The Rock Almighty. Does God give those in church leadership new revelation? And Monday. We Need To Weed Out Fake Christians!

 

PART 15 CHURCH TEACHINGS

TO LEARN ABOUT TEACHINGS THAT EXERCISE AN UNREASONABLE USE OF POWER

AUTHORITARIAN DOCTRINES

THERE IS NEW REVELATION

I believe that this is another topic that is used by leadership to control the assembly. Occasionally, I’ve heard about it from the pulpit, but it’s not something that was frequently talked about. While we briefly looked at this subject briefly earlier, there is so much more to say about it. We’ll begin by asking the following question.

What is revelation?

I could give you a quick definition of such, but why not rather take a look at it in context and derive the meaning from there? Please go to the book of 1 Corinthians.

 

1 Corinthians 14:1-12

Apparently, in the Corinthian church, the exercising of the gift of tongues had become a pressing issue. Some were exercising it at various times, whether during prayer, while singing, or when the assembly of believers gathered during worship, without there being an interpreter present.

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

It was clearly stated by the Apostle Paul that without an interpreter, the church assembly would not receive edification (building up). Therefore, if no interpreter was available, then it was recommended that they prophesy. What is prophesy? Prophesy is proclaiming God’s message.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

The purpose of which was to provide edification (to speak what contains doctrine fitted to edify), exhortation (strengthening; encouragement, which can include reproof), and comfort (to remove sadness; to provide comfort and hope).

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Furthermore, he declared that without an interpreter, whosoever speaks forth the gift of tongues will only edify themselves.

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

So, if this were to be the case and Paul was to show up in their assembly and bring forth a tongue without an interpreter, then he would rather speak that which would edify, i.e., either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine. The first thing that he mentioned that would edify the church would be a declaration by revelation. What is revelation? The word revelation means the supernatural unveiling of divine truths206 that were previously concealed, unknown, or hidden to the mind. Another way to define revelation is to say that [it’s] the receiving … of truth [particular knowledge and information] from the heart of God [by means of the Holy Spirit] to the heart of the believer,207 which could not be found by means of scientific investigation or human reason.

What else would edify the congregation was called knowledge. Knowledge is the supernatural communication of truth that conveys particular knowledge and information to individuals or humanity.208 As for another means of edification, i.e., of prophecy, some commentators believe that this would be comprised of a spoken word proclaimed by a prophet who would interpret it and declare a given revelation. Others would say that this referred to the foretelling of a future event. And finally, doctrine could be classified as Christian instruction, including teaching and learning.

Something else to consider about revelation is that some believe there are two types, i.e., natural and supernatural. Natural (general) revelation has to do with God revealing His power and divinity through the course of nature to all men. The other is called supernatural revelation, which has to do with God making known salvation to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences.209

And by the way, when whatever revealed truths are communicated to others, this is called inspiration. Inspiration secures the teacher or writer infallibility in communicating that truth to others. It renders its subject the spokesman or prophet of God in such a sense that everything he asserts to be true, whether fact or doctrine or moral principle, is true, infallibly true.210

Now that we have a better understanding as to what the word revelation means, what would it mean if a leader of a church said that God had given him/her a new revelation; this would be referred to as adding or taking away from Scripture?

Let’s find out.

What would a new revelation be all about?

To get a better idea of what this means, let’s take a look at some Scripture sections. Let’s begin by going to the book of Matthew.

 

Suggested Reading: Matthew 15:1-9

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Jesus is in the land of Gennesaret, where the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to Him disclosing their displeasure about His disciples. They alleged that they had transgressed the tradition of the elders because they washed not their hands before they ate bread. What they were really saying was, they were accusing Jesus of not teaching His disciples scriptural truth.

However, this was not the case. The words tradition of the elders does not refer to a requirement from the Old Testament writings of the Torah. But rather, it refers to the Oral Torah, which was a written collection of Jewish oral traditions. In other words, these were practices that were added by those in positions of authority that had no basis in Scripture, but yet they considered them just as important.

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Jesus responded to them by stating what was one of the actual requirements according to the Jewish writings of the Torah, which was to honor thy father and mother. The word Honour not only meant respect and submission but also to take care of a person, to nourish and support him, to enrich.211 If a son had the means to help his destitute parent or parents and chose not to, this was punishable by death according to the Mosaic Law.

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;

Here we ascertain that the religious leaders figured out a way to circumvent this command. They did this by proclaiming the word “corban.” What in the world does this mean? This word denotes a gift. It refers to something dedicated to God. Once a thing such as property of any sort was secured by making a vow in this manner, it could not be used for any other purposes.

Deuteronomy 23:21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

Even though this type of giving something in this manner to God was scriptural according to the Torah, it was not meant to be used to supersede the mandate to honor one’s father and mother. What these Jewish teachers said in effect was that it was more important for a man to dedicate his property to God than to provide for the needs of his [parents].212 Once this property was given in this manner, it could not be taken back to help one’s parents even if financial assistance was requested by them.

Another thing that I found interesting was another take-off on this scheme. This referred to the chiefs and priests of a place called the Sandwich Islands. These are located in the southern Atlantic Ocean. Leadership had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was "taboo," or "tabooed;" that is, it became consecrated to the service of religion; and, no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated for no other use. In this way, they had complete power over all the possessions of the people and could appropriate them for their own use under the PRETENCE of devoting them to religion. Thus, they DEPRIVED the people of their property under the plea that it was CONSECRATED to the gods.213

So, Jesus was not saying that no one should give financially to God, but not to use it inappropriately when it interfered with our duty to provide for our parents and family relations; when it was done to get rid of the duty of aiding them; and when it was done out of a malignant and rebellious spirit, with the semblance of piety, to get clear of doing to earthly parents what God required.214

There are a couple of things that we could deduce about what would be considered new revelation. The first would be to say that a new revelation is saying that something needs to be observed or obeyed that is not found in Scripture. It appears to have a godly slant to it but is based on man-made traditions and is imposed on others in the name of God.

Second, a new revelation is taking the Word of God and using it inappropriately for personal reasons, i.e., not helping others who need financial assistance; to get back at others; for personal gain) while giving the appearance that what was done was for God’s glory.

What else could it mean when someone in leadership says, God has given me a new revelation?

Please go to the book of Galatians.

