BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 75
July, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
John 7:39 interprets Jesus’ offer of living water as an offer of the Spirit to those who believe, "for," John continues, "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified." John was not making an ontological statement about the Spirit, as if the Spirit did not exist until Jesus was glorified; already in John’s gospel, John the Baptist has testified that the Spirit came upon Jesus in the form of a dove (1:32-33). Instead, John 7:39 shows that the Spirit would not come in the fullness of His power until the Son was glorified. John’s statement is about the redemptive-historical ministry of the Spirit, not His existence.
The question I wish to raise, however, is the timing of the Spirit’s coming. John states that the Spirit would come when Jesus was glorified. Normally, John’s comment is interpreted in the light of Luke’s account of Jesus’ ascension and His outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. That is, the Spirit comes in fullness after Jesus has been seated at the right hand of the Father. It is true that Jesus was glorified in the ascension, and that He then poured out the Spirit on all flesh. But is this what John meant? I think not.
In John’s gospel, the glorification of the Son begins with the cross, not with the resurrection or ascension. After entering Jerusalem at the beginning of the Passover week in which He was to die, Jesus said, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (12:23). Until this point in John’s gospel, Jesus has avoided arrest because it was not yet His "hour" (John 7:30; 8:20). Clearly, the "hour" of which Jesus speaks is the hour of His death, and His death is His glorification. Similarly, the brief parable of the grain of wheat that must die before it bears fruit suggests that the dying is a necessary part of a unified process that culminates in bearing fruit; the seed’s death is as much part of the life-producing process as its growth (12:24-25). In the same context, Jesus speaks of His coming crucifixion as the "judgment of this world" and as the hour when "the ruler of this world shall be cast out" (12:31). In the light of these statements, Jesus’s prediction that He would be "lifted up" on the cross takes on a more than spatial significance (12:33). To be "lifted up" is to be exalted and glorified; the cross, in John’s scheme of things, is the beginning of the exaltation of Jesus.
This is different from the way we tend to think about the work of Christ. Most often, we think of the cross and resurrection as a U-shaped series of events: Jesus descends into suffering and humiliation, and then is lifted up in the resurrection and ascension. Our catechisms talk about Christ’s "humiliation and exaltation." This language is biblical (cf. Philippians 2:5-11), but the Bible also indicates that there are other dimensions to the same events. Instead of a U, John pictures the death, resurrection, and ascension as points along a straight line, with a steep positive slope. The cross is not stairway that leads down, but the first step of a stairway whose head reaches into the heavens. If it seems counter-intuitive to think of the cross as a revelation of God’s glory, remember that God’s glory is displayed in His self-giving love.
John’s emphasis on the cross as the glorification of the Son fits with an overall Johannine compression of the work of Christ. In John 20:17, Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene as if His ascension were imminent, and He commissions and breathes out the firstfruits of the Spirit on the eleven on Easter evening (20:21-23). That is, John implies that the ascension and Pentecost are inseparable from resurrection – indeed, the ascension and Pentecost begin in principle on Easter. Not only are all the crowning events of redemption points on a straight line, but John compressed all these events into a single day. The seeds of the ascension and Pentecost are already planted on the third day after Jesus’ death.
If the cross is the beginning of Jesus’ glorification, then, based on John 7:39, we should expect the Spirit to be given when Jesus is "lifted up." And in fact, this is precisely what John records. This is suggested, first, by the way John describes the death of Jesus. John 19:30 does not read, as Mark and Luke do, "Jesus breathed His last" (Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46); instead, the text says that, having cried out, Jesus "bowed His head, and gave up (or, delivered over) His Spirit" (cf. Matthew 27:50). The word "delivered over" (Greek, paradidomi) is a key word throughout John’s record of Jesus’ passion, mainly used to describe the transfer of Jesus from one set of wicked hands to another. Judas "delivers over" (betrays) Jesus into the hands of the Jews; the Jews deliver Him to Pilate; Pilate, though finding Him innocent and just, delivers Him back into the hands of the Jews to be crucified (cf. John 18:2, 5; 19:11). All these transfers of Jesus culminate in Jesus’ own transfer of His Spirit to the church. Having been glorified in His death on the cross, Jesus hands over His Spirit.
The blood and water from Jesus’ side, mentioned only in John’s gospel, underscore this point. In John 7:38, Jesus said that those who receive the living water (Spirit) become themselves fountains of living water. The Spirit came upon Jesus and remained with Him (1:33); thus, Jesus is supremely the One "born of the Spirit," the One who "blows where [He] wishes and you hear the sound of [Him] but do not know where [He] comes from and where [He] is going" (3:8; cf. 7:27, 36; 14:1-6). It is fitting, then, that He become a fountain of living water and cleansing blood. In His death, Jesus became a source of living water, that is, a fountain of the Spirit (cf. 1 John 5:7-8). We may also note that the flow of water and blood from the side of Jesus is part of John’s temple symbolism. Already in John 2, Jesus says that His body is the true temple of God. When this temple is rent and torn on the cross, it becomes a source of living water (cf. Ezekiel 47:1-12; Zechariah 12:10-13:1; 14:8).
John does not deny that a fuller outpouring of the Spirit will be given at Pentecost. There is no contradiction among the gospels. But the different viewpoints of the gospels lend a sometimes neglected richness and fullness to our understanding of the events of our redemption. One of John’s contributions is to shows that the gift of the Spirit was being given from the beginning of Jesus’ exaltation, His lifting up on Calvary.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 75
July, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
(continued from Biblical Horizons 74)
Four Elements of the Hangover
Second, Hellenism. If Roman Catholicism maintains the myth of Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy focuses on perpetuating the horrors of Hellenism. They are Greeks, after all, and not Jews. All the tripe and trash of oriental paganism and mystery cult religion finds its place in Orthodoxy: monasticism, image worship, celibacy, navel contemplation, the virginity of Mary, etc. This is all Holy Tradition, a tradition that does not go back to the Bible but to the Hellenistic civilization of the late ancient world.
But Hellenism has had another pernicious effect, and not just in the East. The Greek philosophers have been regarded as classics, and have routinely been studied in the West for centuries. The philosophers are the Greek counterfeit of the prophets. The Third Age of the Old Creation was the age of the Restoration, of prophets and of philosophers. One has to choose between them, and Western civilization has always chosen the philosophers. This is why we should rejoice to see Western civilization finally dying.
Greek philosophy (Plato, Socrates, etc.) have no more to teach us than do Confucius, Buddha, Lao-Tse, and the Bhavaghad-Gita. All of these arose at this time in history, and all are evil counterfeits. Aristotelian logic has blinded thinking people for 2000 years. It is time to recognize that God meant business when he said that Greece is the enemy of the faith.
We need to wake up, look in the mirror, have a cup of coffee and three acetaminophen, and get over this hangover if we are going to give our grandchildren something better. The only people who need to study Greek are historians and New Testament scholars.
Third, Jewry. Anyone who dares to say anything that might be construed as negative about the Jews is going to be called an anti-Semite. I have written in the past that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and have been called a Nazi and an anti-Semite by no less than a theonomic postmillennialist (who believes Romans 11 is still to be fulfilled in the future).
It is no longer possible today to say that Jews are unsaved and need to turn to Christ, unless you are willing to be called an anti-Semite. Any Christian, therefore, must be willing to live with this hateful slur; and facing that fact, we might as well be honest and say what really needs to be said.
The Jews are no longer God’s special people. They are also no longer any kind of curse, because the curse they took upon themselves when they crucified Jesus was fulfilled in ad 70 (Matthew 27:25). Since that time, Jews are no different from any other pagan people.
The Jews have no special part in God’s future plans for history. They will be converted, because all nations will be converted. But there is nothing special about their conversion. The promises of Romans 11 were fulfilled in the ad 60s (Revelation 7). Sadly, many Medieval and Reformation theologians, and virtually all the Puritans, all Dispensationalists, and many regular premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists today — all were/are fixated on the Jews. The Jews must be provided special prayers and attention, because they are still the center of history. Their conversion will be "life from the dead" for history. Or, when the Church is raptured, the Jews will take over. Everyone who thinks this way is still thinking in Old Creation categories. He does not understand the meaning of the coming of the New Creation in history.
The religion of Judaism carries forward the oral law tradition that Jesus said was authored by Satan, and that plagued the earliest Church in the form of the Judaizers. Yet, we find Christian theologians turning to the Mishnah and Talmud to explain serious theological matters, seemingly oblivious to Jesus’ condemnation of it. Those who want to deny the Lord’s Supper to children regularly turn to these demonic books in order to justify their position. It is, frankly, amazing. Why not quote from the Quran or the Book of Mormon?
Today, of course, mainline Christian theologians declare that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity to be saved. This is the position not only of liberals, but of supposedly conservative people as well (the First Things inner circle).
Christians should view Jews the same way they view Moslems and humanists. Liberal Jews are basically secular humanists, and conservative Jews are like Mormons and Moslems: They have a false Bible that has nothing to do with the real Bible.
Obviously, we must sympathize with the European Jews who suffered so horribly 50 years ago. But we must also sympathize with the Bosnian Moslems and the Palestinian Moslems as well, both of which have been rather badly treated. We must sympathize with pagan Hutus and Tutsis and Buddhist Tibetans, Cambodians, and South Viet-Namese. From our perspective as Christians, the Jews are no different from any of the rest of these.
We need to wake up, look in the mirror, have a cup of coffee and three ibuproffn, and get over this hangover if we are going to give our grandchildren something better. The only people who need to study the Mishnah and Talmud are historians.
