It is coming. But it’s not 2012, despite what the Mayan calendar or The Bible Code tell you. First, a related story.
An Italian researcher has announced that he has found hidden symbolism in the “Mona Lisa.” Silvano Vinceti claims to have found letters and numbers in and around Mona, based on scanned and digitized high definition images of the painting, and perhaps a low definition but very active imagination.
I knew that Leonardo da Vinci was a genius, but it never occurred to me that he could hide his messages for a computer assisted researcher. Vincenti believes that he has clues to the true identity of the model. If so, we can put to rest other claims that “Mona Lisa” is a da Vinci self-portrait, and that his/her smile was actually due to either pregnancy or mourning.
Since allegedly hidden messages in famous works will get media attention, the claim to see hidden messages in the Bible is not surprising. But the claims about the Bible are far from harmless stories to fill up slow news days.
Harold Camping, a retired civil engineer, is now promoting his claim that Jesus will rapture about 200 million people on May 21 and that the world will end on October 21. Camping and his followers are using his Family Radio Worldwide network of more than 50 stations in the U.S. and others in foreign countries to spread the news.
In 1992 Camping’s book 1994? made similar predictions. He and several dozen followers gathered on September 6, 1994 to await Christ’s rapture. The fact that none left the ground prompted Camping to rationalize that he made an error in calculations. He now claims to have discovered previously hidden truths in the Bible that absolutely guarantee his interpretations are right this time.
Camping practices what I call “Duct Tape Theology.” He grabs a few unrelated verses, tapes them together with unwarranted assumptions and produces a wad of unbiblical conclusions. This is how he explains away Matthew 24:36 in which Jesus states that “no one knows the day or the hour.” He claims that Jesus’ statement no longer applies now that the end is imminent. God has miraculously revealed the exact timing to those Camping calls “true believers,” (i.e., himself).
Even before the Left Behind series was published I noticed that the one book of the Bible that non-Christians are interested in discussing is the book of Revelation. Underneath the fascination with the drama, I suspect there is an uneasy feeling that there really is a judgment day coming. However, as with previous rapture date-setters, Camping’s claims give unbelievers another excuse to dismiss the truth that they face judgment.
But Camping’s more serious error is to attack the Church itself. His radio network has always shunned affiliation with any church. Now he bluntly states that since “the Holy Spirit has abandoned all churches, those still following any church on May 21, 2011 are not saved.”
The Church is the body of Christ, (Eph. 1:22-23), and the Church is always connected in Scripture with Gospel- preaching and practicing local churches. At least 10 New Testament books were written to named local churches and three were written to local church pastors. The Biblical office of pastor or elder, which has never been revoked, makes no sense outside the local church. Camping is urging people to leave their churches in order to be saved. In reality, doing so would remove them from the protection of godly pastors who are commanded to guard them from the kind of foolishness that Camping purveys.
The best response for Christians is to increase their commitment to the local church where God has put them. For some, this means, “stop dating the church (and fall in love with the family of God”), as the title of Joshua Harris’s book puts it. For others, it means personally enriching the fellowship in ways like I suggested in an earlier post. For all of us, it means heeding the warning, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another , and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25)
Active Faith 
Without doubt, many uses of the term apostle, referred uniquely to the 12 men who we know as Jesus’ disciples. It was/is a convenient way to reference them and was particularly important during the early days of the Church. The term apostle and thus the role of an apostle however was evidently extended to others and Paul essentially acknowledges this in Eph 4. Timoth, Barnabus, Apollos and Silas were also referenced as apostles. Hence, it seems unlikely to me, that the role of apostle was limited to the 12.
The role of apostle could be discussed at length as well . Let’s just leave it that their role as ‘messenger’ or ‘sent one’ is one that extended their responsibilities beyond that of being only a local church elder.
