The Elders Amongst Us

So, we’ve seen Jesus call the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, and we know that being teachers of the law, and being hypocrites at the same time, landed this rebuke for them, and such a rebuke or chastisement from the Lord none of us want to see; a warning to us all who say one thing but do another! I believe most of us have been guilty of that at one time or another, possibly even still. Reminds me of a Christian book title I recently saw that went something along the lines of “Who Are You When No One Is Looking?” Needless to say I didn’t rush over to grab THAT one!

But then that is what all of our bible study is for. To convict us, to change us, to transform us by the living Word of God more and more into that glorious reflection of Him that we once displayed so well in the garden...before sin entered in. To see what was done in error, and armed with that knowledge and the grace of God, hope to avoid the same errors. And yet, we have a loving Father that even when we do sin, is willing to forgive us, if we but ask for it with sincere and contrite hearts. For that I am most thankful, as many times I prove to be the weakest of them all.

The study we are currently in has to do with church organization, prompted by Phoebe, who is called a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2). Part of this study includes looking at the part traditions play in our church structure and programs today, and to determine whether those traditions are of God or of men. What is to be done with that information once determined will be up to each individual as God leads them. But my hope has always been that each of us would know what we believe and why we believe it, rather than being led around as in the “blind leading the blind.” My hope for the church today (the body of believers world-wide) is that we are led by God rather than man, not with a sense of rebellion against the things of man, but by being light (exposing darkness), always speaking the truth in love, with a humble spirit, not setting ourselves up higher than others.

So, now that we have looked at the Judaic traditions, where and how they went astray, let’s next turn to what the apostles taught within the same century in which Jesus lived and died and lived again. How was the new-born church of Jesus Christ to be organized? What guidelines (or Godly traditions) does the Bible give us?

Paul gave Timothy much instruction on what to do with new churches popping up all over as the Good News was spread abroad by the power of the Holy Spirit working in mere men. He didn’t instruct Timothy in this because Timothy was about to become a pastor to one of these churches, in fact, Timothy was an apostle just as Paul was, as evidenced by Paul’s words in which he says to Timothy:

“As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou might charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” 1 Timothy 1:3-4

Paul had already sent Timothy to Philippi with the Good News, in fulfillment of his promise to the Philippians (Phil. 2:19-23), and later Timothy rejoined Paul who was already at Ephesus; Paul then telling Timothy to remain at Ephesus while he, Paul, went on to Macedonia. This letter to Timothy was written from Macedonia. All of this shows that Timothy was not a stationary pastor of a church, he was a fellow apostle like Paul, moving from place to place and being taught in many things by Paul. While we don’t see biblical evidence of it, Timothy might well have been representing Paul in various other churches in Asia, not just at Ephesus.

We do see that Paul later urged Timothy to try to come to see him at his Roman jail cell before his impending death (2 Timothy 4:6-8 and verse 21), but we don’t know whether Timothy arrived in time to see Paul or not.

We won’t get into what a typical church “service” looked like back then, not quite yet anyway; we want to focus on the structure and organization of the church first, which begins in 1 Timothy chapter 3:

“This is a true saying, if a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity...” 1 Tim. 3:1-4

Paul goes on to say in that same chapter verse 8: “likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine; not greedy of filthy lucre...”

And then finally, elders are mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”

But let’s look at the term “bishop” first. The Greek word translated as “bishop” by my King James version is: EPISKOPOS. It means, overseer, superintendent, and interestingly it also means “visitation” as used in 1 Peter 2:12:

“...that whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.”

In fact, the NIV version replaces the term “bishop” with a more proper term, I believe, of “overseer”, as does also the NASB version, giving the term a less hierarchical sound.

Now let’s look at the term “elders”. The Greek word for “elder” is: PRESBUTEROS and Strong’s Concordance gives this definition of that Greek word: an old man. Bet you would never have guessed that “presbuteros” means old man, but we all understand the word elder of course, as being at least an older person, whether in physical age or in spiritual maturity!

But Strong’s goes on to say: “In the Christian churches those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the term “bishops” or “overseers” is applied, the latter term indicating the nature of their work, their maturity of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen throughout the New Testament was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church.”

We see this plurality in Acts 20:17 “...and from Miletus, he [Paul] sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” There was one church at Ephesus with elders, plural, not just one. But further in that same statement of Paul’s in verse 28 the same elders are called “overseers” and there is a “pastoral” metaphor used for the overseers are responsible to “shepherd” the flock. So, now the term elders, overseers, and pastors seem to be somewhat synonymous.

Peter helps clarify this, (1 Peter 5:1-4) when he addresses the elders in verse 1, calling on them to shepherd (“feed”) the flock, and to oversee them in verse 2, leaving us with the impression that the “office” is elder, but the “work” of the elder is to pastor and oversee.

