Theocratic Congregationalism
~ Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Solus Spiritus
in Church Polity ~
Discussion
outline
Christ Alone as the Unmediated and Sufficient Head Transcendent
over the Entire Church
1. The Issue Of
Headship And The Inconsistency Of Mediated Headship
human headship - vs. confession to a Romanist priest
No other Mediator - no other Head
Are you a church?
Yes, or no? I will ask it
again. Are you a church? This is a simple question. Answer it!
Are organizations like the SBC, the GARBC, or SGM[2] churches? Yes, or no?
Are they churches? This is a simple
question. Answer it!
Either you are or you are not. Either they are or they are not. In either case once you have identified what
is and is not the church, then that body only looks to its Head and His Word
for authority. For it to look elsewhere
is to circumvent His Headship in the exact same way that a Roman Catholic
priest circumvents His Mediation.
Is the Headship of Jesus Christ enough? Is it sufficient? Does it mean anything? Why would additional authority structures be
considered as accretions to the local church, if it is a church, and if the
Headship of Christ were professed to be sufficient? The "Vicar/Vicars of Christ" by any
other name are still Popes!
Solus Christus (Christ alone)
necessarily involves the consequence that He is solum Caput (the only Head). The Church is not a multiple headed
monstrosity like the mythological Hydra, Chimera, Scylla or Cerberus. The Body
of Christ, the Church, has one Head, and one alone. "And he is the head of the body, the church: who
is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have
the preeminence." (Col. 1:18) Nothing intervenes between the Church and her Head which
she is united to by the Holy Spirit sent by the Head. Nothing that pretends to
intervene should be tolerated for an instant.
That
being said, evangelicalism is loaded with priest craft and clericalism that has
spawned a horde of “mini-popes” and “wannabe heads". The beam and the mote
need to be considered these days. Many Diotrophes roam the land robbing the
preeminence of Christ the Lord and taking it to themselves (3 Jn. 9-10). Let the Romanists play their antichristian
cultic games, zeal for the household of God should be consuming us as judgment
first begins at home (1 Pet. 4:17).
The following
statement is an example of an explicit denial of the sufficiency and relevance
of the Headship of Jesus Christ over local churches:
"In the case
of independency, no one outside a particular local church has spiritual
authority to enforce confessional fidelity within that local church."[3]
Cases in point in the inspired record:
Neither the problems at Corinth, nor those in the seven
churches of Asia Minor were addressed by an extra-church ecclesiastical body,
but directly by Jesus Christ whose inspired Word to each of the individual
local churches was only mediated by Apostles.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any inter-church or supra-church
entity being assembled even temporarily to deal with these issues confronted by
Christ, the Head, Himself via His Apostles.
In Rev. 1-3 where is any mediating or intervening human authority
depicted between Christ as the Head of the local churches and the individual
churches? John writes the letters, but
they are not letters from John to the churches.
They are explicitly stated to be from Jesus Christ to the churches. John enters into the picture in this case as
more of an amanuensis or "secretary" taking down Christ's words as
they are dictated to him. In the
conclusion of each letter it is made clear that the Spirit is speaking directly
to the churches plural in each letter to a given local church, and that the
Spirit is doing so without any other human mediation than the Apostle John who
writes down what the Head of the Church tells him to.
2. The Three
Institutions That God Ordained And Their Respective Headships
Who does the king answer to? Who does the man answer to in the home? Who does the church answer to? Christ is the Head in each and every case,
and it is just as unbiblical and nonsensical to interpose another mediating
authority between Him and the State and the Home as it is to do so for the
Church.
Christ as the Head of the man - e.g., 1 Cor. 11:3.
Christ as the King of kings - Dan. 2:47; Mt. 28:18; 1
Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16.
Shall we justify a council of kings with authority over
individual nations as though the King of kings was an irrelevant title?
Shall we justify a council of husbands with authority
over individual male headship in the home is if Christ as the Head of the man
was insufficient and needed to be supplemented by some intervening mediation?