It is unfortunate today, that we so easily and simply combine the various giftings of Prophet, Teacher, Evangelist, Pastor and Apostle into the one title, term and role of Pastor. While one may have more than one gifting or calling, it leaves the churches of today with some limited perspectives on these roles. Whether it is simply our English language predilection for using one word with multiple meanings or whether it is our tendancy to focus on one thing to the exclusion of others would be a discussion worthy of far more time and explanation than what is afforded us in a blog comment section.
Thank you for your encouragement to discuss such things within your blog format. It would be an enjoyable opportunity were we to spend some hours or days in similar dialogue face to face.
LikeLike
The relationship among the offices in Ephesians 4:11 and I Corinthians 12:28 is not well understood by many Christians. Without doubt the role of prophets in guarding the truth is underappreciated, and I probably should have mentioned that in my original post. But let’s remember one of my key points in that post. I wrote, “Camping is urging people to leave their churches in order to be saved. In reality, doing so would remove them from the protection of godly pastors who are commanded to guard them from the kind of foolishness that Camping purveys.”
More attention should be given to the other offices and gifts, as you point out. Many of our churches neglect them, and they are the poorer for it. But with regard to guarding the truth of the churches and protecting their members from false teachers, Scripture gives that responsibility primarily to the pastor. Remember that there are three entire books devoted to pastoral requirements and duties. While they are essential, the other offices do not receive this level of attention in Scripture. A prime example is I Timothy, which Paul begins and ends with a serious reminder to the pastor at Ephesus to uphold truth and refute false teaching.
Concerning the office of apostle, if it can be thought of as still in force, it must be with some qualification. The twelve appointed by Jesus, (with Matthias substituted for Judas and Paul added) were empowered to authenticate their witness to Jesus with signs and wonders, (Acts 5:12), and to deliver authoritative teaching to the church, (Acts 2:42). The authoritative teaching later was committed to writing as inspired Scripture. This latter point was so widely recognized by 1st and 2nd century Christians that an essential criterion for recognizing canonical writings was that the document had to be written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. This definition of “apostle” had to a limited historical meaning and function. Otherwise, the church would have had no way of making that judgment and the Scriptural canon would still be an open question.
As I mentioned, in its general sense and limited use the word “apostle” means “messenger.” However, the vast majority of uses, designated “the apostles” in most cases, contextually refer to the Twelve. It is possible to regard these as “apostles of Christ,” (those appointed by Christ), and others who may be regarded as “apostles of the churches,” who were appointed by a church. Incidentally, I believe that Matthias qualifies under the special definition that I offered, based on Peter’s statement in Acts 1:21-22 as one of the “men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us [he was under Jesus’ personal training], one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” The reference in Romans 16:7 can be interpreted two ways. It could mean that Andronicus and Junia were apostles of the church in the sense of being appointed by the church. That would be consistent with your contention, and I would grant that as a possibility. The other interpretation is that those two believers were well known and respected among the apostles. You believe that the office of apostle has a role within the Church to the present. I would grant that possibility with the proviso that it is not the same as that exercised by the Twelve. So perhaps you would elaborate on what Biblical role you see for apostles today.
I commend your thinking this through carefully. I will give you the last word on this segment, and invite you to initiate the next.
LikeLike
It’s a bit challenging to respond to all of your points without writing a book instead. However, let’s just take one for discussion at this point. You say:
“I don’t have any reason to question that the twelve original disciples and Paul were apostles in a unique sense. Luke 6:13 states, “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles.” With the exception of Paul, Jesus did not name anyone else an apostle. The special meaning of “apostle” as used Scripture is one who was personally appointed and trained by Jesus, as well as one who witnessed His post-resurrection appearances. On this basis, the office of apostle ended with the death of John. There are a few passages that allude to others being apostles (e.g., Acts 14:14; Phil 2:25), but the context always indicates the general meaning of one sent on a mission, never in the special sense with the authority that Christ gave the twelve. ”
While I don’t disagree that Jesus did, in fact, designate the 12 as apostles, I see no limiting terminology that precludes others from being apostles. The discussion of the ‘special’ ness of this particular office does not seem warranted to me. In other words, it appears to be an arbitrary cutoff point. For instance, Matthew was (acts 1:26) was NOT appointed by Jesus but rather, by lot. That he knew Jesus and was known by Him was an obvious reason to choose him but fails to meet your definition.