So what we see is:

1) Whether the term used is “bishops” or “elders” they are one and the same, and that the service of both (not the title or office or position) is to oversee and to shepherd the flock. I believe too that pastoring is a result or manifestation of a spiritual gifting or a ministry rather than an office or titled position (we will see that when we get into the spiritual gifts, the second part of this study). And while the elders are charged to oversee “neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock”, having no one single person, pastor or priest in authority then leaves the “Head” of the church (the believers) to be Christ Himself.

2) They are to be raised up (from within the church that they become elders over, not shipped in from another church) and spiritually mature (the church in which they matured would be confident then of their spiritual maturity since they were able to actually observe this in them)

3) We see that the elders are men (husbands of one wife). We must be careful not to become ensnared by modern-day cultural thinking, or to believe that men were named as elders only because of the “culture” of biblical times (feminism). The precepts of God do not change according to the culture around us, they are constant and they are God’s wisdom, not be to replaced with our own. I believe that women have a God-given dignity and significance that all of God’s Word is designed to cherish and protect. We are, both men and women, equal and joint-heirs in all of God’s promises.

4) We see that the elders are to be plural, not just one bishop or elder over one church, but several. For me, today’s church would do well to have elders (plural) and not one pastor (singular) as we are all frail and very susceptible to pride and error, something that might be avoided in plurality of leadership. And I believe the stress load of pastors would be alleviated considerably if instead of the responsibility falling on one set of shoulders it fell on several (the elders), all accountable to AND encouraged by AND strengthened by the body of believers known as the church. (“Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.” I Peter 5:5)

Let’s stop there for today. Tomorrow we’ll look at the office of deacons.

Government Ordained by God

I find a very interesting command made by Jesus, to the multitudes following Him. You will see it in the fourth paragraph below (in bold print). This one command (along with so many other passages in the scripture, of course) seems to be speaking even to us here in America! But don’t skip ahead...first read the scathing rebukes Jesus directed at the scribes and Pharisees:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.” (Matthew 23:13 RSV)

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24)

And yet, just before Jesus said all of that (and much more) to the scribes and Pharisees, he said this to the multitudes:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:1-9 RSV)

After all that we have learned, all the nitty-gritty bad stuff about the scribes and Pharisees, after seeing just a small handful of the voluminous laws that they misguidedly added to the law of Moses, now we see Jesus telling the crowds that they are to “practice and observe whatever they tell you”, even though they are hypocrites? Jesus says, just be sure not to do what they do, for they don’t practice what they are preaching, basically. But still, even with all the weight of the law that they “lay on men’s shoulders”? Are the followers of Jesus still to do even that?

It seems so to me!

In fact, just a few verses ahead of all of this above, is the place where Jesus tells the Pharisees (and the Herodians: Jews who liked the government of Herod and wanted to support it) to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

With Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and scribes right and left, right in front of the public crowds, it must have given the folks a bit of a pause, that He now tells them to do what they say, just not what they do. It gave me pause when I caught that. I have read it many times, but I just caught it now. In fact, this posting was going to go a whole other direction, until the Holy Spirit, I believe, showed me this small part of scripture that I had before now missed. Or maybe I didn’t miss it, maybe I just glossed over it, as though it were something of minor importance. But maybe it’s not so minor.

Here in America, the country (and its government) that is being bad-mouthed “from sea to shining sea” (from within and from without), it could be that we Christians need to heed the words of Jesus in these scriptures more closely than ever before.

Do we remember that God is sovereign? So completely and thoroughly sovereign that no king, president, or government exists in any capacity whatsoever, unless God has ordained it to be so?

What if we lived under a dictatorship or a corrupt regime?

Yep, those too. For if God is sovereign, and He is, then He is sovereign over even those vessels that He uses for dishonor. Remember that scripture?

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth…..Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” Romans 9:17-23

Because the seat (government) of Moses (ordained by God) had succeeded to the scribes and Pharisees, and because they had become corrupt, didn’t mean it was no longer ordained of God. But in case we begin to believe that the seat of Moses is different than the seat of Herod (as far as the sovereignty of God) Jesus is helping us see that this is not so: in terms of the sovereignty of God there is no difference between a religious government or a civil government, be it Godly or un-Godly. God is the Head over them all.

So, if I am understanding the scripture correctly, we know this:

1) All government is ordained of God.
2) All government has God as its Head (authority) whether the government recognizes and admits that or not.
3) As citizens of the civil government, at least, we are to “render”(this does not mean give, it means return) to the government what the government has supplied to us, which is money, in the form of taxes. Does this mean that no matter how the government uses the funds, or how “heavy the burden” of taxes placed upon us, we are still to “render” those things unto “Caesar? I think so. What do you think?
4) In what attitude are these things then to be rendered? With bitterness and resentment? Or as unto the Lord?
5) As citizens of our country’s government, how are we to speak of that government? If we bad-mouth it are we not also bad-mouthing the Lord?

