ustard eed

Vol.1 No. 2 February 2008

Also In This ISSUE: Building, social club, God's exclusive

Did Peter Have the in-group, ...

What
Primacy? p. 4

Do You Just ‘Pay &

Pray’? p. 12

What is the True

Origin of Valentine’s
Day? p. 14 Is The
Church"?
Who Were the NT
‘Elders’ p. 17

Is God telling you

to stay or move?

Should T he media persistently knocks "the Church". What is it?

You Leave
Will it survive?

"Church attendance under a million" screams the headline, referring to

some dwindling church attendance in Europe. Dismal reading, for

Your Christians. Yet even regular attendance for all Christian churches -
generally under 10% in Western World - is uninspiring. Is the Church
failing? If so - then why?

Church? First, let's understand what we mean by "church". Most folk immediately
picture that big old building with a `steeple' on the corner, open only one
day a week. Or the picturesque country church set snugly behind a
graveyard and guarded by ancient yews. Many church buildings are,
Starts on Page 3… Sunday by Sunday, almost deserted having a mere handful of faithful
parishioners. Others seem to be bursting at the seams and full of
1
energetic worshippers - vast megabuck enterprises.
And there are still many millions of enthusiastic
"evangelicals" around the world.
Founded By Jesus
Is there a common theme that links all of them?
Globally, around two billion claim to be "Christian",
the largest single world faith. Yet apart from some
mention of Jesus of Nazareth the denominational
variety would suggest myriad different religions! Their
names are legion, their doctrinal statements in
conflict, their worship kaleidoscopic. Yet all claim to
be representative of Jesus Christ who founded "the
church".
Jesus stated: "I will build my church", and asserted it
would persist through time. Did he intend such
confusing variety? When he prayed for unity - what
did he mean?
Called By God
Christians "go to church", but it
is now widely understood that
"church" signifies far more
than the complex of buildings
in which the congregation
worships and often plays. The
real church is the assembly of
Christians whether they meet
under a tree, in a home or in a
cathedral. They are "called
out" (Gk., ekklesia, which
means "public assembly",
translated in the New
Testament as church) from the population at large by
the Father: "No one comes to me", said Jesus,
"except the Father who sent me draw him" (John
6:44).
A couple of times the word is applied to a secular
assembly. But elsewhere in the New Testament (112
times), it refers to the body of Christians - in general,
in an area, in their local assembly, and once refers to
all Christians from all time (Hebrews 12:23). Nowhere
is it applied to a building.
Who Belongs?
Not everyone who occupies a church pew, however,
is a `Christian', and part of the church of God. All
clubs have `membership rules'. The church is no
different.
2
The church is formed from those who have been
drawn by God to Jesus Christ largely by the work of
existing members. They have on mature reflection
wholeheartedly turned from disobedience to God and
been forgiven past sin ("transgression of the law" - I
John 3:4) through the sacrifice of Jesus. Having been
baptized they are given the Holy Spirit which makes
them children of God - part of the family of God.
A New Creature
As in any human family, the new Christian is to "grow
up". Our baptism is symbolic of the death of our
former self - we are in Christ a new creature. As a
"babe in Christ" (I Cor. 3:1, I Peter 2:2), the new
Christian, embraced in the bosom of the church,
embarks on a life-long learning curve that affects
every aspect of life. Hence the admonition to
Christians: "... not forsaking the assembling of
yourselves together" (Hebrews 10:25).
True conversion works inwardly. God, the master
Potter, takes each Christian in hand to fashion into a
mature reflection of His own perfect character - into
the image of Jesus.
His Spirit in us seeks to stimulate a hunger and thirst
for God's Word. It's in the Scriptures that we are
confronted with the values God cherishes, and
enjoined to "be transformed by the renewing of your
mind" (Romans 12:1ff).
As we voluntarily yield to God we begin to express
the very character of our Father - summed up as
"love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,
goodness, meekness, temperance self-control"
(Galatians 5:22). Character traits not common to
human nature!
As we submit to the Word of God much else changes.
Our attitude to family and friends and colleagues
improves. What we eat, how we dress and look, our
personal grooming - all must come to reflect the high
standards set by the Scriptures. We evolve towards a
mature human being respected in the world. We
abandon odd-ball life-styles. We develop towards the
common example set by Jesus, yet retaining our
unique individuality. How and when we worship, too,
reflects the Scriptural pattern.
Being a `church member', then, goes far beyond
warming a pew!
The Church Family
The church is usually referred to in Scripture as "the
church of God". It's a `family'. Christians are `children
of God' who is our `Father', "of whom the whole family
in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:15). It is
unified in the sense that all Christians are members of
one "Body". All who "have the Spirit of Christ"
(Romans 8:9) are part of that Body, and each
Christian is personally responsible to Jesus Christ,
the Head of the Body.
Yet the church universal is diverse in the sense that
each Christian is, after Christ, loyal to his or her local
assembly. Within that assembly mingle spiritual
brothers and sisters at all levels of Christian maturity.
Just as in any family, the new Christian - the `babe in
Christ' - grows up under the tutelage of the more
mature members of the family.
To promote and oversee this personal growth, God
has determined that able Christians (`elders') be
appointed to oversee each local assembly. They are
not 'priests' who stand between you and God, but
'shepherds of the flock' (I Peter 5:3) and 'helpers of
your joy' (II Cor. 1:24) charged with the responsibility
of promoting the spiritual growth of that assembly,
and guarding it from the ravages of spiritual 'wolves'.
Said the apostle Paul to the Ephesian leadership:
"...take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among
whom the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to
shepherd the church of God which he purchased with
his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
Is God telling you to stay or move?
Should You Leave Your
Church?
Does what you are hearing from the pulpit cut across
what you read in the Bible? Have you perhaps
become disenchanted with the clergies' attitudes
towards the Word of God, with abuse of authority
etc? If so, should you fellowship elsewhere? What
factors should influence your decision?
Some Christians flit lightly from one church to another. Minor
disagreement - personal or doctrinal sends them to a new church across
3
A Narrow Way
Throughout the two thousand year history of the
church of God ambitious and greedy men and women
have sought to subvert it. As Paul said to the same
men, "...for I know this that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also from among yourselves men will rise up
speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples
after themselves. Therefore watch..." (Acts 20:28-30).
The onslaughts of such, coupled with false demonic
teachings (see I Timothy 4:1, "doctrines of demons"),
has served to limit the growth of the church. Jesus
knew that the church he is building would face fiery
persecution, that the life of faith would be hazardous,
that "there are few who will find [the narrow way]"
(Matthew 7:13-15).
`Church' is not a Sunday-go-to-meeting experience.
It's a challenging and often uncomfortable way of life
that demands total commitment day in and day out to
Jesus Christ and to his commands. Become a
Christian, a `member' of the church, and you embark
on a lifetime of constant personal change, frequent
opposition - and the loving personal care and
correction of our heavenly Father and our Savior.
Only those who do so will live eternally in God's
Kingdom. /James F. McBride
town. Then there's the "loyalty at
any price" Christian, who clings
grimly to the church of his birth
or of his choice through a
morass of doctrinal error, or
despite the dead hand of
formalism, or deepening
personal unhappiness. Or some
will stay put because there's a
deep-rooted fear of departing -
that in doing so they will
somehow lose salvation.
Changing your loyalty is a
serious matter, not least in the
vital matter of religious belief.
What should you do? Before
making a decision, consider the
following.
Church Origins
First understand some facts
about "the church".
In its beginnings the church was
a single body, even in externals.
But this didn't last long - maybe
days! The Acts of the Apostles
traces its growth, and it's
clearthat the real unity was
spiritual, transcending time and
space. Further, as in the famed
"Seven Churches of Revelation"
(Rev 2,3), each local church was
responsible for its own moral
and doctrinal purity. And Jesus
Christ, as Head of the church,
could independently remove any
one of them - and did.
At first, doctrine and practice
varied little from area to area.
But the apostles died. The
church expanded over the face
of the earth. Persecution and
war and geography isolated
Christian communities. And
there developed doctrinal
distortions. The result - the
myriad Christian sects of the
twentieth century!
The "Christian" world today
shades from giant monoliths like
the Anglican, Episcopal and
Roman churches to tiny
numerically insignificant
nonconformist groups. Yet
despite fundamental and
irreconcilable differences, all
consider themselves "Christian"!
Search The Scriptures
However. what a church teaches
ought to reflect what the
Scriptures teach. The source of
Christian belief is the Word of
God. How does your
denomination meet the
challenge?
To help you make a wise
decision. ask yourself these
questions.
Is Jesus Christ preached ? The
heart of the Christian faith is
Jesus Christ. Attitudes to him
range from a dead formalism
through to disrespectful
chumminess. Yet it's only
through Jesus Christ - his life,
his sufferings, his cruel death on
the tree -that we are reconciled
to the Father. Only through him,
through his shed blood, can our
loathsome (to God) sin be freely
forgiven upon our repentance.
Only in him will we enter into
eternal life. It's a personal
decision which each of us must
take. [Have you taken that vital
decisive step? You are invited to
request our article What Do You
Mean - "Repent"?]
Does my church reject clear
Bible teachings? Some
denominations, even on
fundamental issues, cling blindly
to tradition. Is this likely to
change in your church - even
after maybe several centuries of
error? Changes, all too often,
are away from the truth of the
Bible!
Be sure to examine your
church's teaching with the Bible
in hand. It's your responsibility to
get it right, not the pastor's who
answers for his own error. God's
Word is plain to those who want
to understand! For example.
have you personally sought out
the Bible teaching on heaven -
and hell? What about the
immortality of the soul? And do
you know on which days -
weekly and annually - God says,
in the Scriptures, He desires
worship?
Do I dislike the pastor? We
each differ in personality -
clashes can occur! But the
Christian Gospel promotes
4
reconciliation, and you ought to
exhaust every avenue to
achieve it. We must seek peace
with everyone one in the
congregation, as much as is in
our power. If there are no
channels for reconciliation or
there's an unbridgeable - and
unbiblical - gap between leaders
and laity, then this, too, must be
considered.
Does my church express the
spirit of Christ? All too many
local churches and even whole
denominations are spiritually
dead. There's little chance to
express Christian practice or to
"grow in grace and knowledge".
A living church will be a serving
church showing concern for the
spiritual and material welfare of
its members and for the world
around. It will be a learning
church, continually growing in
Bible understanding and the
training of its membership. It will
be an evangelizing church with
an active program for taking the
Gospel to the world. And it is
strong on the ethical and
behavioral aspects of the
Christian faith.
Serve Christ
It's unlikely you will find a church
with which you can agree one
hundred per cent! And indeed
there's no need to do so. for not
all "knowledge" is vital to
salvation.
There are, however, vital truths
which distinguish the true from
the false. Search the Scriptures.
Discover what is truth. And
whole-heartedly and
energetically serve Jesus Christ
where He is faithfully taught and
expressed./James McBride New
Horizon
 True to Jesus' predictions, major
persecution set in against the true
Church of God from the very
Did moment of its inception!

