This has been a subject slathered with copious quantities of debate, from what I’ve witnessed. What is church, and what is its role in the life of a Christian? I’ve read several articles about the etymology of church, and the translation of words used in the origin language of the Holy Bible, but I think it’s a discussion secondary to the one regarding what church is.
The word church is translated from the origin word referring to a building, but it can also be translated as a reference to the people who worship the Creator, who are the body of Christ, when used metaphorically or figuratively. Figurative speech was an implement used by Jesus himself, at times delivering confusion into the minds of his disciples when they weren’t able to render the speech into common meaning. (John 16:29) I contend the main usage of the word church in the Scriptures describes the body of Christ, and not a man made structure. It is a God made structure. The word church is commonly used to denote a particular congregation of the church, or perhaps a structure, as described in the New Testament books and epistles, especially in John’s book of revelation.
Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. (Psalm 127:1) I reckon this verse points to the church, or an individual member of the church, since individuals are the abode of the Holy Spirit, but not pointing to a physical structure. The so called early churches were congregations who did their congregating in the homes of believers. They were not considered separate entities, having a title and official building that was called a church, but they were appendages governed by the head, who is Christ. There was no division in the beginning, although it didn’t take long for factions to form, factions that are known as “denominations” today. The Apostle Paul spoke against this activity, saying of himself and others, what is Paul? What is Apollos? (1 Corinthians 3:4-8) There is one body, and one head, and that head is Christ. (Colossians 1:18)
“Then what should we call the churches, if we don’t name them? Do we give them number designations, or something like that?”
I don’t know. There’s nothing incorrect about naming a church. In fact, it makes reference to it easier, as well as navigation to it. But there are so many denominations under which we categorize our churches, and each one diverging from the others in doctrine, that an outsider must reasonably conclude that not one of us operates in concert with another. We are often discordant, gnashing at the innards of our corporate church with malcontent and distrust. How is surprising that outsiders view Christians as no better than themselves?
You know what I mean. “Those idiotic Baptists believe such and such. Those morons over in the Lutheran church believe such and such. These crazy Protestants believe such and such. Can you believe what they believe?” I reckon there are misguided, and sometimes outright false, doctrines among the denominations, but should we be pasting them to a billboard? Scripture teaches us to exhort one another, not berate one another. I know the church has a responsibility to expunge wicked behaviors from its belly, along with the persons in whom the wicked behavior may have become inveterate, but these are likely to be rare cases in general. I’m referring to calling out specific persons, churches, and denominations as a herald for battle. Let’s throw fists in public with a faulty, or false, doctrine itself, and trust that people can receive the wisdom and discernment to properly analyze it.
To clarify my stance on the matter, I believe there are particular men specially equipped and qualified to issue public rebukes against specific persons and churches. They have dedicated themselves to a Berean attitude when addressing doctrines, having Scripture as their only premise. They possess an aptitude with apologetics, and are adroit in their Biblical studies. They are calm, their speech is tempered with grace, they are not aggressors, but they are consistently firm in their appeals. There is an overt authority about these men, and they are able to endure a greater degree of opposition than the rest of us. The rest of us ought to forgo such authoritative action, and focus our efforts strictly on the false doctrines and teachings.
The pith of a church is more than its name, its denomination, or its doctrines. As long as they’re on the narrow path, and I think we can tell who they are, then let’s regard them as coheirs with Christ. God looks at the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 21:2, Luke 16:15) Remember, the Apostle Paul admonished us to evade looking down on someone whose faith is lesser, or weaker. (Romans 14:1-6) For even those who are deceived, who’ve vested their faith in false doctrine, can be cured by the truth, if we have the wisdom to apply that balm effectively. The pith of a church building, or congregation, is the people who occupy it. The pith of a church is active, it is animated, it is living, because of the Holy Spirit and his potency.
A structure erected by men has no consciousness. It does not and cannot think, cogitate, contemplate, nor is it self aware. It is not sentient in any sense, probably because it doesn’t have any senses. The Creator never called out a senseless thing to become his son. He never even called for a celestial being to become his son, contrary to what some religions assert. No, God’s own son is Jesus the Christ, who is also, conveniently, God himself. We who are believers, by virtue of the work of Christ, are coheirs with him, inheritors of eternal life. We are permanent members in the family of the living God. We were called to be sanctified. The structures we congregate in were not so called.