What about the government of the local church?

1) As members of the local church, are we to submit to the government that is established in that church?
2) How are we to speak about the members of that local church, or of its government?
3) What is our responsibility when we see things not going according to scripture?

I think the first 5 questions are easily answered by us all.

But what about the last 3 questions? I’m not answering those yet. I think we should have a bit of time to study it out for ourselves (I certainly need to do so) before we answer.

The most important thing to think about and study further is this: did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees and scribes as an example for us to follow?

Or not?

Judaism and the Messiah

It is probably worthwhile at this point in our study to clarify who the opponents of Jesus were.

The Pharisees are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. They believed that God had given Moses (at Mount Sinai) an Oral Law (later written down and called the Talmud), along with the Written Law (the Torah). They believed, however, that the written law was open to interpretation. The Pharisees then, could be compared to our modern-day Supreme Court, who take our constitutional laws and “interpret” them, as well. And, as happens also with our Supreme Court system today, sometimes the rulings or interpretations of the Pharisees bore little if any resemblance to the original law, and at the very least often missed out completely on the “spirit” of the original law.

The Pharisees believed in an afterlife. They believed in the judgment of God, rewarding the good, punishing the wicked, they believed in heaven and hell [Gehenna], and they believed that the Messiah would one day come and bring world peace. They believed in miracles.

The Pharisees were the “blue-collar” religious folk. They had no interest in politics, were not commonly known to be “activists”. They were happy when left alone to do their religious thing, which by the way, took place most often in the synagogues, where they “taught” their precepts. However, Jesus upset their apple cart by exposing as error the very precepts that they believed in and had built on through the years. After the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the Pharisees were replaced by (or became the foundation of) Rabbinical Judaism.

The Saducees, on the other hand, rejected the Oral Law altogether, trusting only the Mosaic (written) Law. They were a bit too loose however, and allowed their beliefs to adapt to more Hellenistic or Greek influence (making the Pharisees distrust and oppose them all the more). The Saducees considered themselves to be elitists and aristocrats, associates of the priests of the temple, giving them, in their own eyes at least, a higher social standing than the Pharisees.

Because the Saducess took the written law so literally (“...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...” Lev. 24:20) they were more disposed to political involvement and activism (the Zealots came out of the Saducees and were the ones responsible for causing the Romans to lay siege around Jerusalem in 70 AD, the time of the second temple’s destruction.)

And because there is no mention of an afterlife in the Torah, the Saducees did not believe in life after death, or the resurrection. (That is why they were Sad-you-see. Sorry, I HAD to say it...even though it’s older than the hills, and wearied from over-use!) And it sounds to me as though the Saducees did not accept as law anything other than the Torah (the first five books of the bible), and were therefore perhaps limited in their knowledge or understanding; apparently giving no merit to these verses from the writings of the Prophets, that hint of a resurrection:

Job 19:25-26 “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God...”

Isaiah 26:19 “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”

Daniel 12:2 “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

The Saducees, whose focus was on the temple and all of its rituals, disappeared altogether after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

But at the time of Jesus, with the temple still intact, both the Pharisees and the Saducees comprised the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin is Greek for “sitting together” or “assembly”), the Supreme Court of ancient Israel, having 71 members whose responsibility was to interpret both civil and religious laws. One of these members was a Pharisee “named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” John 3:1-2

And with that background info as an introduction, we will take a look at another of the miracles of Jesus: that of healing the man who was blind from birth. Turn to John Chapter 9, verse 1:

“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents that he was born blind?”

[A little digression here: the Jews taught that it was sin that caused one to be born blind, either it was the sin of the parents, or it was the sin of the blind one. But if he was born blind, then how was he able to sin before he was born, which then caused him to be blind??? It was possible for him to sin only because the Jews believed that even a fetus could sin. Thus the question from the disciples was not as strange, at least to them, as it seems.]

Continuing on at verse 6:

"When he [Jesus] had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing...(v.13) they brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again, the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet...(v.24) then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, "Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see..."(v. 30) "Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes! Now we know that God heareth not sinners, but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.”

Let’s stop there for just a moment. The blind man is telling the Pharisees these words: “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.” There it is! A miracle that has been reserved for a special time and place...the introduction of the Messiah. And what does this blind man then say?

“If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” To which the Pharisees say (v. 34): “Thou wast altogether born in sins [they are accusing him here of both his own sin as a fetus and that of his parents], and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.”

The blind man knew Jesus was from God. The Pharisees, who were very studied in the scriptures should have known. After all they did have prophecies in those scriptures that pointed to the time of the Messiah’s birth (the 70 weeks of Daniel) and the place of his birth (Bethlehem). On top of that they had miracles that had NEVER taken place before!

So what was their problem? Perhaps it was pride. Jesus, by healing this blind man, both on the Sabbath and in the manner that He did, managed to break their traditions. And, because it was so specific, I can’t help but think He knew exactly what He was doing.

Tractate Shabbath, Folio 108b, verse 25:

“[To put] tasteless saliva, [to heal] even on the eye [on the Sabbath], is forbidden.”

That gives us something to think about...now we know why He used his own saliva, but why didn’t He heal the man right there, why did He have the blind man go to the pool of Siloam? There were apparently many people there that day, for the crowd is who took the healed blind man to the Pharisees. Maybe it was so that many would know of it. Maybe He knew they would take him to the Pharisees. And there may have been even more to it than we fully comprehend.

But the bottom line is, we can be sure that Jesus knew exactly what He was doing and why, and since the Word tells us all that He did, He did because the Father told Him to do so, we can be sure that the Father was the author of this plan, as well.

Healing the Leper

Leviticus 14:1-7 “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: and the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: as for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: and he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.”

It is a curious fact that from the giving of the Mosaic law up until the time Jesus arrived on the scene, there is no biblical record of a leper being healed by the method prescribed by the Mosaic law above. There are several names of actual lepers spoken of in the bible, some Jewish and some Gentile, but aside from Moses and Miriam (both of whom were special cases and both of whom were healed by God directly, not per the instructions of the Mosaic law as far as I can tell) the only ones ever healed were Gentiles. Gentiles did not fall under the guidelines of the Mosaic law. All Jews who were leprous during that period between the Mosaic law and the time of Jesus, died lepers. They were never healed! I find that very curious indeed.

It has been suggested by a man in England named Beresford Job that this is because healing a leper as prescribed by the Mosaic law was something understood to be possible only by the Messiah Himself.

I find that a very interesting theory as, if you continue to read the remainder of Leviticus 14 dealing with the cleansing of the leper (verses 8-32), you could not help but be struck by (as you should also have been struck by verses 1-7 above) how much of what was prescribed seems to foretell of Jesus, the Lamb of God. Yet how many of the religious Jews of Jesus’ time recognized this about Him? Or did they recognize it, yet still turn their backs on Him (as Beresford Job implies is the case.)

What is funny is that one king of Judah, during this period of time that we are dealing with between the Mosaic law and Jesus, threw up his hands in shock and dismay that someone (the Syrian King) would ask HIM to implore to God for the healing of a particular leper: that leper being Naaman, the Gentile captain of the Syrian army. What tremendous lack of faith was shown by this king of Judah!

Fortunately, Elijah, man of God, saved the day for the glory of God, and passed on the Lord’s directions for healing to Naaman, who although at first reticent to do what was instructed, eventually did heed the advice of his servants to listen to this man of God and do whatever he said, thus bringing about Naaman’s complete healing of leprosy. [See 2 Kings chapter 5]

The only other cases of leprosy I could find in the Old Testament other than what has already been mentioned are these in which all were Jews and none were ever healed:

2 Samuel 3:29 “May his blood fall upon the head of Joab [a Jew]and upon all his father's house! May Joab's house never be without someone who has a running sore or leprosy or who leans on a crutch or who falls by the sword or who lacks food."

2 Kings 5:27 “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto they seed for ever. And he [Gehazi, greedy servant of Elijah] went out from his [Elijah’s] presence a leper as white as snow.”

2 Kings 15:5 “The Lord afflicted the king [Azariah, King of Judah] with leprosy until the day he died, and he lived in a separate house.

2 Chronicles 26:21 – “And Uzziah the king [of Judah] was a leper unto the day of his death...”

And then we arrive in the New Testament, and find that Jesus heals a leper who is also a Jew:

Matthew 8:2-4 “And behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

We know that he was a Jew because Jesus told him to go to the priest of the Jewish temple, taking the offering that Moses commanded. Obviously only a Jew would know what that meant.

The words of Jesus here are also confirmation to us that he gave the healed leper these instructions for the purpose of reminding the priest of what was written in the Mosaic law, and giving an opportunity for the priest (and all those of his kind at the temple) some insight as to who exactly Jesus was. For, if no other Jew had ever been healed before, if this Mosaic law had remained unused through the centuries until this moment, then this had to say something very remarkable about Jesus, did it not?

Wouldn’t any honorable Jewish priest, wanting to be obedient to God in all things, get a little excited about this? Maybe want to dig deeply into scriptures to see what this might possibly mean? Could this be the Messiah, for example?

But they didn’t recognize Him as the Messiah from this particular miracle. Do you know who did (besides his disciples)? John the Baptist.