It would be very good, however, for Christian schools to teach Hebrew. Hebrew is much more important than Greek for Biblical study, not just because 4/5 of the Bible is in Hebrew, but also because Hebrew thought forms and grammatical constructions underlie the Greek New Testament.
Finally, the Land. I have never had the money to visit Palestine, and I don’t know that I ever shall. People who have visited it say that it does help get a picture of some aspects of Biblical history, and so I wish I could get over there some day. Even so, a visit to the "holy land" is problematic in two regards. First, the various New Testament sites are incorrect, as I mentioned above. Second, the land today looks much more like a desert than it did in Biblical times. Movies about Bible stories always look like they were filmed in Arizona or Morocco, and are misleading. Palestine was a green and verdant land in the ancient world.
But enough on that. Superstitious belief that this land is still holy accounts for the erection of shrines there by the early church, and the pilgrimages and crusades there later on. For many people, such superstitions still govern their visits to this locale. (I recall a friend who visited with some charismatics. When they got to the supposed site of the Upper Room, she said, they went bananas, screaming and falling down in fits of glossolalia.)
Superstitions about this land are commonplace in Dispensationalism, and some postmillennialists also believe that "the land belongs to the Jews." At this day, American foreign policy is warped by the need to placate this superstition. (I am not saying that we should be pro-Arab, just that our pro-Israeli stance is colored by the presence of superstitious Christians in and around our government.)
The land of Palestine does not belong to the Jews. God gave it to them in Abraham’s day, and God took it back in ad 70. Anybody who thinks that it still belongs to them because God gave it to them is just plain ignorant of the Bible. This land, like all others, belongs to whoever lives there and can hold it.
We need to wake up, look in the mirror, have a cup of coffee and three naproxen sodiums, and get over this hangover if we are going to give our grandchildren something better. The only people who need to visit the land of Palestine are scholars.
Biblical Chronology Vol. 7, No. 7
July, 1995
Copyright James B. Jordan 1995
The contents of this article will be published in a commentary. If you wish to be notified when the commentary becomes available, please click the link below and send a blank e-mail to the webmaster. Thank you.
webmaster@biblicalhorizons.com
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 46
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
July, 1995
Color is inescapable, except for those who are color blind. In our church architecture, we either employ color schemes that are helpful to worship, or we employ color schemes that are not helpful. Of course, this assertion merely begs the question: What color schemes are most helpful.
God showed interest in colors when He appointed the rainbow as the sign of His covenant after the Flood. The seven colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and purple. The colors grey-blue (indigo), purple, and red are prominent, along with white and gold, in the Tabernacle He set up for His own house.
Now, the ecclesiastical colors in use today are not all that old, and there is reason to question them. For one thing, they shift with the seasons of the Church year, which is something not found in connection with the Old Creation calendar, and which thus has questionable support. My purpose in this essay is to attempt a reconstruction in this area. Of necessity, what I shall write here is tentative, but I hope it will be stimulating and help move us along in our consideration of this issue.
Architecturally, it is the center that is most important in the church sanctuary (the place where the sanctified, or holy ones, meet for worship with God). The ambience created by the colors on walls and ceiling are also important, but the center is most important, for there the eye is concentrated. Moreover, unless a congregation is very poor, it is always possible to decorate the center, even if one meets in a basement or garage. Thus, our concern in this essay will be with the center.
Theologically, our tradition says that we find in the center three things: Word, Sacrament, and Person. In order to do full justice to the color scheme I propose to find in the Bible, however, we shall have to address this triad to see if it is really appropriate.
Our tradition tells us that there are two and only two sacraments, that these were authorized by God as signs of His covenant, and that they are two of the same thing. We have to say, however, that the word “sacrament” is not found in the Bible, and that Baptism and the Supper are never grouped together as two objects in one category. It is surely proper to group them for some purposes, and to give them a common name, but we should be open to the possibility that for other purposes they should be kept separate. (Moreover, two other rites are appointed by God: unction for the sick and manual imposition for presbyters. These don’t apply to everyone, but they are special and miraculous acts of God, and thus are sacramental in some sense.)
At this point, I must build on material I have provided to readers of the Biblical Horizons newsletters in the past, and with which new readers will not be familiar. I ask an open mind, and a willingness to send for the earlier material if the reader wants to study the matter more fully.
Sequence and Objects in Worship
The three parts of worship are the Entrance, the Synaxis, and the Eucharist. The Entrance calls us in and restores us as a holy host through confession and absolution. The Synaxis gathers us together through song to hear the Word and to pray and offer ourselves and our gifts to God. The Eucharist sits us down at Christ’s meal, and sends us out to carry His charity to the world.
