SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Paul is the author of Hebrews

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
murdog
Member



Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario

 Re:

Graftedbranch,

Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).

The Timothy letters are meant to teach against false teachers, instructions on worship, and qualifications for overseers and deacons. I think to call these letters pastoral epistles is absolutely correct.

Of course there were pastors in the church. Why else did Paul tell Timothy the qualifications for an overseer?

Murray


_________________
Murray Beninger

 2006/6/13 0:08Profile
murdog
Member



Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario

 Re:

Logic,

To clarify what I meant by Hebrews being unlike all the other letters in the New Testament. I should have said Hebrews is unlike all the other letters that were attributed to Paul. I wasn't referring to anything written by Peter, James, or John,etc.

Sorry about that.


Murray


_________________
Murray Beninger

 2006/6/13 0:12Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Also some have supposed it ot be Clemente of Rome, the disciple that took over right after Peter.


The Catholics have brain-washed you. ;-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/13 5:44Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).

You may choose to do so but that doesn't mean it is a logical step. Timothy was an apostolic delegate. Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders but they were not local church elders nor were they 'spiritual overseer (pastor). Our modern concept of 'a pastor' has no historical basis in the scriptures.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/13 5:50Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I like the preface in the RcV:

Author: apparently the apostle Paul, who alone was qualified to write the deep, high, and rich content of the book. The mention of Timothy and the tone of the fellowship also point to Paul as the author.

This is part of the RcV's philosophy to create a revelation within a revelation. Paul is the ultimate revelation and so Hebrews must be Paul's? This is faulty reasoning.

There is another aspect of Heb 2:3 which may be significant. Paul was usually keen to remind his listeners that he received 'his gospel' first hand from the Lord Himself and not through the intermediary of others.

My 'hunch'? Apollos, but it is only a hunch. This kind of allegorical exposition of the scriptures was a known feature of Alexandria which Apollos' birthplace; Acts 18:24. Apollos was an 'eloquent man mighty in the scriptures', as was the author of Hebrews. The writer is certainly well acquainted with Paul's travelling companions; this would fit Apollos too.

I don't think the idea of Paul remaining anonimous works either. He specifically states that his own letters will have his personal greeting; Hebrews does not. However Paul doesn't always speak of Timothy as his 'son'. In Rom 16 he refers to him as his fellow-worker and in 2 Cor 1:1 and Col 1:1, Philem 1:1, 1 The 3:2, Paul calls him 'brother'. So the reference to 'brother Timothy' does not exclude Paul in itself. It is interesting, see the addition to the last verse, that the translators thought it was written by Timothy. I don't think Luke works either. Luke seems to have been thoroughly Greek in origin and the writer of Hebrews is saturated in the OT.

But it remains... a hunch.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/13 6:10Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).



This is really a side issue and not related to the thread. I don't believe I should have introduced it. Nevertheless:

"Overseer" in the context of 1 And 2 Timothy is refering to elders in the churches which Timothy was instructed to appoint. Timothy was not a "pastor" of any church. Rather Timothy was a colaborer with the Apostles and served all the churches.

Paul gives Timothy the qualifications of an elder or overseer. And these are plural. There was never a single "overseer" appointed to rule over the flock of God. Rather it was always leading elders.

James tells us if there is any sick among you, let him call the elders of the church. He does not say, "let him call the pastor of the church".

And in none of the "pastoral episltes" is the qualification a theological degree or ordination. Rather it is spiritual qualifications and charecter.

Our concept of the protestant pastoral system is a carry over from Roman Catholicism. That is a special 'ordained minister" who alone is qualified to do the spiritual work, who presides over all meetings, who baptises, who does all the speaking. And he must go to the appropriate theological school, earn his degree and be ordained. As such he enters into a special class of believer. He is ordained and different from the rest. He is more than a 'brother". He is ordained. He is a member of the clergy and the common believer is "laity". And many even in protestantism wear robes and collars and such which signify this distinction.