Sometime later after that miracle took place, we see in chapter 11 of Matthew, John the Baptist is in prison awaiting his execution, and he sends two of his disciples to Jesus with a question:

“And [they] said unto Him [Jesus], Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”

I always wondered why Jesus answered them in this manner. It seemed to me sort of as though He were avoiding the answer in a way, but in fact, if healing the lepers, and restoring blindness to one who was blind from birth, and healing the lame who also had been lame from birth (others miracles that the religious priests had never seen done before) were in fact miracles only the Messiah would do, then John the Baptist, being full of the knowledge of scripture, would recognize Jesus to be the Messiah by the very things that the religious folk would NOT recognize Him by.

Therefore the answer Jesus gave was scriptural confirmation for that other man of God.

There is more to be said about the miracles of Jesus and the religious folk of His time, and I will go into that tomorrow. But in the study of all of this today, I found this interesting bit of information about the ways in which the Talmud spoke absolutely contrary to the word of God, and in such a way that I don’t think they thought very highly of John the Baptist:

From the Talmud in the Tractate Shabbot (laws concerning the Sabbath):

"R. Jehudah says: A locust (which must not be eaten)," etc. Why did not the first Tana of the Mishna mention this? Because in his opinion it is forbidden to carry it even on week-days, lest one eat it. If such is the case, why should an eatable locust be allowed to be carried? Did not R. Kahana stand before Rabh and a small locust lighted on his lips: Rabh said to him. (R. Kahana), Take it away, lest people say that thou hast eaten it and thou hast violated the commandment [Leviticus, xi. 43]: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth"?

Unfortunately, the Rabbis (R before the names indicates it is a Rabbi speaking) created a law forbidding the eating of locusts using one scripture out of context, ignoring completely a scripture written just previous to it in the same chapter of Leviticus that said eating locusts was NOT forbidden:

Leviticus 11:23 “Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.”

By the standards of the Talmud, John the Baptist was guilty of breaking the law. By the standards of the Mosaic law, he was not guilty.

Be sure to read all of Leviticus 14 (the opening scripture for today's blog posting).

The Truth Versus Commentary

Commentary: a series of comments, explanations, or annotations.

Relative: something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to absolute).

Absolute: something that is NOT dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.

I am a black and white kind of person. There is no gray area for me. Depending on the light I have in one area versus another, it might take me a bit to recognize that I’m in a gray area, but once I recognize it, I run from it! You should know that about me.

And I may have mentioned already that I read a lot of Christian books. The older I get, the more “cautiously” I read, remembering always that what the author “says” is not in any way to be compared to what The Word of God “says”. These are two different things, even if the author seems to be agreeing with what the bible says (as in most Christian books I read).

In my black and white way, I see one as Commentary (Relative) and the other as Truth (Absolute). And I believe there is only ONE truth: GOD (and all the He says). What a Christian author says may sound good, but unless it “says” EXACTLY what the Word of God says (in other words, unless the author is quoting the Bible verbatim) then it isn’t Truth. ONLY The Word of God is TRUTH. (Unfortunately, I must qualify that all Bible versions are not equal. Those that are too loosely translated, I won’t even use.)

Now before you think I’ve totally flipped out here, bear with me just a bit longer to see where I am going with this.

The real Truth (God’s Truth) is “absolute”. It is what it is; it is not dependent on anything, for nothing can alter it. It just IS truth.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9

God’s Truth is not “relative”, even though the world says that truth is relative. That’s because if they believe in an absolute Truth (God’s Truth) then they cannot continue to do the things they do that are contrary to the TRUTH. They either have to accept Jesus Christ for Who He is, or they have to invent their own version of truth, which they call “relative” truth. In other words: “What I perceive to be true for me, is true. What you perceive to be true for you, is true also. Even if those two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum, relative truth allows anything to be true, depending on how it “feels” according to the person speaking it.” But that is not what the Word of God says:

“I [Jesus] am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

Commentary then is also “relative”...it is relative to the one who is commenting. All books are commentary in one form or another. Therefore all books (or blogs) are relative. They are not absolute truth.

Let's use this blog as an example of commentary: When we study the bible, we read the Truth and then we comment on it or try to put it in words we more easily understand, or we try to give it practical application. I write what I hope agrees in every way with the bible, but unless I have “quoted” the bible, I am not writing “absolute” Truth, and it should not be taken as absolute Truth. I cannot possibly write or speak absolute truth, only God can. My words do not compare to God’s words. My opinions do not compare to God’s opinions. My thoughts do not compare to Gods thoughts. Why would anyone take my words to be absolute truth? Why would anyone take the scribes’ words to be absolute truth, more important than God’s Word?

I am stressing this the best way I know how, to try to get a point across. And that point is this:

“Prove all things.” I Thessalonians 5:21a

EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVEN BY THE WORD OF GOD. EVERYTHING! Or else we run the risk of doing exactly as the people were doing by following the scribes. We run the risk of letting the “commentary” guide our decisions and our choices, when only the Word of God should guide our decisions and choices. This is why “teachers” or “interpreters” (such as the scribes) have such a huge responsibility in the eyes of God; they are held more highly accountable than anyone who does NOT “teach”.