 

Suggested Reading: Galatians 1:6-8

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

What constituted the gospel of Christ had become a significant issue at the church of Galatia. The Apostle Paul, when writing to the church there, expressed his surprise at the short duration between the conversion of some by means of the grace of Christ (to participation in the salvation procured by His Son on the [cross], it was on a basis, not of works, but of [salvation] unmerited by them and freely bestowed215) to another gospel (a gospel of legalism which adds work to faith216).

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

And then Paul constituted this false gospel as an opposition [gospel,] which was really not an alternative one217 at all. He then identified those who were teaching these untruths. And believe it or not, they were Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, otherwise known as Judaizers, who were disturbing their fellow believers’ mental perception of such by changing the gospel of grace which Paul preached, to the reverse of what it was, a message of salvation by good works.

The end of this declaration concluded with what it was that was being perverted, i.e., the gospel of Christ, which [was] otherwise described as the Good News with Christ as the content.218 I hope you caught that. The gospel of Christ was described as that which is with Christ as the content. Nothing is to be added to it or taken from it.

This is another example of adding to or taking away from the teachings of God. In this case, we could say that a new revelation is adding information from one dispensation to a scriptural declaration made from another dispensation. This was adding to the gospel of grace for salvation under the Church Age from the gospel of works under the Age of the Jews.

Stay in the same book and go to chapter 3.

Galatians 3:3

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

Not only did the Apostle Paul have an issue with the Galatians concerning salvation but also another important issue that needed to be addressed, and that had to do with their spiritual growth. He questioned them, Are ye so foolish (irrational)? having begun in the Spirit (of the initial entrance of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of the Galatian Christians when they put their trust in the Lord Jesus219), are you now made perfect (the state of spiritual maturity) by the flesh? (by means of self-effort) in an attempt to obey an outward legalistic system of works. The Galatians were turning away from the teaching and the reality of the ministry of the Spirit and were attempting to adhere to a religious system, the Mosaic Law, that kept them busy with ceremonial performances, observance of days and festivals, [the] distinction of meats, and other matters of ceremonial prescription.220

Unfortunately, in many Christian churches today, there are tenets of the Mosaic Law, some of which born-again believers are asked to obey (e.g., tithing; the giving of firstfruits; observing the Seventh Day Sabbath as the weekly day for worship; obedience to the Ten Commandments, etc.) not only for their spiritual growth but also to secure their salvation. This is what would otherwise be termed as walking in the flesh, being religious, instead of learning about the new person we have become at salvation, appropriating these truths and reflecting upon them throughout the day, confessing known sin (mental, verbal, and overt) to God the Father, and operating under the rule (guidance, leading, and power) of the Holy Spirit.

This is a similar example of what would be described as adding to or taking away from the teachings of God. Likewise, this is another illustration of a new revelation that involved adding information from one dispensation to a scriptural declaration made from another dispensation. This new revelation was different in that it was actually replacing the protocols for a believer’s sanctification under the Church Age with a gospel of works under the Age of the Jews.

Another passage of Scripture that pertains to adding or taking away from God-given revelation is found in the book of Colossians.

 

Colossians 2:8

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.

What the Apostle Paul was conveying to the Colossian believers was what could happen and what has happened to many believers of the Christian faith. He warned them to be aware of those teachers who bring them back into slavery through philosophy (human wisdom, as contrasted with the divine wisdom in the Christian message221) and vain deceit (intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense222), which is centered on the rudiments of the world ("elementary teachings" either of a Jewish or pagan origin, with various beliefs and ritual … which were in sharp contrast to the Christian way of life223 and not after Christ.

As for adding to or taking away from divine revelation, I think that this verse reflects both. A new revelation takes away in that it offers human wisdom apart from divine wisdom. Second, it adds to the revelation of Christian teachings with various beliefs and rituals from Jewish or pagan origin.

Let’s summarize what we have found out about what new revelation actually is about.

A new revelation is:

Saying that something needs to be observed or obeyed from church tradition that is not found in Scripture. Matthew 15:1-9

Taking the Word of God and using it inappropriately for nefarious reasons (e.g., not helping others who need financial assistance; for getting back at others; for dishonest gain) while giving the appearance that what was being done was for God’s glory. Matthew 15:1-9

Adding information from one dispensation to another, thus not allowing the direct revelation conveyed by God and written in Scripture for the next dispensation to implement accurately whether pertaining to salvation, sanctification, or any other biblical topic. Galatians 3:3

Replacing divine wisdom with human wisdom. Colossians 2:8

Adding to the divine revelation of Christian teachings with various beliefs and rituals from Jewish or pagan origin and other faiths. Colossians 2:8

With that said, how would real direct revelation from God be described?

As stated earlier, we’ll repeat this again. Real direct revelation from God is the transmission of truth [particular knowledge and information] from the heart of God [by means of the Holy Spirit] to the heart of the believer,224 which could not be found by means of scientific investigation or human reason. To further expound upon this definition, please go to the book of 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:9-10

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.

God, the Holy Spirit, has revealed hidden truths of which Eye hath not (ever) seen, nor the ear has ever heard about before, and which has never been entered into the heart (mind) of man at any time. When did the eye see these truths and the ear hear these hidden truths, and to who were these truths revealed? The words hath revealed in Greek is a verb in what is called the Aorist Tense, which denotes action as occurring at a point in time. I believe that what this referred to is the time when the New Testament church began, that being on the Day of Pentecost when the truths about the promise of receiving the indwelling Spirit was fulfilled in the lives of the one hundred twenty disciples of Christ that waited in the upper room for this to take place.

Ephesians 3:5 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;

This verse tells us that these truths that were not made known to the sons of men in other ages were now unveiled to the apostles and prophets.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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;

And what about the duration of these truths (revelations)? I would like to add a quote from an interesting article on such. The Greek scholar Robertson comments on [the words] “[hath] spoken,” saying that it means “[did speak] in a final and full revelation.” There is a powerful contrast set up between these two avenues of revelation. In the Old Testament times, revelation from God was continuous, whereas, in stark contrast, the revelation in Jesus Christ is full, complete, and final.225What this is essentially saying is that divine revelation is not continuing to be unveiled but is finished with the completion of the New Testament writings or canon.

With these thoughts in mind, we can deduce that there is no longer inspiration, the communication of revelation to others. No longer is a teacher or writer infallible in communicating truth to others. Likewise, not everything that a teacher or writer declares is true.

That was enlightening. What I would like to leave you with is an article on revelation, in which instead of using this word, the writer uses a common phrase “God told me”. Enjoy.

