Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine

[Mike R. Prevost]

OK. Here is my initial Achilles Heel post. I have had some time constratins so It's a little late.  Sorry.

 

But some background is in order. First, I believe and stand firmly behind the multiple elder church structure doctrine. On balance, I believe that this is what the scriptures teach. I say “on balance” because of the issue at hand.

 

I think it wise to try to argue both sides of an issue and see which side has the strongest argument and if there are some arguments that I cannot overcome. E.g., “Where are the chinks in my armor?” In order to “convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1:9), we need not only to explain how our assertions are plausible, but we need to also prove that they are in fact correct. To show that our assertions are merely plausible convinces only ourselves.  If possible, we need to leave the gainsayer with no ground on which to stand – no room to honestly cling to his positions. This is the angle from which I am approaching this topic.

 

I feel that the strongest argument for the single pastor model is the angels of the seven churches found in Revelation. Single pastor advocates interpret these angels as indicating the individual pastors of these seven churches. Of course, we do not believe the single pastor model, so we obviously need to deal with these arguments. You may not think that this would be a very strong argument in light of all our other evidence, but if I can hold my ground here, then I have a crow-bar that I can use to pry open most if not all of the multiple elder passages (e.g., “ordained them elders in every church” could mean one elder in each church).

 

Bro Houston has written an excellent article on the subject. If you have not read it, I suggest reading it in order to get some context for this discussion. His work does a very good job of delivering a plausible explanation of these angels. However, “I have somewhat against it”. ;)

 

So, I am going to argue from the point of view of a single pastor advocate (e.g., some single pastor trying to hold onto his exalted position).  But, at present, I do find the "angels of the churches" arguments of the other side to be stronger than the ones that I can come up with, hence this discussion. I want to be proven wrong, but not without a fight – I want the issue to be soundly resolved.  This seems to be a good place to do it.  There are some very smart folks here and the "Hot Pants" discussion shows that we can all behave ourselves while arguing vigorously.  Hopefully this will be a useful exercise.  Please remember that I'm debating here and intend no disrespect to Bro Houston or anyone else.  Given my time constraints, I will have to do this in a succession of posts.

 

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

MUAHAHAHAHA!!!! See you in the next post!

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

[David Huston]

I believe someone made the point earlier that even though the letters are addressed individually, they are all intended as communications to all seven churches, each ending with the words, "Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." This suggests that the admonishments of all seven letters have general application to all churches/believers of all ages. As for how the book containing these letters was delivered to the churches, I don't know. I believe I would rule out the idea of an angel standing before an assembly reading the book of Revelation. We do have examples of angels delivering messages to people by appearing in a dream (Matthew 1:20); by appearing in a vision (Acts 10:3); and by simply appearing (Luke 1:11). We also know that Hebrews 1:14 describes angels as "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation." According to Strong, the word "ministering" means to function publicly in religious matters. Perhaps the angels carried written manuscripts. Perhaps they dictated the words to someone in each assembly (probably not the single pastors!). Perhaps they conveyed the words in a dream or vision. Perhaps they delivered them on gold tablets...no, that was the book of Mormon. I don't know. Any other ideas?

[David]

[Exiting hole at lunch time]

I would opt for the obvious deliverer of the letters -  John.  John is brought in the spirit as a witness (judicial note here).  Jesus gives the complaint (or indictment) to the angels in his hearing.  He then can bring it to the churches for to hear (both the letters and the scene); and so he did.  If the letters are intended to be delivered by John, as they were, then why address to the angels?  They are not there as messengers but to be informers and enforcers.  It supports the judicial agent argument without having to resolve it with an extra-biblical event; golden tablets.  Read the rest of Revelation and watch the angels in action, and if you are noted in one of the letters (a resident of Laodicea for example), then you are deeply concerned at what was told to these ministering spirits.