Peter The first few chapters of the book

of Acts show the furious attempts

Have The of the Jewish religious leadership

to stamp out what they considered
to be a dangerous new religion,
and history is replete with

Primacy examples of massive persecutions

throughout the Middle East, and
the Roman Empire, which, for all
their ferocity and brutality, failed to
stamp out the true Church of God.

? Jesus had promised that

"the gates of the grave [Greek:

hades] shall not prevail against
it! " (Matthew 16:18).

"I will build my church," said Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). Jesus
described His church as "a little flock" (Luke 12:32), a group that would be
Did Jesus Put Peter in Charge?

When Jesus established His true

persecuted, maligned and attacked by the world. He said, church, did He intend to relinquish
control of it - giving the total
"In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have headship of the church into the
overcome the world" (John 16:33). hands of one of the apostles?

In His final prayer, just before His crucifixion, He said of the apostles, Let the Bible answer. Jesus said,

"I have given them thy word and the world hath hated them, because "And I say also unto thee, that
they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"(John 17:14). thou art Peter [Greek: Petros,
meaning a 'pebble' or a small
His church would not be of the world. 'rock'] and upon this rock
[Greek: Petra, meaning a whole
mass of rock, like a craggy cliff or
Earlier, He had predicted,
mountain] I will build my church;
and the gates of hell [Greek:
"They shall put you out of the synagogues [churches]: yea, the time 'hades,' meaning the grave] shall
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think they doeth God service" not prevail against it" (Matthew
(John 16:2). 16:18).

Thus, Christ described the group of "called-out ones" (for that is the meaning Peter had two "nicknames," one in
of the word "church") who would form the "ekklezia" (church); He said they Greek and the other in Aramaic.
would be a small, persecuted group of individuals. Some would receive
martyrdom for remaining faithful to the calling and commission Jesus placed
Jesus supplied Peter this name
before them.
when He said, "Thou art Peter"
(using the Greek, "Petros") and
Never did Jesus indicate His true church was to become a powerful, said He would make Peter a
influential, politically oriented organization which would become part of this "fisher of men." The other is
world; having concourse with this world's government and governmental "Cephas" (pronounced KE-fus),
leaders, becoming a large, visible church, capable of influencing legislation, which is the Aramaic equivalent to
wielding political power through numbers and financial resources! "a stone."

5
The fact that Jesus called Peter a "little pebble," or a
small "stone," did not indicate He was placing a TITLE on
Peter's name. Names have meanings. Titles are added
to names. If Peter had been given a "title," it would have
been obvious, for Jesus would have called him "Peter
Primus " or "Peter the First. "
Those who argue that Peter's name meant he had the
"primacy" OVER the other apostles - that they had to be
subject to him - are in error. Peter himself was to write
that each minister - whether apostle, elder, or whatever -
was to be "subject to the other"! (I Peter 5:5).
This change of name is not uncommon, for God changed
Abram to "Abraham," meaning a "father of many
nations," Jacob to "Israel," Saul to "Paul," and so on.
Jesus said He would build His church "upon this
ROCK"! Who did He mean?
When Jesus said,
"Thou art Petros, and upon this ‘PETRA’ I will build
my church, "
He used, first, the masculine ending of the root Greek
word which means "a rock" When He said "upon this
rock" [Petra] I will build my church, He used the
feminine, which has a different meaning.
Those who are familiar with the "romance" languages
(based upon Latin, such as French and Spanish, etc.)
know that articles, including physiological and
topographical objects, have "masculine" and "feminine"
gender. Thus, in the Spanish language, a "mountain" is
"la montana." Our western state, in the United States, of
"Montana" means, literally, "mountain."
The "a" on the end of "montana" demands a "la"
(feminine) at the beginning of the phrase.
All objects, such as the house (la casa - feminine) or the
automobile (el automobile - masculine), have feminine or
masculine gender.
Jesus changed the gender of the root Greek word
deliberately.
The first, the masculine petros, means "a rock, " but it
means a much smaller rock, like a chunk of rock or stone
taken from a much larger piece of rock. When He used
the feminine gender in the second case, "PETRA," He
meant the craggy side of a cliff, a great monolith, or a
mountain of rock!
To what - or to whom - did He refer? Let the Bible
answer!
6
Notice:
"…And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
drank of the spiritual ROCK that followed them: and
that ROCK [Petra, in the Greek] WAS CHRIST! " (I
Corinthians 10:4).
This very important scripture refers directly to Jesus
Christ, that member of the Godhead who was continually
with the Israelites during their wanderings in the
wilderness.
Notice what David wrote, in the Psalms:
"O come, let us sing unto the Eternal: Let us make a
joyful noise to the ROCK of our salvation" (Psalm
95:1).
"But the Eternal is my defense; and my God is the
ROCK of my refuge" (Psalm 94:22).
"He is my ROCK" (Psalm 92:15).
"You are my ROCK and my fortress" (Psalm 71:3).
"He only is my ROCK and my salvation: he is my
defence; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation
and my glory; The ROCK of my strength, and my
refuge, is in God" (Psalm 62:6, 7).
"He only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my
defence; I shall not be greatly moved" (Psalm 62:2).
Notice the important chapter of Deuteronomy 32!
"Because I will publish the name of the Eternal:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the ROCK,
His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a
God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is
He" (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Later, God says,
". . . Then he forsook God which made him, and
lightly esteemed the ROCK of his salvation ... of the
ROCK that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hath
forgotten God that formed thee" (Deuteronomy 32:15-
18).
Five times in this chapter the God who is the Creator
(who became Jesus Christ - Hebrews 1, John 1) is
described as "the ROCK."
Notice!
"How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten
thousand to flight, except their ROCK had sold them,
and the Eternal had shut them up? For their rock is
not as our ROCK, even our enemies themselves
being judges" (Deuteronomy 32:30, 31).
Jesus said, "Upon this ROCK I will build my church,"
NOT meaning Peter (Petros), whom He called a "pebble"
or a "stone," but upon HIMSELF! He, CHRIST, was to
head it!
Did Jesus Give the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven"
to Peter?
Some, in attempting to prove one-man RULE over the
church, cite the remainder of the passage in Matthew 16:
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
However, Jesus was
speaking to all the disciples
at this moment (read the
entire chapter in context),
and only two chapters later
tells all the disciples,
When Jesus said, "Lo, I am with you alway," He plainly
revealed that HE would remain the active, living HEAD of
His true church!
Millions are under the impression that "God has gone
way off somewhere," and see the Eternal Creator God,
Jesus Christ of Nazareth - the Head of His church and
our High Priest in heaven - only in the vaguest, ethereal,
unreal, dreamlike terms.
They are not aware of an active, LIVING, dynamic and
all-POWERFUL Jesus Christ of Nazareth who makes
daily intercession for His people, and who, through the
power of His Holy Spirit, is fully capable of leadership.
Through the centuries, men have tried to usurp the office
of Jesus Christ!
MEN (or, in some cases, women) have become the
leaders of various and sundry "churches," man-made
religious organizations which, through the sheer numbers
who willingly flock to some
charismatic, dynamic leader,
can become quite large.
Some such religious
organizations become
politically powerful, and
wealthy.