So why do we read other books and why do we listen to other teachers?

I can speak only for myself. The reason I do is because they stir up my interest in studying the word of God. I enjoy searching scripture to see whether what they are saying is in agreement with the Word of God (something I might have missed or forgotten in my reading of the bible) or whether it is just their opinion or commentary. And sometimes it requires a LOT of Bible study to ascertain whether or not it is in agreement with God’s Word. And other times it requires more than I can comprehend and so I sit it on the back burner for a while. I can tell in those cases that I just don’t have enough light yet, and only the Holy Spirit can give me that. He is my Teacher.

But unless I have ascertained that it agrees with what the Word of God says, I hold it only as an interesting “theory”. Here is an example:

There are many books written about what heaven will be like. But there is really very little in the Bible that tells us what heaven is actually like. We can apply our intelligence and our imagination and come up with ideas of what heaven is like (there are many books on “Heaven”). But in no way do our “commentaries” on heaven, make it more or less than just what the bible says. At the end of the day, all I really KNOW to be TRUE about heaven is the few words the Word of God tells me about it. That much I know is TRUE (and even some of that I have a difficult time comprehending!)

And so if someone asks me what heaven is like I can tell them the TRUTH (whatever the Word says about it), and then I can expound by quoting a book I read recently and say “so and so” thinks it MIGHT be like this. But if I take what “so and so” says and go around saying it is the TRUTH, then I lie, and I run the risk of mis-leading others, for which I also will be held accountable. There is a reason why God says:

“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37 [The same, only more so, holds true for teachers or interpreters or “scribes”of the Word.]

I hope this gives better understanding as to what the scribes have done through the centuries. But God also held accountable the people who chose to believe the scribes OVER the Word of God. For those who “followed” or “believed” the scribes, all that was needed was that they PROVE all that was being said by the Word of God, and they HAD the Word of God. It was the Word of God already written that the scribes were “commenting” on.

This is still the case for us today and so I will reiterate: WE MUST PROVE EVERYTHING AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD! Do not be lax in this.

So, when we find that something does NOT line up with the Word, what do we do with it? We apply the second half of the scripture that says “prove all things”:

“Hold fast that which is good.” I Thessalonians 5:21b

We hold fast (tight) onto what is good, and set aside the rest.

Most of us speak (and write) according to the light that we have received. Just because someone else has more light than I do, does not mean that they are wrong, but I might not “see” it or recognize it as agreeing with the Word yet, because I haven’t received that much light. (That light is given to us by the Holy Spirit whenever we read or hear the Word of God. If you are not in the Word, your light will not grow.) So if we have “proven” something by the Word and find that it doesn’t seem to agree, then we just set it aside. Further down the line, we might return to that subject, and then suddenly, because in the interim we have received more light, we can see where it DOES agree with the Word of God! Because of this, we do not go tar and feather everyone we don’t agree with. And most of that subject matter, while important, is not life threatening…such as what heaven will be like. It’s more important that we know how to GET there, no matter what it will actually be. We all have enough light to be able to comprehend that it’s the place we want to be!

However, there are some, Paul speaks of, who are clearly saying things CONTARY to the Word of God that causes men to be “shipwrecked” from the faith. This is life and death stuff. Their tar and feathering comes by way of turning them over to Satan!

“Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these [faith and a good conscience] and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” I Timothy 1:18-20 (NIV)

Hope this gives a better understanding of what Jesus saw was happening to the people because of the scribes, and why He railed at them as much as He did. Just remember that the scribes (Pharisees, Rabbis, and such) were always with Him. He managed to make sure they stayed close. He did many things that irritated them so greatly (since it went against their traditions, their thinking) that they kept close trying to find enough cause to “convict” Him. That might appear to be their doing, but my “commentary” on that is that it might have been that He was orchestrating that more than they, giving them every opportunity to repent, which is why He spoke so often directly to them...for He loved even the scribes.

And all of that is why this study is taking us into the area of what the scribes believed to be truth; to understand how they arrived at it and why the people followed them, instead of the Word of God. All of which we are just as capable of doing today, if we do not “prove all things”.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at a fascinating example of some of the Jewish traditions that Jesus broke, while at the same time, of course, being perfectly obedient to God.

Traditions of Men, Part 2

So, we began with the Soferim scribes, then move on to the Tannaim teachers, and then the Amoraim arrived on the scene. The Amoraim were scholars who “interpreted” or explained” the law. In AD 200 Rabbi Judah Hanassi put all of the oral traditions into writing calling them the Mishnah (the oral laws of the Tannaim) and the Gemara (oral laws of the Amoraim), both of which were then combined into one book called the Talmud.

