Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Is there anyone else in the history of Christendom who believes this, as you do?
|
I don't know how much you've read of my posts on this thread, but the answer is yes. It began with Jesus, and this admonition to His apostles.
Matthew 20
[25] But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion (now this is what a ruler would do) over them, and
they that are great exercise authority upon them. (and this)
[26]
But it shall not be so among you: (don't let it be once named among you) but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; do you understand this?
[27] And
whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
What is the meaning of servant? Does servant sound like someone who rules over us?
[28]
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Even Jesus who is the King of kings gave us an example of how to minister, He gave His very life for us. By setting this example we know that it extends all the way to the head of the church.
If this
Hebrews 13 is saying what you believe it says, then it is in direct conflict with the instructions of Jesus AND the example he set in this passage. I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. The author of Hebrews is referring to rulers, because they who rule, are by definition, rulers.
There are other passages that support this viewpoint as well. What is lacking? Scripture to support that
Hebrews 13 is referring to pastors, elders, teachers, leaders (of the church) etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Because honestly, a simple reading of the chapter leads me to think Paul is referring to Christian leaders in the church (namely, the elders responsible for teaching). I see absolutely no indication that "those who have the rule over you", "whose faith" the Hebrew Christians were to follow, "who have spoken the Word of God" to them, could be anyone other than Christian teachers.
|
Can you see what is happening here? You (and others) are watering down the words "rule over" to leaders, teachers, elders, pastors and whatever else that you can come up with to make the scripture fir your doctrine. It is a classic case of eisegesis. When, in the history of Christendom, have pastors, elders, leaders and teachers, been referred to as rulers? (Except possibly in the Roman Catholic Church).
Also, if doctrine is not based on scripture, and the meaning of the words that the scripture contains, it is most likely in error. Doctrine is not defined by the popular opinion, if it is, we are in grave error to deny the trinity. You personally are touting a second covering doctrine that is not recognized by the conventional apostolic church.
Threaded Mode
