE SAME AS “TO DESTROY.”
The third reason this passage does not teach the continuation of “the law” is found in the different meanings of the two words “abolish” and destroy.” In the first place, even most of those who argue for the continuance of the “moral law” agree with the rest of us that Jesus fulfilled and abolished all the “ceremonial law.” They declare that Jesus did away with all the rituals and ceremonies of the law at the cross, because his death was the fulfillment of the types and shadows portrayed in those rituals. On this we agree.
Of course, the problem arises, as we have already discussed, when we attempt to determine from the OT just what those ceremonial rules were, and just which of the 613 laws were moral, and, therefore, still binding. For example, some see the Sabbath, the feasts, the tithes, the food laws, and/or circumcision as ceremonial and abolished — while there are others who argue that some or all of these are part of the “moral law” and should be obeyed today.
Leaving that discussion aside — my point is that even those who argue the two-law theory accept the fact that Jesus abolished at least PART of the law at the cross. Well, then — I ask: Did he thereby DESTROY that part of the law? No one would dare say so! And yet — we all agree that he DID abolish it; he DID bring it to an end. So then — it is one thing to DESTROY a law, and it is quite ANOTHER thing to bring it to an end, and abolish it by fulfilling it.
Jesus SAID he came to fulfill the law [MATT. 5:17]. PAUL said that he abolished it [EPH. 2:15]. That should be good enough for us. But to prove my point beyond all doubt, we need to examine the difference in the scripture between “destroy” and “abolish.”
DESTROY = KATALUO
The word “destroy” in MATT. 5:17 is a translation of the Greek word kataluo, which carries several related meanings: to destroy, demolish, overthrow, deprive of success, bring to naught. The word is used fifteen times in this sense in the NT, and it is most often translated as “destroy.” Let’s take a quick look at a few of the uses of the word kataluo:
* MATT. 24:2 [Jesus speaking of the destruction of the temple]: And He said to them, “Do you see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be [THROWN DOWN (KJV); TORN DOWN (NASB)].”
* MATT. 26:61 [The witnesses testifying at Jesus' trial]: “This man stated, ‘I am able to DESTROY the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’”
* MATT. 27:40 [The mocking of Christ on the cross]: “You who are going to DESTROY the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself!”
* ACTS 5:38-39 [Gamaliel's advice to the Sanhedrin concerning the Christians]: “Stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will [BE OVERTHROWN (NASB); COME TO NAUGHT (KJV)], but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it.”
* ACTS 6:14 [Accusations against Stephen]: “We have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will DESTROY this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.”
* ROM. 14:20: Do not [TEAR DOWN (NASB); DESTROY (KJV] the work of God for the sake of food.
* 2 COR. 5:1: We know that if the earthly tent which is our house is [TORN DOWN (NASB); DISSOLVED (KJV)], we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Based on this survey, I am strongly persuaded that the KJV, in MATT. 5:17, has translated the word kataluo correctly as “destroy.” However, the NASB and the NIV both translate the word as “abolish,” which creates a huge problem, for a couple of reasons. First — there is ANOTHER word that is more consistently translated “abolish” [we will deal with that word below] — AND both the NIV and the NASB have translated that other word as “abolish” in EPH. 2:15, which declares that Christ has “abolished in his flesh what was causing the enmity [between Jew and Gentile] — that is, THE LAW, made up of commandments and decrees.”
We have already studied that passage, and it clearly states — in all three of these versions [KJV, NIV, and NASB] — and in the Greek — that Jesus DID abolish the law. So when the NIV and NASB both translate the word kataluo as “abolish” in MATT. 5:17, instead of the more accurate term “destroy,” they create a flat contradiction in the scripture, and open the way for people to misinterpret the intent of the passages.
The second reason for the confusion is that there is a definite difference in the Greek between “destroy” and “abolish.” We have looked at the word translated “destroy” — kataluo. Let’s look now at the word “abolish.”