At the time of Jesus, the Jews had the entire OT in written form. But they gave as much authority to the Oral Law (the Talmud or the oral traditions of the Soferim, Tannaim, and Amoraim) as they did the Mosaic Law (the Pentateuch: The Five Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

And that was their second mistake!

The problem, of course, is that there cannot be TWO final authorities. In such a case where there are two authorities, and where they disagree, then the FINAL authority turns out to be the one you side with.

Where the religious Jews of Jesus’ day sided with the Oral Law against the Mosaic Law they erred. That was the problem Jesus had with them. And the problem they had with Jesus was not that He ever broke any of the Mosaic Laws, for He didn’t. The Mosaic Law was of God and Jesus never broke a law of God. The problem the religious Jews had with Jesus was that He broke their Oral Law or their Traditions. For this, they wanted Him killed.

So, now let's take a moment and look at our first example of a “hedge” law or “oral” law:

Exodus 23:19 “…thou shalt not seethe [boil] a kid [young goat] in his mother’s milk.” [One of the many Mosaic laws to be obeyed according to God’s design, not man’s.]

Using the above Mosaic law as an example, let’s look at why God gave this command in the first place.

The Caananites, and other pagan nations, had occultic rituals that were often used. There was one in which a young goat was cooked in its mother’s milk, then the milk was spread all over the fields, guaranteeing a successful harvest from the gods of the harvest.

But God’s chosen people were to be separate, in every way, from the pagans. Therefore, even though there was nothing inherently wrong in cooking a goat in its mothers milk, God wanted His people, called by His Name, to not even “appear to be doing evil” as the pagans did. So He commanded them not to even COOK the way the pagans did, even if there were never going to spread the milk over their own fields. That was God’s intent. Appearances were and are very important to God, since His people were to be a light to the world, and I believe it is a sign of rebellion is us, when we take too lightly the command to “abstain from all appearance of evil.” 1 Thess. 5:22.

But back to the hedge laws. The logic that the scribes applied to the Mosaic law above went something like this:

Let’s say that you have a few goats running around your front yard, and you decide to have goat this evening as your main course. You also decide to have a nice pudding for dessert that happens to made out of goat’s milk. Now it’s possible, just possible, that the milk you used in the pudding happens to belong to the mother of the goat that you just ate for dinner. It might NOT be that way, but then again it just MIGHT and THEN look at the possibilities! The goat and the pudding [milk] arrive in your stomach at about the same time, and the digestive juices start heating them up [boiling], and there you’ve done it! You’ve boiled a kid in its mother’s milk and we are all going to be sent into slavery!!!!

Rather than risk THAT, let’s design a law that says you cannot even eat a goat [meat] and ingest goat’s milk in any form [dairy] within a certain number of hours, so that we can be assured that the meat has passed through your system before the milk ever arrives there! Now Israel has dietary laws.

BUT…we’ve really got to be careful about this now. WHAT IF:

Tonight you eat goat on a plate, which you wash when you are finished with dinner, and tomorrow night you eat cheese off of that same plate, and even though you washed that plate the night before, you just happened to miss a tiny fleck of meat on it, and you just happen to pick that fleck of meat up with your cheese tonight, and ONCE AGAIN, the meat and cheese meet in your stomach and ONCE AGAIN the kid is boiled in the mother’s milk, the Mosaic law is broken, and we are sent off into SLAVERY! We MUST have separate eating utensils! One set of dishes for meat products, and one set of dishes for dairy products.

Are you beginning to see how there came to be 1,500 “hedge” or secondary laws for one Mosaic law? Much less all the other “hedge” laws that were set into place!

This all sounds a bit preposterous, but it is very real. Try reading the Talmud or Mishna for yourself and you will see how difficult it is to understand, much less follow, all the dos and don’ts. I am not wanting to treat the makers of the “hedge” laws with any disrespect. I do understand the motives behind the “hedge” laws, but I also understand how man has a way of “fixing” the things of God to make them even better, that instead causes the things of God to be lost. And, in an effort to make sure no one sins, man is very good at applying so many secondary laws that the main law is obscured and forgotten.

Hope I haven’t lost you in all this background information, but it’s important for us to understand. As I have said before, often we do things that we don’t even understand the reason for, and sometimes these are things we can’t find basis for in the bible. These could be just “traditions” we our following, but we are responsible to verify that the “traditions” we follow are biblical and of God, not the traditions of men. Next week, we’ll look at one of the “traditional” laws Jesus broke. And why He did it.

Source references:

http://www.seedofabraham.net/kosher.html

http://www.house-church.org

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html

Traditions of Men, Part 1

Before we can get into discussions of how the body of Christ was to be “organized” with Jesus as the Head and believers as the members of the body, we must first deal with tradition.

Traditions can be OF God, they can be AGAINST God, and they can be NEUTRAL, meaning neither of God nor against God.