The church is called the bride of Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:2, Isaiah 54:5, Revelation 21:2) Superficially, this may appear absurd, considering the church is constituted by members of both genders. How can male believers be constituents of a bridehood? This is readily answered by Scripture. In Christ, there is neither male nor female. (Galatians 3:26-29) This does not refer to the order of things in this present physical realm, but to the order of things in the coming spiritual existence, or eternity. It asserts the qualifier for salvation is not one of gender. The figurative use of a bride is in response to our limited human understanding, in that Scripture describes this physical realm as being an example to us of God’s nature. Or perhaps it is better stated to be a demonstration of God’s character and our relationship with him. The male and female aspects of our relationship with God are demonstrated in the male and female aspects of human relations. (Ephesians 5:21-33) So, corporately, mankind is the bride of Christ.
Scripture declares an influx of the Holy Spirit for every believer, as a pledge that guarantees our inheritance. The Spirit of God occupying our physical form. The church thus becomes the body of Christ, and the church is so described in the Bible. It is because of this status as the body of Christ that we are warned against sexual iniquity, in particular. Whatever we do in our respective bodies, since we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and are corporately the body of Christ, we also do those things to Christ. (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 12:26-27) Scripture directs us to treat the members of our body with honor, as well as the members of the church, for we are all members of one body, and that body is the body of Christ. When we engage in sexual sin, we dishonor Christ himself, but we also dishonor the rest of the body, the church, our coheirs. Scripture says that all other sins are outside of a man’s body, but when he dips into sexual iniquity, he sins against his own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) That body is a member of the body of Christ, so he sins against the body of Jesus himself. That ought to sober us up a bit.
The preceding text indicates the superficies of what church is, to some degree, but not the underlying anatomy of the body of Christ. That is what’s to be done next, a dissection of church anatomy to discover and analyze its musculature, skeletal underpinning, and vital organs, all of which are the persons who constitute the church body. I reckon it sounds a tad gruesome, but my penchant for analogous representation is mostly unavoidable, so try and suppress your retching enough to continue reading.
From the beginning, when the Creator created the pinnacle of his creation, the physical being endowed with his own image and likeness, the being known as man, God established the order of things that would be commenced for man and his progeny. God fashioned the man from the dust he’d created earlier, breathed his spirit into the man, and so the man lived. He called everything good. Except for one thing, apparently. God observed the man, and declared that it was not good for the man to be alone. He then stated that he would make a helper suitable for the man. Some folks prefer to use the term ” help, meet,” another way of saying helpmate, yet the principal concept remains unchanged. (Genesis 2:18) The Creator had contrived the man, and he proceeded to contrive a being that would be suitable for the man, not only in a physical sense, but an emotional and moral sense, as well. A helper. A helper suitable for him.
The Creator nudged the man into an unconscious condition, opened his side, selected a rib, removed the rib, then seamed the man closed again. He then fashioned another being, using the material of the man’s rib, and brought her to the man for his approval. The man articulated his thoughts on the matter, declaring that she was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Genesis 2:23) So the man delineated her nature and the definition of her being, then he named her.
From the beginning, God established the order of things for mankind. The man is the head of the woman. This is not, as has become popularized in modern times through feminism and a general weakening of masculinity within the church, an order of things which was established or perverted by society, in particular, male society. It was never “a cultural thing.” It is not merely ostensible that God intended a mantle of authority for the man, it is evident in Scripture. The man was fashioned from the dust, the woman was fashioned from the body of the man, and she was brought by God to the man as his helper, and for the man to give his approval and to name her.
Now, there are many who brandish and wield a singularly vehement hostility to this concept, despite its patently Biblical source. Its predominant antagonist being the corporate female sex, which has been influenced by distinctly feminist doctrines issued against Biblical principles, arguing that such principles must have been perverted by “man” in order to keep women fettered in subservience. The means to achieving cogency with this argument is to argue against the validity of Scripture, proclaiming the Holy Bible itself is fraught with error due to the fallibility of “man,” who is quite obviously the being responsible for authoring the Bible. This theological stance precludes the sovereignty of God, since “man” must be endowed with a supernatural ability to interfere in the designs of God and drive his plans askew, if this argument is to be sustained.
“Wasn’t the thing written by several men, through the course of several thousand years and the events associated with those millennia? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to surmise the thing could at least be tainted by their limited capacity?”