“THE DANGER OF SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF GOD”

1 Kings 13:18-19 (CSB): “He said to him, ‘I am also a prophet like you. An angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD: “Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat food and drink water.” “The old prophet deceived him, and the man of God went back with him, ate food in his house, and drank water.”

 

Reflections [on] Today’s Bible [Verses]:

Can I step up onto a soapbox and share one of the things that really gets under my skin?

Thank you.

Red flags and red flares go up in my mind whenever someone says: “God told me …” or “God wants you to know that …” Some people use such phrases so flippantly. They act as if it’s [normal,] and they leave every other believer wondering why God hasn’t ever talked to them like that. My wife once had a lady tell her something that was extremely tactless, hurtful, completely inappropriate, and not based upon truth. [But] the lady began her words to Kim by saying: “God told me to tell you …”

Let me give a few reasons why such phrases should raise red flags in all of us:

[It’s] typically used by people who rarely cite Scripture in their comments (Scripture: the place where God actually speaks).

[It’s] typically used to shut down debate. [It’s] used by someone who is living their life as a maverick and not as someone who is open to correction and guidance by a pastor or a church body (as Jesus intended). Essentially, they see themselves as God’s gift to the world.

[It’s] typically used by people who don’t have it all together, even though they want you to think they have it all together. Essentially, they are wearing a mask. A word Jesus often used of people who presented themselves to be something they aren’t is “hypocrite.” Those are people you don’t want to take too seriously.

I’ve observed many other instances where people have taken it upon themselves to speak for God. I’ve heard them speak on His behalf to express their disapproval with a church budget, or to get their agenda pushed through without debate, or to say something harsh and hurtful to someone for which they claim no responsibility. Friend, I’m sick and tired of people who claim to speak on behalf of God but don’t have their finger on a passage of Scripture where God has actually spoken. Such spiritual arrogance is dangerous and destructive. It has more in common with the self-righteous Pharisees than a true follower of Jesus.

Which brings us to the verses that [I’ve] chosen as [today’s] Bible [verses]. The story is told in 1 Kings 13 of an Old Testament prophet who was actually given instruction by God. He went to King Jeroboam and [prophesied] that God would bring judgment upon the northern tribes of Israel for rebelling against Him. Then, the prophet left as he made it clear that God had revealed that he was not to eat, drink, or go back the way he came.

As he left Jeroboam’s presence, another prophet in Bethel heard what had happened. He got on his donkey and went in search of the prophet and found him. Listen to what he told him…

1 Kings 13:18-19 (CSB): “He said to him, ‘I am also a prophet like you. An angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD: “Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat food and drink water.” “The old prophet deceived him, and the man of God went back with him, ate food in his house, and drank water.”

The second prophet claimed that he had a word from the Lord. Essentially, he said: “God told me to tell you that He changed His mind. You are supposed to come back to Bethel to get some food and drink. You can trust me because God told me this.”

The previous verses state that the second prophet had said these things to deceive the original prophet. As you read the rest of the story in 1 King 13, you realize that God brought judgment on the original [prophet,] and he was killed by a lion on his way back home.

Friend, if you insist on using the phrase, “God told me,” I would encourage you to only do so with the following stipulations:

You had better have a clear sense that God actually told you something (and you are absolutely clear on what He told you) before you make that claim.

You had better be careful in using the phrase, “God told me,” in public because it is often used by people who are spiritually arrogant and want to impress others.

You had better document what you publicly claim that God said to you to see if it actually happens. If you find out you were not correct, then you can learn that God is not speaking to you as you think. So, keep quiet. Why? Because publicly speaking on behalf of God, when God hadn’t spoken, was a capital offense in the Old Testament (read Deuteronomy 13:1-5). [It’s] also one of the reasons for a stricter judgment on Judgment Day (James 3:1).

You had better search the Scriptures to make sure that what you think God told you actually aligns with a passage, or precept, or the spirit of the biblical text. God doesn’t [change,] and He won’t reveal something to you that is contrary to His Word.

You had better be humble enough to receive correction or guidance on what you think God has told you. Jesus left us the church because we’re to live out our faith in [the] community. [It’s] the maverick American culture that has infiltrated Christianity that makes us think we don’t need others to correct and help guide us.

Friend, the only time that we can absolutely say that “God told me” is when we have our finger on a Bible passage. If you ever want to actually hear God speak, just read your Bible out loud. In fact, as others claim that God has spoken to them, or you make that claim, or your preacher claims to speak on behalf of God, I would heartily encourage you to be like the Jews in Berea. Even if the [Apostle] Paul and Silas were to show up and claim to give a message from the Lord, be like the Jews in Berea. There is a way that you can determine if God has actually spoken and the Jews in Berea engaged in it. Be like them!

Acts 17:10-11 (CSB): “As soon as it was night, the brothers and sisters sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. Upon arrival, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. The people here were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, since they received the word with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”226

What a blessing this article was. Don’t just take everything you hear from the pulpit for granted. And remember, if someone says they have received a new revelation from God, tell them that God has also given you a revelation that is found in his Word.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

We have one more classification of doctrine to look at beginning in the next chapter that I will call Corruptible Doctrines (License to Sin Doctrines). Let’s take a look and see what these are all about.

 

Amazon: https://amzn.to/2ITJ1wj

Website: http://bit.ly/1RQnYJ8          

New Covenant Ministries - Ministerios NuevoPacto - Harbor Church, Block Island                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Sunday & Thursday Worship - Domingo & Jueves 7:00PM                                                                                                                                            

Endnotes

206Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary.

207Dr. Willis Newman. “Special revelation: Has it ceased?” .

208Wuest's Word Studies.

209Easton's Bible Dictionary.

210International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

211Adam Clarke's Commentary.

212Barnes' Notes.

213Barnes' Notes.

214Barnes' Notes.

215Weust’s Word Studies.

216Bible Knowledge Commentary/New Testament.

217Weust’s Word Studies.

218UBS New Testament.

219Wuest's Word Studies.

220Wuest's Word Studies.

221UBS New Testament.

222UBS New Testament.

223UBS New Testament.

224Wuest.

225Dr. Willis Newman.

226Matt Ellis. “The Danger of Speaking on Behalf of God,” Matt’s Musings 15 May 2020

.

My name is James Rondinone.

I grew up in Massachusetts and began my own spiritual journey early on in life.

I attended Bible college, having completed a two-year Christian Leadership course of study, and graduated as valedictorian (summa cum laude).