"Verily I say unto you, But all such churches are

whatsoever ye shall bind churches of this world, man-
on earth shall be bound in made, and are not a part of
heaven: and whatsoever ye the true body of Jesus
shalt loose on earth shall Christ! They were not
be loosed in heaven. Again founded by Christ, and they
I say unto you [emphasizing are not GOVERNED by
that this is at least the second Christ, but by their human
time He has given them this charge], that if two of you founders.
shall agree on earth as touching anything that they
shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father Jesus Christ is the HEAD of His true church!
which is in heaven. For where TWO or THREE are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the "And He is the Head of the body, the church"
midst of them" (Matthew 18:18-20). (Colossians 1:18).

Jesus did NOT say where "Peter" is - there am I with Notice how Paul, in speaking of marital relationships,
Peter; that I only work through, in and by this ONE MAN! said,

No, He required checks and balances in His early church
government, plainly saying it required at least two of the
disciples (apostles) or three to be in complete harmony
and agreement and THEN Jesus would be in the midst of
them."
Notice He did not say He would be with ONE - but said
"there am I in the midst of THEM"! (Matthew 18:20).
7
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church " (Ephesians 5:23).
He also wrote that the church must
"…grow up into Him in all things, which is the HEAD,
even Christ!" (Ephesians 4:15).
Oftentimes, men give "lip service" to the Headship of
Christ, and claim merely to be the "second in command,
under Christ," but, since they are the only visible head,
and since there are no other "checks and balances" in
the structure of their organizations, such men (or women)
usually wield absolute and TOTAL power and authority
over doctrine, policy, procedure and administration, as
well as total authority and CONTROL over the lives of
their members.
How Do Human Leaders Gain Control?
Once such an individual has achieved the absolute
pinnacle of psychological, financial and legal power over
such a church hierarchy, NONE in such an organization
ever dares claim that the human leader of said church
organization does not receive every thought, doctrine,
teaching or administrative policy or procedure directly
from Christ! Any who challenge such control or authority
are quickly disposed of.
Subtly, gradually, men have managed to convince their
followers in literally hundreds of organizations down
through the centuries that to question them, the human
leader, is to question Christ!
How do they deceive their followers?
It is all a very simple process, really.
There is much said about church government in the New
Testament! Read Ephesians the 4th chapter, I
Corinthians the 12th chapter, I Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5, and
others. All deal with CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
The apostle Paul said a great deal about "those that
have the rule over you," and spoke of settling church
difficulties with "a rod."
By the simple process of continual preaching, teaching
and repetitive emphasis on "authority"; by emphasizing
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in preaching, teaching
and Bible study; a powerful, charismatic, persuasive
religious leader is able to convince his followers that,
when he stands in the pulpit, he is speaking "under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit," and is therefore BEYOND
QUESTION! Gradually, his followers begin to believe
they are hearing virtually firsthand, directly from GOD.
There is an outstanding example of human arrogance
and vanity, and God's terrible judgments for such
conduct, in God's Word.
"And when Herod sought for him [Peter], and found
him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded
that they should be put to death. And he went down
from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode. And
Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and
Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and
8
having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their
friend, desired peace; because their country was
nourished by the king's country. And upon a set day
Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne,
and made an oration unto them. And the people gave
a shout, saying, 'It is the voice of a god, and not of a
man,' and immediately the angel of the Eternal smote
him, because he gave not God the glory; and he was
eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost [expired, died
- Greek] " (Acts 12:19-23).
Of course, Herod was not a religious leader, even though
he exercised control over the religious leaders.
He was an arrogant, pompous, power-crazed human
leader; a totally corrupt individual, who had the literal
power of life and death over his people. The jail keepers
could not prevent Peter's release, for an angel had
performed a miracle to free Peter. Nevertheless, Herod
had them killed!
He delighted in his exalted power; so, when the ignorant
masses indulged him, by loudly shouting he was a "god"
when he spoke to them, he reveled in their adoration!
People were beginning to WORSHIP A MAN! They were
ascribing to a mere mortal godlike qualities; beginning to
believe on his every pronouncement; to claim when he
spoke they were hearing directly from a divine source.
But the Eternal Creator God of heaven hates this
ridiculous, egotistical and empty vanity of pompous men
- and God struck Herod dead! He was "eaten of worms";
dying a HORRIBLE DEATH for his vanity!
Today millions of humans, in MANY different nations,
and in MANY different religions (think of the Ayatolah
Khomeini, of Iran, as an example), WORSHIP MEN!
Jim Jones' followers came to WORSHIP the man -
believing he was directly inspired of God. They so gave
their own minds over into the hands of this mentally
deranged, egotistical man that they became conditioned
to do ANYTHING he said - NO MATTER WHAT!
How shocking that gullible human beings can literally so
give themselves into the hands of a human religious
leader that he can tell them to murder - or to kill
themselves and they immediately OBEY!
It is a false and ridiculous concept that a mere MAN can
be so divinely inspired as to be answerable ONLY TO
GOD, and NEVER answerable or accountable to ANY
OTHER HUMAN SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES.
Carried to its ultimate extreme, this concept has led to
the declaration of papal infallibility for the popes in Rome!
The Catholic Church teaches that, when a pope speaks
from the "Holy See," in the Vatican, he is infallible!
The Catholic Church places at least two sources of
supposed "authority" on an equal level with the Bible!
The first is the pope himself, when making official
pronouncements from the "Holy See." Such
pronouncements carry the weight of Scripture with
Catholics, are said to be absolutely inspired, and are
considered infallible!
Also, the traditions of the church - those procedures,
doctrinal tenets, teachings and administrative and
organizational systems which have been gradually
established over centuries and centuries of historical
development - are considered to be inviolable, "cast in
concrete," and on an equal par
with Scripture!
Monstrous abuses are cataloged,
in literally scores of history books,
concerning the wielding of such
awesome power by a tiny handful
of individuals, headed by only one
man at the very pinnacle of power
in a large, wealthy church
organization.
The Protestant Reformation was
as much a protest against
hierarchical abuses of power as it was a protest against
doctrine.
Strangely, as the centuries have passed, many
organizations which sprang up following the Protestant
Reformation have themselves drifted into a similar type
of hierarchical structure as the organization they left, in
protest.
But did Jesus Christ ever intend exalting only one man to
the position of "No. 2" under Jesus Christ?
In short, was it Jesus Christ as the Head of the church in
heaven - but PETER, having the "primacy," as the "No.
2" individual in the church hierarchy (meaning the No. 1
on this earth) - who was OVER all the other 11, over all
the prophets, evangelists, pastors of churches, deacons
and others?
Was it ONE MAN, plus 11 others who were under him?
Let the Bible, the sacred Word of God, which is going to
JUDGE, us, answer!
9
Peter Arrogated NO Unique Office to Himself
First, remember Jesus warned,
"You know that the princes of the gentiles exercise
dominion over [lord it over] them, and they that are
'great' exercise authority upon them. But it shall not
be so among you; but whosoever will be 'great'
among you, let him be your minister [servant]; and
whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant [minister]: even as the son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His
life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-27).
Jesus told Peter "Feed MY sheep" THREE times, when
He reminded Peter of his denial of Christ even as He
was being beaten, tried and crucified!
Three times, demanding to know if Peter truly "loved"
Jesus, He charged Peter, "Feed MY sheep!" He did not
say, "Feed your sheep," but emphasized, clearly, they
were Christ’s flock - that Peter was
merely a shepherd caring for the flock
that belonged to Jesus Christ!
Peter, himself, certainly never tried to
assert himself as a "chief apostle."
NEVER did he claim to be "the one and
only apostle," or "the leading apostle,"
or "the chief apostle," or even THE
apostle!
Did he feel such a claim would be
blasphemous? After all, it is only Jesus Christ who is
called THE APOSTLE in the Bible!
Paul calls himself "an apostle," as does Peter. But notice
what the Bible says of Jesus Christ:
" . . . THE apostle and high priest of our profession . .
." (Hebrews 3:1).
Christ, ONLY, is called "THE APOSTLE."
Peter never took such office to himself.
He wrote, after describing himself as "an apostle" (which
merely means "one sent"),
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am
also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be
revealed: feed the flock of God ... neither as being
lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the
flock. And when the CHIEF SHEPHERD [referring to
Jesus Christ, not himself!] shall appear, you shall
receive a crown of glory that fades not away" (I Peter
5:1-4).
Peter plainly referred to himself as an elder. This merely
meant an older, more mature and more experienced
person spiritually - usually an older person in physical
years - and was a term which found its way in the early
New Testament church directly from the status of the
"elders" in village and tribal society in the nations of
Israel and Judah!
The "elders" of a village were the older, wiser men -
"sages," to whom the younger generation sought for
wisdom.
Often they formed a body of elders, not unlike a town
council of today, and carried certain authority in the
village and town structure.
When these "elders" were first converted in the early
New Testament church, they continued to be "elders" so
far as their physical age, maturity and experience were
concerned, and, as they now grew in spiritual wisdom
and knowledge, were looked upon as "elders" in the
church!
It is nonsensical to "ordain" young boys, immature,
young men perhaps below the age of 30 (and some
churches have ordained "elders" in their 20s!) and call
them "elders."
It is quite likely that, in the early New Testament church,
the title "elder" was already attached to an older
gentleman who, upon conversion and baptism, would
continue to be viewed as "an elder" among members of
the church.
By the time Peter wrote his letter (I Peter 5), he may well
have been in his 60s or 70s.
He was probably about Jesus' own age - perhaps in his
30s - at his calling. No doubt, with the passing years,
Peter's physical appearance had changed markedly; no
doubt his hair had grayed. Now he was not only one of
the original 12 disciples; one of the original "foundation
stones" which formed the underpinnings of the New
Testament church, but he was an older, wiser, more
mature, seasoned "veteran" in God's church; having
suffered persecutions, traveled many hundreds of weary
miles, preached, taught, counseled, prayed, spent
himself - through year after year in the service of God's
people - and could humbly refer to himself as "an elder."
This was not an exalted title - and Peter's statement to
other older, mature leaders in the church, calling them
"elders," shows he viewed himself as being on an equal
footing with the other leaders he had addressed!
10
He said,
"Likewise, you younger [elders - for he was writing to
the 'elders of the church'], submit yourselves unto the
elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and
be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud,
and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves
therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may
exalt you in due time. . ." (I Peter 5:5).
Peter urged absolute equality (each being subject to the
other); unanimity, and Christian humility.
This letter, written from Babylon (I Peter 5:13), was long
after Peter had learned quite a bitter lesson himself!
God used another apostle, one who was "begotten out of
due season," who came along years after the original 12
apostles, to humble Peter!
Read the first two chapters of Galatians!
Peter had allowed feelings of racism to creep into his
heart. The confrontation you read of in the second
chapter very probably occurred during the Feast of
Tabernacles, or another annual Holy Day!
Quite a number of leaders were present; a number of
mixed converts representing both gentile and Jews were
also present. The area in the province of Galatia to which
Paul writes included the congregations of converted
Christians at Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.
In the important second chapter, you learn a great deal
about God's government in the true church!
First, you notice the apostle Paul continually reinforcing
his absolute equality with the other apostles! In the first
chapter (please read it all!), he clearly shows that he did
not "confer with flesh and blood" or "go up to
Jerusalem to them that were apostles before him" but
that he was directed by Jesus Christ (see I Corinthians
9:l; 15:8).
In chapter 2, verses 1-9, you notice the apostle Paul
encountered party spirit in Jerusalem; and also an
obvious beginning of an ugly political "pecking order." He
scathingly said,
"But of these who seemed to be somewhat,
(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me:
God accepteth no man's person:) for they who
seemed to be somewhat in conference [ in concert; as
a group, plotting to usher circumcision back into the
church!] added nothing to me" (Galatians 2:1-6).
Notice the order in which the apostle Paul lists the
"chiefest apostles" (remember, that is a plural term; there
were several who were " chiefest "):
"And when James, Cephas [Petros', or Peter] and
John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas [who was also an apostle!] the right hands of
fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and
they to the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9).
Now read from verse 11 to the end of the chapter!
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For
before that certain came from James, he did eat with
the gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew
and separated himself, fearing them which were of
the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled
likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was
carried away with their dissimulation" (Galatians
2:11-13). "
Several authorities urge the understanding that "those
certain" who "came from James" does not apply to
Peter, but certain other men. This is strengthened by the
use of the pronouns: "But when they [these other men
who came from James] were come, he [Peter] withdrew
...
Now notice how the apostle Paul, Peter's absolute equal,
stood up to one of the "chiefest apostles."
"But when I saw that they walked uprightly according
to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before
them all, 'If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner
of gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest
thou the gentiles to live as do the Jews?'" (Galatians
2:14).
Read the rest of the chapter, and you will see that the
rest of the entire dissertation, including Paul's moving
statement "I am crucified with Christ," continues with
first-person quotation as spoken to Peter in the audience
of a large group!
Notice that Peter did not "mark" Paul, rising up in
arrogant wrath and saying, "How dare you embarrass me
in front of these underlings?"
Neither did Peter embark on a hate campaign to "get"
Paul; to assassinate character, or attempt to create a
division in the church.
No doubt Peter was hurt by being soundly rebuked in
front of others, including other apostles, elders, and
laymen!
11
There is no "rank" at work here. No hierarchy; no
"pyramid form of government," in which Peter, on the top
of a step-ladder, like a general of the army who had just
been insulted by a colonel, takes out his wrath on Paul,
who had affronted him!
Paul plainly says he was one of the "least" of the
apostles, and claimed he was not "fit to be called an
apostle" (I Corinthians 15:9), yet ye said, later, ". . . For I
suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles"! (II Corinthians 11:5).
Again, note the use of the plural.
There is no use, ever, in the Bible of "chief apostle," or
"only apostle."
When Paul said he was not a whit behind the "chiefest
apostles," he obviously meant those same "chiefest
apostles" he clearly identifies in their appropriate order to
the Galatian churches; namely, James, Peter and John.
Consider for a moment the book of Romans.
In this first epistle, and one of the lengthiest, following the
book of Acts, the apostle Paul addresses the large
church in Rome.
If tradition and Catholic claims are correct, WHY did this
apostle to the gentiles dare address the large church in
Rome, yet never mention Peter's name?
Not only does he not address Peter at the beginning of
the letter, but in the lengthy 16th chapter, containing
many personal salutations, including the mention of a
woman first, one cannot find the name of Peter!
What? Surely, if Peter were the "chief apostle"; if he were
the "first pope" in Rome - then this would have been a
colossal insult; sufficient to have had Paul put out of the
church!
But the truth is otherwise.
Peter was NOT a "chief apostle," he was NOT in Rome!
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles - Peter wrote from
far in the east portion of the empire, from Babylon, where
there was a large colony of Jewish converts.
All claims of the "primacy of Peter" by the Catholic
Church or anyone else are FALSE! The hierarchical
structure of the Catholic Church was many centuries in
the building.
In the first two centuries, there was a gradual
development from bishops in larger cities to
"metropolitans" (bishops over the largest population
centers), and, finally, the emergence of five "great
patriarchs" in principal cities of the Middle East and
Europe.
He has given the gifts of prophecy (including inspired
speaking) and other spiritual gifts to individuals,
regardless of so-called "rank" within the church!
That same Jesus, the REAL JESUS, guides, controls,
inspires and corrects His true church TODAY!

