Ephesians 4

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Having One main leader is not only biblical, but historically biblical

Judges were individual leaders
Moses Moses was the main guy at the top
High Priests there was only one high Priest
Kings One King ruled Israel
Jesus was the main guy leading the rest
Peter was the main Apostle who led the rest
Paul was "The Apostle to the Gentiles"

What you seem to be missing in these examples, is that none of these were called to dictate in the place of God. They were called to lead.

This is the problem I am trying to drive home, God did not call dictators, he called leaders. BIG differance.

And God did not put one man at the top!!! In this respect. Just by the way you presented your list then with the passages you presented show me you are missing the point.

God intended his kingdom to be a theocracy, not a dictatorship. A theocracy is government by Immediate direction from God. This type of government was in place from the time the settling into Cannan to the time of King Saul.
Notice, God handed down the Law, (which was given because of disobediance) the law was handed to the families through the priest at the begining. Then the parents are instructed to teach their children. From this to the time of the kings the people governed themselves under God.

I have become amazed at how much we close our minds to parts of scripture that don't fit our model of how we think things were or feel they should be. Lets take your list from the top. Moses was not called to be the big dog, he was called to lead Isreal from Egypt. Moses would not have had to pass the commandments down to the people had they not chosen to. The people chose not to hear directly from God for they feared the thunderings and voice of God. Because of this Moses had to have the priest pass the commandments down to the people, then the people were instructed to teach them to their children from that time on. The priest had one job that was to minister to God in the tabrancle.

The judges were raised only when all or a portion of Isreal became disobediant, and God allowed a neighbouring nation to persicute them. Then God raised a man or women to lead them to battle after they begin to repent and call on God. They became a judge after the victory, not because God had designed this but because the people turned to them. After each judge died there was a period of time that the people were back to a proper theocracy with God as Lord without a man or women over them. So to use the judges as an example of ordained leadership of God does not count, as God called them to lead the children to victory, not to become a elder or leader after the victory.

Between the judges and the kings you left out the prophet Samual, I wonder why? Was not Samual in a position over the priest between the people and God? According to your view. The fact is the prophet spoke the word of God as the need arose, he did not go around setting everyone straight on everything the way most pastors of todays churches do.

Which brings us to the kings, first one must note again God did not ordain the kings. The kings were the desire of the people. So to use the kings as an example to show God's plan of oversight of the church is a stretch, God allowed it but it was not God's plan.

So what is left? God and the people, with the priest in the office of the work of the tabernacle, ministering to God. Jesus is our high priest, so what does that leave us in todays society. God Jesus and the church the body of Christ indepenantly serving God, with the work of the gifts within the body of Christ for the equiping of the saints to do the work of ministry to the world, and edification. Till we all come to unity of faith.

This is the way things are becoming clear to me, I am not trying to debate the subject, as right or wrong. Or to prove one way or the other. I am trying to generate discusion on the subject to cause people to think and discuse the subject.