Romans 16:7 refers to Andronicus and Junia as apostles.
Even Paul acknowledged that his apostleship wasn’t necessarily recognized to all but it was should be to the Corinthians. (I Cor 9:2)
I Cor 12:28 includes Apostles as being a part of the leadership and gifting God has placed in the church. There is no reason to believe that it was a temporary office, and in fact, their inclusion in this particular list gives us every reason to understand that they have a role within the Church even to this day.
When we must invoke a ‘special’ definition, that is not supported by scripture, to maintain a belief or doctrine, then we go one step too far. I don’t argue that the men we understand today as Apostles weren’t such. I fail to see how the office of apostle was limited to just those men. It obviously wasn’t and even some of those mentioned above did not all fall under today’s narrow definition.
We must be careful how we build our arguments. Today, we have seized upon the role of a pastor/shepherd as a primary role and built a number of justifications around our current, conventional, practices that are not supportable, especially because we have selected only one of a number of ‘offices’. Our imbalance towards the Pastor/Shepherd and silence regarding Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles is convenient but elevates one gifting/office over the others without explanation.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to air these concerns.
LikeLike
I welcome your vigorous challenges. Challenges can result in positive and radical changes. I am praying for such changes in American churches.
I don’t have any reason to question that the twelve original disciples and Paul were apostles in a unique sense. Luke 6:13 states, “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles.” With the exception of Paul, Jesus did not name anyone else an apostle. The special meaning of “apostle” as used Scripture is one who was personally appointed and trained by Jesus, as well as one who witnessed His post-resurrection appearances. On this basis, the office of apostle ended with the death of John. There are a few passages that allude to others being apostles (e.g., Acts 14:14; Phil 2:25), but the context always indicates the general meaning of one sent on a mission, never in the special sense with the authority that Christ gave the twelve.
You stated, “The reality is that I am part of the Church and when I gather with others who are part of the Church, I am by definition gathering ‘locally’. Unfortunately, this does not play well with those who are dependent on my participation in their organization to receive their paycheck!”
Whatever the motivations of some pastors, Scripture commands in I Timothy 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’”
I see four offices named in Ephesians 4:11. The common interpretation, which I affirm, is that “teaching pastor” is one office and also being equivalent to elder. I base this on the fact that “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor” are used interchangeably in passages such as Acts 20:17-28, and the fact that the gift of teaching is a primary requirement for overseer in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
You stated, “I find it extraordinarily telling and curious that when this issue of leadership comes up and that of eldership, we have almost totally focused on the pastor/elder with little to no discussion similarly of Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, etc.” The reason that the leadership in a local church now rests on the office of elder to the exclusion of the other three is two-fold. First, the office of apostle as instituted by Jesus ended with John’s death. While those apostles exercised authority in churches, that role was limited to them because of their unique status. Second, while important in their roles within local churches, the offices of evangelist and prophet are not given oversight authority in Scripture over a local church, but that authority is designated specifically to elders in several passages (e.g., Acts 20:28; I Timothy 3:5; 5:17;
I Peter 5:1-2).
The absence of any Scriptural command vesting appointive power outside apostles indicates that God left the task to the prudential judgment of each congregation when there were no apostles. There is Scriptural precedent for congregational authority. At the most important church council ever held, Acts 15:22-23 notes that the ruling of the council was ratified by “the apostles and elders, with the whole church.” While elders were not being chosen, this passage leaves the clear impression that the consent of the congregation carried weight, even when the apostles were present. Interestingly, the prophets in the local church of Antioch, Judas and Silas, exercised their gifts by exhorting and strengthening their church upon receiving that council’s decision (vs. 32).
