|
 Unless
you have done some reading in early church history — something
about the developing apostasy of the second and third centuries
— you may not realize how easily the sacerdotal system slipped
into “Christianity” — and how soon after Christ the church
was corrupted by its fruits. It was a major factor in the
developing of the first great apostasy. and has repeatedly led
“reformers” and “restorers” away from their noble
purposes.
Sacerdotal
is, “Of priests; relating to the priestly office or function.
Or sacerdotalism, “The doctrine that ordination confers
special powers and rights.”
Judaism
had its special priesthood and sacred objects. Only the
priests could enter the holy place — wear the holy garments
— offer at the altar — approach God on behalf of the laity.
“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is
called of God as was Aaron.” (Heb. 5:4)
This
system was especially suited to the “moonlight” age of
revelation. while God’s scheme of redemption was yet hidden
(Eph. 3:2-f); and served “unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things.” (Heb. 8:4—5) But the New Covenant has its
High Priest in heaven, “after the order of Melchisedec.” and
all saints are “priests.” (1 Pet. 2:5) Even here, we must
understand that such statements are couched in the terminology
of the shadow. Our tabernacle is “the true tabernacle. which
the Lord pitched, and not man.” The “once for all”
offering is the blood of Christ, i.e., His life given in our
behalf. We are given no earthly “sanctuary” (holy place);
|
|
although by some unexplainable quirk,
the liberal brethren who often accuse us of considering the
church building as “holy” because we do not banquet there
— are the very ones who often call the auditorium a “sanctuary”
— and go right ahead and misuse it. (Cf. Heb. 9: 1-8-9, 23-f)
Does
sacerdotalism exist among brethren? Well, few would admit it,
and none would call it that, but let me give you a little
test. (1) Do you regard the Lord’s Supper as a “sacrament”
which only the Elders or Deacons can “administer”? (2) Are
there certain words which must be uttered,
and without which valid baptism can not be performed? (Is
baptism a holy “rite” with a “liturgy”?) (3) Must
baptism he “administered” by preacher — or saint — to be
valid? (4) Is the judgement of the Elders irrevocably the “will
of God” by virtue of their “office”? (See Nov. issue, on
“office.”) (5) Is the church building the “house of God”?
If you think “yes” to any of these, I beg you to examine
your reasons carefully. You may be caught in the web of
sacerdotalism without realizing it.
Don’t
let the terminology fool you. I have deliberately used words
that “our” brethren may reject — and not know what the
words really mean. Do we reject priestly functions because the
word priest” is used instead of “preacher” or “elder”?
Let us hope we have better reasons. Nor should we play into the
hands of those who would reject legitimate rule of elders, etc.
, by refusing to seriously consider these matters.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