Isn't this exactly what is being done when the autonomy
of the local church is violated with extra-church authority accretions?
******************************************************************************
Excursus on one of
the Biblical passages commonly cited in the defense of extra-local
ecclesiastical polity - The Jerusalem "Council" in Acts 15:
Many attempts at Biblical defenses for such
ecclesiastical superstructures have been brought forward over the centuries
which may be seen as flawed on their face, or not pertinent at best. What about the Jerusalem "council",
as it commonly referred to? This is
often cited as a historical precedent for extra-church superstructures
intervening between local churches and the Headship of Christ. This issue in
Acts 15 of the Jerusalem Council should be considered worthy of closer scrutiny
since it has at least the appearance of a reasonable treatment of the text.[4] In fact, if this "proof" is
demonstrated to be flawed, it may serve as the best example of the kind of
selective reading, eisegesis, and assuming what needs to be proved, etc. that
is evident in all of the others. One
current example of the employment of Acts 15 in such a fashion may be
cited.
"First, regardless of how one
applies all the details, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 provides evidence for
the governmental interdependency of local churches. A dispute regarding the
orthodoxy of Paul and Barnabas arises in Antioch, but the case is referred to
the elders and apostles in Jerusalem for adjudication. Several lines of
evidence point to the extra-local governmental authority of the council. (a)
The very fact that a local church (Antioch) would deem it appropriate to look
outside of their own church to other men in other churches shows that the
church did not regard itself as completely self-governing. (b) If it is the case
that the elders of the Jerusalem council came from many different Jerusalem
house-churches, then this also indicates the governmental unity of the
churches. (c) The council viewed itself as having authority in many local
churches. The council communicated its decision not only to the church in
Antioch, but to churches in all of Syria and Cilica as well (15:22ff.; 16:4).
(d) The decree sent to the churches carried authority: “For it has seemed good
to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these
requirements…” (Acts 15:28). The decision came, not as a suggestion from a
neighboring church, but as an authoritative decree (carrying the “burden” of
“requirements”) sent by ecclesiastical officers. It was given in that spirit
(vv. 24-30), and it was received in that spirit (v. 31)."[5]
Is there anything to this argument? Should this historical episode in the first
century be credited as presenting Scriptural warrant for the denominations, assemblies,
synods, presbyteries, etc. that have been erected in subsequent centuries?
The following factors must be taken into consideration,
and given appropriate weight, in answering such questions:
1. The presence
of Apostolic authority (Acts 15:2, 4,
6, 22-23; 16:4).[6]
Any ecclesiastical entity in the post-apostolic period
that thinks it has the right to ordain "decrees" to local churches is
presumptuous to say the least.
2. The lack of
New Testament guidance.
The fact that this was done prior to the close of the New
Testament should not be dismissed lightly or ignored. Whereas the Bereans searched the Scriptures
to ascertain whether what Paul was teaching was in accordance with their Bible,
i.e., the Old Testament (Acts 17:11), that would not have sufficed to resolve
this trans-covenantal and trans-ethnic issue.
At the conclusion of the "council" debate James did cite the
Old Testament prophets (Jer. 12:15; Amos 9:11f.; and Is. 45:21) as supporting
one related issue, i.e., God saving some of the Gentiles. This, however, did not resolve the presented
question concerning requiring circumcision for their salvation. The continuing flow of the inspired writings
that would come to constitute the New Testament canon of Scripture was ongoing,
and if fact, just beginning. When dating
the Jerusalem "council" is considered it should be obvious that the
bulk of the New Testament was written later than this. Once the New Testament was completed there
was no need to address such questions to the Apostles as was done here.
3. The nature of
the transitional period.
Both of the issues mentioned under the first two points
are directly related to the transitional nature of the period from Pentecost to
the completion of the New Testament canon and the death of the last
Apostle. A historical precedent may be
found in the inspired record of this period, but extreme care must be taken in
extracting doctrine from historical literature given the character of the
period involved. We may have no doubt
about what they did and why. We may have
no such certainty that we are to "go and do likewise" without
explicit didactic literature indicating that this is the case.
