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]

[Michael V. Frazier]

It's just that, the candlestick is a literary device, viz. symbolism, as well.  We understand the symbolic nature of the candlestick being the local church because the text is clear, but the star/angel symbolism isn't nearly as clear.  The removal of the candlestick is, therefore, understood as being (somehow) a reference of judgment on the church itself, not the star/angel.

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

If the "angel" is a literary device, then why would God threaten to remove a literary devices candlestick? Why would a literary device need to repent? ETC. 

[Mike R. Prevost]

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

If the "angel" is a literary device, then why would God threaten to remove a literary devices candlestick? Why would a literary device need to repent? ETC.

 

Good questions.  By literary device, I mean that the meaning does not correspond with the grammar.  For example, a literary device called "metonymy" would go something like "I saw claws scuttling across the sea floor".  The reference was to "claws", but the meaning was "crabs" or "lobsters".  Another literary device called "anthropomorphism" assigns human qualities to non-human objects (e.g. "the trees spoke in windy whispers and waved their arms in worship").  The Lord uses such literary devices in scripture.  Seminary students study them.

 

Back to the passage at hand.  So, the grammar says that the letter is to the angel.  However, the idea behind literary device is that this may just be a sort of poetic way of addressing the church itself.  Most people believe that the letters, given their content, are written to the churches and not to the angel -- the angel may not even actually exist.  So via the literary device, Jesus would be saying that the church needs to repent and that if they didn't He would remove their candlestick.  In fact, Ephesus was totally destroyed in 262 AD and never recovered.  Perhaps that warning was to the church after all!

 

I know.  It seems forced.  It seems like a cop out.  It's not in keeping with literal interpretation.  But we ARE in the book of Revelation.  Could it be true?

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

It's just that, the candlestick is a literary device, viz. symbolism, as well.  We understand the symbolic nature of the candlestick being the local church because the text is clear, but the star/angel symbolism isn't nearly as clear.

 

I don't have any justification for it, but my initial impression of the vision was the church as a candlestick (perhaps with the candle) and the star (angel) as being the flame at the top of the candle.  I think Bro Houston's view was similar as he likened it to the Menorah.  There are many arguments to the contrary, but that was my initial impression.

 

[Donnie Gillum]

This one may be “way out there”, and it does have difficulties, but so do the others we’ve considered :-). 

 

Since scripture mentions candlesticks but no candles, is it possible the seven golden candlesticks “need no candle” (22:5) because Jesus was shining so brightly (1:16) right there among them (21:23)? 

 

As for the stars, is it possible that they represent a former member of each assembly who are now in heaven (22:8, 9) safely in Jesus’ hand where no man can pluck them out (Jn.10:28) and are now ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14) to that particular assembly?

 

‘nuff fer now.

[Donnie Gillum]

I’m just tossing that out since none of us can come to complete certainty about these angels.   If you’ll go back and read Rev. 22:8, 9 (it appears, at least to me, that this “angel” was a fellow saint) you should see what I was referring to and why I made the statement. Not saying the suggestions I presented are so, Brother, it’s just that the “connections” are so interesting and I thought may help (or at least hinder LOL!) our sleuthing the mysteries here. 

I know it is “out there” so to speak, but John was “in the spirit” hearing and seeing in the spiritual realm where things are much more different than the natural.  I'm thinking these are things John saw "signified" (1:1) in the spiritual realm, not that they really happened in the natural.  So I thought I’d take the risk and toss it in with the rest of the musings we’ve considered…and see if any of the brethren fainted ;-).

One other point while I’m at it, don’t know if it will help, but 1:4 tells us that John is addressing the entire book itself to the seven churches…something we may want to keep in mind when considering the letters written in the book to each church.

What are your thoughts?

[Mike R. Prevost]

Donnie Gillum said:

What are your thoughts?

 

I think the angels are really giraffes.  From Nigeria.  They're just pretending to be angels.

 

;)

 

 

[Donnie Gillum]

LOL!  I don't know either!

[Mike R. Prevost]

HERE is a huge treatise by W.M. Ramsey on the letters to the seven churches.  It's very wordy and contains all manner of historical references, pictures of Roman coins and such.  It's reminiscent of reading Hislop's "The Two Babylons".  However, it is worthwhile to read chapter 6 ("The Symbolism of the Seven Letters").  Ramsey tends toward the idea of the angels being a literary device influenced by the apocalyptic form (i.e., the Jews had a form/style/genre of "apocalyptic" writing which was highly symbolic; I have heard this before in regard to Revelation).

Ramsey sees the candlestick and the angel as representing two different dimensions of the church.  The church/candlestick pair represents the church on the Earth -- the physical human dimension of the church.  He see the star/angel as the spiritual dimension of the church.  Thus, the angel would be a sort of personification of the church.  He gives much evidence that the folks in the 1st century thought this way and would interpret the imagery in this sense.  There is almost the Greek idea of the "realm of the forms" -- the conflict between the ideal world and the flawed natural world.  Such a Greek idea would not be foreign or out of character for John who incessantly brings up the idea of logos (if, indeed, John's idea of logos is Greek and not of Hebrew origin which is what I tend to believe).  But, Ramsey says that the John/Jesus does not stick completely to this symbolism but drops it completely at times and thus it's quite impossible to determine exactly what the angel really represents.  Here is an excerpt:

 

[...] The star, then, is obviously the heavenly object which corresponds to the lamp shining on the earth, though superior in character and purity to it; and, as the lamp on earth is to the star in heaven, so is the Church on earth to the angel. Such is the relation clearly indicated. The angel is a corresponding existence on another and higher plane, but more pure in essence, more closely associated with the Divine nature than the individual Church on earth can be.

Now, what is the angel? How shall he be defined or described? In answer to this question, then, one must attempt to describe what is meant by the angels of the Churches in these chapters, although as soon as the description is written, one recognizes that it is inadequate and hardly correct. The angel of the Church seems to embody and gather together in a personification the powers, the character, the history and life and unity of the Church. The angel represents the Divine presence and the Divine power in the Church; he is the Divine guarantee of the vitality and effectiveness of the Church.

This seems clear; but the difficulty begins when we ask what is the relation of the angel to the faults and sins of his Church, and, above all, to the punishment which awaits and is denounced against those sins. The Church in Smyrna or in Ephesus suffers from the faults and weaknesses of the men who compose it: it is guilty of their crimes, and it will be punished in their person. Is the angel, too, guilty of the sins? Is he to bear the punishment for them?

Undoubtedly the angel is touched and affected by the sins of his Church. Nothing else is conceivable. He could not be the counterpart or the double of a Church, unless he was affected in some way by its failings. But the angels of the Churches are addressed, not simply as touched by their faults, but as guilty of them. Most of the angels have been guilty of serious, even deadly sins. The angel of Sardis is dead, though he has the name of being alive. The angel of Laodicea is lukewarm and spiritless, and shall be rejected. Threats, also, are directed against the angels: "I will come against thee," "I will spit thee out of my mouth," "I will come to thee" (or rather "I will come in displeasure at thee" is the more exact meaning, as Professor Moulton points out). Again, the angel is regarded as responsible for any neglect of the warning now given, "and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee": "thou art the wretched one, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked."
These expressions seem to make it clear that the angel could be guilty, and must suffer punishment for his guilt. This is certainly surprising, and, moreover, it is altogether inconsistent with our previous conclusion that the angel is the heavenly counterpart of the Church. He who is guilty and responsible for guilt cannot stand anywhere except on the earth.

The inconsistency, however, is due to the inevitable failure of the writer fully to carry out the symbolism. It is not so difficult to follow out an allegory perfectly, so long as the writer confines himself to the realm of pure fancy; but, if he comes into the sphere of reality and fact, he soon finds that the allegory cannot be wrought out completely; it will not fit the details of life. When John addresses the angels as guilty, he is no longer thinking of them, but of the actual Churches which he knew on earth. The symbolism was complicated and artificial; and, when he began to write the actual letters, he began to feel that he was addressing the actual Churches, and the symbolism dropped from him in great degree. Nominally he addresses the Angel, but really he writes to the Church of Ephesus or of Sardis; or rather, all distinction between the Church and its angel vanishes from his mind. He comes into direct contact with real life, and thinks no longer of correctness in the use of symbols and in keeping up the elaborate and rather awkward allegory. He writes naturally, directly, unfettered by symbolical consistency.

The symbolism was imposed on the writer of the Apocalypse by the rather crude literary model, which he imitated in obedience to a prevalent Jewish fashion. He followed his model very faithfully, so much so that his work has by some been regarded as a purely Jewish original, slightly modified by additions and interpolations to a Christian character, but restorable to its original Jewish form by simple excision of a few words and paragraphs. But we regard the Jewish element in it as traditional, due to the strong hold which this established form of literature exerted on the author. That element only fettered and impeded him by its fanciful and unreal character, making his work seem far more Jewish than it really is. Sometimes, however, the traditional form proves wholly inadequate to express his thoughts; and he discards it for the moment and speaks freely.
It is therefore vain to attempt to give a rigidly accurate definition of the meaning which is attached to the term "angel" in these chapters. All that concerns the angels is vague, impalpable, elusive, defying analysis and scientific precision. You cannot tell where in the Seven Letters, taken one by one, the idea "angel" drops and the idea "Church" takes its place. You cannot feel certain what characteristics in the Seven Letters may be regarded as applying to the angels, and what must be separated from them. [...]

 

 

[Michael V. Frazier]

Ramsey's perspective is interesting, and I also could understand the Greek influence (if true of Revelation), but I feel that Ramsey is putting too much emphasis on the human writing and forgetting the influencing authority of the Holy Spirit.  For that matter, the letters themselves are supposed to be distinctively from Jesus Christ.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Did a little work on shifting pronouns.  Credit due to Bro Frazier and others for shifting pronouns idea.  This goes very slow for me.  I have never been formally trained in Greek and am not at all fluent in it so I have to lean on the grammatical markings in my interlinear.  This makes this type of work very tedious for me.  If the translators would just say "y'all" like we do here in Alabama, it would make things much easier.  ;)

 

Consider this passage from the letter to the angel of the church in Smyrna:

 

Rev 2:10  Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

 

The italics portions at the beginning and end all use second person singular (2S) pronouns and verbs.  However, the bold underlined portion in the middle uses second person plural (2P) pronouns and verbs.

 

Consider the context.  Is there a difference between who the 2S sections reference and who the 2P sections reference?  WHO is supposed to "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer"?  "Fear" is singular.  Is it the 2S angel only?  "Thou shalt suffer" is all singular.  Is it the 2S angel only who will suffer?  These cannot be the angel only.  Plural people suffered and were cast into prison, so plural people were to "fear none" of this.  And WHO is the 2S "thou" in "be thou faithful unto death" (all singular)?  Is it the 2S angel only?  Definitely not, it is the plural folks that were thrown in prison who were to be faithful unto death.

 

So here is solid proof that singular pronouns and verbs CAN be used to refer to plural things.  It is also reasonably solid proof that to write to the angel at least sometimes IS the same as writing to the church (i.e., the angel is a literary device).

 

I also went through the letters again looking for anything that MUST be written ONLY to the angel -- i.e., looking for things that COULD NOT pertain only to the church.  I couldn't find anything.  Everything could easily pertain the the church.  However, as bro Frazier points out, most of the content of the letters would sound kind of silly if it pertained only to the angel.  I believe that this is why most folks interpret it as being written to the church. 

 

It is the cold grammar itself that is the only thing that the single-pastor folks can grab onto.  If we can find a few more example like the shifting pronouns above, it may be enough to convince most single-pastor advocates that they must look beyond the grammar in this case.