Finally, through attrition, largely as a result of wars, there
were only two "great patriarchs." One was in Rome, and
the other in Constantinople.
Study history carefully and you will find there were times
when there were "two popes," each angrily
"disfellowshipping" the other!
No, the claims of the great "universal" church of "Peter's
primacy" are absolutely FALSE, and a blatant,
blasphemous effrontery to the humble, spirit-led equal
attitude Jesus Christ urged among the human leadership
of His church!
Jesus Christ remains the living Head of His true church!
In times past, He has caused deacons and laymen (like
Apollos) to become powerful speakers, evangelists,
preaching the Word of God!
As the Great Shepherd, who tenderly leaves the ninety
and nine, earnestly and carefully seeking the restoration
of "the one," Jesus Christ shows us He hates vanity,
arrogance, police-state tactics, dictators, "spiritual
policemen," and the pompous, egotistical human desire
to exercise POWER over others' lives!
Jesus Christ seeks those who are willing to be the
servant of all; who are willing to be corrected, taught from
the Word of God, and who will always keep their eyes
directly on Jesus Christ!
In the true Church of God, a statement from anyone that
he or she will "follow a man, AS THEY FOLLOW
CHRIST," is certainly always good enough! Written by:
Garner Ted Armstrong

endowed, at the laying on of hands don't need, in the modern world, to

What is the role of at baptism, with one or more spiritual project ourselves in high-profile
the local church gifts. And all are expected to identify,
develop and use those gifts for the
church-wide social action. Our
righteous actions ("alms") are not to
member?... benefit of the Church. Unless all are
active in this way the Church can
be publicly flaunted (Matthew 6: 1).

Do You only hobble along!

Do Gooders?
Sadly, this text in Matthew 6 has
often been used to screen out any
"good works"! But you will recall that

Just "Pay
What your specific gifts are isn't the
point of this short article - that's for
the apostle Paul urged the Christians
in Galatia "as often as you have the
opportunity do good to all
men..."(ch 6:10). Too often we focus

and Pray"?
Many Christians are frustrated by
limits placed on their opportunities of
service as an "ordinary member" of
their Church. Many focus on a
negative sense of being called only
to pray for the work of the Church
and to support it financially. They feel
they ought to be doing more. But
what?
There is, of course, no such person
as an "ordinary member"! Each
Christian is unique. Each was
another time. Here we focus on a
matter that is often viewed with some
suspicion. It is an activity that ought,
in one form or another, to be very
much a part of our Christian walk. It's
as much a part of our spiritual life as
breathing is to our physical life! And
in doing this we bear strong witness
for Jesus Christ.
It is, simply, "good works"! For many
who profess to be Christian this is a
natural action - the Salvation Army is
a praiseworthy example. And there
are many others. However the
Scriptures don't urge such helpful
actions to our fellowman only as
some kind of "corporate action". We
only on the sequel "...especially
those of the household of faith"!
Of course, good works, however we
define them, are not the way to
eternal life. Paul makes that
abundantly clear in Ephesians 2. But
he also emphasizes that one of the
purposes of our new creation in
Christ is to do good works (Eph 2:8-
10). Indeed Paul says God planned
beforehand that this was what we
are to do as Christians (v. 10). In
doing so we act as a pin-point of light
in a dark world. Said Jesus: "Let your
light shine before all men that they
may see your good deeds and may

12
give glory to your Father who is in
heaven" (Matt 5:16).
A useful study for each of us is to
search the Scriptures on this vital
aspect of Christian living. To the
church in general, to the rich, to
individuals and to widows, the Word
of God urges us to "be careful to
maintain good works" (Titus 3:8). We
are urged to "provoke one another to
love and to good works" (Heb 10:24),
and to be "zealous of good works"
(Titus 2:14). It is the expression of
Christ in us.
Example of Jesus
Jesus "went about doing good" (Acts
10:38), and the Gospels are
abundant testimony to his untiring
service to humanity. He expressed
tenderness towards little children. He
ministered to the diseased. He fed
the hungry. He mourned with the
bereaved. All men and women of
every class, from the lowest to the
greatest, benefitted from the
boundless compassion that he
expressed. His life projected the
whole measure of John 3:16: "God
so loved the world that He gave..."!
Are you, then, at least partially
unfulfilled as a Christian? Do you
want to do more than "pay and
pray"? Do you wish to become more
directly involved "in the work of
God"? Then do good works!
What that will mean for any one of us
is for each to determine. It will
depend on circumstances. It need
not involve spending money. It will,
however, involve sacrifice. Sacrifice
of precious time, mostly. Sacrifice,
perhaps, of home comforts on a cold
night as you minister with a "soup
kitchen". Sacrifice of a favorite TV
soap opera. But isn't that expressing
the life of Christ? He was always
ready to serve his fellow man. We're
told that he "took on the nature of a
slave" (Phil 2:7). And he served to
the point of laying down his life.
Whether you are able to minister
from your home or are in a position
to serve with other organizations "in
the field" of human suffering is a
matter for each to carefully consider,
keeping all legitimate factors (e.g.,
necessary commitments, safety etc)
in mind.
Whatever way you serve, however
you use your natural and spiritual
gifts in serving the world, you will be
reflecting Jesus Christ. Projecting
him to others. Laying up treasure in
heaven. And bringing solace to
mankind for whom Christ died.
Remember that during his life Jesus
never once ministered to a converted
person!
We don't serve to convert - but from
compassion. We don't serve to
massage our ego - but we serve
from compassion. We don't serve to
draw the praise of men - but we do
our good works with the same
motivation as Jesus Christ, from
compassion for suffering mankind.
Certainly nothing should be allowed
to hinder our supplications that God
will open doors and will otherwise
support our work for Him of
proclaiming the imminent Kingdom of
God.
Our good works are just as much an
expression of faith as are our other
vital activities - for example the
"form" of our worship. But let's not
become so obsessed with the "form"
that we omit the weightier matters of
God's instruction to His people!
Any "good works" we help with on
the Sabbaths, of course, should
allow adequate time for rest, for
worship, for study and for reflection.
If we fail to have a proper balance,
our prayers in support of our work for
God may go unanswered. Notice
what Isaiah relayed to ancient Judah:
"Your new moons and your
appointed feasts my soul hates; they
have become a burden to Me. I am
weary of bearing them. When you
spread forth your hands [in prayer] I
will hide my eyes from you, even
though you make many prayers I will
not listen".
The prophet goes on to urge the
people to "learn to do good; seek
justice, correct oppression, defend
the fatherless, plead for the widow"
(Isaiah 1:14-17). A similar message
is conveyed in Isa. 58 in regard to a
festival day.
So let's each express the power of
Christ to those around us, and to
those we can serve, through our acts
of mercy. Let's all, in a way our
circumstances will permit, be careful
and zealous to maintain good works.
And, as we have opportunity, let's do
good to all men!

1 Dollar and 100 Dollar Bill

Author Unknown

One day, a one dollar bill and a hundred dollar bill got folded wallets of Fortune 500 board members, I've flown from one end
together and began talking about their life experiences. of the country to the other! I've even been in the wallet of two
Presidents of the United States, and once when Princess Diana
The hundred dollar bill began to brag: visited the US, she used me to buy a packet of gum."

"I've had a great life," he said. "I've been to all the big hotels, In awe, the dollar humbly responded, "Gee, nothing like that has
Donald Trump himself used me at his casino, I've been in the ever happened to me, ...but I have been to church a lot!"