The Entrance focuses on persons, and thus on the Person of the Father. The Synaxis focuses on the Word, and thus on the Son. The Eucharist focuses on the gift of God, and thus on the Spirit.
But where does Baptism come in this scheme? It is part of the Entrance, and the sign of the Entrance, for by baptism we enter the kingdom.
Noting that the Pastor presides over the whole, we find the following elements:
Entrance – Baptism
Synaxis – Word
Eucharist – Communion
President – Pastor
Now, there is no particular reason why we need to have an altar-throne for each of these elements. The pastor does not need a throne-chair. The Bible does not need a pulpit; the pastor can preach peripatetically with Bible in hand. The baptismal basin does not need to sit on a pillar, and the bread and wine can be simply handed from the deacons to the pastor for prayer and distribution.
We do find, however, in the Tabernacle and Temple an altar-throne for the laver of cleansing, which was set on a pedestal, and for the bread and wine, which were set on the Table of Facebread. These altar-thrones carried symbolic meaning, but were also simply tables to hold up these objects. Thus, I do not think it violates any “regulative principle of worship” to have altar-thrones for these objects, and following out the logic of this, there is no problem with having such altar-throne for the Word and for the president of the congregation. Thus, it is appropriate to have the following:
Baptism – basin on pedestal
Word – Scriptures on pulpit
Eucharist – bread & wine on table
President – pastor on chair
I suggest that these four objects should be lined up across the center from liturgical south to liturgical north, from the congregation’s right to the congregation’s left. The Table of Facebread was on the north side of the Tabernacle, while the overseeing Lampstand was on the south, so that a movement from south to north is appropriate. Moreover, God’s throne is in the far north, we are told (Ps. 48:2; Is. 14:13; see Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 148ff.), and since the movement in worship is toward God, movement from south to north is appropriate. The pastor should conduct the Entrance from the , the Synaxis from the Pulpit, the sermon from the Chair, and the Eucharist from the Table. Given that the table is usually wider than the pulpit and baptismal pedestal, the chair from which the sermon is delivered would be in the center; and this is practical as well. On delivering sermons seated, see Luke 4:20. If this is impractical, the sermon can be delivered from the pulpit, and the chair placed behind the three objects to the rear.
(Liturgical directions arise from the symbol that Jesus comes as lightning flashes from the east to the west, Matthew 24:27. Thus, the Church is said to face east in worship, looking for Christ to come into her midst. The other directions follow from this orientation. This orientation reverses the east-west orientation found in the Old Creation Tabernacle and Temple, as a sign that the Kingdom has come and we are now approaching from the other side, not the side of exile but the side of the Kingdom.)
The concept of moving from one side to the other in the order of worship can be related to the movement of the worshippers in Ezekiel 46:9.
In some traditions, the is put by a door, either the back door or a side door at the front. This is to point to the as the door into the church. While this is understandable, in fact the River Jordan ran through the center of the Land. The tribes who lived in the Trans-Jordan had to cross the Jordan before being officially in the Land. Similarly, in order to get permission to visit a country, one goes to the king at his central throne for permission, as the Magi went to Herod. Moreover, the Laver of Cleansing was in the Tabernacle courtyard, not by its door. From these considerations we see that the most appropriate place for the is near the center.
Vestment and Parament Colors
At this point, we are in a position to discuss the colors appropriate to each object. Traditionally, a colored cloth has been draped over pulpit, pastor, and table, along the lines of the colored cloths that were put over the Tabernacle furniture when it was carried. Even more to the point: Each of these objects actually represents persons. We are the thrones that hold up the Word, Eucharist, and Baptismal bowl. The Table of Facebread represented Israel as throne of that bread and wine. The Bronze Sea was put on the backs of twelve bulls, representing the twelve tribes holding up the celestial sea by their faithfulness.
Now, the priest in Israel was vested in a white robe, over which was placed a blue-grey colored garment. Similarly, the clergy in the Church are to be vested in a white alb (not a black robe), over which is placed a colored cloth. For simplicity’s sake, I suggest a simple stole. The stole is a strip of cloth hung around the back of the neck and falling on either side in the front. It represents the “easy yoke” of Christ, which the minister wears as he conducts worship.
Analogously, the Table, Pedestal, and Pulpit, being symbolic persons, may have a white linen cloth over them, and a smaller strip of colored cloth on top. The vestments on these objects are called paraments. Traditionally there is no parament on the baptismal pedestal, or , but I suggest that one belongs there as well.
But what colors should be used? At this point I refer the reader to my study, Behind the Scenes: Orientation in the Book of Revelation, for a full justification of what follows. The four horses that ride forth in Revelation 6 each represent the Church in one of her four capacities. Christ is the Rider on each.
The white horse signifies the conquest of the gospel. The bow of the covenant (rainbow) and the crown of rule are associated with it. White is the diamond of Naphtali, whose star-sign is the Virgin. White is also the clear jasper of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21, the virgin bride city.
