When we consider the ecclesiology (doctrine of church organization) for elders, we tend to get lost in the weeds. The passages are just not real clear on lots of questions, and expert theologians disagree about all sorts of things.
But the big picture — which is far more important — is actually quite plain. Therefore, we do best when we decide on procedures and select men with the big picture in mind.
Here are some big-picture ideas —
* The purpose of church leaders — especially elders — is to lead the members to become more and more like Jesus. The New Testament often sets Jesus before the church as an example to follow — in terms of service, submission, sacrifice, and suffering.
Therefore, elders should be evaluated on how well they do at leading the church members — by example and by teaching and by putting ministers, volunteers, and systems in place — to serve, submit, sacrifice, and even suffer for the sake of Jesus.
This is, of course, also true of the ministerial staff. The youth minister should be evaluated by how well he leads the teens to become like Jesus — not how big the crowds are or how happy the parents are.
If the elders are doing their jobs, the older, longer-term members will be more sacrificial and servant-hearted than the younger members. If the elders are instead encouraging self-indulgent behavior, the oldest members will be the most self-indulgent.
Frankly, this calls for a huge culture shift and huge shift in church systems and methods. There’s a great deal of work to be done.
* Elders are also called by the Spirit to lead people in the mission of God. This is a huge topic, which gave birth to the term “missional.” The gist of it is to see each member as called to be part of God’s redemption of the world — both by bringing the lost to Jesus and by relieving the brokenness of the world in the name of Jesus.
We tend to want to select elders based on well they’ll serve us when we’re in the hospital or have lost a loved one. This is not illegitimate, but it’s not the core of God’s purpose in equipping elders. Eph 4:12 describes the work of a shepherd as “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.” This puts a radically different spin on what to look for in an elder.
* Elders aren’t politicians. They aren’t representatives. The church is neither democratic nor republican. This is a monarchy. Jesus is king, and he is sovereign. And Jesus exercises his authority through the Spirit, who gifts and thereby calls certain men to leadership on his behalf.
* Elders are chosen by God through the gifting of the Spirit.
(Act 6:1 ESV) Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.
If deacons must be “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” surely elders must meet at least the same standard.
If the Jerusalem membership was qualified to discern the presence of the Spirit and wisdom in potential deacons (Acts 6:3), surely the membership of other established churches is qualified to do the same. (Compare 1 John 4:1; 1 Thes 5:20-21).
A practical problem is that, especially in a large church, a man may have an image that does not reflect reality, and the elders and ministers may well know that a nominee is a poor choice. They should not ordain a man who is manifestly unqualified, when they have knowledge of the man the general membership does not have. (Notice that in Acts 6, the deacons weren’t appointed until the apostles laid hands on them. Selection by the congregation was not quite enough by itself. The apostles had to confirm the men chosen by the church membership.)
The worst mistake an elder can make is to ordain an unqualified man to the eldership. Just as you should never hire a man when you have doubts, you should never ordain a man as elder when you have doubts — resolve the doubts or don’t ordain. (I’ve seen countless congregations ruined by an eldership too weak to say “no” to an unqualified nominee.)
* Elders need to delegate as much as they can without abdicating their proper roles as shepherds, leaders, and pilots (helmsmen). But delegation does not mean limiting themselves to prayer, teaching, and counseling. They are called by God as leaders (Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17; Heb 13:24), and leaders lead.
* The Bible repeatedly uses “rule” as well as “shepherd” to refer to God, Jesus, the king of Judah, and elders. Elders really do rule — although the word used for “rule” in the context of elders (proistemi: Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17) is not the same word used for kings. It’s not as strong as the word used of kings (BDAG translates “to be in an office of leadership, preside (over), lead) — but neither does it mean “pray, teach, counsel, and comfort only.”
On the other hand, Hebrews 13:7, 17; and 13:24 use hegomai for “leader,” translated by BDAG as “to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide.” The word is sometimes used of royalty and military commanders (Dan 2:48; 6:2; Acts 7:10). It certainly doesn’t mean merely “set an example.”
Our churches need stronger and better leadership, not more divided and weaker leadership. But “strong” leadership does not mean despotism. It does mean that the elders will have to make some hard decisions to say “no” to members who demand things inconsistent with the character of Jesus.