13
 What is the TRUE Origin of
But how did this pagan festival
acquire the name of "St. Valentine's
Day"? And why is the little naked

Valentine’s Day?
Cupid of the pagan Roman so often
associated today with February 14?
And why do little children and young
people still cut out hearts and send
them on a day in honor of
The Silence of Lupercus the hunter of
Educators Teachers are wolves? Why have we
all too often silent about supposed these pagan
the origin of the customs customs in honor of a false
they are forced to teach god are Christians?
in today's schools! If
they were to speak out, Who Was the Original
many would lose their "St. Valentine"? Valentine
jobs! was a common Roman
name. Roman parents often
Isn't it time we gave the name of their
examined why we children in honor of the
encourage our children to celebrate St. Valentine's Day - when it is never famous man who was first called
mentioned in the Bible as a practice of the New Testament Church? Valentine in antiquity. That famous
man was Lupercus, the hunter. But
Today, candymakers unload tons of heart-shaped red boxes for February 14, who was Lupercus? - and why should
while millions of the younger set are annually exchanging valentines. Florists he have also borne the name
consider February 14 - St. Valentine's Day - as one of their best business days. Valentine among the heathen
And young lovers pair off - at least for a dance or two - at St. Valentine's balls. Romans?
Why? Where did these customs originate? Where do we find any such practices
in the Bible? How did we come to inherit these customs? The Greeks called Lupercus by the
name of "Pan". The Semites called
A Christian Custom? Did you know that centuries before Christ, the pagan Pan "Baul," according to the Classical
Romans celebrated February 15 and the evening of February 14 as an idolatrous Dictionaries. Baal - mentioned so
and sensuous festival in honor of Lupercus, the "hunter of wolves"? often in the Bible - was merely
another name for Nimrod, "the
The Romans called the festival the "Lupercalia." The custom of exchanging mighty hunter" ( Genesis 10:9) It was
valentines and all the other traditions in honor of Lupercus - the deified hero- a common proverb of ancient time
hunter of Rome- was also linked anciently with the pagan practice of teen-agers that Nimrod was "the MIGHTY
"going steady." It usually led to fornication. Today, the custom of "going steady" hunter before the Lord." Nimrod was
is thought very modern. It isn't. It is merely a rebirth of an old custom "handed their hero - their strong man - their
down from the Roman festival of the Lupercalia, celebrated in the month of VALENTINE!
February, when names of young women were put into a box and drawn out by
men as chance directed." That's the admission of the Encyclopedia Americana, How plain that the original Valentine
article, "St. Valentine's Day." was Nimrod, the mighty hunter of
wolves. Yet another of Nimrod's
When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire names was "Sanctuc" or "Santa",
there was some talk in church circles of discarding this pagan free-for-all. But meaning Saint. It was a common title
the Roman citizens wouldn't hear of it! So it was agreed that the holiday would of any hero-god. No wonder that the
continue as it was, except for the more grossly sensual observances. Roman Lupercalia is called "St.
Valentine's Day"!
It was not until the reign of Pope Gelasius that the holiday became a "Christian"
custom. " As far back as 496, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia on February 15 But why do we associate HEARTS
to St. Valentine's Day on February 14." (p. 172 of Customs and Holidays Around on a day in honor of Nimrod - the
the World by Lavinia Dobler). Baal of the Phoenicians and Semites?