I’ve written and published a number of spiritual books on various biblical topics.

These books can be found online.

Amazon.com: https://amzn.to/2RB0Y7D Website: https://makingtheonerightchoice.com

All kids deserve a chance to play #YouthSports – regardless of their ability. Help expand inclusive programs as part of the National Youth Sports Strategy from @HealthGov: https://bit.ly/2lQ85f6

The Rock Almighty Sunday Commentary: Questioning Leadership and The Church: Pillar and Ground of Truth

13

TO LEARN ABOUT TEACHINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO CONTROL US

AUTHORITARIAN DOCTRINES

THE TEACHINGS AND DECISIONS FROM LEADERSHIP CANNOT BE QUESTIONED

I can’t begin to tell you how dangerous this teaching is not only concerning our spiritual growth but our very physical welfare. There are some teachers of the Word of God who claim that every word they say is anointed (received directly from the person of the Holy Spirit) such that whatever is commanded is to be obeyed without question. Where do they derive this kind of perspective from? Believe it or not, it does have a biblical basis in the Old Testament. However, does it have the same relevance for the New Testament saint?

In my younger years, following my conversion to the Christian faith, I became involved in a non-denominational church that I was and still am thankful for. I learned that I’m a new creature in Christ. I learned that Christ finished the Father’s work for all mankind on the cross. I learned to rely on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. And I learned that God wants to be ever-present in my life.

However, there were times when I would hear certain teachings that just didn’t seem right. In some cases, the assembly was asked to sell their real estate holdings and give all of the proceeds to the church. There were stories of certain church members, some of whom were in leadership, that held a different perspective on certain non-foundational biblical topics other than the doctrinal platform of the church and were approached and asked to change their view or leave. Questioning leadership about areas of sinful public actions that some in leadership were engaged in were usually responded to by rebuking those who brought them up. For me, this was very confusing and troubling.

As a young Christian, I didn’t have enough of a solid foundation in doctrine in order to be able to discern biblically what was scriptural and what was not. And the last thing I wanted to do was make the leadership mad at me. I enjoyed what I perceived as God’s working in the ministry (e.g., Bible studies, children’s ministry, street witnessing, Bible school, Christian radio, etc.).

However, the day arrived when all of this came to a head. Many of the leaders whom I had become acquainted with from when I got involved in this church had left the ministry. Attempts to rewrite unscriptural-based church theology were thwarted. Accusations from the church hierarchy were made against those who tried to express their concerns and see changes come about that they were not supportive or faithful to the ministry anymore.

How could a church that was so fruitful on the one hand become so oppressive on the other?

This is what we’re about to take a look at in this study. Unless a believer is solidly grounded in Scripture, it might be difficult to understand what were the factors that were behind what I would call an unreasonable use of power.

In the book of 1 Peter, there are some verses that exemplify this sentiment. Please go to chapter 5.

1 Peter 5:1-3

1 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:

The Apostle Peter was addressing the elders (the pastors) of those churches made up of Christian Jews, who were living in foreign countries, thus being strangers to their native land. In his address, he contrasted those qualities of leadership that are God-centered and those qualities of leadership that are self-centered. Let’s begin with those qualities that are God-centered.

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.

An elder is to care for the church over which they are called to preside, i.e., as a shepherd cares for his flock. A shepherd should protect his sheep from thieves and marauders; go before the herd and search out the land for grazing, making sure that there was nothing there to harm them (e.g., poisonous plants; dangerous animals; snakes; pits; etc.); seek out a wayward sheep and give it personal attention; discipline a sheep that was too rebellious; carry a sheep if [it] got [injured,] and at the close of each day would examine each sheep and anoint their bruises with healing oil and remove briars from their wool.177 They would be characterized in their care for the well-being of the flock by being willingly (according to God’s will), of a ready mind (cheerfully; from the promptings of divine love), and as being ensamples to the flock. What are ensamples?

Ensamples are those believers who imitate the character of Christ in their life. They live in such a way to be emulated by others. They are those whose authority is by [the] influence of reason, persuasion, and example.178 And they are also those who feed them with knowledge and understanding?179 Jeremiah 3:15.

Then Peter conveyed to them what should not characterize the care for the spiritual well-being of the flock. The spiritual care for the congregation should be not by constraint (not by compulsion) and not for filthy lucre (to not take care of the believers merely for the sake of a salary, but from a real desire to serve). Then he made this final comment as to what we’re talking about here. And that pastors should not be lords over God’s heritage (God’s possession; the church). The words lords over have a few meanings. This refers to someone who exercises unreasonable power over others. Someone who is continually shouting orders. Someone who exercises dominion. Someone who exerts strict control, is oppressive, and unjustly severe.

This doesn’t mean to say that there won’t be times when a pastor or anyone in leadership has to make difficult decisions. There could be an instance when a believer no longer believes in a foundational truth of the faith (e.g., the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, etc.). Another occurrence might be that of someone in the assembly evidencing an egregious sin (e.g., adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.) that needs to be addressed.

So, when someone in leadership emphatically proclaims that their teachings and decisions cannot be questioned, what might be the biblical basis for supporting such a pronouncement?

The first thing we’ll take a look at is how do they perceive themselves in the eyes of God?

Let’s begin by going to the book of Exodus.

Exodus 3:1-4:12

3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

When Moses kept his father in law’s sheep in Midian, an angel of the Lord appeared to him out of the midst of a burning bush.

3:10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

The angel conveyed to Moses that he had seen the affliction of his people and would like him to bring them out from their slavery to a land flowing with milk and honey by going to Pharaoh to ask him for their release so that they could travel three days into the wilderness and sacrifice unto their God.

4:12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.

As soon as Moses heard that he would have to go before Pharaoh and speak, he freaked out. You see, he had an issue with stuttering and thought that this should disqualify him from being the one chosen to undertake this directive. But God told him, I will take care of that issue and will teach you what you should say (I will tell you what to [say] at the right time180).

What someone in leadership might take from God’s response to Moses was that, like him, God would let him/her know what to say when the time comes. And if this is indeed the case, then those in leadership can’t be questioned for what they say because God gave them the words to speak. Another example like this one is found in the book of 2 Samuel.

Suggested Reading: 2 Samuel 7:1-17

5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?

King David was thinking about the fact that the ark of the covenant was located within the curtains of a portable tent-like structure called the Tabernacle. His desire was for a permanent dwelling to contain the ark. He conveyed this sentiment to one of the prophets of Israel named Nathan. That night, the prophet received a direct word from God. Some of the words of this direct revelation were Thus saith the Lord.

There are the keywords. At various times, God spoke by direct revelation to individual leaders (e.g., Moses, Joshua, the prophets, the kings of Israel, etc.). Whether this was to provide an answer in regard to making a pivotal decision. Whether this was an answer to prayer. Whether this was to declare to the children of Israel His instructions, they were to respond to what they heard without complaining or disobedience.

By using this perspective, a leader in the New Testament church might conclude that as the children of Israel were to be obedient to their leaders, so should the assembly of believers be submissive to the spiritual leaders of the church (e.g., apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers) without questioning.

What else might seem to support a leader’s view that what they say goes, i.e., what verses are used to support a biblical perspective on any particular topic?

There is a saying that goes something like this; the Bible can say anything that we want it to say. This is actually a true statement. This holds true for us as well as for those in leadership. Another avenue that could be used by those in leadership to support their assumption that they have absolute authority as to a doctrinal position, decision, or teaching is whether they use Old Testament verses and perceptions to provide a narrative as to how to translate New Testament verses to substantiate a doctrinal perspective. Those leaders who use this approach are called non-dispensationalists. This means that they can use any verse or verses from the Old Testament to perpetuate a doctrinal position that must be followed by the assembly of believers in the New Testament church. Let’s give you one example of what I mean. Please go to the book of Psalms.

Suggested Reading: Psalm 51:1-4

This was a Psalm of David when Nathan, the prophet, came to him after he had sexual relations with a married woman named Bathsheba. Some commentators say that nine months had elapsed after David’s illicit relationship with Bathsheba and his directive to have her husband, Uriah, killed in battle. Still, he had not repented of his sins of adultery and murder. The murderous act that David committed displeased the Lord. So, He decided to send the prophet Nathan to tell him that there would be consequences for his actions, such as:

●Evil would arise against him from his own house. ●His many wives will have relations with others. ●His child with Bathsheba will die.

2 Samuel 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

David responded and finally repented for his transgressions, and the Lord granted him mercy by not inflicting upon him the penalty of death.

Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

And then he made this incredible statement as to whom he was accountable for in respect to the sins he had committed. He said that against God, and God only had he sinned. He apparently wasn’t responsible for confessing his sin to Bathsheba for his indiscretion of taking her for himself. Neither was he accountable for going to her deceased husband’s family and confessing sorrow for his actions toward their son. And neither did he declare to the nation his egregious sins and express contrition for what he had done.

As we can see, a New Testament leader might take these verses and this approach in respect to the committing of their own sin against someone in the assembly. Let’s say a leader has had an affair with a fellow believer’s wife, and the husband finds out about it and decides to try to address the matter.

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 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.

When the leader is approached by the husband alone, his response to this inquiry might be to mention Psalms 51:4 and say that he is only accountable to God for discipline. Second, he could also say that the word brother in verse 15 only refers to a fellow believer and not someone in leadership. So, therefore this would substantiate his perspective that the offended husband has no scriptural basis to address his or any leader’s sin. He might further offer the husband advice to give the matter over to God to handle it.

There could be one more avenue that a leader could use to support his/her claim that the words and decisions from their mouth are from God, and that is that their declarations and decisions can appear justified by using one verse or one section of scripture from the New Testament.

An example of this is found in the book of 1 Corinthians.

Suggested Reading: 1 Corinthians 4:1-16

15 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.

Paul was addressing one of many issues that were going on in the church at Corinth. This one had to do with the inclination of the assembly to listen to the teachings of many instructors instead of following those like himself, who were identified as being a spiritual father.

6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

As far as their perception about those in leadership, some of them were evaluating ministers by their own personal preferences and prejudices, which could be in regard to talents, gifts, knowledge, etc., instead of a mindset that was based on the Word of God. And if it’s true that a minister differs from another minister in these things, then Paul stated that this comes from God and therefore gratitude toward Him should be expressed for such. However, whatever it is that has been received from Him shouldn’t be used as the basis for a leader to boast or likewise for those who follow the leader to boast.

What did the Apostle Paul mean when he said that the Corinthian believers had become followers of ten thousand instructors and no longer of those considered as fathers? The words ten thousand instructors refer to the many instructors during the culture who were known as Paedagoguses. A Paedagogus was a slave to whom boys were entrusted on leaving the care of the females, which was somewhere about their sixteenth year. He was often a foreigner, sometimes educated and refined, but often otherwise, for Plutarch complains that seamen, traders, usurers, and farmers [were] engaged in this capacity. The office was one of general guardianship, not of instruction, though sometimes the Paedagogus acted as a teacher. He accompanied the boy to school, carrying his books, etc., and attended him to the gymnasium and elsewhere.181 To emphasize, what I wanted you to remember was that for the most part, this instructor accompanied the child to school but was not their special teacher. Who is a special teacher?

A special teacher was alluded to by Paul as one whom he called a father. This was someone who caused the Christians at Corinth to have a personal relationship with Christ through the presentation of the gospel and their response to it, as was not the case for the myriad of instructors who were simply guardians. And as one of these fathers, the apostle himself made the following statement.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

With that said, there are those in leadership who, because they believe they are God’s ultimate spokesperson, would translate the word followers as those in the assembly who were to follow their church leaders exclusively. If we were to hear such teachings from the pulpit, I’m sure that we might agree that those who are called to any of the leadership positions (e.g., apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers) in the New Testament church are to be obeyed unequivocally when they bring forth a message or decision that they allege is from God. Right?

How would we know what church leaders have said in their teachings or the decisions they are asking the assembly to implement are from God?

We wouldn’t. What could we do that might help us in this regard? The answer is multi-faceted. Study the Word. Pray to God for guidance or direction in this area. Get tapes, books, videos, etc., that pertain to the topic of the teaching at hand or the decisions that are being commanded to be implemented. Now we know why some New Testament leaders might require the congregation to obey them in everything they say and do. This brings us to the next question.

Is there any scriptural basis for not supporting the conjecture by leadership that their teachings and decisions must be obeyed and cannot be questioned?

Some leaders will say that Moses was a type of those believers who are called to leadership positions in the New Testament church. As he heard from God and instructed the people, so they heard from God and instructed the people. However, what we’ll find out is that Moses was not a type of leader in the New Testament church as being a mediator between the assembly of believers and God the Father.

Let’s take a further look at this by going to the book of 1 Corinthians.