ABOLISH = KATARGEO
We studied this word back in the lesson that dealt with the abolition of the law. The word “abolish” is a translation of the Greek word katargeo, which carries the following meanings: to render inactive, inoperative, or idle; to cause something to have no further effect; to deprive of force, influence, power, or authority; to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish; to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, freed from; to terminate all relationship with.
The word is translated five times as “destroy” in the KJV [I will show you those verses, and why I believe they should have been translated differently] — but it is also translated eighteen other ways, including “do away with,” “abolish,” “loose,” “cease,” “deliver,” “nullify,” “make without effect,” “bring to naught, “pass away,” and “bring to an end”. The word katargeo is used no less than TWELVE times in the NT [out of a total of twenty-seven] in discussions about the abolition of the law.
First, take a look at its uses in other contexts — and notice the difference between this word and “destroy”:
* ROM. 3:3: What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not [NULLIFY (NASB); MAKE WITHOUT EFFECT (KJV)] the faithfulness of God, will it?
Notice — this does not mean “to destroy,” but “to nullify” or “render ineffective.”
* ROM. 6:6: Our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be [DONE AWAY WITH (NASB); DESTROYED (KJV)], so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.
Here the idea is that the pull of our sinful nature is “nullified” or “rendered ineffective” — but it is certainly not completely destroyed, and so the KJV makes a poor choice in this case, IMO.
* 1 COR. 1:28: God has chosen the base things of the world and the despised, the things that are not, so that He may [NULLIFY (NASB); BRING TO NAUGHT (KJV)] the things that are.
Again — not “destroy,” but “nullify” or “render inoperative.”
* 1 COR. 2:6: Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature — a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are [PASSING AWAY (NASB); COME TO NAUGHT (KJV)].
* 1 COR. 6:13: Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will [DO AWAY WITH (NASB); DESTROY (KJV] both of them.
In this case, the word “destroy” is not entirely inappropriate, but the idea is that someday God will bring these things to an end. They will no longer have any meaning or purpose.
* 1 COR. 13:8,10,11: Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will [BE DONE AWAY (NASB); FAIL (KJV)]; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will [BE DONE AWAY (NASB); VANISH AWAY (KJV)]. When the perfect comes, the partial will BE DONE AWAY. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I [DID AWAY WITH (NASB); PUT AWAY (KJV)] childish things.
* 1 COR. 15:24,26: Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He has [ABOLISHED (NASB); PUT DOWN (KJV)] all rule and all authority and power…. The last enemy that will be [ABOLISHED (NASB); DESTROYED (KJV)] is death.
While “destroyed” is not out of the question here, the real intent is to show that Christ will “abolish” all authority but his own, and that he will render death powerless. Death will have no more power over men when Christ has accomplished his final purpose.
* 2 THESS. 2:8: Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth, and [BRING TO AN END (NASB); DESTROY (KJV)] by the appearance of His coming.
Here is another case where “destroy” is not entirely inappropriate, but the idea is that Christ will END the reign of the antichrist when he returns. And Christ will not utterly destroy the antichrist, but rather, he will throw him in the lake of fire — there to suffer eternal punishment.
* 2 TIM. 1:10: …but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who ABOLISHED death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel…
Christ has rendered the power of death obsolete — he has annulled its authority — he has brought its reign to an end.
* HEB. 2:14: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself also partook of the same, that through death He might [RENDER POWERLESS (NASB); DESTROY (KJV)] him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.
In this case, the NASB translation is superior — IMO — since we know that Christ will NOT destroy the devil completely, but that he WILL render him powerless — he will bring the devil’s rule to an end.
In all these passages that use the word katargeo, we see the basic meanings that we listed above — and while a couple of passages use the word “destroy” appropriately, they clearly carry the meaning of “abolish.” And — most of them should definitely be rendered “abolished,” “annulled,” “rendered powerless,” etc.
Before we go any further, let us make certain that we understand the importance of the distinction I have demonstrated between the words kataluo and katargeo. The first word means “destroy,” and it carries the connotation of violent overthrow and ruin. The second word means “abolish,” and it carries the connotation of annulling the power or authority of something, or of rendering it no longer operable.
With this foundation, we can now look at those passages in the NT that use the word “katargeo” in connection with “the law.” We will do that in the next lesson.
In the last lesson I said I would show you five solid facts that would refute the common interpretation of MATT. 5:17-19 as saying that “the law” is still in authority over the Christian. We were in the middle of the third fact — “To abolish is not the same as to destroy.” We were looking at the difference between the two Greek words “kataluo” and “katargeo.” Now we continue:
We saw in the last lesson that kataluo means “to destroy utterly,” while katargeo means “to render idle; to render obsolete; to annul; to abolish.” Jesus said, in MATT. 5:17, that he had not come to “destroy” [kataluo] the law or the prophets [the entire OT]. But — again and again in the NT, the apostles declare that Jesus DID “abolish” [katargeo] the law of Moses. Unless there IS a very real difference between these two words, we have a flat contradiction in scripture! But since these two words are NOT synonyms, to say that Jesus “abolished” the law of Moses does NOT contradict Jesus’ statement in MATT. 5:17 that he had not come to “destroy” the law — because “to destroy” is not the same as “to abolish.”
So now — as if we have not already covered this territory before — does the NT actually say that Jesus “abolished” [katargeo] the law? If it does, then the entire argument for the continuation of the law, based on MATT. 5:17, is lost — because the meaning of the term katargeo would render that argument null and void. We could say that it — AHEM — “abolishes” that argument.
The word katargeo appears twelve times in the NT in discussions relating to the law of Moses, and we have already discussed most of these passages at length, but let us at least LOOK at them in order to prove my linguistic point, once and for all:
* ROM. 4:14: For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is [NULLIFIED (NASB); (NIV); MADE OF NONE EFFECT (KJV)].
Here Paul argues that law-keeping is NOT included in the gospel of salvation, for law-keeping does not produce HEIRS of the promise to Abraham. Only faith does that — and so he says that IF those under the law are heirs, then that voids faith and renders the promise useless — it abolishes the promise.
* ROM. 7:2,6: For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she [IS RELEASED (NASB); IS LOOSED (KJV)] from the law concerning the husband…. But now we [HAVE BEEN RELEASED (NASB); HAVE BEEN DELIVERED (KJV)] from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
We have already studied this passage. It is absolutely devastating to the argument for the continuation of the authority of the law of Moses, for it clearly states that we have been RELEASED from its authority, just as a woman whose husband has died has been released from the law that bound her to him. That word “released” is translated from the word katargeo. It clearly means that the authority of the law of Moses has been rendered inoperable — that it has been abolished. All connection between us and the law has been severed.
Another passage that we looked at in depth is 1 COR. 3, which discusses the 10-C specifically, and states that the new ministry of the Spirit has annulled and replaced the old ministry of death and condemnation — the 10-C. Go back and read it again to refresh your memory. This is one of the passages we discussed that clearly state the abolition of the 10-C. The word katargeo occurs four times in the passage — in vss. 7, 11, 13, and 14:
* 2 COR. 3:7: But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, [FADING AS IT WAS (NASB); WHICH WAS TO BE DONE AWAY (KJV)]…. >
Here Paul says that the glory of the shining face of Moses was going to fade away. But then he uses this to declare that the glory of the 10-C was done away in the same way, and was replaced by the greater glory of the ministry of the Spirit:
* 2 COR. 3:11: For if that which [IS FADING AWAY (NASB, NIV); IS DONE AWAY (KJV)] had glory, that which remains has much more glory.
Notice the context — read vss. 9-10. He is clearly contrasting the 10-C — the old ministry of death and condemnation — with the new ministry of the Spirit. He says that the old ministry is fading away — is done away — katargeo — abolished.
* 2 COR. 3:12-14: Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look at the end of [WHAT WAS FADING AWAY (NASB); THAT WHICH WAS ABOLISHED (KJV)]. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day, at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because only in Christ is it [REMOVED (NASB); DONE AWAY (KJV)].