14
The surprising answer is that the
pagan Romans acquired the symbol
of the heart from the Babylonians. In
the Babylonian tongue the word for
heart was "bal" (Strong's
Concordance Number H1168). The
heart - bal - was merely a symbol of
Nimrod - the Baal! or Lord of the
Babylonians!
Executed at Rome Nimrod - the
original St. Valentine - was also
known as Saturn, the Roman-
Babylonian god who hid from his
pursuers in a secret place. The Latin
word Saturn is derived from the
Semiticspeaking Babylonians. It
means "be hid," "hide self," "secret,"
"conceal." The original Semitic
(Hebrew) word, from which the
Latin Saturn is derived, is used 83
times in the Old Testament (see
Young's Concordance under
"Sathar," also "sether").
According to ancient tradition,
Saturn (Nimrod) fled from his
pursuers to Italy. The Apenine
mountains of Italy were anciently
named the mountains of Nembrod or
Nimrod. Nimrod briefly hid out at
the site where Rome was later built.
The ancient name of Rome, before it
was rebuilt in 753 B.C. was Saturnia
- the site of Saturn's (Nimrod's)
hiding. There he was found and slain
for his crimes. Later, professing
Christians in Constantine's day made
Nimrod - the St. Valentine of the
heathen- a Saint of the Church and
continued to honor him under the
name of a Christian martyr.
Why February 14? But why should
the Romans have chosen February 15
and the evening of February 14 to
honor Lupercus - the Nimrod of the
Bible? (Remember that day in
People are funny, they want the front of the bus, the middle of the road, and the back of the church. –Annon.
ancient times began at sunset the
evening before.)
Nimrod - Baal or sun god of the
ancient pagans - was said to have
been born at the winter solstice. In
ancient time the solstice occurred on
January 6 and his birthday therefore
was celebrated on December 25 and
now called Christmas. It was the
custom of antiquity for, the mother
of a male child to present herself for
purification on the fortieth day after
January 6 - Nimrod's original
birthdate - takes us to February 15,
the celebration of which began on the
evening of February 14 - the
Lupercalia or St. Valentine's Day.
On this day in February, Semiramis,
the mother of Nimrod, was said to
have been purified and to have
appeared for the first time in public
with her son as the original "mother
and child."
The Roman month February, in fact,
derives its name from the februa
which the Roman priests used in the
rites celebrated on St. Valentine's
Day. The febru were thongs from the
skins of sacrificial animals used in
rites of purification on the evening of
February 14.
Cupid Makes His Appearance
Another name for the child Nimrod
was "Cupid" - meaning "desire"
(Encyclopedia Britannica, article
"Cupid"). It is said that when
Nimrod's mother saw him, she lusted
after him - she desired him. Nimrod
became her Cupid - her desired one -
and later her Valentine! So evil was
Nimrod's mother that it is said she
married her own son! Inscribed on
the monuments of ancient Egypt are
inscriptions that Nimrod (the
15
Egyptians called him Osiris) was
"the husband of his mother."
As Nimrod grew up, he became the
child-hero of many women who
desired him. He was their Cupid! In
the Book of Daniel he is called the
"desire of women" ( Dan. 11:37).
Moffatt translates the word as
Tammuz - a babylonian name of
Nimrod. He provoked so many
women to jealousy that an idol of
him was often called the "image of
jealousy" ( Ezekiel 8:5). Nimrod, the
hunter, was also their Valentine -
their strong or mighty her! No
wonder the pagans commemorated
their hero-hunter Nimrod, or Baal, by
sending heartshaped love tokens to
one another on the evening of
February 14 as a symbol of him.
Nimrod, the son of Cush the
Ethiopian, was later a source of
embarrassment to the pagans of
Europe. They didn't want an African
to worship. Consequently, they
substituted a supposed son of
Nimrod, a white child named Horus,
born after the death of Nimrod. This
white child then became a "fair
Cupid" of European tradition.
It is about time we examined these
customs of the pagans now falsely
labeled Christian. It is time we quit
this Roman and Babylonian
foolishness - this idolatry - and get
back to the faith of Christ delivered
once for all time.
Let's stop teaching our children these
pagan customs in memory of Baal
the sun god - the original St.
Valentine - and teach them instead
what the Bible really says!
Biblestudy.org
 A Real
Church
Meet
Recently, several individuals had
left a certain Church group for
personal reasons and started to
attend every Sabbath at one person’s
home. The former pastor made a
comment that they should meet at a
“real Church” instead of a home such
as a home fellowship. This event
made me realize that many Christians
only think of Churches as a large
congregation that meet in Church
buildings. But would this be the
definition of the “real Church” in the
New Testament? Let’s see what the
Bible calls a real Church.
To help us understand the answer
to this question, I plan to use various
Bible references on the Church from
my library as well as the Bible. The
question will involve the history of the
Church in the Apostolic times and
various commentaries on several
verses.
First, we need to define the word
“Church” as it is used in the Greek.
This will provide us a foundation on
which to begin our study on this topic.
The Greek word for Church is
“ecclesia” which means “assembly or
popular meeting.” This word does not
note a place or number, but just that it
is a meeting. But the Bible does show
us a few examples of where first cen-
tury Christians met for Church
services.
In Romans 16:3-5, Paul states in
the personal greeting portion of this
letter, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila my
helpers in Christ Jesus…likewise
greet the Church that is in their
house…”
The Ryrie Study Bible has the
following comments: “earlier
congregations met in homes, I
Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15;
Philemon 2. The several house
Churches in one city would constitute
the Church in that city.”
The Abingdon Bible Commentary,
1929, on page 1167, states about
Romans 16:3-16, “The mention of
‘the Church in their house’ reminds us
that not before the end of the second
century do we find clear evidence of
buildings specially set apart for
Christian worship. Doubtless they
came into use before we have
evidence of their existence; but there
was a long period during which
Christians were dependent upon the
hospitality of those of their number
who had houses large enough to
accommodate them.”
From these commentaries alone,
we can see that the early Church met
in homes, or at least many did at the
time.
It would be worth our time to look at
some other commentaries to improve
our understanding on this topic to see
where the Churches met later in the
first century.
Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible
Dictionary, 1967, page 170, states
about the Church, “This twofold usage
[individual assembly and world wide
community] is also seen in Paul. He
addresses his epistles to specific
Churches, e.g. Corinth (I Corinthians
1:2) or Thessalonica (I
Thessalonians 1:1). Indeed, he
seems sometimes to localize further
by referring to specific groups within
the local community as Churches, as
though sending greetings to
congregations within the one city
(Romans 16:5.)”
H.H. Rowley and J.J. Von Allmen,
in The Companion to the Bible, 1958,
page 53, under the article “Church”,
write, “Like the book of Acts, Pauline
epistles use Church both as for the
whole people of God and also for the
concrete manifestations of this people
in a particular place. Paul used the
plural ‘the Churches’ or ‘Churches of
God’ (I Thessalonians 2:14;
Galatians 1:22; I Corinthians 16:1; II
Corinthians 8:1), which does not
appear in Acts. He speaks of the
Churches in particular places or
provinces and even of ‘house-
Churches’ (I Corinthians 16:19;
Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2).”
16
Paul writes in Philemon 2, “And to
our beloved Apphia and Archippus our
fellow soldier, and to the CHURCH IN
YOUR HOUSE…”
Abingdon Bible Commentary on
this verse says, “With Philemon as
recipient are associated Apphia,
whom we may confidently assume to
have been his wife, and Archippus,
possibly a brother or son, but in any
case doubtless a leading member of
the Church in his house. That phrase
probably meant originally the Christian
members of the familia (the family,
slaves, and dependents); but, at a
very early date, Christian brothers
who met for worship and fellowship at
the house of a wealthy fellow-
Christian were regarded as members
of his household, and so of the
ecclesia (Church or congregation)…”
In A History of the Christian
Church, 1928, page 23, Mr. Walker
writes, “The early Jerusalem
Company were faithful in attendance
at the temple…but, in addition, they
had their own special services among
themselves, with prayer, mutual
exhortation, and ‘breaking of bread’
daily in private houses…”
The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, 1956, page 1438,
under “household”, comments, “…the
household [in NT times] became the
nuclei for the earlier life of the Church,
e.g. the house of Prisca and Aquila at
Rome (Romans 16:5), of Stephanas
(I Corinthians 16:15), of Onesiphorus
(II Timothy 1:16), etc. No wonder that
the earlier Church made so much of
the family life…”
Jesus did say in Matthew 18:20,
“For where two or three gathered
together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them.”
Also in John 4:21-23, Jesus did
say to a Samarian woman, “Woman,
believe me, the hour comes, when
you neither in this mountain, nor yet at
Jerusalem, worship the Father…But
the hour comes, and now is, when the
true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth; for the
Father seek such to worship Him.”
The key is to worship in spirit and in
truth.
So we see that many of the first
Christians did meet in a home or
houses for services. This was
acceptable practice of the time.
Almost all Christians during this period
met in homes.
Whether you meet in a house
Church or in a large building is not
really the issue. It is whether you and
your Church are able to come
In Focus:
Who Were the New Testament
Does the Bible outline a government takes its name from this
definite "New Testament" form of
local church organization? Is there a
single "Biblical" form of church
organization and structure that must
be adopted to be consistent with
scripture? If so, what is that form? If
not, what principles should be
followed in setting up local church
congregations?
These were the major questions that
we sought to answer through our
studies on this subject for the past few
months.
Early in our study and discussion it
became obvious that a proper
understanding of the New Testament
term "elder" was of paramount
importance in answering those
questions.
The word "elder" is consistently
translated in the New Testament from
the Greek work presbuteros. The
English words "priest," "presbyter,"
and "elder" all come from
presbuteros. In the Roman Catholic
Church, the Church of England, and
the Episcopal Church, "priest," is
generally used instead of "presbyter"