Suggested Reading: 1 Corinthians 10:1-13

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

The Jews were under obligation to Moses in the experiences of the Exodus, such as when they passed through the Red Sea as it rose in walls on each side providing safe passage from the ensuing Egyptians, and when they were under the cloud, the "Shechinah" - the visible symbol of the divine presence and protection that attended them out of Egypt. This went before them by day as a cloud to guide them, and by night it became a pillar of fire to give them light.182 What we could say about Moses is that he could be considered as the mediator between them and their God (Jehovah).

However, the insinuation that Moses was a type/mediator of the leadership of a New Testament church and because of such Christians are obligated to submit to church authority (e.g., apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers) with regard to all of their teachings and decisions is scripturally unfounded. If a leader in the New Testament is not a mediator between the assembly and God the Father, then who is? Please go to the book of 1 Timothy, and we’ll find out.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

The Apostle Paul was conveying to Timothy that it’s God’s (the Fathers’) desire for all men not only to be saved but to come to the knowledge (advanced knowledge) of the truth (doctrine; an organized body of Christian teaching or doctrine183). Coming to the full knowledge of the faith is not only for their spiritual growth but also so that they would be able to recognize false teaching and not be led astray.

Then Paul declared as to who it is that provided certainty, which would allow someone to have the opportunity to be saved. He said that this spiritual benefit was because of the one who is the mediator between God the Father and mankind, and that person is Christ Jesus. The word mediator means a middle person, one whose office it is to reconcile two parties at enmity; … a [peacemaker]. God was offended with the crimes of men; [and] to restore them to his peace, Jesus Christ was incarnated. But this reconciliation required a sacrifice on the part of the [peacemaker] or mediator184, which He accomplished.

What we can conclude is that those in church leadership are not mediators between God the Father and mankind. However, we must consider that certain things that took place in the Old Testament also took place in the New Testament, such as the disclosing of hidden truths by means of direct revelation, which is an act of God the Holy Spirit imparting to the Bible writers, truth incapable of being discovered by man's unaided reason (2:10-12); [and] inspiration, the act of God the Holy Spirit enabling the Bible writers to write down in God-chosen words, infallibly, the truth revealed (2:13).185 So, what I’m saying is that there were certain times when New Testament leadership spoke words given to them by direct revelation.

The question that now remains is, once the canon of Scripture was completed, were the words spoken then and now by those in leadership still received by direct revelation?

In order to find this out, please go to the book of 1 John.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Before we translate this verse, we’re told according to Ephesians 4:11-12 that God calls and qualifies some believers to the office leadership gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and pastor-teacher.

Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

This calling is for the collective purpose of the perfecting (for the mending, repair, or correcting all that is deficient; to restore to a proper place) of the saints; for the work of the ministry (in order to do what they should do as believers; spiritual service of an official character); for the edifying (through the instruction of divine things) of the body of Christ so that every member might become mature or fully grown. As we might assume that in order for those in leadership to be able to carry out the purposes mentioned, they themselves would need to have been taught by others of these divine things; they would have needed to have learned how to address the weaknesses of their flesh by confession and recovery, and they would have needed to have been involved in ministry work. You can’t give to others what you don’t have or what you haven’t received. With that said, let’s translate the verse from 1 John.

The anointing, the person of the Holy Spirit, which you have received of Christ abides (has taken up permanent residency) in you. And you need not that any man teach you, meaning that no teacher, even a God-appointed one, is the only and ultimate source of the saint's instruction.186 The same anointing, the Holy Spirit, teacheth you of all things (under the guidance of the Spirit you must test the teaching of men as you search the Bible for yourself (cf. Acts 17:11)187; he endues us with judgment and discernment, lest we should be deceived by lies188). This doesn’t tell us as to how much of what a leader says is directly given to them by the Holy Spirit, but what it does say is that not everything they teach and the decisions they impose are from the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

With what we have just learned, a better definition of the anointing can now be enumerated as to the words conveyed by those in the leadership positions of the church. As to the words spoken under the anointing, these words are merely men’s words, but the Holy Spirit is especially present to help our infirmity in conveying the best sense or meaning. Furthermore, it’s impossible for God to be present in that which is untrue or unbiblically impossible that false and unscriptural teaching be anointed teaching at the same time.189

I know we have covered a lot of ground and have mentioned some new terminology. But the response to the question at hand wouldn’t be complete without adding this extra tidbit. I think we would agree that at times there were those leaders in the early church that spoke by means of direct revelation, where we could define the word revelation as meaning something not known to them, a new truth previously unveiled and eventually written down in the New Testament canon. With that in mind, here is the question to consider.

Once the canon of Scripture was completed, is it possible for a church leader to continue to speak by divine revelation?

Please go to the book of 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:15

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

This is an interesting verse in that it tells us that he that is spiritual, judges (discerns; evaluates) all things along with the people of the Spirit. What does it mean when someone is referred to as being spiritual? The word spiritual will help us clarify whether a leader in the church can continue to declare that they have received direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. This word means one who is under the influence of the Spirit. It can also mean someone to whom divine insight is imparted.190

I don’t know if you ever heard of this before, but there are two words that can refer to the impartation of divine insight by means of the Holy Spirit?

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The first word is rhema, and the second is illumination. What does the word rhema mean? Rhema means the word which the Lord speaks the second time.191 This is the word of God that He has already spoken and which He conveys to us personally. It could be a verse, a word or words, or a section of Scripture. In this verse, the English word is transliterated from the Greek word reema.

Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

The word illuminate means that the Spirit conveys to us divine insight about a word or words in a verse or section of Scripture. This is the idea behind the words And their eyes were opened. So, with that said, the terminology of saying that a believer has received revelation from God is no longer appropriate.

Now, let’s address the second aspect of this topic as pertaining to using Old Testament verses to provide a perspective for New Testament doctrine.

In most cases, the verses that are used to support a doctrinal position on salvation and sanctification for the New Testament believer should not come from the commands of the Old Testament. This might appear to be a surprising statement, so let me try to clarify what I mean. There are certain scriptural studies that use verses from the Old Testament that will enhance our learning about a biblical topic. For instance, if we were doing a study on God’s attributes, verses from the Old Testament could definitely illustrate these in a more realistic way because of the many stories that are recorded there. Another consideration for using verses from the Old Testament would be in the realm of doing a study on prophecy (future events that have come to pass and future events that have not come to pass). And still, when trying to get a full understanding as to why a Savior/Messiah was needed, the Old Testament can provide a wealth of knowledge on this. Furthermore, there are practical lessons that we can learn such as watching what we say with our words; if married, discern those instances when we’re attracted someone else; be careful as to how much alcohol we consume, etc. One more thing which we shouldn’t forget is the examples of those Old Testament saints who confided in God amidst trials and persecutions and God’s faithfulness in response to them, which gives us hope that He will do the same for us.