4. The
singularity of the church convening the council.
The issues in the question communicated were directed to
one church by another. The contingent
from the local church in Antioch presented their concerns to the church in
Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4). There is a
specific reason stated in the context why these questions were addressed to the
Jerusalem church, and this is made explicit in the decision communicated by the
council (Acts 15:24). That is:
1) did these men from Judea who came to our church in
Antioch teaching that the Gentiles could not be saved unless they were
circumcised come from the Jerusalem church, and,
2) is their teaching endorsed by the Jerusalem
church? The response of the Jerusalem
church was affirmative to the former and negative to the latter.
5. The lack of
any expression of ecclesiastical authority over other local churches in the
resultant document. (Acts 15:28;
16:4)
Apostolic authority, with the agreement of the Jerusalem
church, would appear to be implicit in the language of these two verses.
Acts 15:28 - "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to
us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;"
Emphasis might be
placed upon the laying on of a burden, but the reality is that these were
"necessary things".
Acts 16:4 - "And as they went through the cities, they delivered
them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders
which were at Jerusalem."
Here the language
is even stronger than that of 15:28 involving "decrees" being
"ordained". However, it must
be remembered that this was in response to a question from the church at
Antioch about teachers who had gone out from the Jerusalem church. In other words, the decrees ordained directly
counteracted the false teaching of those requiring circumcision, and directed
that in the future the only things that the Gentile believers could be expected
to do to keep the peace in the churches between the two ethnic groups would be
the four prohibitions mentioned in the letter in 15:29. The involvement of these four things with the
idolatrous backgrounds of these Gentiles, and the offensive nature to the Jewish
brethren during shared meals of the first three items, appear to be the context
for their selection and inclusion in the letter.[7]
6. The local
church authority expressed in the "council's" decision
(Acts 15:22-23, 25, 28).
The "council" itself may have been composed of
"apostles and elders", but the message went back to Antioch from this
group plus the rest of the brethren expressed as "the whole
church". This was a decision by one
local church in answer to a question raised by another local church. It may not be reduced to some type of
"conciliar" authority over one or more local churches.
7. The trans-covenantal
and trans-ethnic nature of the issues involved.
What is at stake are
relationships between:
1) different ethnic groups of believers, and,
2) the Old Covenant and the New Covenant (Acts 15:1-3,
5-21).
The seriousness of the issue between these Jewish
teachers, and Gentile believers and churches concerning Mosaic circumcision for
salvation could not therefore be lightly dismissed, nor could it be ignored. The issues involve the very nature of the
Gospel, and the character of the New Covenant ministry. As such disagreement could not be tolerated
between local churches, especially when teachers are going from one church to
another with this heresy which undermines the very nature of the Gospel of the
New Covenant.
8. Finally, and
most importantly, the exceptional, unique and temporary nature of this council
(Acts 15:2, 6).
The Jerusalem "council", was only brought into
the "question" (Acts 15:2) or "matter" (Acts 15:6) on the
initiation of the local church in Antioch (Acts 14:26-27). This was
specifically due to the fact that the problem was created by "certain
men" from Judea. The exceptional
nature of the "council" is entirely based on this extraordinary
circumstance between two churches. It is unique since this is the only time in
the New Testament's inspired history of the first century churches where we ever
read of such a thing. The temporary
nature of this "council" is evident since there is no indication
whatsoever that the council continued to meet to deal with questions or matters
such as this or to function in any other way.
On this issue of the relevance of the Jerusalem Council to
the defenses of subsequent ecclesiastical extra-local polities see also:
Hezekiah Harvey, The
Church: Its Polity and Ordinances (Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers,
n.d.; 1982 reprint of 1879 original by American Baptist Publication Society,
Philadelphia), pp. 49-50. The 1903
reprint by the American Baptist Publication Society of the 1879 original is
available either as a full "preview" online or as a free eBook
including downloadable EPUB and PDF file formats on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9RLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hezekiah+Harvey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TwGdULL6J7O10AGSo4DIAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ [accessed 9 NOV 2012].