Yet Peter tells us, "you are all living stones being built up into a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ..."

And Paul tells us in Ephesians that the gifted ones are gifts to the church for the equipping of the saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ. It is the saints who do the work of the ministry and though which directly the body of Christ is built up.

This system is a modern concept read into the scriptures but not dirived from the scriptures. There is no question regarding this. IT is both internally evident in the Bible and historically accurate. It was the emergence of the RC hierarchial system which led to this concept. There is no mention in any epistle to a presiding pastor in any church. No admonition, no address. Philemon was an elder at Colossia but the epistle to him was not written to him as an elder or overseer but rather regarding Onisamus his run away slave.

Does it matter? Is this just a "legal matter" of what is the right system?

It matters because of it's organic implications. IN other words the clergy/laity system suppresses the body of Christ, keeps it from functioning, and therby the body of Christ cannot be built up. It cannot grow up in all things into Christ who is the head because only the ordained clergy function. It is a matter of Life and growth, not of legalism.

The recovery of proper theology in the reformation alone did not suffice to produce the built up body of Christ. We have had revivals from time to time but these never last. The system cannot contain the Wine of the Spirit. The wineskin of the clergy/laiity system allows only so much growth then it surpresses it because it is threatened. The Spirit is grieved and eventually the system takes over and perpetuates itself. The Life is gone and only a little of the shell remains. What began in Life becomes ritual and proceedure.

Pastors call for and pray for revival. But if it came they would not recognize it. Thier lofty position would be nulified as the members lay hold of Christ the Head and the Spirit becomes their inward Teacher.


Graftedbranch

 2006/6/13 8:12Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Pastors call for and pray for revival. But if it came they would not recognize it. Thier lofty position would be nulified as the members lay hold of Christ the Head and the Spirit becomes their inward Teacher.


While I agree with much of your reasoning this statement is far too sweeping. There are many who men call 'pastors' who are faithful servants of the flock. Don't stumble over the title it is the function that matters.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/13 10:01Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
There are many who men call 'pastors' who are faithful servants of the flock. Don't stumble over the title it is the function that matters.



Yes, amen. This is not an indictment of pastors as persons, but of the religious systems they operate in. Many excellent servents of Christ have been and are pastors. It is just the system we are accustomed to by tradition. And in fact, in the religious system there is no other way to "minister" except to go with the program.

And Christians are like the Isrealites who wanted a king to rule over them like the other nations. God gave them the desire of their heart but sent leaness to their soul. IT is easier to have a man responsible for the spiritual work. It is easier to just go to "church" on sunday, listen to a good sermon, and try to live a little better.

Remove the man and then what do you have? All the believers now must contact the Lord themselves daily. They don't have a hired professional to do it for them. They must exercise their spirit to function, to be a minister of Christ, to know the Word and to be able to handle it. They must now, as Paul says, "when you come together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, etc. Now they must have something for the building up of the body of Christ.

Now the condition of the church is in their hands as members of the body of Christ. Now they must be in fellowship with Christ, must be filled with the Spirit, must be abiding in the Vine, must bear fruit.

Now if the meeting goes well it is because they were in their spirit, because they were exercised and in contact with the Lord. Because they were praying, because they were speaking. Now they must grow, now they must go on with the Lord because as they are, so the church is.

Graftedbranch







Graftedbranch

 2006/6/13 12:15Profile
murdog
Member



Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario

 Re:

Graftedbranch and Philogos,

You both make good points. That Apollus theory may have some merit. Especially that the author calls Timothy his brother as opposed to his son. That stuck out to me before when I was reading Hebrews. It does seem as though we got sidetracked on the whole spiritual overseer issue.

I am really not sure who wrote Hebrews now. And I am O.K. with that. Good discussion though.

Murray


_________________
Murray Beninger

 2006/6/13 19:36Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

Good hunch :-) Its good to see you back Bro.! Missed your posts :-(


_________________
D.Miller

 2006/6/13 23:28Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy