Replies

William Tynsdale, a priest (ordained in his late teens in 1502), a Greek and Hebrew scholar, earning an M.A. at Oxford by 1515, and Cambridge graduate, translated out of the best Greek - from Erasmus' Greek/Latin parallel "Novum Instrumentum omne" - of the day into English.

In Gustavus S. Paine's book, he documents an anecdote in Tynsdale's life where after proving a "learned" Roman Catholic scholar wrong, the papist cried out, "It were better for us to be without God's laws, than without the Pope's!" To which Tyndale prophetically replied,

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than you do!"

What interest would this seminary graduate have in risking his life to bring the Word of God to the hoi polloi? After all, only he is capable of interpreting and knowing what its all about, right? Why should he risk his neck in that regard. And risk his neck indeed he did. For his efforts he was simultaneously immolated and strangled. Wycliff subsequently suffered even a worse fate than he (albeit after he'd died of natural causes).

The fact of the matter is that New Testament doesn't teach that a separate caste of church leaders designated as 'clergy' who are over the 'laity'. Truth of the matter is that an institutionalized "clergy" system does more to undermine the canonical authority of the New Testament than many other doctrinal heresies?

The English word "clergy" is related to the Greek word cleros. It means "a lot or inheritance". I Pet 5:3 exhorts the elders not to lord it over "the lots" (Greek: ton cleron), which refers to the entire flock of God's people. A.T. Robertson says the following about that verse:

Lording it over (katakurieuontes), present active participle of katakurieuô, late compound (kata, kurios) as in Mat 20:25. The charge allotted to you (tôn klêrôn). "The charges," "the lots" or "the allotments." (see Act 1:17,25 in this sense). The old word meant a die (Mt 27:25), a portion (Col 1:12; I Pet 1:4), and here "the charges assigned" (cf. Ac 17:4). From the adjective klêrikos come the words cleric, clerical, clerk. Wycliff translated it here "neither as having lordship in the clergie." Making yourselves ensamples (tupoi ginomenoi), present active participle of ginomai and predicate nominative tupoi, i.e. types, models, for which phrase see I Ths 1:7. Continually becoming - see I Pet 2:21 for hupogrammos (writing-copy). To the flock (tou poimniou). Objective genitive.

Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of cleros used as designation of a separate class of "ordained" leaders. Instead, it refers to the "inheritance" (clerou, #2819) laid up for all the saints (Col. 1:12; Acts 26:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in the New Testament as God's "inheritance". The doctrine of the New Testament has utterly been perverted and turned upside-down by using the term "clergy: to refer to a special elite group of church leaders.

Laity is an English word related to the Greek word laos (#2992), meaning "people". The Greek word laikos, which means "laity", is not found in all of the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether "saints, bishops, or deacons" (Phil. 1:1), are the "people" (laos) of God. "People of God" is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).

Because NT teaches nothing respecting a "clergy", the fact that a separate caste of the "ordained" permeated our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that in general the New Testament is not taken very seriously. The "clergy" practice is a heresy that must be renounced, striking at the very heart of NT doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers" that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape Jesus' kingdom was to take when He said, "You are all brethren". Since it is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13).

Insistance upon such "clergy" role dictates a requirement of virtual omni-competence from those standing behind the pulpit. The expectations are very high for those who wear the many hats this profession demands. The deadly problem with this unscriptural system is that it eats up those within its pale: burnout, moral lapse, divorce, and suicide are very high among the "clergy". Is it any wonder such repeated tragedies occur in light of what is expected of one person? Christ never intended anyone to fill such an ecclesiastical role. In light of Paul's remark in I Cor 12:14 that "the body is not one part but many", we should be able to discern that the "clergy" position is neither healthy for those in it, nor is it beneficial for the body of Christ.

In fact adherence to such distinction would belie God's Word wherein it is stated that He is no respecter of persons. IF He was a respecter of persons, then the whole Cain-Able thing would be a non-starter.

Sons of Aaron punished. Lev. 10:1-3

Sister of Moses punished. Num. 12:14-16

Anannias and Sapphira punished. Acts 5:1-11

All alike in Christ. Rom. 2:11; Gal 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25

Not only is God not a respecter of persons, he has no respect for a person's works (Cain was offended at God's lack of respect of his works). The priests themselves being admonished to refrain from labor in fashioning an altar to be used for worship (Exo 20:25; Deu 27:5; Jos 8:31). "Except that the Lord built thy house, thy labor be in vain - Psa 127:1"

While many religions rely on priests acting as mediators between God and people (who minister according to God's instruction and offering sacrifices to God on behalf of the people), Scripture tells us there is only one mediator between us and God, i.e., Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). The writer of Hebrews calls Jesus the supreme "high priest," who offered himself as a perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 7:23-28). The believer in the efficacy of Christ's attoning work upon the cross, having died in Him, and are now in Him, it is through Christ that all believers have been given direct access to God, just like a priest. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. Furthermore, not only are all Christians priests in that regard, they are members of a Royal priesthood (I Pt 2:9).

One gains no credibility with the Lord by being a learned scholar either. It is true that but for scholars, would we'd not have Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, Bible translations, Bible concordances and the many, many works on interpretation, application, inspiration and background that enrich our understanding and Christian walk. There is no end of learning and one cannot read everything. But it helps to be aware that there is so much to learn. Such a perspective might caution us against narrow minded and dogmatic pronouncements like "this is what the Scripture means" when we haven’t put the effort into discovering if that is really what the Scripture means. A Strong’s Concordance and a patchwork string of cherry-picked Bible verses do not necessarily a doctrine make.