Relevant to the origin of our discussion, the importance of the elders in a local church is that they are charged with the responsibility of guarding the congregation by teaching sound doctrine and warning of error. This is emphatically clear from the previously cited Acts 20 passage as well as the three letters written to pastors of local churches.
Ephesians 4:11-14 extends this point by naming apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers whose faithful ministry is to build up believers in knowledge and faith in order to guard them from deceitful doctrine of false teachers. Though these gifted offices are for the body of Christ in the universal sense, in practice their primary exercise was/is in local churches, as in Acts 15:32 cited above, I Corinthians 14 cited below, Acts 11:27-28, et.al. This leads to your second contention, that regular participation in local churches is not necessary for an obedient Christian.
Hebrews 13:17 states, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” This is a general command applicable to all Christians. It is impossible for a Christian to be under the shepherding care and rule of elders/pastors who can be held accountable for his care without the believer being in consistent fellowship of a congregation that is overseen by elders.
Local churches are presented throughout the New Testament as being the primary launching points for evangelism. This is seen in Acts 13:1-3 when the Antioch church sent Barnabas and Saul on the first commissioned mission trip in church history. Repeatedly in the decades that followed the pattern was consistent: local churches planted self-propagating local churches. That was the way Christianity spread then and has ever since.
There are a number of commands in Scripture that apply to all Christians and essentially include the work of a local church. I will discuss some of them. First are the commands of corporate worship, which includes the public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching (I Timothy 4:13), music, (Ephesians 5:19-21 and Colossians 3:16), corporate prayer (Acts 2:42; 4:24-3; 12:5, et. al.), and the Lord Table, (I Corinthians 11). Baptism too is a corporate event, intended as a public testimony. The “one another” commands found throughout the New Testament presuppose the need for every Christian to be connected to a congregation. These commands can and should be obeyed outside the local church setting. But their primary purpose is to build up believers in the church to prepare them for ministry in the world.
I’m not sure which house church movement that you were referring to, but the house churches in countries where Christianity is growing always seek to move toward organization under the authority of pastors as soon as practical. There is no minimum number specified by Scripture to qualify for a local assembly. The reference you alluded to, Matthew 18:20, clearly is not speaking to that point. Though Jesus promised to present where two or three are gathered in His name, He also promised to be present with individual believers, (Hebrews 13:5), and one believer cannot gather together. In the context the Master taught how to handle disputes between His followers. The second level of arbitration is between two or three brothers. The third level is the assembly. So this passage teaches that the local assembly is the only appropriate means for handling disputes and discipline. There is no provision outside the local church.
Consider the passages discussing spiritual gifts. Even a cursory look at Romans 12:3-12 and I Corinthians 12:12-31 reveals that the primary purpose for spiritual gifts is within the local assembly. There is an emphasis on the diversity of gifts and health of the assembly being mutually dependent on one another. I Corinthians 14 carries this point further, discussing the exercise of the gift of prophecy as being expressly in the local church (vs. 4), under the church’s guidance (vss. 29-33), and the gift of tongues limited to interpretation in the church (vss. 26-28).
The book of James is addressed not to a specific congregation but to “the twelve tribes which are scattered, probably referring to the dispersion of Christians from Jerusalem during the persecution that arose after Stephen’s martyrdom. It was probably the first New Testament book written. Nevertheless, it clearly assumes that all the readers are in regular congregations (e.g., 2:2, “For if there should come into your assembly,” and 5:13, “Let him call for the elders of the church.”
The general sense in Scripture is that the local church is intended to play an essential role in fulfilling the Lord’s command to make disciples of all nations. Ten New Testament books were written to specific named churches, three to pastors of local churches and at least one to a man whose house served as a meeting place for a local church. There are numerous commands in these and other books intended for life in local assemblies, while there is a notable absence of attention to how Christians might carry on independent of a local assembly.
In view of the desire of God for His glory gained through local church ministry and the numerous blessings He ordained for believers in the local church, I gently admonish and encourage you to consider joining a local fellowship where He desires to use His gifts through you to build up other believers.