I don’t see how it could be any clearer. As long as people are focusing on the old covenant — epitomized by the 10-C in this passage, and consisting of the entire law of Moses — there is a veil over their hearts. They cannot see the glories of the gospel of grace. But — just as the glory on the face of Moses was “abolished” — was fading away — in the same way, the glory of the old covenant has been “abolished” — it has faded away.
And how is that old covenant “abolished”? How is it “done away”? It is “taken away” IN CHRIST. I cannot see any way around it. Christ has ABOLISHED that old covenant — the law of Moses — all of it, including the 10-C, which are specified in this passage.
* GAL. 3:17: The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate the covenant previously ratified by God, so as to [NULLIFY (NASB); MAKE OF NONE EFFECT (KJV)] the promise.
Here again, Paul says that the law cannot abolish the previous covenant that God ratified with Abraham according to faith. Read the whole argument in GAL. 3: the law cannot abolish the covenant of faith which preceded it and is superior to it; rather, the law was designed to oversee the Jews until the coming of ChrIst, and then –- now that we are in Christ -– the law’s authority is abolished.
* GAL. 5:4: [CHRIST HAS BECOME OF NO EFFECT TO YOU (KJV); YOU HAVE BEEN SEVERED FROM CHRIST (NASB)} to you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
To seek to be justified by law "abolishes," or "renders useless" being justified by faith in Christ. Logically -- the converse must also be true: to be justified by faith in Christ is to render completely useless the idea of being justified by law. Remember -- the Judaizers were not seeking to REPLACE faith with law-keeping; they were merely attempting to ADD law-keeping to faith. And Paul says no -- the two principles are mutually exclusive. If you are justified by faith, then law-keeping is useless. If you are justified by law-keeping, then faith is unnecessary.
This is a very important point, for there is no one today, as far as I know, who is saying that we should REPLACE faith with law-keeping. The argument is the same one the Judaizers were making -- that we should COMBINE faith WITH law-keeping. And Paul says NO -- it can't be done. The one negates the other. They are mutually exclusive.
* GAL. 5:11: But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block [offense] of the cross [HAS BEEN ABOLISHED (NASB); HAS CEASED (KJV)].
Here we can clearly see the important difference between “destroy” and “abolish”. If Paul were to just agree to add circumcision to the gospel [and remember, this means preaching that Gentiles should submit to the law of Moses], then he would not be persecuted by the Judaizers. But as long as he keeps preaching the cross ONLY — WITHOUT adding law-keeping to the gospel, then the Judaizers will continue to be offended, and will continue to persecute him. Paul says: the offense of the cross would be abolished — rendered null and void — have its power annulled — if he were to include law-keeping as part of the gospel.
The next passage is the final death-blow to all arguments against the abolition of the law:
* EPH. 2:14-16: For He Himself is our peace, who has made both groups [Jews and Gentiles] into one, and has broken down the barrier of the dividing wall, by ABOLISHING in His flesh what was causing the hostility — the law, with its commandments and decrees — so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death what was causing the hostility. >
This is the most powerful passage of all — stating directly that Christ put the law to death. He did it by ABOLISHING [katargeo] it at HIS death ["in his flesh"]. This parallels COL. 2, which says that Christ nailed the law to the cross.
Several of these passages directly state that the law HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. The others state that the preaching of law-keeping would ABOLISH faith. If this isn’t plain enough, then nothing ever will be!
There is one other passage that contains the word katargeo in relation to “the law.” We will discuss it in a future lesson.
FACT #4 = “TO STAND UNTIL FULFILLED” IS NOT THE SAME AS “TO STAY IN
FORCE FOREVER.”
The fourth reason that MATT. 5:17-20 is not teaching the continuation of the law of Moses is the fact that “to stand until fulfilled” is NOT the same as “to stay in force forever.” Those who preach the law from this passage are taking Jesus’ words here to mean that the law of Moses will always and ever be in force — that it is unchangeable and therefore binding, today and forever.