The red horse signifies the scandal-strife that follows the gospel, when mother is set against daughter and father against son. A sword of division is associated with it. Red is the sardius stone of Reuben and the red jasper of Judah, the kingly tribes.
The black horse has to do with the sacraments: wine, oil, and bread. Black is the onyx stone of Joseph, lord of bread and wine in Genesis 39-50.
Finally, the green horse has to do with judgment. Green is the emerald stone of the Levites, who ministered death to the wicked and life to the righteous.
These four colors readily associate with the four vested objects in the center of the Christian worship setting. White has to do with Baptism, initiation, the conquest of persons. In fact, we usually put a white gown on the infant when baptized, signifying “her” marriage to Christ. Thus, I suggest vesting the in white. I suggest a table with white on white over it, and the bowl placed on top.
Red is the sword, and associated with the Word, I suggest. The Word read and preached is the sword of the King, of the Commander of the Host. Therefore, vest the pulpit in royal scarlet on white.
A deep, glossy black is the color associated with the sacraments, and so vest the table in black over white. We should get over our negative associations with the color black, because the glossy black onyx stone of Joseph is a beautiful color. (Moreover, bread in the ancient world was usually dark, because daily bread was often baked directly on coals.)
Finally, green is the color of Levi, so vest the pastor in green. If the reader finds the association with death in Revelation’s green horse strange, remember that the gospel is death and mortification of sin, and an entrance into martyrdom. Remember that the sword of the Word, wielded by the minister, “divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow” according to Hebrews 4:12, and this language refers to sacrifice. Finally, consider that the slain souls under the altar in the fifth seal are probably those slain by the green horse Rider in the fourth seal: martyrs.
An alternative to this green might be the blue-gray worn by the High Priest over his linen undergarments. The chair might be upholstered in green, and the minister stoled with blue. This would carry forth the idea that the horse (chair) is green, while the rider is the minister.
With these four colors fixed, we can ask about the other four: purple and yellow, orange and blue. I suggest the following. As regards yellow and orange, these colors will be displayed if the baptismal basin and the bread tray on the Table are of gold or bronze. As the laver of cleansing and the bronze sea were of bronze, I suggest bronze for the baptismal basin; thus orange. As the table of facebread was of gold, I suggest gold (or gold surfacing) for the bread-trays; thus yellow. As regards purple, this color will be displayed if the wine on the Table is placed in a crystal decanter. As regards blue, the walls of the Tabernacle were a light blue-gray color (a warp of white linen and a woof of blue-gray wool), and so I suggest a light blue-gray for the base color of the walls of the Church, reminiscent of the sky-canopy around the Church in her bridal house. Since the walls of Tabernacle and Temple were decorated with cherubim and flower-blossoms, the walls and ceiling need not be devoid of other painted representations in other colors.
What about the Church year? There is no indication in the Bible that color schemes varied with the ecclesiastical year of the Old Creation, so I submit that there is no reason to vary them according to whatever Church year is employed.
Creation as Foundation
Now, since this essay is speculative, let me add a further dimension. The four fundamental elements of earth, air, water, and fire correspond to the four states of matter (creation): solid, gas, liquid, and plasma or energy. They are also found in the Bible, by implication, in Genesis 1, the first four days; to wit:
Day 1: water
Day 2: air
Day 3: earth
Day 4: fire
The colors are derivable from this scheme. White clearly goes with water, and black with earth. Since the plants created on Day 3 were only bread and fruit plants, the black earth is the foundation for bread and wine, and a black parament can be seen as the appropriate foundation for the bread and wine on the Table.
Air is not red, but in the chiastic structure of Genesis 1, Day 2 corresponds with Day 6, the day animals and humanity were created. It is the blood of animals and of Jesus Christ that signifies the Kingdom, and thus red can be associated with air. The Word is sounded forth in the air, so the Pulpit can be associated with air and with the color red.
There remains green, which properly would go with the plants made on the second half of Day 3. But here again, there is a theological association between the green plants of Day 3 and the astral bodies of Day 4. The astral bodies are the heavenly rulers, and the plants are the earthly subjects. Both signify the people of God, in two dimensions. Thus, the minister, representing God, is fire, while as representative of the congregation, he is a green plant. Thus, green can be seen as his particular color.
With the green would be the blue-gray of the sky, and of incense smoke, that is characteristic of the Tabernacle, and which can be associated with the fourth day.
We should also note that the order in Genesis 1 is the order of worship:
Day 1: water, baptism, Entrance;
Day 2: air, proclamation, Synaxis;
Day 3: earth, food, Eucharist;
all presided over by the blue-gray of the canopy-pastor, enthroned on the green chair of the congregation as plants.
