Saved Without A Pastor??

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I'm glad you asked. The argument is whether the ruler who watches for your soul, is a minister, or a government official. Also whether the soul is a physical life or an eternal soul.

I contend that the ruler was referring to the people that are over the Hebrews in the day, who were also Jews, (exemplified by Nicodemus) and NOT the Romans OR the pastor, as 1ofthechosen has professed.

Let's remove this from Hebrews and look at the Gentile version of the admonishment to obey they that rule over you. Peter said to submit . . .

[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
[15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

Peter was talking to the "strangers" which should almost certainly be understood to be Gentiles. The word of God was not being read by the rulers of the Gentiles, so that part of the message would not apply, but the submission to government authority is there.

Paul said it like this . . .

1 Timothy 2
[1] I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
[2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Here's the mention of authority that y'all have failed to connect to the role of pastor through scripture, Paul specifically mentions kings, he fails to mention pastors. It seems strange that he would mention kings (an example of secular authority) and not mention authority in the church, if that is what he intended.

Another example given by Paul . . .

[1] Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
[2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Here we have the soul that is subject (in submission to) the higher powers. Later in verse 3 this higher power is referred to as a ruler. The ruler beareth the sword. These are strong words. They don't refer to the authority of a pastor. Doesn't this follow the same pattern of Hebrews 13? The soul, the ruler, the subjection . . . But no-one interprets this as a pastor . . do they?

Hebrews 13 and Romans 13 are telling the same story in my opinion. I believe the narrative is changed somewhat to fit the audience. Hebrews is written to Hebrews (Jews) and Romans is written to Romans (Gentiles). Otherwise the fundamentals are the same, with the obvious exception that the word of God that is read in the temple in Jerusalem, is noticeably absent among the similar admonishments to the Gentiles.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Let's remove this from Hebrews and look at the Gentile version of the admonishment to obey they that rule over you. Peter said to submit . . .

[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
[15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

Peter was talking to the "strangers" which should almost certainly be understood to be Gentiles. The word of God was not being read by the rulers of the Gentiles, so that part of the message would not apply, but the submission to government authority is there.

Paul said it like this . . .

1 Timothy 2
[1] I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
[2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Here's the mention of authority that y'all have failed to connect to the role of pastor through scripture, Paul specifically mentions kings, he fails to mention pastors. It seems strange that he would mention kings (an example of secular authority) and not mention authority in the church, if that is what he intended.

Another example given by Paul . . .

[1] Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
[2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Here we have the soul that is subject (in submission to) the higher powers. Later in verse 3 this higher power is referred to as a ruler. The ruler beareth the sword. These are strong words. They don't refer to the authority of a pastor. Doesn't this follow the same pattern of Hebrews 13? The soul, the ruler, the subjection . . . But no-one interprets this as a pastor . . do they?

Hebrews 13 and Romans 13 are telling the same story in my opinion. I believe the narrative is changed somewhat to fit the audience. Hebrews is written to Hebrews (Jews) and Romans is written to Romans (Gentiles). Otherwise the fundamentals are the same, with the obvious exception that the word of God that is read in the temple in Jerusalem, is noticeably absent among the similar admonishments to the Gentiles.

Back to Hebrews the writer is telling the Hebrew church to follow the faith of the ones who have the "rule"over them. You mention these are rulers of the Jews like Nicodemus was. Is it your opinion that at this time the word of God spoken to the Hebrews was only OT temple reading of Judaism or was it New Covenant teaching or was it mixed? Also they were to follow the faith of "them which have the rule over" them, so is it not more probable that the "them" would have been Church Leaders?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Back to Hebrews the writer is telling the Hebrew church to follow the faith of the ones who have the "rule"over them. You mention these are rulers of the Jews like Nicodemus was. Is it your opinion that at this time the word of God spoken to the Hebrews was only OT temple reading of Judaism or was it New Covenant teaching or was it mixed? Also they were to follow the faith of "them which have the rule over" them, so is it not more probable that the "them" would have been Church Leaders?

This is a great question brother. It is most likely a better question than the answer that you will get from me. However you asked, and I will give you my best answer. It is going to be a rambling answer and probably too long, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do otherwise.

The reason I like this question and consider it such a good one is that it says to me that you have an awareness that the Old Covenant did not cease to be when the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost. Changing from following and observing the Old Covenant to the New (better) Covenant is really what the book of Hebrews is all about. Even though Paul (in Romans) said that the partition that separated Jews from Gentiles was no more, that really was the case only where God was concerned. The people were another matter altogether.

Can you imagine following the law religiously, and believing in it for your salvation, thinking that sacrificing animals was your ticket to being justified before God, for thousands of years as a people, and then being told that you were to cease from that covenant with God, and proceed with a new better way?

That is exactly what happened to the Jewish Christians. And it worked out probably about as well as if it happened to a church of Apostolic believers today. We get all worked up if a new song is not just like we think it should be. We take unholy pride in being old fashioned Pentecost (which means mostly we do it like they did it fifty years ago). Imagine if our traditions were thousands of years old.

That"s what happened to Jewish Christians. And as might be expected, some of them handled it better than others. Some, no doubt wanted to return to the old ways, when the new wore off, much like some today flame out. Some, no doubt never looked back.

