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]

[Mike R. Prevost]

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

In this first post, I will try to neutralize some of the arguments in Bro Houston's article, specifically the section titled “Who are the seven Spirits?”.  This section seems to be the core of the article.  Bro Houston's position, if I understand it correctly, is that the seven angels of the seven churches are seven angelic beings who delivered “the book” (i.e., the book of Revelation which contains the seven letters) to each of the seven churches and that these seven angles are the same as the seven spirits of God.

 

It is true that angles are spirits (Psa 104:4, Heb 1:7). It is true that in both cases they are seven in number. It is true that there are also seven angels that stand before God (Rev 8:2). It is true that the seven angels were “stars” (Rev 1:20) and the seven spirits were “lamps of fire” (Rev 4:5) – both light emitting objects: “agents of divine illumination” in Bro Houston's words. It is true that angels are often messengers and that spirits are also messengers. Just because the seven angels and seven spirits share several attributes does not mandate that they are the same thing.  As Bro Frazier might say, “This is a 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy.” [Or maybe a form of 'post hoc'?] ;) Seven Ford trucks and seven Chevy trucks have a lot in common, but they definitely ain't the same thang – 'specially here in Alabama. ;)

 

He does this again in reference to Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. He points out that “an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip” (Acts 8:26) and that “the Spirit said to Philip” (8:29). He then draws the conclusion that “the Spirit” in vs 29 must be the same as “an angel” in vs 26. Again, this is a hasty generalization. In vs 39, it says "the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" . Was this the angel too? Or maybe one of the other seven spirits of God?

 

Also in the section "Are angels pastors?" the article 'begs the question' by stating that the angels of the seven churches cannot be the single pastors of the seven churches because the early church didn't have single pastors.  I know this section was meant to be instructive, but from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in multiple elders, the article is using its own premise to prove it's own premise.  That's against the rules!  ;)

 

So, I have not yet really made a point. I have started by trying to neutralize my opponent's arguments. Probably in my next post (hopefully tomorrow) I will start presenting arguments about why the seven angels of the seven churches cannot be the same as the seven spirits.

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

It's very cold out and the streets are icing up.  We're not used to that down here.  Have to go home now.

[Donnie Gillum]

A very nice and interesting intro, Brother.  Looking forward to your "single pastor advocate mode".

[David Huston]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Bro. Prevost. I look forward to it. At the risk sounding overly confident and dogmatic, let me say from the outset that the Achilles heel analogy is derived from a genuinely weak and therefore vulnerable part of the human body. You can stop a guy in his tracks by hitting him in the tendon just above the heel. That's where an arrow hit Achilles, hence the name. One of our elders, Bro. Steve Epler, snapped this tendon last summer jumping over a small bush. He was laid up for weeks. I therefore suggest that calling this forum "The Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine" is inaccurate, since the doctrine does not have a genuine weakness, even if the arrow of truth strikes the Angels of Revelation doctrine and confirms that the seven angels and the seven spirits are different entities. Thus, I predict that by the end of this discussion we will rename it "The Red Herring of the Eldership Doctrine." 

[Mike R. Prevost]

I hope you are correct.

 

David Huston said:

[...]  I therefore suggest that calling this forum "The Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine" is inaccurate, since the doctrine does not have a genuine weakness. Thus, I predict that by the end of this discussion we will rename it "The Red Herring of the Eldership Doctrine."

[Mike R. Prevost]

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

Yesterday, I promised to give evidence that the angels of the seven churchs indeed are not the same as the seven angels that stood before God (Rev 8:2).  I will endeavor to do that today, but, first, one other contention with the article.

A core point of the article is that the angels of the seven churches are the angelic messengers who delivered "the book" to the seven churches and who are each individually associated with a certain individual church .  Let's examine this.

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.

So, "the book" is the whole of the Revelation which we have in our Bibles, not just the individual letters.  The letters are obviously contained in "the book" (chapters 2 and 3) and available for all the churches to read (hence the instruction "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" in each letter).  So, it was not an individual letter that was delivered to the churches, but it was "the book".  Since the book was delivered and not an individual letter, I do not see how "Unto the angel of the church of [______] write" can possibly be interpreted as "Tell the angel to deliver the following message to the church of [________]".   This would have the angel delivering a letter and not the book which isn't what happened.  Each of the angels are clearly the recipients of the letters and not the deliverers of the book.   [Also note that the Lord told *John* to "send it unto the seven churches".] 

Rev 1:20-2:1  The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.  2:1  Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

Notice that in the vision, the angel is distinct from the church, much like the candle is distinct from the candlestick -- they are different, but associated -- the candle gives light, the candlestick elevates the light to make it effective.  [For more on candles and candlesticks, see Mat 5:15, Mar 4:21, Luk 8:16, Luk 11:33]  But the point is that the star/angel is qualitatively different from (but associated with) the candlestick/church.  So to write to the angel is qualitatively different from writing to the church.  Because of the clear distinction between the angel and the church, I do not see how "Unto the angel of the church of [______] write" can possibly be interpreted as "Unto the church of [______] write".  The two are clearly distinct.

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

Now I will start to give evidence that the angels of the seven churchs indeed are not the same as the seven angels that stood before God (Rev 8:2). 

SEVEN ANGELS POP UP ELSEWHERE

One piece of evidence is that the seven angels that stood before God seem to pop up over and over again the the book of Revelation and do things that do not seem related to the seven churches:

Rev 8:2-7  And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.  3  And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.  4  And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.  5  And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.  6  And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.  7  The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.


Rev 15:1-8  And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.  2  And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.  3  And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.  4  Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.  5  And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:  6  And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.  7  And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.  8  And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.


Rev 16:1  And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Rev 17:1  And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 21:9  And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

So it appears that function of these seven angels are global in scope and not related at all to the individual churches.  Looks like a different group of angels to me.

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

ANGELS HUMAN

Another reason, an perhaps the most important to the discussion here, is that the angels of the seven churches do not appear to be angles at all, but humans.  Bro Winskie beat me to the punch on this one and I think he came up with a much longer list of evidence for human qualities of the angels than I would have.  Good work, Bro Winskie! [But aren't you supposed to be arguing against me?!]  ;)  Here is his list:

• If the seven Spirits are indeed literal Angels and not Elders (or pastors, as they are commonly called today), then how would the Angels of each church: lose their first love and need to repent (Rev 2: 3-4) and be in danger of having it's candlestick (light?) removed out of his (God's)place (verse 5)?
• Do literal Angels suffer poverty (verse 9), get cast into prison by devils, endure trials allowed by God, DIE, and receive  a crown of life? Are they in danger of the second death, as well as we (verse 10)?
• Do Angels effect the doctrines of their charges (*verses 13-15)?
• Will God fight against them or their charges if the Angels don't repent (verse 16)?
• Are Angels supposed to remove Jezebel spirits from amongst their charges (verse 20)?
• Are Angels supposed to hold fast and overcome,and rule over nations later, just as we are (verses 24-26)?
• Can Angels be backslidden and then repent if needed (Rev 3:1-3)?
• Are Angels names written in the book of life, and if so, how do they get there (verse 5)?
• Can an Angel lose their crown, and if so, how do they get one in the first place (verse 11)?
• Can Angels be cold or hot or lukewarm (verses 15-16) and when did the Angels become part of God's body (verse 16)?
• Do Angels get rebuked and chastened and need to repent (verses 17-21)?

These angels definately seem to be held accountable for the state of affairs and are definately put in human situations and contexts.  This definately leads one to believe that "the angel of the church of [______]" is the single leader held responsible for "the church of [______]".  This angel is evidently a watchman like the Lord made Ekekiel:

Eze 3:17-18  Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.  18  When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

This is the meat of my argument: that the angels of the seven churches are human and responsible for the church.  There is very strong evidence for this.  So, the interpretation that the angles are the single pastors of the churches fits like a glove.

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

So, I have given evidence that the angels of the seven churches are not the seven angels that stand before His throne.  One part of this was that the seven angels that stand before His throne perform a global function unrelated to individual churches, or even the church as a whole, making it unlikely that they are the same group of angels.  The other part of the evidence is that the angels of the seven churches do not seem to be angels at all, but humans.