Conclusion
I have wrestled with the question of color schemes for twenty years, ever since reading the French Reformed liturgist Richard Paquier’s Dynamics of Worship, which makes a bold foray into this topic. Not until I began my study of Revelation, and investigated the four horses in depth, did I feel I had finally uncovered Biblical principles for color in worship. In this essay, I have offered the fruits of my reflections. May these ruminations encourage others to pursue the matter, and either reinforce or correct my suggestions.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 40
Copyright (c) 1995 Biblical Horizons
July, 1995
(continued from previous issue)
Between 30 and 50
What did the Levites do between age 30 and 50? Numbers 4 shows us that they carried the house of God on their shoulders. Lifting up the Lord is an image of worship in the Bible, and David’s restructuring of the Levites brings this out: They became guards of the doorways (which they had been before), singers, and orchestral musicians. In a word, they guarded worship and led in worship (1 Chron. 23, 25, 26).
This is a picture of the duty of the teacher, the minister. He leads in worship, teaches, and performs the sacraments. He is to do all this, however, under the oversight of elders (men 50 and above). Common sense led the early church to set aside some older pastors as bishops, who pastored the local pastors. This is such an obvious and such a Biblical system that it is amazing that anyone should question it.
Indeed, nobody did at the time of the Reformation. In the Scottish Presbyterian Church, for instance, such older pastors were called Superintendents, and they had the same duties as a true bishop in the early church. Sadly, Presbyterianism degenerated into a system of having a “corporate bishop” in the presbytery as a whole, a system that is ineffectual because it is bureaucratic. Traditional Episcopalianism is overly monarchical, in my opinion. A sound ecclesiastical structure lies in between these two traditions. (The Reformed Episcopal Church has a fairly good mix of the two approaches.)
I am not convinced, however, that each presbytery should have only one teaching elder/overseer (bishop). It seems to me that all the older teaching elders should be assigned specific younger men to oversee. One such teaching elder might be first among equals, and be the bishop (or “superintendent,” to use the older presbyterian term), but he would not be the only overseer of the younger teaching deacons pastoring in the churches.
Now, should a man who is not an elder be involved in passing judgments, exercising “strong” church discipline? As a rule, no. Between the ages of 30 and 50 the pastor should teach, lead in worship, and administer the sacraments. He should counsel as best he can, and rebuke sin where necessary. But because he does not have white hair, people will not listen to him in the same way they will hear an older man. This is a fact of life, a fact God built into the creation.
I was a pastor between the ages of 33 and 38. The other “elders” of the church I served were the same ages. We were forced several times to do church discipline and declare excommunicate people guilty of really high-handed sins and crimes. This never worked very well. I now know why.
We should have been serving under some older men, men over 50 years of age, men who were elders in the Biblical sense. When it came to excommunications, they should have been involved in to making such decisions. Also, when we got involved in tough counseling and rebuke situations, we should have been able to turn to real elders for help, and pass the ball to them if necessary. We didn’t have this option, and though the church survived and was faithful, she always limped along.
Thus, I submit that the judging, disciplining aspect of church life should be in the hands of elders, older men, men over 50 who have been elected and ordained to this duty.
The present-day Presbyterian system errs, therefore, in calling men elders simply because they hold offce in a church. It errs in calling men “teaching elders” just because they are local church pastors. Presbyterianism is failing to make a distinction that the Bible itself makes between pastors who serve in word and sacrament, and elders who serve in oversight and rule. Of course, sometimes these will be the same person, if he is over 50.
Given the present situation, of course, it happens that younger men are serving as overseers. They must do the work of an elder, even though they are not really old enough. And that means they must from time to time perform excommunications and other disciplinary acts. Faithfulness to Christ means they have to go ahead and perform these acts, even though they are not in the best position to do so. Wherever possible, of course, it will be wise to consult an older man in such a circumstance.
Biblical Maturation
The book of Hebrews is, as a whole, an exhortation to maturity. The author writes that by now they should be teachers, but sadly they still need to learn the basic truths. They are like babies. Maturity comes after years of experience, so that your senses are trained to “discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:11-14). This last phrase refers back to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the fruit of which Adam was not yet old enough to eat.
I believe human life passes through three phases, which we can call Learner, Warrior, and Elder. The Learner phase corresponds to what Medieval teachers called the Grammar phase. It is the phase of learning. It lasts at least until the age of 20, and really on to the age of 30.
The Warrior phase is the age of action, analogous to the Logic phase of education. The man begins to go to war with some aspect of reality, bending it to his human will. Maybe he wrestles with the soil as a farmer, or with the stock market, or with children as a mother, or with a congregation as a teaching deacon. Warriors should, however, be under Elders.
The Elder phase is the mature stage, the age of Rhetoric according to education theorists. By this time a man has learned to modulate his voice so as to communicate what he means properly: He knows how to intone, or “sing” his speech. He is in a position to oversee others in his field and give them direction and counsel. This ability only comes after years of wrestling as a Warrior.