Selfish demands cannot be agreed to. And the elders should not be reluctant to call on the church to be selfless, submissive, and sacrificial. These are the very nature of Jesus, and they are not easy. Indeed, these demands may impose great burdens on the membership — and that’s not only okay, it’s necessary.
The fact that in so many churches the older members are the most self-interested and the loudest complainers demonstrates that we elders are doing something terribly wrong. And I think that Patrick puts his finger on it when he criticizes elders for giving in to selfish demands. Every time an eldership submits to selfish demands, they reinforce selfish attitudes and push their members a little further from Jesus.
* Creating a system where anyone is unaccountable will lead to temptation and problems. The reason God gifts multiple men to be elders is, in part, I believe so the elders can and will hold one another accountable. If they refuse to do so, they have no business being elders. Leaders lead, and leaders are willing to confront other leaders who need to step down for the good of the church.
Putting the minister at the top of the structure only relocates the problem. It’s no solution. On the other hand, I find no warrant for the preacher to be a mere hireling. In fact, my experience is that elders who insist on subordinating the preacher to the elders are poor elders. That is, a good test of elder humility is whether he is willing to treat the preacher as a peer.
After all, preachers and elders have very similar job descriptions. They do many of the same things, and neither can effectively serve unless they act collaboratively.
* Contrary to Lipscomb, it seems obvious to me that becoming an elder is to receive positional authority. Words such as “rule,” “submit,” “obey,” “lead,” and “pilot,” taken together, suggest positional authority. So do the words “overseer,” “shepherd,” and “elder.” Digging into the Greek only reinforces the result.
However, no elder should have only positional authority. He should also have personal authority (also called “relational authority”). In fact, it’s the personal authority — the presence of the Spirit’s gifting — that qualifies someone to be elder. Therefore, there should never be an elder without both kinds of authority.
As stated by one writer,
Healthy leaders lead from personal authority first and positional authority second. They are truly servants of those they lead which gives them huge credibility. Their lives and commitments give them influence with others and the respect of others.
Amen. The way to have elders with both personal or relational authority is to ordain men who already have personal authority — and then they’ll have both personal and positional authority and be best equipped to lead in God’s mission.
I mean, if we really feel the urgency of the mission, we’ll want to find leaders who can help us accomplish the mission. No group of people can take on a task as serious as the mission of God without leadership.
I disagree slightly on the comment that the purpose of leaders is to help the members become like Jesus. There historically over the centuries have been two camps: Arminian and Calvinistic. The Calvanistic crowd has focused solely on our position in Christ whereas the Arminian group has focused solely on our obedience to Christ. The CoC has fallen entirely in the Arminian group where every aspect of the church seems geared towards behavior. I believe that the purpose of leaders is to help the members FIRST learn to fall in love with Jesus and then SECONDLY to learn to become like him. If we can’t get the love part down first then the church will continue in a works oriented contentious path.
I understand what Jay is saying in that “Elders aren’t politicians. They aren’t representatives. The church is neither democratic nor republican. This is a monarchy. Jesus is king, and he is sovereign. And Jesus exercises his authority through the Spirit, who gifts and thereby calls certain men to leadership on his behalf.”
However, the leadership would do well to listen to the ideas arising from the ordinary people, be transparent In their decision making, and attempt to understand the problems of the modern world (even those ugly, never discussed problems affecting the younger generations) and what the ordinary people are dealing with on a daily basis.
Thanks Jay for advocating “for a huge culture shift and huge shift in church systems and methods.” People like me have been saying this for years although it will be better received coming from you.
Jay said,”
“(I’ve seen countless congregations ruined by an eldership too weak to say “no” to an unqualified nominee.)”
Unless this is hyperbole, then it seems that good elders who have the Spirit’s choosing on themselves can’t, through prayer and discernment, make Spirit approved choices. That strikes me as odd. If they can’t do that for a new appointee then what else are they making poor decisions on and why? Or is it just appointing a new elder that is more challenging than other church issues? Something seems missing here.