If God is not sovereign, I’d agree with that supposition. A God whose work can be hindered or muddled by the thing he’s created, is not a God who’s all powerful. He’s not worthy of worship, either, in my estimation. I’d prefer to worship a sovereign God, one who rules over all he’s created, who stands outside of its frontiers and is not subject to the laws he’s subjected his creation to. Unless that sovereign God doesn’t exist, and the Bible really is an unreliable source of information. In which case, we’d have to rely on the analysis and understanding of fallible “man” to know what bits of the Bible are true and what bits ought to be shoved aside, or rewritten. I’d deem the entire process to be unreliable, and to be nothing but the product of social opinion, rather than a standard delineated for us by the Creator.
If the Bible is true, any part of it, then all of it is true. It cannot be somewhat true, or partially true, because the resultant analysis of any portion of the thing has to be categorized as opinion. It cannot be a standard, if it’s subjective. It’s the same with morality. Something is either right or wrong, independent of social sway and technological developments, or law. They cannot be subjective, because if they are, then right and wrong are merely the issue of the prevailing social opinion. So, the actions of dictators, such as the regimes that were dismantled during the two world wars, cannot have been evil or wrong, because they were enjoined under their respective social structure and its prevailing opinion.
The Bible is either true, or it isn’t. It is entirely true, or it is entirely untrue. I don’t mean that it is entirely false, but that it can’t attain the status of truth, since truth is absolutely independent of all influence. What I mean is that, if the Bible was filtered through the fallibility of human beings, and is consequently corrupted, then whatever we get out of it must be subjected to personal interpretation. The subsequent result is a matter of opinion. But this is the situation promulgated by many in the sphere of “Christendom” these days. One claims to have heard from God, or the Holy Spirit, and everyone ought to listen to his interpretation of Scripture because of it. Another latches down on a similar claim, but his interpretation deviates from, or is contrary to, the interpretation of the first. They cannot both be hearing from God and formulating contradictory interpretations. It’s not reasonable. So who is correct? Who is the teacher of truth? And how can we possibly know, if the Bible was corrupted by unreliable men, and is now being interpreted by other unreliable men?
So, if the Bible is the word of God, then it’s entirely true. Or it isn’t the word of God. The Bible declares that the word of the LORD is perfect, it is eternal, it is sharper than any double edged sword. (Psalm 18:30, Psalm 19:7, 2 Samuel 22:31, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 4:12, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Luke 21:33) Yet, if the Bible is erroneous, how do we know this statement is true? It may not be true. It may not be accurate. And if the word of the LORD is not perfect, then it cannot be reliable. It cannot be a standard. And if there is no standard, there is no right or wrong. And if there is no right or wrong, all that remains is mere opinion, and we can go on fornicating and thieving and murdering and cheating and lying and destroying and subjugating and everything else that the Bible classifies as sin.
“Well, that sounds exactly like a convoluted shovelful of triteness.”
I don’t think it is. Remember the old game, telephone? We’d sit in a circle. One person would whisper something in the ear of his neighbor, and that one would whisper it to the next, and so on. Usually, the last person would have heard something different from what was initially whispered. It simply wasn’t what was spoken by the originator. It’s something different that cannot be attributed to that person.
If we apply this principle to the Bible, and God’s delivery of his word to his creation, namely, mankind, how can it be deemed more reasonable than the old telephone game? If the message in the Bible is secondhand and corrupted information, then it simply isn’t what was spoken by God. It isn’t the word of God. Yet, the teachers proposing this concept would have us all believe that God will hold us accountable for deviating from a standard that has been perverted by the fallibility of “man.” It is not a reasonable argument. The purpose of such argument is to vest credibility in claims to the offices of Apostle and Prophet, claims on other roles designated to either men and women by the Maker of heaven and earth, claims that cannot be valid if the Bible is valid, since these claims contradict the Bible.
The Bible is true, and it is absolutely true. Thus, the order established by God remains in effect, unchanged by opinion or interpretation. The Scriptures are defined by other Scriptures, and not by “man.” There is no other logical mode of Biblical interpretation. From the beginning, the order of things was established by God. It is only in recent decades that this order has begun to collapse, and this is a sign of the end of days. It is not a sign of the freedom of women from “cultural oppression,” or a new reformation of church doctrines. It is a sign that the end is near. It is a warning. But I’ve shunted myself into something of a digression.