There are some other factors that limit the solution space.  I also gave evidence that the the angels of the seven churches were not the ones that delivered the book and that the individual letters were written to the individual angels and not to the churches.   [However, I do admit that the book as a whole, which contains the letters, WAS written to the churches.]

I would like to expand on my assertion that the letters were written to the angels an not the churches.

First, it is obvious to anyone from the language and grammar used that each letter was written "unto to the angel of the church of [______]" and not "unto to the church of [______]". Note all the second person singular pronouns and verbs: "thy works", "thy labor", "thy patience", "thy first love", "thou canst not bear", "thou hast tried", "somewhat against thee", "thou hast", "thou hatest", etc.. I went through the greek for the first letter (Ephesus) and every pronoun and verb relative to the recipient of the letter was second person singular except vs 7 ("He that hath an ear, let him hear...") and this is not necessarily addressed to the intended recipient, but possibly to others who may read it (all the letters were in the book for all the churches to read).

Rev 2:24  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.

Here, Jesus specifically addresses the "the rest in Thyatira" as distinct from the second person singular recipient ("unto you I say").  This is further indication that the letter itself is to the singular recipient and not to the wider congregation.

Rev 3:4  Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Rev 2:14  But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

In Rev 3:4, He says "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments", specifically referencing certain people in the the church of Sardis as distinct from the singular recipient.  The same is true in Rev 2:24 where Jesus says "thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam", referencing certain people in the church of Pergamos that held false doctrine in distinction from the singular recipient.  So, in both cases, the letter is to a singular recipient that is distinct from the church as a whole.  The "thou hast" in both these passages also seems to imply that the singular recipient is responsible for these people.

[Now, in full disclosure, I will point out another passage.  In Rev 3:10, He says "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth".  This seems like it is something that would apply to all the faithful in Sardis, not just the singular recipient.  This, however, does not diminish the force of the previous passages.]

So, I'm about done with my arguments.  At least all the ones that I can remember.  In summary, my points are

• The angels of the seven churches are not the same as the seven angels that stand before His throne.
• The angels of the seven churches are not the ones who delivered the letter.
• The letters were not written to the churches, but to the angels.
• The angels are not angelic spirit beings, but singular humans that are held responsible for the churches.

 

So, as far as I can tell, there is very strong evidence showing that the angels of the seven churches are singular, human, spiritual leaders (e.g. pastors) and not actual angels.  In other words, there is very strong evidence that at the time of the writing of Revelation, the leadership structure of the churches was the single pastor model.

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Ok.  No "single pastor advocate mode" now.

 

I've done my best to argue the other side.  If I was fuzzy or unclear about anything, let me know and I will try to explain better.  But, someone please destroy these arguments! I would have written a book on Eldership by now if it were not for these arguments.

 

At some point I may turn on "single pastor advocate mode" again and try to use this alleged evidence of the single pastor model in the early church to attack the other arguments for multiple-eldership.  Then it may be more evident why I call it an Achilles Heel.

 

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

[Making a little comment to maybe bring this discussion back to life.]

 

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

We know that the book of revelations was written many years after the events in the book of acts. Is it possible that the churches had degenerated into the single pastor system over process of time, leaving behind their original models, as other, more authoritarian, cultures were assimilated into the mix?

 

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

MUAHAHAHA!!!  Of course!  And it was implicitly condoned by the Lord!  He did not jump on their case about having a single pastor and even treated it like it was entirely normal.  There was even one of the seven churches to whom he had nothing negative to say. 

 

The church also started out in Jerusalem as sort of a commune where they sold their possessions and gave to the apostles to distribute to everyone.  But it didn't stay that way.  In the same way, the church may have started with multiple elders because that was the way the Jewish system worked.  But, if so, it didn't stay that way.  If it did start with multiple elders, then it evidently changed by the time Revelation was written.  As further evidence, many of the writings of the "ante-nicene fathers" mention single leaders (e.g., "Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna", etc).