together to worship God, to love God,
and each other. I John 4:20 says, “If
a man say, I love God, and hateth his
brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth
not his brother whom he hath seen,
how can he love Godwhom he hath
not seen?”
"Elders"?
__________
or "elder." The presbyterian form of
Greek word as well.
At the heart and core of the
controversial subject of church
organization lies this enigmatic Greek
work. Who or what were the
presbuteros (elders) of the New
Testament period? Was there a
distinct office of elder with definite
qualifications and responsibilities?
How clear is the use of this word?
How dogmatic can we be in fixing a
definite church structure on the
understanding and use of this key
word?
Presbuteros is used nearly 70 times in
the New Testament. Of that number,
almost half are clearly referring to
leaders within the Jewish community.
In the Jewish society of Christ’s time
presbuteros was used to refer to the
respected leaders of the community,
the synagogues and the Jewish
Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as
"traditions of the elders," "elders of
the people," "priests, scribes, and
elders," "elders of Israel," are such
examples.
17
I hope this article has helped you
understand what the first century
Christian would have called a Church
and a few of the places that they
would have met./ Doyle J. Carter
(Giving & Sharing)
The book of Revelation uses
presbuteros a dozen times to refer to
the 24 "elders" surrounding God’s
throne.
But the word is also used in a very
broad and general sense. In the
parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15),
presbuteros is used in reference to the
elder son (verse 25). Another clear
reference to physical age is in John
8:9, where it is translated "the eldest."
In 1 Timothy 5:1 presbuteros refers to
men physically older in age, and in
verse 2 it refers to older women in the
church. In Hebrews 11:2 it refers to
men of the Old Testament.
Elders in the Church When it comes
to the Christian church, elders are
mentioned in association with the
apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30
and chapter 15). There is no specific
account given of the origin of the
eldership in the apostolic church.
Some scholars feel that the Christian
community carried over the term
"elder" from their common Jewish
usage.
Who were the "elders" of the early
church? Were they those men
regarded highly because of their
physical age and experience" or, those
respected as leaders within the church
because of their spiritual maturity?
Were they men who, even before their
conversion, were regarded as elders or
leaders in their community? Did the
elders of the early church hold a
specific "office" in the church? Did
some merely serve temporarily to fill
a particular need such as in Acts 6? It
would be speculation to say. The
record is silent. It is impossible to
draw dogmatic conclusions and nail
down a simple solution to this ancient
controversy.
Though scripture plainly lists
qualifications for the office of bishop
(episcopos) and for the office of
deacon (diakonos) nowhere is there
any mention of qualifications for
"elders" as some official of the
congregation.
The term elders might be roughly
equivalent to our word "leaders" or
"leading men" -- those who are
spiritually older and more mature.
Timothy, for example, who was
subordinate to the Apostle Paul, had
authority to ordain leaders of local
churches (1 Tim 3) although he was
physically younger than many in the
congregations he was overseeing
(compare 1 Tim 4:12 and 5:1-2).
Obviously, no ordination will make a
man a leader who is not already one.
Some men may be spiritual leaders
without being officially recognized as
such through ordination. Some men
within a congregation may be
officially designated by ordination to
fulfill a particular responsibility
because of a specific need. Once that
need is fulfilled, their official role
may end, yet they may continue to be
leaders and spiritual elders in a
general sense.
Office or Function? We must let the
context determine the meaning of
presbuteros in any particular verse.
But in several critical verses, this is
impossible.
Take Acts 14:23 for instance. On the
return leg of Paul’s first evangelistic
tour, it says that Paul and Barnabas
"ordained them elders in every
church." Does this mean that Paul
ordained some of the church members
to an official church office entitled
"Elder," or that Paul ordained or set
apart those who were already
recognized by the members as elders
and leaders in the general sense? And
if so, to what did Paul ordain them?
To the "office of elder," or as
"bishops," "deacons," "ministers,"
"teachers," etc.?
And did Paul ordain these leaders to
all serve in the same function within
the body, or to different functions of
leadership? To a specific rank? Were
they all "equal in rank and authority"?
The most competent Biblical scholars
unitedly admit that it’s impossible to
say. The context is just not that clear.
There is no way anyone can be
dogmatic regarding presbuteros in
this verse.
Take another example. Acts 20:17
refers to elders (presbuteros) of the
church in the area of Ehpesus. In
verse 28 Paul says they were
"overseers" (episkopos) of the flock.
But is Paul using the word episkopos
in a general sense, or as an "office of
bishop"? Many feel he meant it to
refer to general functions rather than
to specific titles.
Many questions are unanswered in
scripture. Any attempt to make
dogmatic twentieth-century
applications of the first century terms
and their respective functions must
answer these questions. (If you are
interested in further study on this
subject, the reputable and scholarly
work of the International Critical
Commentary has a fine summary of
this word dilemma in Vincent’s
excursus on Philippians 1:1, pages 36-
51.)
Other Key Words In addition to the
word Presbuteros, episkopos
("bishop" -- 1 Tim 3) and diakonos
18
("deacon") are the other key works
central to understanding the local
leadership within the church
congregations.
Episkopos is only used five times (the
related episkope four times). It is
usually translated "bishop" and has
the meaning of overseer and
superintendent.
Diakonos and its related words are
used over 100 times in the New
Testament. They are commonly used
words referring to ministering and
serving, often in a very general sense
as when Jesus taught us to serve one
another.
Diakonos refers to one who executed
the command of another. This term is
applied to the servant of a king; to
civil servants; to God’s ministers,
including the apostles; to Christ
himself; and even to ministers of
Satan in 2 Corinthians 11:15.
In spite of its frequent use, diakonos
seems to be used of an official within
a local church (a deacon") only in 1
Timothy 3:8-13 (and possible in
Philippians 1:1 -- though function
may be referred to here, rather than
title). In Acts 6, the term or title
diakonos is not mentioned. Usually
diakonos is used in general sense
throughout the New Testament.
Overlapping Definitions Notice the
overlap of definitions and use of these
key words in scripture: Jesus Christ is
referred to as a Bishop -- overseer --
episkopos (1 Pet 2:25), obviously in a
general sense, and as a minister -
deacon - diakonos (Ro 15:8), again in
a general sense.
The apostles Peter and John referred
to themselves as "elders" --
presbuteros (1 Pet 5:1, 2 Jn 1, 3 Jn 1).
They were also told by Christ to be
deacons, ministers, servants in the
general sense -- Greek diakonos (Mt
20:26). The vacancy left by Judas
Iscariot is referred to as a bishoprick
(Greek, episkope), Acts 1:20. So here
apostles are also equated with bishops
or overseers, obviously general usage
again.
But note the overlap and
interchangeability of these key terms,
and how they are frequently used in a
broad and general sense within the
church and ministry. Paul, an apostle
(Eph 1:1), also referred to himself a
diakonos in Ephesians 3:7. Timothy,
an evangelist (2Tim 4:5) having
authority from Paul to ordain and
discipline elders (the presbuteros),
was himself a diakonos of God (1
Thes 3:2).
Though the apostles considered
themselves "elders" within the church,
they obviously had a different
function, responsibility, and authority
from other spiritual leaders within the
church. Timothy and Titus were
overseers in Asia Minor and Crete, yet
clearly had authority over elders
ordained in local congregations. There
was difference of use and function
among the church elders, for some
labored in word and doctrine,
preaching and teaching, and some did
not (1 Tim 5:17). 1 Timothy 3 also
refers to the specific job of
superintending a church as a "work."
Clearly, responsibilities and functions
differed within the ministry.
Modern Structure Rather than
crystallizing a dogmatic, so-called
"Biblical" structure of church
government, the results of our Biblical
Studies Committee research have
caused us to recognize the fact that the
subject of local church government is
not something simple that can be
wrapped up in a neat little package.
The New Testament is simply not
specific in dealing with local church
structure and form. Many terms are
used in both a general and a specific
sense. Definitions overlap. Scholars
disagree on meanings or specific
functions, or more often than not,
agree that one cannot come to far-
reaching, dogmatic conclusions
concerning these terms on the basis of
New Testament usage. Words change
meanings; terms, functions, and
structure varied from area to area; and
the overall form evolved from the
beginning of the New Testament
church to the end of the first century
and beyond.
There is no one, clear form of church
organization that can be called "the
Biblical" or "the one, only, original"
church structure for the local
congregation. What we must be
careful to do is to properly and wisely
apply the organizational principles
taught in the New Testament. Several
forms of organization may work to
varying degrees of effectiveness, or to
serve differing needs or goals. But a
particular form of church organization
should be "consistent with scripture"
and should not violate Biblical
principles and teachings.
It makes sense that local leadership
within the church should follow a
logical, orderly system facilitating the
work of God’s Spirit effectually in
every member, with each serving
according to God’s gifts and fulfilling
his particular function within the body
(Eph 4:7, 11-16).
God is not the author of chaos or
confusion within a local church, nor a
system that encourages power
struggles, political strife, or self-
exhaltation (1 Co 14:33, 40). Rather,
God wants the peace, the unity, and
the harmony that comes from his Holy
Spirit and from love -- and the
effectiveness, the fruits, and the
service that come from a properly
functioning, organized body, with
each member doing his part for the
benefit of the whole (1 Co 12).
Those who want to be spiritual elders
and leaders within Christ’s Body,
should covet the best gift of all, love
(1 Co 12:31 ff), and be the servant and
minister of all. For "whosoever will be
great among you, shall be your
minister: And whosoever of you will
be the chiefest, shall be servant of all"
(Mark 10:43-44). George Kemnitz/ACD