The hierarchical structure of the church can be known from its description in the Scriptures. The structure of the corporate church is intended as a demonstration of the character of God. This necessitates an order of authority, and an order of service. The higher the grade of authority, the higher the grade of service. Jesus told his disciples that, if any of them wanted to be great, he must first be the servant of all. (Mathew 20:26-27, Mark 10:43-44) The weight of responsibility in the mantle of leadership is commensurate with the weight of authority. Because of this, the Apostle James advised that not everyone ought to pursue an office of leadership, since they’ll be subject to an accountability beyond what many can consider acceptable. (James 3:1-2) Also, from the one to whom much is given, much will be required. (Luke 12:48)
The head of the woman is man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of the church is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 5:22-24) We are equipped by God, whether in the home, at work, or in the church, to fulfill the purpose he has determined for each individual person, and the function he has designed for either gender. (Ephesians 4:11-13) In this way, we fulfill the corporate purpose for the church. The body of Christ is an assemblage of individual members, each having a particular role and function. No individual should clasp an ambition to occupy the role of another. (Romans 12:4-8) Men are not to abdicate the responsibility assigned to them by God, and then pursue responsibilities assigned to womanhood, nor are women to abdicate their responsibility to assume the responsibilities of a man. There is a distinct role for both male and female, even to declaring it is shameful and sinful for either to wear clothing that is designed for the opposite sex. (Deuteronomy 22:5)
There is a theory which has enjoyed increasing popularity, a theory promulgated mainly by feminism and those male leaders who seek to solidify their leadership and control by pandering to the doctrines of feminism as a ploy to acquire support from that camp, and to benefit financially from their constituents. A theory that Scripture written by the Apostles regarding the role and function of women in the church and in the home were written to address a phenomenon of culture, and these instructions were addressed to a particular church community. I’ve read some very interesting and somewhat compelling arguments that bolster this theory, and have, at times, vacillated in my view of the matter. Yet, when the argument is pinned on the wall next to Biblical context in its entirety, this theory collapses. Although the argument utilizes a significant portion of Biblical context, and most especially the social context of that era, it fails to incorporate the entirety of Biblical context, as well as failing to include the entirety of historical context.
The argument asserts the Apostle Paul’s’ letter to Timothy was in response to behaviors in a particular community, and to a particular group of women who were allegedly causing disruptions within that community. (1 Timothy 2:12-13) My mind immediately asks whether all the other letters that comprise the new covenant teachings, including those written by the other Apostles, were also addressed to particular communities and particular groups within those communities. If so, then the majority of new covenant teachings, if not all of them, are irrelevant and inapplicable to the lives of any believers who were never a part of those communities. That would include the remainder of human beings, a remainder which encompasses all of those presently alive. If not, then how does one conclude this particular letter is so culturally specific?
(Note that a crucial part is usually excerpted from this quotation of Timothy 2, because the context of a Scripture defines its meaning. Verses thirteen and fourteen explain the reasoning that excludes women from occupying positions of authority over men, that such exclusion is due to their susceptibility to being deceived. Which is, of course, an egregious offense to women, and only serves to justify their oppression. So it can’t possibly have been a command from God. And so it must have come from “man.” The preceding two sentences are sardonic, of course.)
I don’t see how any part of new covenant Scripture can be exclusively applicable to a specific culture, especially considering that New Testament Scripture was delivered from the mouth of Jesus during his incarnation, and its conclusion given to the Apostles by Jesus after he had fulfilled the Law. If any part of the new testament Scripture is nothing more than a reprimand against a particular crew of troublesome women, or men, then it certainly hasn’t any authority over us today. And, if it is entirely irrelevant to us, why would Jesus deem the matter so important as to include it in his revelation to his Apostles? I think a letter to this straying church, from this Apostle or another, addressing problematic happenings that were peculiar to one church congregation, or to one aspect of society, would have been sufficient for the time, and would not require preservation in the new testament Scriptures.