LikeLike
The Church and how it will look, function and reproduce in the 21st century is a particular passion of mine. I also don’t believe that some of the basic premises under which it has operated (at least here in N. America) have been entirely consistent nor correct. You bring up a great issue that is little discussed in a serious fashion these days. That is the issue of Elders, especially as we speak of the office of Elder.
One of the many controversies in the church is that of the role of elders. The current prevailing viewpoint of the institutional church and many (most?) pastors appears to mandate that Christians should be a part of the ‘local church’ and if they are not then they are failing to heed Hebrews 10:25, that of not ‘gathering yourselves together’. As someone who would be admonished over the past year for not being a part of the ‘local church’, I am particularly sensitive to this viewpoint. There are two ‘accepted’ assumptions that I would take issue with. First, that by not gathering in a ‘local church’, I am failing to gather together. Do I do so in corporate worship? Actually, yes on occasion so we could also ask what is the frequency of gathering that is required but that devolves into a tit for tat legalistic approach which is not productive. The second issue is one’s definition of ‘local church’. If by the local church, one means a recognized, organized, licensed, tax deductible type organization, then I must protest. The reality is that I am part of the Church and when I gather with others who are part of the Church, I am by definition gathering ‘locally’. Unfortunately, this does not play well with those who are dependent on my participation in their organization to receive their paycheck! So, it is completely understandable why one might prefer that I ‘gathered’ in one of their gatherings. Certainly not all who take this position are intentionally seeking their own gain. But think for a moment. What indeed, would happen to those organizations if folks began to gather in another manner? They would be (and I believe ultimately, ARE at this very risk).
With regard to the office of Elder. First, let me clarify that when I mentioned them as being elected positions, I only did so for brevity, not exclusively as it matters not HOW they attain that position within the organized, institutional church, as I include most all approaches. I find it extraordinarily telling and curious that when this issue of leadership comes up and that of eldership, we have almost totally focused on the pastor/elder with little to no discussion similarly of Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, etc.
But to speak to my first issue with elders. Who determines who is an elder? Yes, of course we know the criteria for elders but nonetheless by limiting the ‘local church’ to only those organizations I’ve described, one has to ask what authority is inherent in a denomination to raise up elders? Realistically, most denominations sprang up from some either split or movement led by some singular individual at some point in time. Their headship and authority then, came from whom? Likewise, within the house church movement or organic church movement their is no authority that is recognized by those calling for ‘gathering in the local church’. They tend to see these groups essentially as illegitimate. Likewise, there appears to be a presumption of some minimum ‘size’ that must be necessary to qualify as a ‘local church’, yet Jesus Himself validated that minimum ‘size’ to be as small as ‘two or three’. Who might have been the elder or leader in that gathering?
The reality is that Paul was an apostle who appointed elders. So, where are our apostles today? One viewpoint is that only the disciples, plus Paul, were truly apostles. I find this a fundamentally flawed premise. So I ask again, where IS the office of apostle, or prophet or evangelist? Aren’t they/shouldn’t they be the ones who designate elders? Was Timothy an apostle since we was tasked with essentially selecting elders? When one uses this as the defense for only certain kinds of elders, one must also address the others but that is strangely avoided. Timothy, having been the recipient of Paul’s instructions for choosing elders, perhaps also functioned as an apostle, no? Yes, apostle means ‘sent one’. Are we not also apostles then, when, as disciples, we have been commissioned into the same Great Commission as the 12? Many questions but I’ll keep them as mostly rhetorical for the moment.
I tend to lean a bit towards the concept that as much as Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding elders was proscriptive, it was also descriptive of what one should look like. Appointing elders as Paul did was thus a public acknowledgement of the gifting and role of those who already were essentially functioning as elders. He only appointed them after having been away from the local churches he had planted and upon his return. I would hazard a guess that he (Paul) had entrusted a number of men with leadership initially and upon his return, having found them to have been faithfully carrying out that leadership, he formalized their role in a more official fashion and in doing he also honored what they were doing publically. Fundamentally, however, most who were in those local church gatherings probably already viewed those men as de facto Godly leaders. Which brings me back to the elder gifting versus the ‘office’ of elder. Properly speaking, the ‘office’ is primarily a recognition of one who is already functioning in that role.