Why Go to Church?
A Churchgoer wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to Church every week.
“I’ve gone for 30 years now,” he wrote, “and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I can’t
remember a single one of them. So, I think I’m wasting my time and the pastors are wasting theirs by giving sermons at all.”
This started a real controversy in the “Letters to the Editor” column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks
until someone wrote this clincher: “I’ve been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But,
for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this... They all nourished me and
gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today.
Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!” When you are DOWN to nothing, God
is UP to something! Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible, and receives the impossible! Thank God for our physical and
our spiritual nourishment! /author Unknown

19
Appearance and Truth
Charlotte Bronte

Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To
pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns.

These things and deeds are diametrically opposed: they are as distinct as is vice from virtue. Men too often
confound them: they should not be confounded: appearance should not be mistaken for truth; narrow human
doctrines, that only tend to elate and magnify a few, should not be substituted for the world-redeeming creed of
Christ. There is -- I repeat it -- a difference; and it is a good, and not a bad action to mark broadly and clearly
the line of separation between them.

The world may not like to see these ideas dissevered, for it has been accustomed to blend them; finding it
convenient to make external show pass for sterling worth -- to let white-washed walls vouch for clean shrines. It
may hate him who dares to scrutinize and expose -- to raise the gilding, and show base metal under it -- to
penetrate the sepulchre, and reveal charnel relics: but hate as it will, it is indebted to him. Source: "Jane Eyre" by
Charlotte Bronte.

I will stand my watch

And set myself on the rampart,
And watch to see what He will say to me,
And what I will answer when I am reproved.
Then the LORD answered me and said:
“Write the vision
And make it plain on tablets,
That he may run who reads it.” Habakkuk 2:1-2

Who Are We?

The Mustard Seed Newsletter is published free by The Mustard Seed Evangelistic Association –an affiliated association that
has committed itself to the publishing of the Gospel that Jesus Christ preached and as recorded for us in the Holy Scriptures.
This goal is to be within the framework of the Commission set forth to His believers and followers to "go and make disciples
of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). It is our hope that the Mustard
Seed and its future publications will become a resource and vehicle for our readers to come to know and understand and true
meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the Kingdom of God. You are invited to join us in this the exciting and marvelous
work!

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown
it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
Matthew 13:31-32

For your question and/or comment, email us at mseedwork@yahoo.com/ Raul deAsis Hipe/Publisher

20