The wording of 1 Timothy 2:12 is latched onto, where Paul says, “I do not allow…” as if he were expressing an opinion, or exerting his Apostolic authority on a matter that wasn’t spoken about by God. This presupposes that not all Scripture is the issue of God. Some of the Bible, at minimum, must be the issue of “man.” It cannot all be the word of God. This presupposition contradicts the Bible’s claim that all Scripture came from God. (1 Timothy 3:16-17) If the Apostles were spinning versions of their personal opinion into church doctrine, they certainly had no authority to do so. They were not authorized to go beyond whatever God established. But if the Creator hadn’t vested them with such authority, why did he validate their ministry of the gospel by working miracles through them, as Scripture described as being such validation? (2 Corinthians 12:12) Any Apostolic command, instruction, teaching, etc., was a result of these men being used by God as implements of his purpose. They would not have possessed Apostolic authority otherwise.
In the context of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, women are never endowed by God with an office of authority over men. From the very beginning, God classified the woman as a helper suitable for the man. This concept is reinforced consistently throughout Scripture. Leaders, spiritual authority within the church, elders, etc., are all referenced with maledom. (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:6-9) There is never an instance when such positions are spoken of in an atmosphere of gender neutrality. It is always men. If the cultural argument is to stand, then it must be applied to the entirety of Scripture, to every instance of men being specified as vested with this authority. If that’s done, the entire Bible is severely skewed, and most of it cannot truly be the word of God, since the prevailing order in the Bible is God, Christ, church, man, woman. This theme never varies throughout all of the Scriptures. Even the authority wielded by a queen was substantiated by the authority of her king.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be surmised as Paul expressing his opinion, nor can it be deemed an example of a command pertinent to a single community because it gives the plural, churches. “Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” Taken on it’s own merit, the argument can be made that Paul was upholding the command to submit to the authorities placed over us, and that, since these laws are commonly defunct, this command is not applicable to women today. However, if we continue through the subsequent verses, we’ll read something that’s difficult to argue against as merely a cultural disturbance. Verse 37 declares, “If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” A command from God, and not the opinion of a man, nor the dealings of a cultural disturbance in a particular church.
As an aside, the argument for homosexual normalcy also advocates that wherever it is spoken against in Scripture, it is in response to a cultural phenomenon, and not because God considers it an abomination. In order to sustain this cultural argument, it must be applied to the entirety of Scripture, to every description of marriage, of the union which makes two persons one flesh, and every instance where God declares his disgust for homosexuality. The Bible would be severely skewed in this case, as well, and couldn’t truly be the word of God, since the theme of homosexual acts being categorized as perversion and sin never varies throughout all of the Scriptures.
What logic was in God’s destruction of entire cities, and in slaughtering their inhabitants, if the matter of homosexuality was only a cultural one? Especially considering the cultures involved were separate from any Hebraic or Abrahamic culture, and that homosexual activity was fully acceptable within these cultures. And yet even where homosexual conduct was allowed, or received approval, the natural hierarchy of man as the head of woman was maintained.
For all of human history, until recent decades, this order of things has prevailed even among peoples who rejected the Creator. I am of the opinion that an allowance of women into the direction of government, and various other offices of authority, especially within the structure of the church, is one indicator of the start of the end of days. Other indicative conditions are the widespread acceptance of homosexuality as normative, the compulsion to abolish any distinction between the sexes, the general rejection of individual responsibility in favor of communist and socialist ideologies, the endeavor to unify all religions into a composite theology, the legislation of regulations and laws to satisfy feelings and emotions instead of essential principles, the urge to remove parental influence and disciplinary duties in favor of governmental cultivation of childhood, and the drive to eradicate any notion of God or theological influence from all governmental conduct. God seems to have lifted his hand from restraining the propagation of evil that characterizes the end of days. I’ve not been able to erect a definitive platform on which to settle this opinion, having a minuscule quantity of Scriptural material to build the thing, but I think it’s within reason to assert that such a theory may have some grade of credence weft into it.
“Oh yeah, lunkhead? What about the prophetesses mentioned in the Bible? Hmmm? What about Deborah being the judge of Israel? Wasn’t she a woman in authority over men?”
Good point. Even to my status as a lunkhead, which may possibly be factual. Although, I’m inclined to argue that point, despite the possibility it may be factual. Now, on to prophecy.
Prior to the advent of Jesus Christ, the Creator conveyed messages to mankind by several means, with some of these means being peculiar to the supernatural. One example is the Urim and the Thummim. (Exodus 28:30, 1 Samuel 28:6) These were two stones positioned on the ephod of the priest, and when God’s chosen people inquired of him, an audible voice emanated from these stones and dispensed his reply to them. Other means mentioned in the Bible are dreams, prophets, and celestial beings.