These three phases correspond to the three spirals of history as we have set them out in Biblical Horizons 57 & 58. The Learning phase is the Sinaitic age of the ox, of humility. It is the age of the ear, or learning. The most important thing to learn during this phase is God’s Word, so the God-man relationship is foundational during this period. Sadly, modern Christians who are aged often know next to nothing about the Bible. How many can tell you what is in Zephaniah, or what the five major sacrifices were?
The Warrior phase is the Kingdom age of the lion, of wrestling. It is the age of the hand, or action. The most important thing we learn during this phase is how to deal with other people, so the man-man relationship is foundational during this period.
The Elder phase is the Cosmopolitan/Prophetic age of the eagle, of oversight. It is the age of the foot, of putting into motion all that has been learned. The elder is in a position to witness most effectively to those outside, so the man-world relationship becomes most important here. The eagle-phase is not only imperial, focusing on oversight, but also prophetic. The elder is in a position prophetically to guide the next generation into a fuller understanding of the truth.
As an interesting aspect of this model, we find that God has given the woman a physical sign that she is passing from the age of wrestling with children to the age of eldership and wider dominion: the change of life. It is at this age that women who have had families need to “get out of the house,” find a job, go back to school, etc., and we often find that this is the case. Local community colleges are full of middle-aged women who make straight As and wreck the curve for the kids in the class!
There is a ministry of older women in the church, assisting the younger women. Such women should be made Deaconnesses, for they will assist the elder-overseers. Sadly, our male-chauvinistic North European culture has eliminated the Deaconness, and often teaches that “the woman’s place is in the home�permanently”!
Once we see the pervasiveness of this model in the Bible, and how it marvelously fits with human life as designed by God, we can see how foolish it is to ordain young men to the “eldership.”
Modern Church Life
Well, then, what shall we do? In the old days of Presbyterianism, a young pastor would have a group of old, hoary, ruling elders in his church and teaching elders in his presbytery. They would be wise and Biblically knowledgeable. They would guide him in his early years, until he, too, became old and wise.
That’s not how it is these days. Older men in the church are not wise because they have not spent their years learning the Bible and getting their senses trained to discern good and evil. They are usually compromised, soft pansies, and ignorant. They aren’t much help, BUT, they are the men God has put in charge for the present. David submitted to Saul, so we can submit to ignorant elders.
The alternative is to start a new church, with “elders” who are young men in their 30s and 40s. Sometimes this is what happens, and it is “nobody’s fault.” It happens because that is all we have to work with. It happens because a denomination starts a church and does not recognize the principles set out in this essay.
In that case, such “elders” should recognize privately that they are not fully elders, but only apprentice elders. They are “older brothers.” I suggest that they be very careful about church discipline. I suggest that they work on worship and teaching. I suggest that they counsel people, but not press them too hard. I suggest that when they must do excommunications, they call for older pastors in the presbytery to help them do it.
My attitude when I was a pastor was that God required me to do church discipline, and would judge me if I did not do it. Thus, out of faithfulness to Him and His law, I and my colleagues performed occasional excommunications. From a legal, judicial standpoint, our excommunications cannot be faulted. But from a pastoral standpoint, they were not necessarily wise. I am no longer certain God requires men who are not elders (old men) to do these things. Perhaps it would have been better if we have simply reproved these sinners and let them go, telling the congregation that we were not yet of a Biblical age to do more.
Suppose they want to make you an “elder” and you are not 50 years old (which is the minimum anyway)? What do you do? Well, give them this essay to read. Explain that you are willing to serve the Church, but that you don’t believe you are old enough to enter into the fullness of elder-service. Then, if you have peace about it, let them ordain you. (Of course, if you are not yet 30, don’t do it at all.)
The present system needs to be changed, but we cannot change it magically. We have to grow into a more mature system. In the meantime, we cannot simply opt out of the system as it is. We have to act as wisely and as humbly as possible within the present unwieldy system.
Training the Eldership
James 5 tells us to call for the elders when we are sick and need anointing. This refers back to the Old Testament, when the elders would come together to form a lawcourt. The elders hear our confession and pronounce us clean in Christ.
This passage shows that we need ruling elders in our churches. Both Episcopalianism and most Baptist forms of government err in this respect.
Further, we need to have a clearer understanding of the difference between those elders (overseers) who simply watch over the life of the church, and those who labor in word and in doctrine. Modern Presbyterianism blurs this distinction, and even in some cases allows “ruling elders” to determine the liturgy and worship of the Church. This is a mistake.
We need a series of books that train men to be ruling elders. Such books would be studies in the law of God as revealed in Exodus, Leviticus 19, and Deuteronomy, as well as in Proverbs and other passages. By studying such passages, and meditating on them, men would acquire wisdom and insight, have their senses trained to discern good and evil, and be equipped to give sound counsel and judge rightly in the community of the faithful.