Edward T. Hiscox, The
New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1894),
pp. 142-159, 313-317. The 1902 reprint
by the American Baptist Publication Society of the 1894 original is available
either as a full "preview" online or as a free eBook including
downloadable EPUB and PDF file formats on Google
Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=rQZFAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 9 NOV 2012].
Paul R. Jackson, The
Doctrine and Administration of the Church, rev. ed. (Schaumburg, IL:
Regular Baptist Press, 1980, 1968), pg. 35.
Benjamin L. Merkle,
40 Questions About Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic
& Professional, 2008), pp. 31-37.
******************************************************************************
Solus Christus
will either be maintained or denied in our view of church government. It is usually denied in practice while being
professed in creedal statements.
The Scriptures Alone as the Final and Sufficient Authority
of the Head Communicated to Each Church
1. The Issue Of
Elder Rule And The Creation Of Sub-Lords
1) The Lordship of
Jesus Christ alone is maintained over individual believers without the
mediation of any pretended "sub-lords" in Rom. 14:4-12. The issues at stake in this passage are not
about replacing windows or deciding what paint to use or carpet to replace! This issue of "sub-lords" is
directly related to the priestly sub-mediators in the Roman cult. The application Scriptural principles are
here in Romans 14 and elsewhere presented as matters of the individual
believer's conscience in direct relationship to his or her Lord and no other. Individual soul liberty may not be swept
under the ecclesiastical carpet in the interests of elder "rule"
without violating this passage and the Lordship of Christ.
2) Who was 1
Corinthians written to and why? See
Appendix 2: "To the Corinthians Rescriptus: Evidence
for Pure Congregationalism".
3) Who were the
letters to the seven churches of Asia written to and why? As asked previously under I.1. above, in Rev.
1-3 where is any mediating or intervening human authority depicted between
Christ as the Head of the local churches and the individual churches? These letters are not written to the elders,
but to the churches as a whole.[9] Where is there anything communicated in these
letters about the responsibilities for righting the wrongs indicated lying with
the elders rather than with every member of each individual congregation? The letters are explicitly stated to be from
Jesus Christ to the churches, not to the elders of those churches. Who had the right, the power, the
responsibility and the authority to deal with issues that Christ directs to
them if not the churches themselves perceived in their entirety? In the conclusion of each letter it is made
clear that the Spirit is speaking directly to the churches plural in each
letter to a given local church, and that the Spirit is doing so without any
other human mediation than the Apostle John who writes down what the Head of
the Church tells him to. Anyone, elder
or otherwise, who has ears to hear is commanded to hear what the Spirit says to
the churches.
2. The Issue Of
Authority And The Assumption Of Vested Authority
The word for "rule" is often assumed by those
holding to "elder rule" as if there is some inherent authority in the
office. This does not bear up under
close scrutiny when passages such as 1 Pet. 5:1-5 are taken into
consideration. The "oversight"
here (5:2) is directly contrasted to any notion of being "lords" over
the church, and explained as involving the feeding of (5:2), and being examples
to the flock (5:3). Submission is
mentioned in the context, but this submission is explicitly age related, i.e.,
that of the "younger" to the "elder" (5:5).
There is no authority inherent in the office of either
pastor/elder or deacon. The office of
elder has no inherent authority. The
authority in the church is that of the Head in His Word. Both the feeding by the elders and the
examples of the elders is of and in submission to the Word of God. It is clear in the Pastoral epistles that the
officers of the churches and their ministries may be scrutinized by the
congregation bringing the Scriptures to bear upon them.
Churches that profess to believe in the Scriptures as
having sole and final authority for all matters of faith and practice may not
pretend to be consistent when adding human authorities to this as if the
Scriptures were an insufficient expression of the will of the Head of the
church.
Solus Christus
and Sola Scriptura will either be
maintained or denied in our view of church government. They are usually denied in practice while
being professed in creedal statements.