Ultimately, we cannot fully discuss the matter of elders without also trying to understand the other gifts identified (I think) in the Five-Fold gifts discussion. Anyway, that’s my slightly scattered, preliminary discussion to bring some background into my post.
LikeLike
Just a comment about the ‘local church’. The local church comes in many shapes, sizes and manifestations. It is indeed the body of believers. It is also local, as in, near to you or I. However, it is not just the local government recognized, incorporated, institutional gathering that meets in the ‘church’ down the street. Too often, I see the inference that if one is not involved in one of these types of ‘local church’, somehow they are now violating Hebrews 10:25. The mistake is often made that an elder or pastor is a position which can only be held in this institutional context. It is also a gifting that can occur outside this structure. It is a role one fulfills rather than a position granted by a paycheck or corporate election. That role is, of course, God given nonetheless.
LikeLike
Heartspeak,
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments, as usual.
I’m glad you homed in on the local church topic. I see the date-setting heresy as secondary to the undermining of local churches. My point was that Camping and others like him always denigrate existing churches, whatever structure they take.
We agree that in American churches there is a lot of cultural equipment that is not required by the Bible. Obviously a building is not necessary to have elders. Neither is a paycheck or corporate election. For example in my church, which I think follows a Biblical pattern, we have lay elders as well as vocational elders. Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every city.” There is no N.T. model for elected elders, although I don’t see it forbidden.
I agree that pastoring is a gift that is exercised as in Ephesians 4:11. Eldership, which I take to be functionally synonymous, is also referred to as an office, whether appointive or elective, with specified qualifications and duties. I’m not sure how those criteria for elder can be met outside of a New Testament ordered assembly.
Help me see what I am missing.
LikeLike
Stamping Out Harold Camping
Is Second Coming date-setter Harold Camping worthy of death? He already has a zero batting average after his September 1994 prediction fizzle and, according to the Bible, is a false prophet.
Nevertheless that California shaman, who should be ashamed, claims he’s found out that Christ’s return will be on May 21, 2011 even though Matt. 24:36 says that no one knows the “day” or “hour” of it!
A Google article (“Obama Fulfilling the Bible”) points out that “Deut. 18:20-22 in the Old Testament requires the death penalty for false prophets.”
The same article reveals that “Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note ‘taken away’).”
Theologically radioactive Harold Camping and his ga-ga groupies (with their billboards featuring “May 21, 2011”) should worry about being “stamped out” if many persons decide to follow the I Cor. 5 command.
The above article concludes: “False prophets in the OT were stoned to death. Today they are just stoned!”
PS – For many years Camping was not known as a pretrib rapture teacher. But now, for $ome my$teriou$ rea$on, he seeks support from those who believe in and teach an imminent, pretrib rapture which supposedly will occur SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE the traditional SECOND COMING to earth! For a behind-the-scenes, documented look at the 181-year-old pretrib rapture belief (which was never a part of any official theology or organized church before 1830!), Google “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,” “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” and “Pretrib Rapture – Hidden Facts.”
LikeLike
Lon,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree that Camping’s current teaching is opportunistic. By nature false teachers are parasitic, culling poorly grounded professing believers out of the Church, which the false teachers themselves did nothing to build.
We also agree with the Bible that no one knows the day or hour of Christ’s return. Will it be before the Tribulation? Given that Christ warned us to “watch therefore,” it seems that could occur at any time, not dependent on another event. So I am watching and seeking to be ready for His return at any time.
Of course, God has not given any of us enough knowledge to work out all the details with certainty. That’s why we do know for certain that Camping is a false teacher. I’m concentrating my prayers on those who are listening to him, that their eyes would be opened, that they might understand the Scriptures. I am praying that he lose his audience.
LikeLike