An example of a neutral tradition in my family, is that we traditionally meet at my house for Christmas, because it is the larger of the three in the family and has an extra large dining table that can seat us all. Meeting at my house for Christmas is not OF God necessarily, nor AGAINST God, it’s a NEUTRAL tradition.

But some traditions are “against” or “contrary” to the Word of God, or “anti-biblical”. We Christians are to be especially careful to recognize traditions that were not instituted by God in the first place, and when we see that they do indeed run contrary to the Word of God, then we must dispose of them, before they lead us astray, away from the truth.

And it is sometimes as difficult for us modern people to let go of such traditions, as it was for the Jews that Jesus spoke to in the scriptures verses given below. But first, let’s look at the definition of the word Tradition according to the dictionary:

Tradition: the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice; a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting; something that is handed down; a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.

Now let’s look at what the New Testament tells us about tradition:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiment of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8

“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matthew 15:1-3

“Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

“For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Galatians 1:13-14

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers.” I Peter 1:18

One of the most important lessons I ever learned, when I was 24 and first came to know Jesus, is that tradition can be sacred, beautiful, comforting, and culturally uniting. I also learned that it can be dead wrong; dead as in leading us straight to hell, if we choose to follow it! More on that at a later date.

Such was the place Paul was being led to by the traditions of his fathers. According to those traditions, Paul was a model example of righteousness! Paul, by his own words, tells us how highly educated he was, not to boast of his education, but to show us that even though he was a model Jew above all Jews, top of the class so to speak, still he was being led astray by traditions; and destroying the body of Christ in the process.

So will our own traditions (of our fathers) lead us astray, and, if they are not properly disposed us, destroy the body of Christ still….even in this modern day and age.

To better understand how traditions come about, we will take a look at the traditions that the Jews at the time of Jesus held to, how they received those traditions, and what it was that made them cling to them, even to the point of excluding the commandments of God, as Jesus described. And we will see, in the process, the remarkable ways that Jesus ground those traditions right into the dust even by some specific miracles He performed; some of the things that we don’t quite understand, the Jews of that time understood perfectly clear, as they came out of their “traditions”.

Let’s start with Ezra. Ezra had a perfectly good and Godly idea of reading aloud in public the Law of Moses, the purpose being to remind, and to teach, all the people about the Law, as the breaking of the Law was the very thing that had sent them into captivity so many years before...a captivity they had just recently been released from. You see the Law was set up in such a way that with each breaking of the Law, the punishment became more severe, until the final punishment was that the entire nation of Israel was sent into bondage to some foreign nation, like Egypt or Babylon.

Seeing that already there were some amongst his people who were intermarrying against the Law, Ezra had those marriages nullified immediately and began daily readings (teachings) of the law to help avoid future mis-steps. In fact, he even instituted a “School of Scribes” who were known by the Hebrew name of “Soferim”. These were the first “bible teachers” if you will. Their job was to teach the 613 Mosaic laws (yes there are not just ten, there are 613) to the people so that all would be faithful and so that none would cause Israel to go back into captivity as a nation. This was all a very good plan.

But as most plans of men go, a generation after Ezra’s time, there came upon the scene scribes who looked at things a bit differently than the scribes of Ezra’s time. In their desperation to keep all the people law-abiding, they determined that the Law of Moses was not sufficient to do the job...in other words, the Word of God was not enough. (Sound familiar?)

So these later scribes (still Sofer'im) proposed a new set of laws, called “fence” or “hedge” laws, that would “surround” the Mosaic laws (all 613 of them, individually) in such a way that if one were to “break through" the “hedge” of the outer law, at least that might stop them or slow down their course towards breaking the inner Mosaic law.

You could describe the “hedge” laws as the fence protecting your home. We put up fences hoping to “deter” thieves from “breaking into” our homes where the important stuff is. In fact, I've seen actual green bushy hedges so dense, that no one COULD break through them! So, the scribes hoped the “hedge” laws would deter men from “breaking into” the Mosaic law.

You really can’t blame the scribes on the one hand, I mean, national slavery was a big deal for them, having been through it a few times already! Of course, they were desperate. Their first mistake, however, was in thinking the Word of God was not enough, and that they were going to have to take matters into their own hands!

The problem was increased however, when future scribes, the Tanna'im (Aramaic for "teachers"), decided the fence laws of the Sofer'im had too many holes in them. And proceeded to build fences around fences.

Thus, for example, one simple Sabbath law (one of the original ten commandments), once the Tanna'im were finished with their work, now had 1,500 secondary or “hedge” laws added to it. No wonder Jesus said:

“Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” Luke 11:46

If only one Sabbath law had 1,500 laws attached to it, how many laws were created for the remaining 612??? That’s a tremendous burden to place on men who just wanted to be obedient to God!

So, if their first mistake was thinking the Word of God was not enough to protect them from being sent into captivity again, what was their second mistake?

We'll look a that tomorrow.