So I've said all that to say this. An answer can be an answer that really leaves you not knowing any more than you did before you asked the question.

You asked: Is it your opinion that at this time the word of God spoken to the Hebrews was only OT temple reading of Judaism or was it New Covenant teaching or was it mixed?

Three questions, and the answer to each of these is yes. It was OT teaching, it was new covenant teaching and it was mixed. That is what I believe. And there is at least some scripture to back it up.

I realize that this is a rambling answer, but the truth is, there is so much MORE to be said. If it's more than you bargained for I understand.

I'll send the ball back to your court. Any comments or questions?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This is a great question brother. It is most likely a better question than the answer that you will get from me. However you asked, and I will give you my best answer. It is going to be a rambling answer and probably too long, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do otherwise.

The reason I like this question and consider it such a good one is that it says to me that you have an awareness that the Old Covenant did not cease to be when the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost. Changing from following and observing the Old Covenant to the New (better) Covenant is really what the book of Hebrews is all about. Even though Paul (in Romans) said that the partition that separated Jews from Gentiles was no more, that really was the case only where God was concerned. The people were another matter altogether.

Can you imagine following the law religiously, and believing in it for your salvation, thinking that sacrificing animals was your ticket to being justified before God, for thousands of years as a people, and then being told that you were to cease from that covenant with God, and proceed with a new better way?

That is exactly what happened to the Jewish Christians. And it worked out probably about as well as if it happened to a church of Apostolic believers today. We get all worked up if a new song is not just like we think it should be. We take unholy pride in being old fashioned Pentecost (which means mostly we do it like they did it fifty years ago). Imagine if our traditions were thousands of years old.

That"s what happened to Jewish Christians. And as might be expected, some of them handled it better than others. Some, no doubt wanted to return to the old ways, when the new wore off, much like some today flame out. Some, no doubt never looked back.

So I've said all that to say this. An answer can be an answer that really leaves you not knowing any more than you did before you asked the question.

You asked: Is it your opinion that at this time the word of God spoken to the Hebrews was only OT temple reading of Judaism or was it New Covenant teaching or was it mixed?

Three questions, and the answer to each of these is yes. It was OT teaching, it was new covenant teaching and it was mixed. That is what I believe. And there is at least some scripture to back it up.

I realize that this is a rambling answer, but the truth is, there is so much MORE to be said. If it's more than you bargained for I understand.

I'll send the ball back to your court. Any comments or questions?

Great post. I am now on a cell phone so I'll keep it simple.

I agree with all that you said, however there is still a few questions in my mind.

1. What "faith" is to followed according to HEB 3:7? I believe the answer to who "rules" is in the answer to who's faith.

2. Do you believe the rest of the new testament scriptures compliments and supports the idea that it would be Ok for an Elder or Apostle to admonish Jewish/Hebrew believers to follow the faith of the rulers if they were maintaining the ordinances of the law?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Great post. I am now on a cell phone so I'll keep it simple.

I agree with all that you said, however there is still a few questions in my mind.

1. What "faith" is to followed according to HEB 3:7? I believe the answer to who "rules" is in the answer to who's faith.

2. Do you believe the rest of the new testament scriptures compliments and supports the idea that it would be Ok for an Elder or Apostle to admonish Jewish/Hebrew believers to follow the faith of the rulers if they were maintaining the ordinances of the law?

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you are asking in question one so I’m going to try to answer but it may not be what you are looking for. I believe the author (I would say Paul, but I’m not sure Paul wrote Hebrews) is not saying follow their faith, but possibly saying model your faith after theirs. In other words, have faith like they had faith. I don’t believe this is referring to following the law, or following their doctrine, because that would conflict with the message of Hebrews otherwise.

I think the faith that we follow mentioned in verse seven, may be connected to the faith discussion that took place in chapter eleven, which produced the “great cloud of witnesses” in chapter twelve.

I’m not sure this answers your question, then again I don’t claim to have all the answers anyway. There is another question that would really help in understanding all of this if it could be answered decisively.

Are these that rule over the Hebrews living or are they dead (patriarchs) or are they both current and former rulers? Some of the language seems to indicate that they have already passed on. I think that it could be both.

On question two: My short answer is no. I don’t believe the balance of the NT doctrine supports that the elders should encourage the believers to follow the law. Notwithstanding, they (the Jewish/Christians) WERE following the law, regardless if we think it’s okay or not. The church of Jerusalem followed the law zealously for many years, I believe until the destruction of the temple in 70AD. I think the temple possibly had to be destroyed and not only to fulfill the prophecy of Jesus, but also to finally wean Christian Jews from following the law. It is difficult (really impossible) to follow Jewish law without the temple that is central to so much of the tradition.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Are these that rule over the Hebrews living or are they dead (patriarchs) or are they both current and former rulers? Some of the language seems to indicate that they have already passed on. I think that it could be both.

.

How could someone dead watch for your soul?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

How could someone dead watch for your soul?

Better, question is how do you share belongings with the dead.

Anyway, I didn’t really follow the discussion that closely. I found out that TM didn’t actually know what he was talking about. So, he was just throwing things out there. I do think it’s hysterical that someone would even imply that Hebrew 17 is speaking about government leadership. The patriarchs? Well, that is just ignorable.