The Spirit Alone as the Supernatural and Sufficient Power
of the Head Immanent Throughout Every Church
Who does the Spirit indwell? Every individual believer, and the Church
corporately! No other conclusion may be
drawn from such passages as 1 Cor. 3; 2 Cor. 3 and 6; and Rom. 8. The teachings found in such passages is the
basis for the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. However, the priesthood of every believer may
be professed, and then denied in practice, when one "class" of
believer is elevated above others as somehow mediating the rule of Christ as
Head of the church.
Where is Christ's power manifest in the Church? In every individual believer and the Church
corporately!
Who is able in the Church? The ability to hear and understand and serve Christ
is within every believer!
How does Christ see the Church? How do most church leaders see the Church?
Solus Christus,
Sola Scriptura and Solus Spiritus will either be maintained
or denied in our view of church government.
They are usually denied in practice while being professed in creedal
statements.
The Body only has one Head, and all of the other members
of the Body have equal significance and value for the ministry to one another
(1 Cor. 12). Christ exercises His rule
over His Body by His Spirit and His Word, not by any officers perceived as
“vice-regents”. The leveling effects of
sin and grace do not allow it to be any other way.
As a friend of mine once wrote:
"Heaven forbid that the
"laity" be empowered. Heaven forbid that every member be involved in
ministry. Heaven forbid that the congregation has any say in church government.
Too bad they put Eph 4:12 and 1 Peter 5:2-3 in their Bibles. It's so
inconvenient."[11]
******************************************************************************
Appendix 1: Sources
for Further Study
Creedal statement:
The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658); on Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics at http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Savoy_Declaration/index.html
[accessed 23 JUN 2011].
Books:
Paul Enns, The
Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), pp. 357-359.
Kenneth H. Good, God’s
Blueprint for a Church: A Study of Baptist Distinctives (Rochester, NY:
Backus Book Publishers, 1974), pp. 101-136.
Hezekiah Harvey, The
Church: Its Polity and Ordinances (Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers,
n.d.; 1982 reprint of 1879 original by American Baptist Publication Society,
Philadelphia), pp. 21-104. The 1903
reprint by the American Baptist Publication Society of the 1879 original is
available either as a full "preview" online or as a free eBook
including downloadable EPUB and PDF file formats on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9RLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hezekiah+Harvey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TwGdULL6J7O10AGSo4DIAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ [accessed 9 NOV 2012].
Edward T. Hiscox, The
New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1894),
pp. 142-159, 311-343. The 1902 reprint
by the American Baptist Publication Society of the 1894 original is available
either as a full "preview" online or as a free eBook including
downloadable EPUB and PDF file formats on Google
Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=rQZFAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 9 NOV 2012].
Paul R. Jackson, The
Doctrine and Administration of the Church, rev. ed. (Schaumburg, IL:
Regular Baptist Press, 1980, 1968), pp. 33-39.
Benjamin L. Merkle,
40 Questions About Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic
& Professional, 2008).
Internet articles:
Jonathan Leeman, "Clarifying "Congregationalism""
(14 JUN 2011), on 9 Marks at http://www.9marks.org/blog/clarifying-congregationalism#.TgKHwBVaiAY;email
[accessed 23 JUN 2011].
Paul Alexander, "Is Congregationalism a Democracy?"
(26 FEB 2010), on 9 Marks at http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/congregationalism-democracy#print-preview
[accessed 23 JUN 2011].
"Book
Reviews: Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government, edited by Steven
B. Cowan; Perspectives on Church Government, edited by Chad Owen Brand and R.
Stanton Norman, by Sam E.
Waldron, Paige Patterson, L. Roy Taylor, Peter Toon, Stanley N. Gundry, Steven
B. Cowan", Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson (SEP/OCT 2009), on 9 Marks at http://www.9marks.org/books/book-reviews-who-runs-church-four-views-church-government-edited-steven-b-cowan-perspectives-c#print-preview
[accessed 23 JUN 2011].
******************************************************************************
Appendix 2:
Introduction: The
bottom line is that 1 Corinthians must be rewritten for the sake of consistency
on the part of clericalists. From the
perspective of a Congregational polity no such rewriting is necessary.