And while there could be a few more reasons as to why Old Testament verses could teach us, there is clearly one thing that won’t help us, i.e., in respect to a New Testament believer’s salvation and sanctification (by sanctification I’m referring to the renewing of the mind). Do you know what this is about? When I say it, then please hold onto your hat. It’s what has to do with the various types of mandates under the Mosaic Law. Uh, Oh. This is the institution that the Jews were given to obey by God both for their spiritual welfare and physical well-being.

If we were to take a general snapshot of what the Mosaic Law pertained to, then this is what we would be referring to.

●Statutes - The Spiritual Code - the ordinances of the Law (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Holy Days, the Offerings, the High Priest, the Meat Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Levites, etc.) Exodus 26-31; 35-40; Leviticus 1-24; Deuteronomy 16

●Commandments - The Moral Code which included not only the ten commandments called the Decalogue (e.g., honor thy father and thy mother…Exodus 20:12-17) but more than one hundred other commandments (e.g., thou shalt have no other gods before me; the Sabbath,…thou shalt not do any work…; thou shalt truly tithe… Exodus 20:12-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21; Deuteronomy 12; Deuteronomy 14:22

●Judgments - The Social Code, which are the laws belonging to civil government. (e.g., dietary, marriage, military, conservation, etc., along with the related consequences (punishment). Deuteronomy 14-28

●Testimonies - The laws directing the commemoration of certain events (e.g., Seventh year Sabbath rest; the fiftieth year, the year of Jubilee; the ordinance of the Passover; the feast of unleavened bread; etc.). Exodus 12:43-50; Numbers 28: 16-25; Deuteronomy 25-26

You might respond by asking what scriptural proof is there to support the conjecture that a Christian is no longer mandated to keep any of the many commands of the Mosaic Law?

Please go to the book of Acts.

Suggested Reading: Acts 15:1-30

1 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.

5 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.

24a 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,…

There were certain Jewish Christians who contended with Paul and Barnabas, teaching that the Gentile believers must be circumcised in order to be saved. In other words, what they were saying was, "A Gentile must first become a Jew before he can become a Christian! It’s not sufficient for them simply to trust Jesus Christ…"192 It’s obvious that they wanted to incorporate some of the aspects of the Mosaic Law into the requisites of repentance and belief for salvation. To say this in another way, repentance and belief were not enough to receive the Holy Spirit along with additional blessings.

So, Paul and Barnabas decided to go to the Jerusalem church in order to discuss this matter with the apostles and elders, who were ministering there. After much discussion, a conclusion on this issue was arrived at, which stated that an epistle would be written and given in the care of four men, Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, who would take and read it before the assemblies of the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia informing them as to what were the obligations that the Gentile believers needed to abide by. But if not for salvation, what about adherence to the Mosaic Law for spiritual growth?

24b and keep the law…

But there was something else that these Christian Jews believed, and that was after someone was saved by circumcision, they must keep the Mosaic Law. Another way of saying this was, whatever the protocol for a New Testament Gentile believer to grow spiritually, the keeping of the Law was also to be a part of this process.

What was the response to these declarations? Did a Gentile convert need to keep the Sabbath; did they need to tithe, did they need to attend the synagogue, did they need to keep the Ten Commandments or any other aspect of the Mosaic Law? The answer to this was the same answer as to whether a Gentile believer needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Are you ready for it?

24c …to whom we gave no such commandment:

My perception of what this response said was that a Gentile believer was not obligated to obey the Mosaic Law for salvation or sanctification. None of the tenets of the Mosaic Law are to be included in the salvation process of repentance and faith. And none of the tenets of the Mosaic Law can be included in the sanctification process of the Spiritual Growth doctrines, some of which are the confession of sin and recovery, the renewal of the mind, and being under the rule of the Spirit.

What about the Jewish Christians? I think the message was pretty clear. What is good for the Gentile believers is what is good for the Jewish Christians. However, this doesn’t mean that the Jews could no longer keep any of the cultural aspects of the Law in respect to the Messiah/Savior, Jesus Christ, whom they now believe in, and can subsequently use these teachings as a schoolmaster (the Law was like a person who was making us behave193) to bring others to Christ. I hope this helps to inform us as to the significance of the Old Testament Scriptures and what they can provide Christians with aside from salvation and sanctification.

Are you ready to look at the final aspect of this study as to whether the implication that one verse or section of Scripture could be used to support the conjecture that a leader’s teachings and decisions cannot be questioned?

We’ll begin by going to the book of Acts.

Suggested Reading: Acts 17:10-14

Paul and Silas have left Thessalonica and have arrived in the city of Berea. They entered the synagogue and preached unto them the gospel. What they found out was that the Bereans were willing to listen and examine as to whether the promises and types (of the Old Testament) corresponded with the alleged [fulfillment] in the person, works, and sufferings of Jesus Christ.194

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans searched (made careful and exact research against) the scriptures daily in order [to] see if what Paul had said agreed with what the Scriptures said.195 In like manner, you and I should make careful and exact research against the Scriptures concerning what has been taught to us by those in leadership. And when we do this, hopefully, we’ll incorporate a process known as hermeneutics while operating under the guidance of the Spirit. This protocol refers to scriptural interpretation based on an analysis of grammatical features, whether of Hebrew for the Old Testament Scriptures, the Koine Greek for the New Testament Scriptures, and Aramaic for both the Old and New Testaments, along with the historical background (the cultural background) of the text.

What we’re going to take a look at next is a verse that affirms the conjecture that a believer should examine scripturally whenever someone in leadership says that such and such must be obeyed.

Please go to the book of 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:15

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

There is someone who is able to judge (discern) all things spiritual, and that is he who is spiritual (one who is under the influence of the Spirit; to whom divine insight is imparted196). Each believer, and not just those in leadership, has the opportunity to be spiritual. There is not much left to say.