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

[Michael V. Frazier]

Okay... I'm very glad that Bro. Prevost "sparked new life" into the discussion, otherwise I might not have remembered to come back to this post. I sincerely apologize for the lengthy delay. Life happened. :-) I am presently sitting in the hospital where my wife is recovering from surgery. I am trying to type all this out on a Droid keyboard, so it's going slowly. Let me to a full computer system later and I'll try to submit some thoughts.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Okay, I've managed to get a wireless connection set up here, and I'm using my laptop.  This is much easier.  :-)

I appreciate the "hasty generalization" referral Bro. Prevost made in reference to me.  LOL.  Hopefully, I won't make any of those in my post here and now.  But I'll make this opening qualification, I'm going to be writing "tongue in cheek," so please read with a light heart and open mind.  :-D

 

Before we fall prey to a false dichotomy (the either-or fallacy), let me submit a third possibility.  We can debate whether the term angel in the text refers to spiritual beings or human beings, but what if the actual answer is neither of those two?

In Revelation 1, we see the glorified Christ standing "in the midst of seven candlesticks" (v. 13) and holding "in his right hand seven stars" (v. 16).  Verse 20 reveals to us that the candlesticks are seven churches and the stars are "the angels of the seven churches."  Logic would indicate that if the candlesticks represent the individual churches, then the stars must represent something else.  That makes sense, but we then assume (and that's the dangerous part) that if the candlesticks had a literal representation, then so must the stars.  Therefore, we immediately associate the stars with some form of literal messenger, and then begin to work out if the angels represent spiritual or human beings.

But what if the stars/angels are not literal applications? In other words, the stars may only be a figurative reference rather than a literal reference. 

 

The next few chapters focus on the letters, and in each letter the prologue begins "unto the angel of the church of ... write." The subsequent verses all contain singular pronouns (thee, thy, thou) as if the letter is addressed to a single individual.  And as Bro. Prevost and Bro. Winskie have pointed out, the directives given in each letter seem to indicate "the angel" is some form of leader within that local assembly.  This is certainly a possibility, but therein we potentially commit the fallacy of hasty generalization, i.e., depending on our particular denominal persuasion, we immediately assume that "the angel" represents a single bishop or single pastor.  But what if it merely meant the messenger to that local assembly, e.g., the person who read John's letter?

This idea has potential because the directives contained in the letters aren't truly to the "angel" but rather to that local assembly.  How do I say this?  Each letter ends, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."  The letters were written to the churches.  They may have been addressed to "the angel," but the content material was to the church.

For example, did only "the angel" of the church at Ephesus leave his first love?  If so, then why would the Lord remove the candlestick (the church itself) if he did not repent?  Would God remove a church's existence simply because the pastor didn't repent?  Some may argue that the text indicates the church is being taken from the pastor, but that is a very awkward way to put it.  The text speaks nothing of removing the star; the candlestick is that which is pending removal.  The text indicates that God's judgment would impact the church as a whole.

To Smyrna, did only "the angel" work and experience tribulations?  Did not of the other church members?  And strangely, of the supposed single individual being addressed ("the angel"), he suddenly splits into multiple personalities in verse 10 ("some of you" - plural, "ye shall have tribulation" - plural).  And then, again, morphs back into a single identity!  Likewise, the singular-plural-singular jumping takes place in Pergamos (v. 13) and Thyatira (v. 24-25) as well.

Was "the angel" as Sardis" the only one who was spiritual dead/dying and needed to repent?  And if "the angel" was a single individual, exactly how did he only have "a few names ... which have not defiled their (plural) garments?"  Not only that, but "they (plural) shall walk with me in white: for they (plural) are worthy?" 

Did only "the angel" of Philadelphia have an open door set before him?  Did not the other church members also, or did all the other church members deny the Lord's name, and only "the angel" not?

Finally, I suppose that only "the angel" needed to repent at Laodicea.  The whole church was on fire and doing well!  It was just the pastor that needed help.

 

Now, I hope I haven't offended anyone.  That has not been my intention at all.  I've only tried to humorously point out that the angels may not refer to individual persons, whether spiritual or human, at all.  Rather, the angels may simply refer metaphysically or poetically to the message itself or the messenger who read the text.  But whatever the truth, because of the jumps between plural-singular-plural throughout the letters, I do not believe any serious dogma can be made that they represent single pastors by any means.  I hope that helps!  God bless.