[Returning to hole]

David Huston said:

I believe someone made the point earlier that even though the letters are addressed individually, they are all intended as communications to all seven churches, each ending with the words, "Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." This suggests that the admonishments of all seven letters have general application to all churches/believers of all ages. As for how the book containing these letters was delivered to the churches, I don't know. I believe I would rule out the idea of an angel standing before an assembly reading the book of Revelation. We do have examples of angels delivering messages to people by appearing in a dream (Matthew 1:20); by appearing in a vision (Acts 10:3); and by simply appearing (Luke 1:11). We also know that Hebrews 1:14 describes angels as "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation." According to Strong, the word "ministering" means to function publicly in religious matters. Perhaps the angels carried written manuscripts. Perhaps they dictated the words to someone in each assembly (probably not the single pastors!). Perhaps they conveyed the words in a dream or vision. Perhaps they delivered them on gold tablets...no, that was the book of Mormon. I don't know. Any other ideas?

[David Huston]

Bro. Capotosto, how do we know that John delivered the letters himself? In Revelation 1:11 Jesus tells John, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia.” Notice that He tells John to send the book to the churches, not to take it. After all, in all likelihood he was not free to leave Patmos.

[David]

Good correction.  Read "bring" as in from heaven to churches.  It would be speculative theology to try to determine how the letters got from John to the churches, unless someone has some historical docs to refer to.  Point is, the word says it was John who would see - write - deliver and not the angels.

David Huston said:

Bro. Capotosto, how do we know that John delivered the letters himself? In Revelation 1:11 Jesus tells John, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia.” Notice that He tells John to send the book to the churches, not to take it. After all, in all likelihood he was not free to leave Patmos.

[David Huston]

Question to consider: What would be some of the ways that John might have sent his manuscript from a Roman penal colony in the Aegean Sea to seven assemblies on the mainland? It may not matter as far as our final conclusion is concerned, but if we can know, either from the Bible or history, it might prove to be significant.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Well I just read all 289 verses in which the word angel is used in the Old and New Testaments.  It is true that the angels are used to administer judgment.  However, this is not their only use.  More often, the angels are delivering and confirming a message to someone.  They also frequently protect and provide for folks as they obey the message and do the will of God.  They are sort of like Super Prophets -- they speak for God, but they also help bring it to pass.  They DO administer justice, though, and on many occasions. 

 

So, while the angels most definitely ARE "agents of divine justice", I'm not ready to say that this is their primary role.  Their primary role seems to be to deliver messages from God.

 

[David Huston]

Is it possible that the angels of Revelation 2 and 3 may have been involved in all of these activities. First and foremost they were to deliver messages to God's people. Perhaps they were then to stand ready to either help out or administer judgment depending on the responses. Could it be that the reason the salutations say, "To the angel of the church of..." is because the messages that followed were for the angel to deliver to the people in the specified church?  

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

Is it possible that the angels of Revelation 2 and 3 may have been involved in all of these activities. First and foremost they were to deliver messages to God's people. Perhaps they were then to stand ready to either help out or administer judgment depending on the responses.

 

Such is definitely plausible, however, the only real proof that that I know of that there is exactly one angelic being associated with each church body is "unto the angel of the church of ____ write".  "Because of the angels" in 1 Cor 11, and similar passages in other places, implies that there are angels around, but they also seem to indicate multiple angels.

 

I do think that it is plausible to say that "unto the angel ... write" might mean that the angel (as the agent of divine judgment) was CC'd on a letter to the church.  It does fit nicely into our reduced solution space.  But, you have to realize that this interpretation (like metonymy) is contrary to both the grammar and the natural reading, and that while plausible, it is not so far provable.

David Huston said:

Could it be that the reason the salutations say, "To the angel of the church of..." is because the messages that followed were for the angel to deliver to the people in the specified church? 

 

I don't think so, because it was The Book that was sent/delivered, not the letters:

 

Rev 1:11  Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

But, again, I am assuming a literal book/scroll that was physically written and physically delivered.  If this is literal (and I don't see any reason to think otherwise), I don't see any correspondence between the addressee of each letter and the method by which The Book (and hence, the letters) was delivered.  These seem to be two separate concepts that are not necessarily related.

 

We are not told how the letters were delivered.  But, why could the letter not be delivered by someone who came to visit John on the island?  There is plenty of scriptural evidence that prisoners could have visitors -- even some of the Paul's NT epistles were written from prison and delivered by folks like Timothy, Tychicus, etc.  This has always seemed the most likely to me.  But, again, I don't think this has any bearing on who "the angel of the church of ____" is.