A verse that we’ll take a look at next clearly indicates that whether we’re called to a leadership position in the church or not, if we learn how to walk in the Spirit, then God will put His laws into our minds and write them in our hearts. We’ll find this verse in the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 8:10

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Those who are being referred to here are spiritual Israel, i.e., those Jews who are born-again. While contrast is being made between the Old and New Covenants, those Jews who repented and believed in Christ will have His laws put into their mind and written in their hearts. What does this mean? The word laws mean that they would not be mere external observances but would affect the conscience and the heart. Some would say that these are the laws from the Old Covenant, those given under the institution of the Mosaic Law. However, what Scripture makes clear is that the New Covenant under grace has different laws. These are mentioned in the book of James.

James 1:25

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

The word law means teaching. And the words perfect law of liberty means [or, teaching] that sets us free from sin and death.197 The idea being expressed here is that no one has exclusivity in receiving teaching from God that benefits them spiritually.

THE FINAL THING THAT WE’LL TAKE A LOOK AT IS WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE WHEN WE HEAR WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE INSPIRED MESSAGES.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The Apostle Paul was warning the Thessalonian believers not to formulate a mindset where they think that they no longer have a need for continual prophesyings (inspired and intelligible messages198). On the other hand, they shouldn’t be lax in just listening to anything that is said and believe it. He told them to make sure that they Prove all things.

The meaning of these words is that they were to carefully examine everything proposed for their belief. They were not to receive it on trust; to take it on assertion; to believe it because it was urged with vehemence, zeal, or plausibility. In the various opinions and doctrines which were submitted to them for adoption, they were to apply the appropriate tests from reason and the [Word] of God, and what they found to be true they were to embrace; what was false they were to reject.199

And so, if the Word of God clearly advocates that whatever we hear from someone in leadership should be tested according to the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then likewise those in leadership should be those who exemplify such protocols in their teachings and decisions.

With these thoughts in mind, the translation of a verse that we looked at earlier from the book of 1 Corinthians would be entirely different.

1 Corinthians 4:16

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

If a spiritual leader, like the Apostle Paul, says, be ye followers of me, what should be deduced is follow my example as I follow Christ in the special virtues of humility, self-denial, and faithfulness.200

In summary, don’t take everything you hear from the pulpit for granted. This doesn’t mean that we’re always trying to find something wrong with what was being said, but what it does mean is that it should be tested. If a leader you are listening to says that he/she has exclusive access to God and that you should submit to their every word and directive, then jump on your spiritual horse and ride out of there.

We have answered a lot of questions as to whether a leader’s teachings and decisions could be questioned by any member of an assembly. Because of such, I’m going to leave you with a bullet list for easy referral as to what was found.

●A pastor should not exercise unreasonable power or strict control over God’s people. 1 Peter 5:3

●Moses, Joshua, the prophets, and some of the kings of Israel received direct revelation from God and, as directed by Him, conveyed these instructions to the Jewish people. Exodus 3:10, 13

Likewise, direct revelation was given by God to certain leaders of the early church. Galatians 1:8-9 While Moses and others in the Old Testament acted as mediators between God and men, in the New Testament, the mediator between God and men is Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:3-5

●Once the canon of Scripture was completed, there was no longer any new revelation. Messages that are brought forth should be under the anointing, i.e., under the guidance of the Spirit, who helps convey the best sense or meanings of the words spoken. 1 John 2:27 The Spirit can also provide each believer with a rhema (a personal word that God has already spoken) Ephesians 6:17 and illumination (divine insight about a particular word or section of Scripture). Luke 14:31

●The direct revelation that God gave to certain ones in the Old Testament, which was then spoken to the people, was to be obeyed by them; otherwise, consequences would be incurred. Deuteronomy 4:1

However, for those who are called to the leadership positions of the New Testament church, what they communicate to the assembly should be tested according to the Word of God and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. 1 John 2:27; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

●New Testament saints cannot be saved or grow spiritually by obeying any of the commands of the Mosaic Law. Acts 15:1-30

●One verse or section of Scripture should not be used to support any doctrinal perspective or decision, let alone the conjecture that a New Testament leaders’ teachings and decisions must be obeyed and not questioned under any circumstances. Acts 17:10-14; 1 Corinthians 2:15; Hebrews 8:10; James 1:25

That was a lot of information disseminated. However, there is more to study and uncover. Another Authoritarian Doctrine that we’ll look at next is one that I really haven’t heard or read much about over my thirty plus years of being a born-again Christian. It’s one that I haven’t even studied before. Are you ready to find out what this pertains to?

Amazon: https://amzn.to/2ITJ1wj

Website: http://bit.ly/1RQnYJ8

New Covenant Ministries - Ministerios NuevoPacto - Harbor Church, Block Island Sunday & Thursday Worship - Domingo & Jueves 7:00PM

Endnotes

177The Bible Exposition Commentary.

178Barnes' Notes.

179Adam Clarke's Commentary.

180UBS Old Testament.

181Vincent's Word Studies.

182Barnes' Notes.

183UBS New Testament.

184Adam Clarke's Commentary.

185Wuest.

186Weust.

187The Bible Exposition Commentary/New Testament.

188Calvin's Commentaries.

189“REPORT ON “THE BIBLE SPEAKS,” Gospel Ministries, Page 8. 08 May 2020 .

190Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

191“Rhema (doctrine),” WIKEPEDIA. 08 May 2020 .

192The Bible Exposition Commentary/New Testament 1989, 16 February 2022 ˂http://www.biblesoft.com>.

193UBS New Testament.

194Adam Clarke's Commentary.

195UBS New Testament Handbook Series.

196Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

197UBS New Testament.

198UBS New Testament.

199Barnes' Notes.

200The Pulpit Commentary.

My name is James Rondinone.

I grew up in Massachusetts and began my own spiritual journey early on in life.

I attended Bible college, having completed a two-year Christian Leadership course of study, and graduated as Valedictorian (summa cum laude).

I’ve written and published a number of spiritual books on various biblical topics.

These books can be found online.

Amazon.com: https://amzn.to/2RB0Y7D Website: https://makingtheonerightchoice.com

Everyone has a role to play in the National #YouthSports Strategy! Learn more about the strategy and ways to get involved from @HealthGov: https://bit.ly/2lQ85f6

US Sports Partner Spotlight: JBL by HARMAN

We are a leading global provider of premium audio and infotainment solutions, engaging customers around the home, in the car and on the go.

New Year Sale! Start the year off with great savings on your favorite JBL products. (Valid while supplies last)
https://tinyurl.com/JBLNYSale

US Sports Radio affiliate partner
http://www.USSportsRadio.net