Elders and Rule
Now we want to expand somewhat on the model presented, because it is not yet complete. We discussed the Warrior and Elder stages of life above. In the latter half of the Warrior phase, men become Kings. They are asked to oversee the other, younger warriors, but they are not yet “retired elders.”
We notice in the Bible that David became a King at the age of 30. He was to hearken to the elders, but the decisions were his to make. This is important, and it seems to contradict both my position and common sense. Why not put the older men in charge?
I believe that this is because the Father, the Ancient of Days (Supreme Elder) has put the Son in charge of all things. The Father stays in the background, and only advises the Son. The Son actually administers the Kingdom.
What this means practically is that the elders step back and let the warriors make the decisions. The warriors may make mistakes, but we have to live with these mistakes, and the warriors will learn from them. History consists of new things that God does, and thus the elders do not have all the wisdom needed. New situations require new judgments. The elders advise, but the warriors decide. If they err, they will learn from their mistakes and when they become elders, they will have more wisdom to offer the new warriors.
So, to put it practically, who should vote in the presbytery? If I am right, only the men between 30 and 50 or 60 should vote. The older men should have the right to speak, to argue their cases, to present their wisdom, but the actual battlefield decisions should be make by men in the warrior-ruler phase of life.
Such would be the rule for the teachers in the church. The Teaching Deacons are the warrior-rulers, who actually pastor churches. They are fools if they don’t pay attention to what the Teaching Elders say, but they are the ones who must make the actual decisions. They are alert to the new factors, which the Teaching Elders may be blind to, but they must stay in touch with the old wisdom.
Is this also the principle for the rulers in the church? Perhaps not. The Bible shows the elders making the actual decisions and judgments in the courts of the Old Testament. Thus, it seems to me that Ruling Elders make decisions, while Ruling Deacons only assist and learn from Ruling Elders.
How can we justify this asymmetry? We have argued that Teaching Deacons make decisions, and should hearken to Teaching Elders, while not Ruling Deacons but Ruling Elders make decisions in that area.
I think that the reason is that teaching leads to ruling. The decisions made by Teaching Deacons in their warrior-king stage of life have to do with what is to be taught and how the congregation is to worship. Teaching and worship are the activities that form the mind, over many years, of the Ruling Elder. The Ruling Elder makes decisions in the area of lifestyle, applying God’s law to the people in the congregation.
Concluding Recommendations
1. Since “Teaching Deacon” and “Teaching Elder” are unwieldy terms, I suggest that the terms “Pastor” and “Overseer” (or “Bishop”) be used for those two positions.
2. No man should become a Pastor until he is at least 30 years of age. Such a man should make decisions regarding teaching and worship in his congregation, but he should listen to the counsel of the Overseer to which he has been assigned, and to the counsel of his Ruling Elders.
3. No man should become an Overseer before the age of at least 50, preferably 60. Such a man might still be a Pastor, or might be retired. He should have some younger Pastors assigned to him.
4. Meetings of the Presbytery should be divided between teaching/liturgical concerns and interpersonal adjucatory concerns. When matters of worship and doctrine are discussed, only Pastors between the ages of 30 and 50-60 should be allowed to vote, but both Overseers and Ruling Elders should be allowed to argue and discuss such matters.
5. Pastors should not pronounce excommunications against heretics apart from the counsel of Overseers.
6. Since “Ruling Deacon” and “Ruling Elder” are unwieldy terms, I suggest that the terms “Deacon” and “Elder” be used for those two positions.
7. Deacons assist Elders, but do not rule.
8. No man should be made an Elder before the age of 50, and should really only begin to make judgments, such as pronouncing excommunications for contumacy, around the age of 60.
9. Elders should sit in Presbytery, and when matters of adjudication not related to doctrine and worship come before the Presbytery, they should be the only ones to vote, but both Pastors and Overseers should be allowed to argue and discuss such matters.
10. A man aspiring to the Pastorate might become a “Teaching Deacon” (now assigning a new meaning to this term) at the age of 25. At whatever age he becomes a Teaching Deacon, he should have five years of training as an apprentice and assistant before becoming as Pastor of a local congregation.
11. Finally, though we have not discussed this, it seems to me that it is a legitimate aspiration for any man to become a (Ruling) Elder, and thus ideally the Eldership in the congregation should consist of all the older men in the church. Or, the Eldership should be rotational, so that all older men who want to serve have the opportunity to do so.
Terms: Summary
Teaching Deacon: Pastoral trainee, over 25.
Pastor: Teacher/liturgist of congregation, over 30.
Overseer: Pastor over 50-60, active or retired.
Deacon: Assistant/apprentice elder, over 30.
Elder: Judge/ruler of congregation, over 50-60.