For starters, appointing new elders means that everyone’s vote will be diluted unless one is being replaced. Second, there are always voting blocs, leading to the questions of moderate or conservative, open- or closed-minded, and who controls him. Lastly, What are the selection rules going to be? (Majority in favor, super majority, or fewer than two black balls).
Jay, this post is one of the best succinct statements on elders I have ever read. I believe you strike a perfect balance here. I regret that you have encountered personal or inappropriate reactions to your series. In my experience you go out of your way to be fair while vigorously presenting your perspective. I don’t know what more anyone can reasonably expect of you.
By the way I’m not trying to change my online name (Gary). I changed to a new phone and somehow it changed my online name. I’m pretty low tech!
To piggyback Skip’s take just a bit: It is especially important in the CoC–with its historic Arminian bent– that the elders take the responsibility to teach and inculcate in the believers a real sense of their PLACE in Jesus. This is a discovery of a work already done, and it is crucial, mainly because it is the foundation of the next step, which is the formation of the character of Christ in the believers. But as this “becoming like Christ” is primarily a work of the Holy Spirit, I think the elders’ role in this is more pastoral than directive– an encouragement to cooperate in the work of the Spirit in the believer’s individual life. This is mainly accomplished by testimony and example, as the Holy Spirit is doing the exact same thing with the elder!
Do these two jobs well, and be available to watch for real wolves, and I think elders will have far too much work to do to spend very much time “running things” and making decisions for other believers.
“But as this “becoming like Christ” is primarily a work of the Holy Spirit, I think the elders’ role in this is more pastoral than directive– an encouragement to cooperate in the work of the Spirit in the believer’s individual life. This is mainly accomplished by testimony and example, as the Holy Spirit is doing the exact same thing with the elder!”
Charles, I might have begun to understand this indwellment process , check me out and see.
It seems to me that you said the “holy ghost” indwells the elders, they become elders by the grace or gift of God, it then becomes their responsibility to teach the individual believer how to become more like Jesus in their everyday life.
Seems I recall someone saying that was the way it worked with Jesus and his apostles.
But wouldn’t that oppose your argument that “ALL” baptized Christians are indwelled, by the “holy ghost” ? If that were the case why would we need “elders” coming in between us and the “holy ghost”?
is it true that in the new testament the elders was ordained by a apostle or someone a apostle instructed to do it ? and no church every appointed their own elders ?
Monty asked,
The problem is that the Churches of Christ have exclusively focused on Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 as elder qualifications, reading the several Spirit passages out of the Bible, as well as ignoring the qualifications implicit in “shepherd,” “overseer,” and “elder.” The Titus and 1 Timothy qualifications have often been read as not requiring a man to be a leader or a shepherd — just married with believing children and not a brawler.
Moreover, the traditional rule has been that a nominee can only be objected to for a “spiritual” disqualification, being a qualification listed in Titus 1 or 1 Timothy 3, very narrowly read.
Hence, taught a very thin, shallow doctrine of who an elder should be, existing elderships felt they had no power to object to a nominee, even though he clearly was no shepherd and — if they were to think in such terms — not filled with the Spirit.
And this weak, shallow, Spirit-less teaching has led to the confirmation of men who were nominated but lacked the characteristics of a true elder.
BaltimoreGuy99,
Thanks. 🙂
hershell, I only know of one place in scripture where the two words ordain elders are written together as a phrase.
Tts 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
People seem to like to place mystic powers on unusual words in the bible. There is nothing mystical about the word ordain, or ordained. they simply mean, choose, pick, and appoint.
Nothing mystical in how Paul told Titus to make his decision. Simply on the character of the person, and his ability to influence others.
Yes whether we want to admit it or not all church congregations pick their own “leaders” both preachers and elders, so really they can’t blame someone else when they occasionally pick a stinker. Admit the failing and get on about picking someone who don’t smell so much.
hershell,
We just don’t know. We know the Jerusalem church had elders who served with the apostles, but don’t know the selection process. That church selected deacons by having the members nominate deacons who were confirmed by the apostles but not chosen by the apostles. Perhaps the elders were selected by the same means — but we just don’t know.
Just so, we know the church at Ephesus has elders when Paul left them, but Paul credits the Spirit with making the appointment, not himself. We aren’t told the appointive process.
We only know that Paul instructed Timothy and Titus to appoint elders, and Timothy and Titus were missionaries — not located preachers. After all, Titus was told to appoint elders in several churches — very typical of a missionary. I don’t think Timothy and Titus are strictly analogous to the modern located preacher. (But there are many good people who disagree with me.)
We also know that Peter and John both called themselves “elder.” Did they appoint themselves? Seems unlikely — but again, we just don’t know.
I for one am reluctant to make a law out of what I don’t know. I do know that the early church continued to ordain elders after the apostles were no longer around. The apostles left no tradition that the elders should only be appointed by apostles or their emissaries.
Laymond, the fact that elders are indwelt by the Holy Spirit is no indication that the rest of believers are not. Again, we find the error of making things mutually-exclusive which are not.
Here is an analogy which may or may not help: I have eleven children. (True story) While I have reared all of them, those who are younger have also benefited from being instructed and led and encouraged (and occasionally warned) by their older siblings, who have known Dad longer and know what He is about. I do not feel my place is challenged by this dynamic; in fact, I appreciate their care for their younger siblings. On occasion, I correct something a older sibling has mistakenly told the younger, but in so doing I do NOT say, “Don’t listen to your sister, just listen to me!” I know the track record of my older children, and I have seen how they have developed. We have a good, mature relationship. So, I have confidence generally in what they tell their younger siblings. And none of my children confuses his older sisters with Dad.
Could it be that the lack of any record of how elders were appointed/selected/identified in the Jerusalem church may suggest that this was an understood, existing dymamic? That it was not a new thing at all? To the Jews of that day, the idea of local “elders” was one of longstanding. Perhaps we forget that Jerusalem had lots of devout, well-regarded Jews who would have been naturally considered elders among the Jews who had received Messiah. We do not have any record of anyone organizing meetings, either. They met and interacted, pretty much as they always had, in various ways.
For Paul to see the need for this continuing dynamic –in the church in Crete, for example– may have been a reach-back into his own culture for a needed asset among new believers. I note that Titus’ task seems quite specific to the place he was laboring. That the god-fearing “village elders” were not such an assumed fixture in gentile Ephesus or in Crete might explain why Paul went into more detail with Titus and Timothy in describing what kind of men were appropriate.
Peter and Paul’s reference to themselves as elders seems a logical and unavoidable one, given their calling to the church. It is only when we reduce the term to mean “congregational director” that any question about such terminology even arises.
jay, like your answer, not many times you can get a we just don’t know from any of us in the church. we claim to speak where the bible speak and be silence where the bible is silence , but the bible is silence on how to appoint elders , , we have no ceni for this , but that don’t stop us, the county i live , i can think of about 9 or 10 church of christs only 3 have appointed elders , but in ever one of the churches that don’t have appointed elders , there are men there doing the work of a elder. so i am leaning toward the lipscomb position on elders . but just as jay has said , ther are some things we just don’t know !!
Alex
I respectively submit that the Hebrews 13:17 passage is a political passage and does not refer to elders. In fact, Hebrews 13:7 is the only verse in Hebrews that refers to leaders who taught you the word. There is no reference to church organization in the whole book of Hebrews. It is all about Christ. This is one scripture that has been abused and taken out of context. What does a elder have to do with “so that it may go well with you.” Take away this scripture from elders then the church will begin to see the true role of elders. The word authority (as we understand it-king leadership) in the Greek is never associated with elders and deacons.
Eleven huh, I can only tip my old cowboy hat, and say God bless you brother.
what do you think about what vines dict. of N T words says about heb 13 17 , the obey comes from a word that means be persuaded .
Hershell,
I repeat a comment I posted a couple of days ago re Heb 13:17:
(Heb 13:17 NET) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.
ESV, KKV, NET Bible, and NAS all translate “obey.”
Thayer’s mentions Heb 13:17 specifically, and with respect to this passage, translates “b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with,” which explains the most common translation. (It’s in the passive voice here, and so you have to follow that section of the definition.)
Similarly, Friberg’s lexicon translates: “obey, follow, with the dative of person or thing (HE 13.17).”
Gingrich translates, “obey, follow w. dat. Ro 2:8; Gal 5:7; Hb 13:17.”
“Submit yourselves” in the same verse is translated by Thayer’s — “to yield to authority and admonition, to submit.”
Alex,
“Leaders” (hegeomai) appears three times in Hebrews in the sense of “leader.”
(Heb 13:7 ESV) Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
(Heb 13:17 ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
(Heb 13:24 ESV) Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings.
Each is obviously referring to leaders within the church.
Charles wrote,
The First Century Jews were a people of the Hebrew scriptures. They would have used “elder” in the OT sense, covered in prior posts. Unfortunately, we don’t know how Jerusalem selected the members of the Sanhedrin or how elders in a Judean village were selected.
Therefore, we really just don’t know what it would mean to say the Jews “naturally considered [certain persons] elders.” I’ve tried to research that question and have nothing to show for my efforts.
Everett Ferguson’s Backgrounds of Early Christianity offers an extensive discussion of the Sanhedrin at p. 567 ff, and it’s amazing how much uncertainty there is among historians about its composition — and even less information re how its members were selected.
I find a similar lack of guidance on elders of smaller towns than Jerusalem.
do any of you think the elders over step their authority when they ask the members to wear certain type cloths to church meeting ? i am not talking about modest clothing , i talking about asking men to wear ties and women to wear dresses etc ?
Charles your analogy of the older children in a family caring for the younger, is typical of a large family, but in no way represents the authority claimed here for “elders” . I would not have any problem listening to and considering the words of my older brothers and sisters in Christ, respecting their authority of knowledge. I am absolutely sure I place more weight on what they say than that of an appointed 35-50 year old seeking such authority. I say put in the time and work and if you are perceived to speak truth an direct in the way, the authority will come from the respect earned, but not sought. What do you think would happen to your family, if you were to announce one day that the youngest among them had all authority over the others. I dare say you would lose your kids as a family, and that is exactly what is happened to the CoC. Most if not all congregations I have observed break apart was caused by the “eldership” either disagreeing with one another or trying to enforce their authority upon the members. The last one I was witness to was over a preacher’s vacation time. I won’t go into details here, but it was just stupidity. power struggle. I will say this, after an amazing 17yr run, the preacher had to leave. And probably one third of the congregation left also.
Actually, Laymond, the only real problem would be if one or two of the children tried to exercise authority over the others on their own, without my imprimatur. (I think this is the problem we run into in congregations. The problem you describe sounds like Dad was not even involved. Then, it’s just every man for himself. With the predictable results.) OTOH, if Dad delegates authority and everybody knows that really IS Dad’s call, then to reject it because one doesn’t like who Dad selected– that’s just rebellion. Not against the sibling, but against Dad. At least that’s the way it works around my house… Dad backs his own choice. (Ask Miriam… or Joseph’s brothers.) And while some of my children might be put off by my choice, I certainly would not “lose them”. Our relationship is far too strong to be broken by such a decision on my part.
As to how the bad situation you report reflects on authority, I think it is a mistake to blame the speed limit when you get wrongly ticketed by an incompetent cop.
OK all this uproar over church leaders is ridicules. First off the church of today in no way can be compared to that of the first century, except that we still worship the same God, and
that isn’t even true in some cases.
Jesus picked his apostles to carry on after he had gone, if you notice they were not leading anything until he had left.
Most people in the first century could not read, so they set on a rock and listened, either full of doubt or gaining in trust in what they were told. Even Jesus’ closest followers asked for more than words to show he had been given authority to do what he was doing, and claiming. As the bible demonstrates when God gives authority to an indivigual, God does not send him out naked and without support.
Let’s take the man Jesus is most often compared to, Moses, Moses was choosen to do a job, lead God’s people out of bondage, Moses was not told “just figure it out as you go” no he was given
directions and special powers, the powers of God.
Seems closely related to the story of Jesus, who was picked to once again lead God’s people out of bondage, not the bondage of Pharoh this time but the bondage of Satan. Jesus was not sent
without directions and special powers from God, so when someone claimes to have special authority from the same God that gave authority both to Moses, and Jesus, it seemes right to me that we should ask for proof. Jesus showed proof, Moses showed proof,pray tell why a man up for elder should not need to prove he was given this mission by God? If this man has no proof, why would you give up your “God given” authority over your own salvation, and follow another man’s conscience over your own.?