The standard drill for "doing theology," to use the crude but common phrase in the profession, is to ask of the text several key questions:

What does it say? (language, translation, idioms, genre of literature all play a part here)
What did the writer/speaker mean? (cultural, political, religious and situational background and understanding are all vitally important here)
What did the writing/letter/speech mean to the original audience? (the exact context of the people, problems, situation are critical here in truly understanding what was said and why it was said)
What does it mean for us? (here we make the big leap toward interpreting the text to see if it does or doesn’t apply to us -and if it does, how might it apply to our 21st century world.

These are all steps in hermeneutical exegesis employing the methodologies of textual criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, hermeneutical criticism, structural criticism, and canonical criticism, et al. I’m sure I’ve left out some "criticisms." Its pretty clear that you don't comprehend that criticism doesn’t in and of itself doesn't mean imputing, denigrating, slander, libel, or condemnatino, but is a term used for study, analysis and critique.

Academic qualifications means very little in that regard to God. Whether or not a particular scholar or specialist shares one's doctrinal position should matter little. The question emminently boils down to how well does one know the material and would presentation of such give cause to reevaluate one's own doctrinal position? II Tit 3:7 tells us about academic scholarship. I'm aware of scholars that have the Bible committed to memory and yet reject the Gospel. Indeed scripture is replete with commentary concerning how the Lord confounds the wise, and His use of "foolishness in the eyes of the wise" for His purposes.

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. {1 Tim 6:20-21 RSV} Paul charges Timothy with a command in II Tim 2:14-19. "Rightly dividing" in v15 is rendered from the Greek orthotomeo (#3718, compound of #3717 and base of #5114), which according to Strong has the connotations "to make a straight cut", i.e. (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message). A.T. Roberts translates orthotomounta as:

Handling aright, present active participle of orthotomeô, late and rare compound (orthotomos), "cutting straight", orthos and temnô), here only in N.T although it occurs in Pro 3:6; 11:5 for making straight paths (hodous) with which compare Heb 12:13 and "the Way" in Act 9:2. Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since temnô and orthos are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight.

The salient point here nevertheless is to whom is Paul refering doing the "rightly dividing"? William Burkitt's Notes on the New Testament elucidates the meaning of this passage quite eloquently:

Observe here, The excellent advice which St. Paul gives to Timothy, to all the ministers of the church, and to all the Christian churches far and near, that they spend not their time in disputes, that they contend not about words, which have no tendency to make men either wiser or better, but serve only to violate the laws of charity, and cause men to wrangle eternally, and persecute one another with hard names and characters of reproach. Here note, 1. What those things are which ought not to be matters of contention among Christians; namely,

Such things in which we differ from each other, rather in words, than in sense; ofttimes opponents mean the same things, but differ only in the way and manner of expression.
Such things as tend to little or no profit, either as to edification in faith, in love, or in practical godliness.
Observe, 2. The apostle's argument, why we should not contend about these things; because they tend to beget strife and contention among Christians, by dividing them into factions and parties, and also tend to the subversion of the hearers, causing them to doubt of the truth of the faith, about which the contending parties cannot agree; "Charge them therefore, that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."
Observe, 3. The solemn charge given to Timothy, as to the matter, manner, and method of his preaching; that the matter of it be the word of truth, the pure word of God, that it be divided rightly, to every one his portion, to every hearer his due, methodizing and distributing truth, as God would have it; terror to whom terror is due, comfort to whom comfort belongs.
The original word rendered rightly to divide, some think a sacrifical word, alluding to the right dividing of the sacrifice; which was laid upon the altar, separating the precious from the vile, and severing the parts which were not to be offered from them that were, and cutting out the sacrifice in such a manner as all had their share in them. As if St. Paul had said, "Study not for the applause of men, but for the approbation of God, as becometh a good workman, who needeth not to be ashamed of his work, whoever looks upon it; but let thy preaching and living be strait and conformable to the gospel, and thus study to shew thyself approved of God"
Hence learn, That although curious and unprofitable trifling with words in a pulpit be vain and sinful, yet it is the part of a skillful teacher, to order, methodize, and distribute truth in its proper place, and give every hearer his part and portion.

Adam Clarke's Commentary says, that by rightly dividing the word of truth, we are to understand to continuing in the true doctrine, and teaching that to every person; and, according to our Lord's simile, giving each his portion of meat in due season-milk to babes, strong meat to the full grown, comfort to the disconsolate, reproof to the irregular and careless; in a word, finding out the necessities of his hearers, and preaching so as to meet those necessities.

Do we need scholars? You bet. Respect for the Word of God demands we treat it with care, honesty, and a desire to understand its truth. Ideally, the role of scholars is to educate the ministry of the Christian church. Just who comprises the "ministry" of the Christian Church though? Does that mean that only graduates of theological universities, divinity schools, or seminary colleges are qualified to expound and preach the Word of God, or to criticize, confront or rebuke doctrinal error and faulty dogma? Whomever undertakes the hard work and heavy lifting of actually studying in depth the book they preach from, digesting available scholarship and presenting it as practically and effectively as they can are qualified to do God's work. All Christians have a duty to teach, expound, inspire, and model the truth of Scripture and not just seminary graduates. Think of it thisly: while a tax-preparers signature merely implies a responsibility concerning the proper filling out of a tax form, the ultimate accountability before the IRS remains that of for whom the tax return is filed for. The same it will be before the Lord: no amount of theological academic accredidation finger-pointing will absolve personal accountability before the Lord for the destiny of one's eternal soul.