But the passage says nothing of the kind. Nor does it say that every jot and tittle of the law will stand till heaven and earth pass away. Read the passage carefully, and you will see that it says that the law will endure UNTIL something ELSE happens — NOT that it will endure forever. Jesus clearly states that every tiny detail of the law will remain UNTIL it is all FULFILLED. He has just stated that he came to fulfill it, and he further states that, UNTIL he DOES completely fulfill it, it will remain.
But this just as clearly states that when he DOES fulfill it completely, it WILL pass away! Look at it again:
“Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not one jot or one tittle will by any means disappear from the Law UNTIL everything is accomplished.”
His point is very clear: none of the law will pass away UNTIL he fulfills it. This teaches that at some point it WILL all be fulfilled — and THEN IT WILL PASS AWAY! The idea is NOT that the law will last until heaven and earth pass away — but that SOONER would heaven and earth pass away than that one letter of the law would fail to be fulfilled. Luke’s words make this matter very clear in his version of this statement:
* LUKE 16:17: It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.
Here we cannot mistake the meaning. The idea is not how long the law is to last, but the certainty that it will be fulfilled — no matter how long that takes. And so, contrary to the usual interpretation of this passage, it is NOT teaching the perpetuity of the law of Moses, but rather, that there will come a time that it WILL pass away — when it has been completely fulfilled by the Messiah. Whatever “fulfilled” means – THAT is what will cause the law to pass away. Which leads to the next point:
FACT #5 = “TO FULFILL” IS NOT THE SAME AS “TO KEEP IN FORCE.”
The fifth reason — and the clinching one — that MATT. 5:17-20 is NOT teaching the perpetuity of the law of Moses is that there is a clear distinction between what it means to “fulfill the law” and what it means to “keep the law in force.” The key to understanding what Jesus is talking about here is to understand what he means when he says that he came to “fulfill” the law and the prophets [the entire OT].
The English word “fulfill” is derived from the words “fill” and “full” -– and its original meaning was to fill something completely. It has since come to mean: to make complete; to accomplish or carry into effect, as an intention, promise, or prophecy; to complete by performance; to answer the requirements of; to bring to pass, as a purpose or design; to effectuate.
If I ask you to do something for me, and then later I ask if you “fulfilled” that task, I am asking if you completed it, accomplished it, or performed it. I know this SOUNDS like “obedience,” but there is a crucial difference. The word fulfill is sometimes used in that sense, but it is most often used to refer to the completion of a predicted or expected event. If I predict a future event, and then later ask if that event has been fulfilled, I am NOT asking if anyone has “obeyed” me; I am asking if the event I predicted actually came to pass — if it occurred as I had said it would.
The Greek word in MATT. 5 that is translated “to fulfill” is the word plerosai, the infinitive form of the verb pleroo. It carries the same basic meanings as the English word “fulfill.” It is derived from the word for “fill,” and it is often used in the NT to mean, simply, “fill.” For example, see the following passages, all of which use forms of pleroo to mean “fill”:
MATT. 13:48; 23:32; LUKE 2:40; 3:5; JOHN 12:3; 16:6,24; ACTS 2:2; 5:3,28; ROM. 1: 29; 15:14; 2 COR. 7:4; EPH. 1:23; 3:19; 5:18; PHIL. 1;11; 4:18; COL. 1:9; 2 TIM. 1:4.
In other contexts the word pleroo is used consistently to refer to completing, accomplishing, and bringing to pass predicted events. This is the primary use of the word in the gospels. The four gospels use the word pleroo forty-six times, and at least THIRTY of those uses clearly refer to the “fulfillment” of scriptural predictions and foreshadowings.
For example, Matthew uses pleroo seventeen times, FOURTEEN of which clearly refer to the fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, in EVERY case in which the word pleroo is used in relation to the scriptures, it carries this meaning of the fulfillment of predicted events — NOT obedience. Notice the following passages – ALL of which use pleroo to refer to the fulfillment of OT scriptures:MATT. 1:22; 2:15,17,23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:15; 21:4; 2:54,56; 27:9.MARK 1:15; 14:49.LUKE 4:21; 21:22; 24:44.JOHN 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 18:9,32; 19:24,36.ACTS 1:16; 3:18; 13:27.
This is THE KEY to understanding what Jesus is really saying in MATT. 5:17. He refers to the entire OT, claiming that he came to FULFILL it. The meaning is obvious, isn’t it? Yes, of course, he obeyed the law, but that is NOT primarily what he is talking about. He came to ACCOMPLISH everything the OT said about the Messiah. He came to BRING TO COMPLETION all the predictions, all the shadows, all the “types” in the scriptures that pointed forward to the coming Messiah and his sacrifice for our sins.
So Jesus did not come to DESTROY the law or the prophets — but he DID come to complete them, to fulfill them, to bring them to their long-anticipated conclusion. We have already seen that the law was NOT given to make the Jews righteous. It was given for several other important reasons, among which were the setting apart of the Jews as a special people, the revelation of God’s holy character, and the proof that no one can actually live up to God’s standards.
But – there was another purpose in those OT scriptures – and that was to foreshadow, typify, and predict the arrival, the deeds, and the atoning death of the Messiah. THAT is what Jesus came to do -– to fulfill all those predictions, shadows, and types that are scattered all throughout the entire law and the rest of the OT. And when he finally fulfilled everything that the OT had predicted concerning him, he nailed that old law to the cross and abolished it. He did not destroy it; he fulfilled it, and then he abolished it.
Why did he abolish it? Because its purpose was now completed. It never was meant to produce righteousness, anyway. It was meant to reveal unrighteousness and drive us to the savior. And when we have come to faith in the savior that was predicted and typified in that law –- we have passed from under the jurisdiction of that law forever. Jesus fulfilled “every jot and tittle” of the law that referred to him by way of anticipation -– and by doing so, he brought it to its logical and predetermined end.
Here at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus declared that he had come to FULFILL the entire OT. The gospel writers went to great lengths to show exactly HOW he did so. For example, when Jesus went to Nazareth, and read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, he read a passage that all the rabbis agreed was a reference to the Messiah. What did he say when he finished his reading?
LUKE 4:16-21:
16.He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18. “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19. to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20.Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21. and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is FULFILLED [pleroo] in your hearing.”
After his resurrection, Jesus met up with two men on the road to Emmaus, and when he heard their doubts, he upbraided them:
* LUKE 24:25-27: Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
Later that same day, he said to the disciples:
* LUKE 24:44-45: “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be FULFILLED [pleroo] which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.
This is an obvious reference to his own statement back in MATT. 5:17 about fulfilling the law and the prophets. He says right here that he DID fulfill them all in his death, burial, and resurrection.
And then we have the words of Paul:
* ACTS 13:29: Now when they had FULFILLED [pleroo] everything that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
So – when and where was it all finally completed and fulfilled? At the cross. This is why Paul goes on to explain that it was at the cross that Jesus ABOLISHED the law:
* COL. 2:14: He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
* EPH. 2:15: He abolished in his flesh the law of commandments and decrees.
* ROM. 10:4: Christ is the end of the law for everyone who believes.
* GAL. 3:24-25: The law was our guardian until Christ, so that we would be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under the guardian.
What could be plainer? Jesus came — not to destroy [kataluo] the law — but to fulfill [pleroo] it, no matter how long that took. And he did fulfill it; he was the complete fulfillment of all those OT predictions, foreshadowings, and types concerning a complete and final atonement for sin. And then — once he finally and completely fulfilled it all — at the cross — he then and there abolished [katargeo] it and replaced it with the new and better covenant ratified in his own blood.
BUT WHAT ABOUT VERSE 19?
In response to all these facts, I have often been challenged by someone referencing verse 19. The claim is that verse 19 contradicts everything I have said — that verse 19 preaches the continuation of the law of Moses. But this is a weak argument and easily dealt with.
The answer is easy: The statement in verse 19 was a warning to those who were under that law at that time — the Jews he was speaking to. UNTIL it was all fulfilled, it was still in force. We have already seen that the law remained in force until the cross. So Jesus upheld the law as long as he lived. But — after Jesus fulfilled it, it passed away, just as he said it would. Since it has now passed away, NO ONE is required to keep it. So I am NOT disobeying the warning in verse 19, because that warning was not given to me, nor could it ever apply to me — a Gentile Christian under grace, who was never under that law in the first place.
Hutch
1 There clearly are 2 covenants,not one.
2 Note the comment on internal motivation vs external constraint.
You may wish to consider what God had to say on ritualistic,faithless worship,that did not show Godly attributes,long before the birth of Jesus:
‘The multitude of your sacrifices,what are they to me?’ says the Lord.’I have more than enough of burnt offerings,of rams and the fat of fatted animals;I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats…Stop bringing meaningless offerings!Your incense is detestable to me.New moons,Sabbaths and convocations-I cannot bear your evil assemblies…When you spread out your hands in prayer,I will hide my eyes from you;even if you offer many prayers I will not listen.Your hands are full of blood;wash and make yourselves clean.Take your evil deeds out of my sight!Stop doing wrong,learn to do right.Seek justice,encourage the oppressed.Defend the cause of the fatherless,plead the cause of the widow.’Isaiah 1:11,13,15-17.
3 Didnt refer to the moral law,but to the OT,as considered in contrast to the NT.
4 Please read my last two posts-yours and mine seem to have crossed each other.
5 Will later want to examine grace and works,as related to the issue we are conversing about.From the book of James.
That will be tomorrow.Tired now,This tent maker needs to rest.Peace,my brother.
Hutch
Travelling locally.Will settle down to write.Please bear with me.
Hutch
1It seems very many Christians,including myself, were weaned on the thesis of a radical dichotomy between the OT and the NT.It is received wisdom.
2My thesis here is that our concern has been more with the content,the specifics of the OT covenant,than with its intent and overall purpose.
3If we would consider the matter closely,I believe God instituted a covenant of faith with man,the OT.Perhaps due to what man could bear ay the time,the specific,external form of manifestation of this covenant took on the form of specific acts(works).But,as shown earlier,God’s intention was always that in seeking to obey the many rules and regulations,this was faith on display.
This however was a limited covenant,as it was practically impossible for any man to obey all the Law.Hence the need for a better covenant where God’s original intention of a faith based relationship between man and God was made plain,the NT.
Hutch
1I think that James 2:14-26 helps to clarify issues,in an altogether practical manner.
2The contention has been that the NT is a works based covenant,as contrasted with the faith based NT.The 600 odd worship and living regulations of the OT are pointed to as evidence of the works based nature of the OT.Passages in the NT emphasising the importance of faith are held up as proof that the NT is faith(only) based(‘without faith it is impossible to please God’).
3In v14 a rhetorical question is asked’What good is it,my brothers,if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds.Can such faith save him’.Brother James supplies the answer with a rather amusing example of non assistance to a cold,hungry man.In v17 ha answers his own question’In the same way,faith by itself,if it is not accompanied by action is dead’.
Brethren,we see that faith and works are,and have always led one from the other.Faith finds expression in action,action taken reinforces faith.Neither covenant has been without faith or works!
And the text goes on to prove this in v21-24 with the example of Abraham’You foolish man,do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?You see that his faith and his actions were working together,and his faith was made complete by what he did..You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone…As the body without the spirit is dead,so faith without deeds is dead’.
4We see here radical continuity,not discontinuity.
“Mature Christian discipleship is possible only where there is submission to the full biblical witness to Christ”
i like this.. i t would make a great tag line..
i would love to see this on a starbucks coffe cup..
Frankie G