In my opinion there is a reason God wrote the truth on our hearts and gave every one a conscience to guide them.
Yes there are always going to be those among us who need leadership, direction, yes the poor in spirit, will always be with us, just as jesus said about the poor in tangeable things, and I believe we should do our best to help them, but even then I believe Jesus has it covered-Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“OTOH, if Dad delegates authority and everybody knows that really IS Dad’s call,”
Pray tell how is everyone supposed to know that, unless as you say everyone is “indwelled” with the spirit of truth, and if this is so why do we need someone to tell us what we already know.?
If we already know what God wants, and we are not doing it, what makes you think if an elder re-enforces this we will just fall right into line, and if we don’t fall in line do you actually believe, this elder has the right/authority to send you to hell,? I don’t. according to Jesus the apostles did.
Laymond,
If everyone is given this knowledge of right and wrong that you speak of, what would be the food that Jesus instructed the Apostles to feed to the sheep? The sheep he is speaking of are not those outside the flock, they are his followers, those outside are not his sheep. Would not Jesus be contradicting what you say if he said those followers (Christians) needed instruction? Using your own hypothesis evidently you as a Christian do not need instruction because of your statement. “In my opinion there is a reason God wrote the truth on our hearts and gave every one a conscience to guide them”
Well Larry, maybe you can explain to me just what it is that Paul was talking about.
Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and [toward] men.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Hershell reminded me my childhood and my first suit and how weird I felt wearing it to church.
I can laugh about it now but I remember feeling unworthy trying to somehow imitate old wise
men of God.
We have a Sunday am broadcast from a CofC of the communion/one cup persuasion which
recreates the 1950’s look of my youth. A boy of perhaps six is suited up like his daddy, singing
with upheld hymnbook all in unison with books all raised to the same height singing the same
songs we sung back then. The ‘minister’ teaches just like I was taught, obedience, obedience.
I wonder what the suit and tie members are thinking as they dress themselves to appear
before God? And why do I not want to imitate them now that I am old?
alreadybeen2,
I always enjoyed the scene in “Oh, God!” with George Burns (as God) and John Denver, where God appears to Denver in a bathroom as he leaves the shower. Denver is entirely naked and, in a panic, tries to cover himself up. “God” says, “What? You don’t think I know what you got? I made you!”
I figure God sees us naked — which is how he made us. I’m not comfortable with the thought. Age catches up with you, you know. But putting a suit on to impress God is a waste of good money and fabric.
I’m sure the money wasted on impressing God over the last 100 years could have relieved all the poverty of one or two small countries.
Laymond,
You have not given me a hard task because you have picked scriptures that cannot apply to the concept that you propose.
1. Do you propose that you have received the exact measure of knowledge of the scriptures that Paul was given? The message in Acts 24:16 and Romans 9:1 Paul was speaking of himself, he was defiantly not applying that all men.
2. Romans2:13-16 is a message explaining that the Gentiles were not exempt from being held accountable by God for their actions prior to being included within the Gospel. Christ was sent to the Jews first, the Gentiles were accountable under the rules Paul is explaining until the Gospel was made available to them, then they became accountable to God and Christ in the one body. Jews and Gentiles together. Both the Jewish law and the Gentile system which Paul is explaining are not valid today. In fact if you or anyone attempt to reconcile with God by using either of the previous (we’ll call then plans) Christ will not be your savior. Neither of those (plans) allowed Christ to atone for sins of men.
Jay,
We, especially from the South dress in some way, to show respect. I would not dress in shorts, tee shirt and flip flops to go to a funeral or wedding.
I bet you would not dress, or want your client to dress very casual to appear before the lowest court judge.
When we meet, Jesus is with us, in our midst, and I feel toward him even more respectful than you would feel before a judge as far as respect goes and so do you.
To many today, we are seeing a showing of disrespect for Jesus that no judge would allow toward themselves in his or her courtroom.
Laymond, Jesus said that his sheep know his voice, and Paul said that those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. I can’t state it any clearer than they have, nor offer better insight than they have.