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

 

Michael V. Frazier said:

Ramsey's perspective is interesting, and I also could understand the Greek influence (if true of Revelation), but I feel that Ramsey is putting too much emphasis on the human writing and forgetting the influencing authority of the Holy Spirit.  For that matter, the letters themselves are supposed to be distinctively from Jesus Christ.

 

Yes, I had the same thought and totally agree.  It's a mistake that many authors make.  However, it's one of precious few serious articles on the subject that I can find on the 'net.

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

 

Mike R. Prevost said:

Rev 2:10  Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

 

The italics portions at the beginning and end all use second person singular (2S) pronouns and verbs.  However, the bold underlined portion in the middle uses second person plural (2P) pronouns and verbs.

 

Consider the context.  Is there a difference between who the 2S sections reference and who the 2P sections reference?  WHO is supposed to "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer"?  "Fear" is singular.  Is it the 2S angel only?  "Thou shalt suffer" is all singular.  Is it the 2S angel only who will suffer?  These cannot be the angel only.  Plural people suffered and were cast into prison, so plural people were to "fear none" of this.  And WHO is the 2S "thou" in "be thou faithful unto death" (all singular)?  Is it the 2S angel only?  Definitely not, it is the plural folks that were thrown in prison who were to be faithful unto death.

 

So here is solid proof that singular pronouns and verbs CAN be used to refer to plural things.  It is also reasonably solid proof that to write to the angel at least sometimes IS the same as writing to the church (i.e., the angel is a literary device).

 

I finally found a way to search based on grammatical markings.  I can't find anything as convincing as Rev 2:10.  But I did find a couple of things.  These were also mentioned by Bro Fazier.

Rev 2:12-13  And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;  13  I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

So although the letter was written “to the angel of the church in Pergamos,  “you” is second person plural (2P) “slain among you”.  There is really no announcement that the speaker is addressing someone different.  He's still addressing the angel, but by saying “among you”, it is obvious that, by addressing the angel, he is referring to the whole church.

Rev 2:23-25  And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.  24  But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.  25  But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

At the end of verse 23 in “I will give unto every one of you according to your works”, “you” and “your” are, of course, 2P pronouns.  However, vs 24 gets a little tricky.  The single pastor folks would like the “you” in “But unto you I say” to be singular, so they can prove that the speaker is addressing the angel in distinction from the church (“and unto the rest in Thyatira”).  This would show that the angel is not a literary device and that there really IS a single person being referred to. But this is not how it is.  The “you” in “But unto you I say” is plural (2P).  The pronouns actually stay 2P until the end of verse 25.  So “But unto you I say” still addresses the “unto every one of you” group in verse 23.  

But, if so, then “and unto the rest in Thyatira” doesn't make any sense – who is “the rest in Thyatira”?  It CANNOT be the faithful in Thyatira in addition to the angel, because “But unto you I say” is plural.  The problem is the “and” (“kai”) in “and unto the rest in Thyatira”.  The “kai” is in the TR, but all the usual suspects (Robertson, Vincent, Barnes, Clark, Gill, James/Fausset/Brown, etc) all say that this "kai" is omitted in the Majority Text (which I confirmed) and Complutensian texts.  I also confirmed it missing from the Westtott-Hort.  So, without the “kai” it would read as it does in the Revised Version: “But to you I say, to the rest that are in Thyatira, as many as have not this teaching, which know not the deep things of Satan, as they say; I cast upon you none other burden.”  It is the same in many others (ESV,  etc).  So I tend to think that the “and”  in “and unto the rest in Thyatira” is a “typo” in the TR.  I can't come up with anything that makes sense with it in there.  The extra “kai” is at least highly suspect.  Christ is laying no other burden (except holding fast to what they have) on the people that don't have the doctrine of Jezebel [errr, which probably doesn't have anything to do with makeup!  ;) ].   For our purposes, it doesn't really matter because “But unto you I say” is plural and the potential single pastor argument from this verse is soundly defeated, but the fact that the "kai" really isn't there absolutely destroys their potential argument.

BTW, are we making too big of a deal with the pronoun shifts?  Can't such shifts occur in casual conversation?