The missives given to mankind through prophets, and prophetesses, are prophecy. A prophecy does not always concern future events, or future action, but a prophecy that does concern matters of futurity is called an apocalypse. Both prophecy and apocalypse have been convoluted over time by those who’ve not deigned to investigate the definition of these concepts. The most well known apocalypse is written in John’s book of revelations, and so apocalypse has come to be known by the nature of events described in those revelations. The prophecy concerning the birth of the Messiah was the most significant and influential apocalypse, since it declared salvation to mankind. Inspiration is the mechanism of God taking up a man and using him as we would use a pen, for the purpose of dispensing revelation. The Apostle Paul wrote, “All scripture is Spirit breathed.” By this, and other Scriptures, we can understand that all of the Holy Bible was authored by the Holy Spirit.
Anyone can prophesy, if the Spirit of God takes hold and speaks. For example, when king Saul was in a murderous mood and questing to make and end of David, the future king escaped and went to Samuel. Saul dispatched a crew to capture David, but when they arrived and witnessed Samuel and a group of other prophets prophesying, the Spirit of God took hold and Saul’s men prophesied, too. This event was repeated two more times, and then Saul decided to take the mission for himself. But the Spirit of God grabbed Saul, and he began to prophesy before Samuel. (1 Samuel 19:18-24) Neither Saul, nor his messengers, were prophets of God, yet God spoke through them. God spoke through a donkey, as well, but I’m thoroughly convinced the donkey wasn’t occupying the office of prophet, even though its master was. (Numbers 22:22-35)
So, should prophetesses be accepted as wielders of spiritual authority, alongside the prophets? Well, no. Not everyone who prophesies is a prophet, in the sense of occupying the office of prophet. The office of prophet is vested with spiritual authority, one who is merely prophesying is not so vested. Those shouldering the mantle of the office of prophet were always men, never women. The prophetesses would prophesy as the Spirit determined to do, but none of them were charged with the authority that accompanies responsibility and culpability.
The head of the church is Christ. Christ instructed his Apostles to behave as shepherds, pastors, and to care for congregants as figurative sheep. He told Peter, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17) It can be logically inferred that pastoral offices were established for the church, and that persons other than Christ were intended to fill these offices pursuant to the direction of the Holy Spirit within each congregation of the church. I propose this inference is then confirmed in the letters of the Apostle Paul, and the epistles of the other Apostles, detailing the attributes that qualify a person to occupy church offices, some of which are named, such as elder and deacon. (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:6-9)
Even seemingly mundane abilities may be given by the Holy Spirit, when a person is selected to fulfill a particular duty or function toward the benefit of the church. This is demonstrated in the event of the tabernacle construction, when the Spirit endowed individuals with specific skills toward its completion. (Exodus 31:1-6, Exodus 35:30-35) I opine that skills and abilities we tend to classify as mundane are also gifts of the Spirit, even though they aren’t specified in the Bible epistles.
There were other church offices established by the Apostles, done so to alleviate them from responsibilities that could be taken up by those who were not charged to fulfill pastoral duties, but each one is important for the health of the body. (Acts 6:1-6, Acts 14:23)
It’s important to note the hierarchical levels as they’re layed out in Scripture. Apostles are first, of which there have been only fourteen, then prophets, then teachers, and so on. (1 Corinthians 12:28) Contrary to a popular allegation today, the church has not been the demise of apostleship, nor of the office of prophet. All of these appointments are given by Jesus, and for a particular purpose. (Ephesians 4:11-13, Hebrews 2:4, Acts 1:21-22) Including the one who was appointed by Jesus indirectly, while adhering to concrete stipulations. (Acts 1:21-22) Since God is sovereign, and he does as he pleases whether in heaven or on earth, it is quite impossible for his will to be impeded by his creation, namely man. (Psalm 135:6, Isaiah 14:27, Job 23:13, Acts 5:38-39) If God has appointed an apostle, then an apostle is appointed. The church cannot supersede or nullify this appointment. If the church can eradicate apostles, or stunt their appointment, then God is not sovereign. To assert the church, or any other agency of man or creation, can override the will of God is a preposterous notion, and worthy of copious quantities of ridicule. Otherwise, why would men throughout Scripture acknowledge the sovereignty of the Maker of heaven and earth, even in common situations, such as battle, disciplinary functions, or the pride of some in business dealings? If it’s from man, it will fail. If it’s from God, we will not stand against it. (Isaiah 8:10, Joshua 23:10, 1 Corinthians 4:19, Acts 5:38-39, James 4:13-16)
If we test the matter against Scripture, we can confidently assert that no Apostles have been appointed since the conclusion of new testament revelation. Not one person has met the criteria that denotes an Apostle. Many have tried to circumvent the criteria, but they do so by ignoring the particular signs completely, or by displacing them with other signs which are applicable to any disciple of Jesus who has been endowed with such spiritual gifts. (Acts 6:8, Luke 10:1-12, Mark 16:16-18) These are more common signs, that are not exclusive to the office of apostle, but that are also not distributed to every believer. (1 Corinthians 12:29-30)
Such claimants to the office of apostle are false teachers, whether self deceived or liars. (2 Corinthians 2:12-15) The entire purpose of the Apostles, all of whom were appointed by Jesus, was to be the conduit of revelation and foundational church doctrine. (Mark 16:20) This function was validated by the signs that follow an Apostle. (2 Corinthians 12:12, Acts 5:12-16, Acts 2:43, Acts 19:11-12, Acts 8:5-7, Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:13-19, Mark 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2) All revelation has been given, and is collectively known as the Bible. This is the word of God, and it is utterly sufficient. (Psalm 119:160) There is no new revelation, as Scripture itself has declared by warning against taking away or adding to its volume. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, 1 Corinthians 4:6, Revelation 22:18-19) The necessity for an office of Apostle has therefore been negated.
In alignment to the preceding, there is a grade of distinction between a revelation and something that is revealed, as correlated with its understood usage in Scripture. Though a revelation is essentially indistinguishable from a revealing by definition, its use in Scripture is implicitly that of Scripture itself being dispensed through a qualified individual. Something that is revealed to human beings while we read the Bible, is implicitly a clarification of things, or an understanding or knowledge of a revelation that is already available.
The office of prophet has been similarly negated. As described in the epistle to the Hebrews, “On past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” (Hebrews 1:1-2) The revelation given through the Apostles was given by Jesus, since he appointed the Apostles. (Galatians 1:11-12) There are no prophets today. None that are prophets of God.
When the Creator has declined to communicate with people, some people have become inclined to pursue communication without those attributes that qualify one for a particular office. In effect, they appoint themselves to the office of prophet or apostle, and set about convincing others that such appointments are valid. When they are confronted with Scripture that invalidates their appointment, they set about invalidating Scripture by claiming it is rife with error, being written by man, and how fortunate the church is to have apostles and prophets who can discern which parts of Scripture are truth and which parts are fallacy.
The Apostle Peter refuted the theory of interpretive mechanism, and simultaneously affirmed the validity of Scripture as God’s word, in 2 Peter 1:19-21. “We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Peter 1:21 also affirms the office of prophet being an appointment given to men, and not women. The status of a woman as prophetess is not excluded by Scripture, but her function is one of oracle, rather than one of authority. (Acts 21:8-9, Luke 2:36-37, Isaiah 8:3, Exodus 15:20, Judges 4:4, 2 Kings 22:14) The woman is to have a covering of authority, which is the man. A man is not to be under the authority of woman. (1 Corinthians 11:3-10)
“You still haven’t answered the question about Deborah. She was a prophetess, and the leader of Israel for a while. So, she had authority over many men! How do you answer that?”
I believe the reason can be inferred from the context. In Judges 4:6-7, Deborah delivers a prophecy to Barak. In 4:8, Barak agrees to obey the prophecy, if Deborah goes along. In 4:9, Deborah agrees to go along, but admonishes Barak that he will have no honor from it, that victory will go to a woman, rather than himself. Again, referencing 1 Corinthians 11:4 and 11:7, it is dishonorable for a man to abdicate his authority to a woman. Therefore, we can logically infer that Deborah was placed into leadership because God was displeased by the reluctance of Israel’s men to take up the responsibility they were charged with. Deborah’s leadership was intended to shame the men of Israel, not to justify female authority over men.
Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice.” (John 10:27) Those who belong to Christ will be aware, however long it takes for this awareness to seat itself into their consciousness, that teachers of these false doctrines are wolves in disguise who mean to masticate on their souls. Those who’ve been deceived by false doctrines are either babes in Christ, or aren’t members of his body, which is the church. New converts are susceptible to deception, especially those endowed with strong minds, and so are Scripturally barred from holding church office until they’ve acquired a sufficient grade of knowledge and understanding. (1 Timothy 3:6)
The order of things established by God from the beginning has been treated with denigration, most significantly in the past one hundred and fifty years, or so. The primary justification for this treatment is a systematic dismantling of the Scripture as truth. Using such terminology as “a cultural thing,” or “written by man,” the immutability of the Bible has fallen out of style these days. There are churches accepting students into programs wherein they receive training to become prophets and apostles, accepting a fee along with the students, of course. Women are granted spiritual authority which isn’t theirs to wield, and if a man refuses to affirm their stance against the infallibility of Scripture, then he’s a sexist and misogynist, because the Bible was written by men. So, I suppose, in their minds, the Bible must also be sexist, and most certainly not the word of God. Who is now a she, not a he.
The church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is just that. Each member having a designated function, and each function intended to contribute to the health and nourishment of the entire body. None of these members can be anything other than what it is, neither can any of these members be relegated to a status of unimportance if they’re not ranked in the upper levels of hierarchical church structure. (1 Corinthians 12:12-26) So, we ought not strive to be what we are not, elsewise the body cannot function properly due to the failure of the members to perform their individual tasks as they were equipped to do.
The church is described as the bride of Christ, who is her head, her husband. (Colossians 1:18) And does a man hate his own flesh? (Ephesians 5:28-30) Jesus cares for us, grooms us, corrects us, pruning away superfluous growths to make us more fruitful. Just as a human husband is to do for his wife here on earth.
And so the dynamic of the church and Christ is exemplified in the marital dynamic established by the Creator. The marital dynamic is one of submission to the head by the bride, who is the helper, and of leadership, teaching, and correcting by the husband, who is her head and spiritual authority, which authority is alluded to as her covering. The husband has been charged with leadership, the responsibility of teaching and correcting his family, as well as being accountable before God for his conduct of that leadership, and has therefore been appointed to a position of authority in order to achieve that end. The wife has been charged with nourishing her husband’s leadership, the responsibility of being his helper. Does this make her less of a child of God? Does this make her any less of an heir of eternal life? Does this make her less significant in the church, or in the home? Of course not. I’ll recommend to you once again, 1 Corinthians 12:12-26.
All of these things, this fulfillment of each responsibility given by God, is a submission to God himself. So, when the wife submits to her husband as God commands her to, she is in submission to God, not her husband. When the husband submits to Christ through submission to the elders and those who occupy church offices, and accepts the duty of leadership and its conjunctive accountability, he is in submission to God, not to the church officers. He is also in submission to his wife, since he is fulfilling a God given obligation to protect her, to cherish her, to sanctify her through teaching the word to her, and in general, to husband her.
God has delegated shepherds for his church, as mentioned earlier in this article that’s been afflicted with verbosity, and men are to submit to that authority placed over us. Respect for your elders doesn’t dictate a respect for those whose physical age is advanced further than your own, rather, it’s an adjuration to respect those who occupy the office of church elder.
The church is part of a physical representation of what is to come. The temple structure delivered to Moses served as a foreshadowing of what was to come. What was foreshadowed was, in part, the hugely significant task to which Jesus set himself, and which he fully accomplished. He told his disciples, and told us who’d not yet been birthed, through the gospel they wrote down, “In this life you will have trouble. But do not fear, for I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) The battle is the Lord’s. There is no spiritual battle for us to wage. It is for us only to patiently await his return, doing the work set before us. Jesus said the “work of God is this, to believe in the one he sent.” (John 6:29)
Although I have a propensity to be loquacious in my answering, I can be succinct with it, too, as I will now demonstrate. What is church? The church is the corporation of people who’ve become recipients of God’s salvation. It is the physical body of Jesus Christ, after his return to heaven. It is the figurative bride of Jesus Christ. It is the adopted family of the Maker of heaven and earth. It is a mystery to be revealed in the day the physical realm is translated out of existence. The church is what the Creator died for. The church is the elect, the saints of God, and we will dwell with him forever.