The necessity for the “rescriptus” to accommodate the
clerical or Presbyterian polity is established by the fact that the original
recipients of 1 Corinthians are not elders, ministers, presbyters, etc., but
the entire local body of believers.
Apologists for clericalism have failed to face up to the
facts which lie on the face of Paul’s First
Epistle to the Corinthians. On two
issues alone, church discipline and the administration of the ordinances, these
apologists would have to admit that they would not have written the epistle as
the great Apostle did. They would have
addressed it directly to the clergy, the officers of the church, rather than as
Paul did, to the entire local church.
They would have been held directly responsible. It is inconceivable that no elders existed in
the church at the time Paul wrote his epistles to the Corinthian believers
after he spent years there teaching, preaching and building the church.
Creedal clericalism and the grave clothes of Romanism
amongst the Reformed and others may be seen explicitly in their creeds. Consider the following (emphasis mine):
Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVII: IV (emphasis
mine)
“There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord
in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither
of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully
ordained.[10]
[10] Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1; 11:20, 23; Eph. 4:11-12”
Where, in any of the cited proof texts, or elsewhere in
the Scriptures, do we find the documentation which would support the clericalist
contention that the ordinances may not “be dispensed by any, but by a minister
of the Word lawfully ordained”?
Westminster Confession of Faith, XXIX:III (emphasis mine)
“The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his
ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and
bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a
common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they
communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; [5] but to
none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
[5] Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor.
10:16-17; 11:23-27
[6] Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20”
Where, in any of these texts cited by the Confession
(purportedly in its support), or elsewhere in Scripture, do we find “the Lord
Jesus” appointing “his ministers” as the only authorized administrators of the
ordinance?
Note: See also the
London Baptist Confession (1689).
Is there a class or chaste system within the Church of
Jesus Christ, i.e., the clergy and the laity, taught anywhere in the New
Testament?
Should we not be seeing the people of God through God’s
eyes in the light of His Word, and not judging with merely human judgment. All of the reasons given by clericalists,
i.e., Presbyterians and Episcopalians, for restricting the decision making on
matters of church discipline, and for limiting the administration of the
ordinances to ordained ministers, elders, etc., disappears when every member of
the church is viewed as God views them according to the assessment of God in
His Word. Priest craft is alive and well
in Presbyterian and Episcopalian polity!
Consider the following:
1. The Authority
for Church Discipline – Who is charged with the administration of the
discipline of the Church in Matthew 18, and in 1 Corinthians 5? This is the greatest example of the exercise
of the authority of the Church in Scripture, and yet nowhere in the New
Testament is the exercise of this authority restricted to ordained ministers or
clergy.
2. The
Administrators of the Ordinances – Who is responsible for the administration of
the two ordinances in Scripture? Who is confronted with the abuse of the
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 5? Where were the elders, the ordained
ministers, or the pastors of the church?
If they are responsible for the proper administration of the ordinance,
why are they not explicitly addressed and held to account?
Who were the Corinthian
Epistles written to: the elders or the entire church? These epistles constitute the exposure of the
greatest number, and most serious errors of any found in the Pauline corpus,
and they were addressed directly to the entire local church!
1 Cor. 1:1-2 – [1] Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus
Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, [2] Unto the church
of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ
our Lord, both theirs and ours:
2 Cor. 1:1-2 – [1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by
the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at
Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: [2] Grace be to you and
peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
In closing consider the words of C. S. Lewis as a warning
against clericalism in any form:
“A great deal of democratic
enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in
democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved
a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds
is that they’re not true. . . I find that they’re not true without looking
further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much
less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is . . . Mankind is so
fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows.
Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict
him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” [13]
******************************************************************************
Appendix
3:
Excursus on the significance of the usage of
"angels" in Revelation 1:20,
and in the introductions to each of the letters to the
seven churches (Rev. 2-3)
I received the
following in an email from a friend on November 13, 2012:
“I'm working my
way through the authority issue in the church. I've been thinking about a
statement you made:
[1] Any who
suppose that the "angels" of the churches in these chapters are
something other than angelic beings as explained by Christ in Rev. 1:20 assume
an insurmountable burden of proof. For example: 1) Where else in Revelation is this word used for anything
other than angelic beings? 2) Why is it in the singular unless it is to be argued that each of
these churches had one and only one "elder" who is referenced by this
term?
I completely
understand your points and I'm inclined, at this point, to agree with
you. I'm curious what you would say to the note MacArthur has on
Revelation 1:20 in the study Bible:
"the
angels. The word lit.
means "messenger". Although it can mean angel-and does
throughout the book-it cannot refer to angels here because angels are never
leaders in the church. Most likely, these messengers are the 7 key
elders representing each of those churches."
Is it possible
that these references to angels point to a role of protection or some
unspecified role angels play in a church? In your estimation, why is the
word angel used here?”
My response to
this email follows.
MacArthur's full statement
reads:
"The
word lit. means "messenger." Although it can mean angel - and does
throughout the book - it cannot refer to angels here because angels are never
leaders in the church. Most likely,
these messengers are the 7 key elders representing each of those churches (see note on v. 16)."[14]
There are at least four
serious flaws in the assertions found in MacArthur's note above that preclude
agreement with them.
1. Literal
Meaning.
MacArthur's insistence on
the "literal" meaning of the word proves nothing one way or the
other. This recourse is something that
he rejects out of hand when it comes to the lordship salvation controversy when
the opponents point out the "literal" meaning of one of the words for
"repentance" in the New Testament.[15] Given this background, I found it quite
inconsistent for him to be resorting to such an etymological ploy here. Would this reductionism be resorted to with
any of the other usages of the word in the Revelation? If not, why not, and why here? The burden of proof lies with MacArthur and
those who would agree with him. George
Eldon Ladd has his own issues with insisting on this reductionist meaning:
"Another meaning of aggelos is "messenger," and
the "angels" are taken to be the seven messengers who carried the
letters to the seven churches of Asia.
If this is so, it is difficult to see why the letters were addressed to
the messengers rather than to the churches themselves. The proper meaning of the word is angel, and the natural idea is that
churches on earth have angels in heaven who represent them."[16]
Abraham Kuyper, expresses
agreement with MacArthur's understanding of the word here:
"In Rev. 1, 20 the pastors of
the seven churches are spoken of as angels, as it reads, "The seven stars
are the angels of the seven churches," but this is explained by the double
meaning of the Greek word: Angelos. Angelos means messenger as well as angel."[17]
However, it is worthy of note that Kuyper wrote this in
the process of registering his objection to a marginal note in the Dutch Bible on Rev. 14:6,
"...where the reference is
said to be not to real angels, but to believers of high eminence in the earth,
who thus are spoken of as angels."[18]
It is equally noteworthy how Kuyper continued his
objection to this understanding in Rev. 14:6 -
"Hence this interpretation can
not satisfy. The scene enacted here is
not in the earth, but in heaven, and these six spirits here appear in their
nature as angels of God."[19]
Kuyper's objection appears to be inconsistent on its
face, since it involves objecting to human messengers being intended in Rev.
14:6 due to the scene being in heaven rather than on earth, while allowing for
it in Rev. 1:20 where the scene is no less heavenly in its focus on the
ascended Christ. Such inconsistencies on
the part of both MacArthur and Kuyper are both inexplicable, and unpersuasive.
2. Normal
Usage.
MacArthur's admission that
this word does mean heavenly angelic beings throughout the rest of the book is
fatal to everything else he asserts, and places the burden of proof squarely in
his lap, which he fails to address.
Despite the fact that John F. Walvoord agrees with MacArthur[20], he
also recognizes that this is not "its principal use as noted by Arndt and
Gingrich".[21] Dennis
E. Johnson agrees, explaining as an objection to seeing the "angels"
here as the pastors of the churches: "Angels elsewhere in Revelation are
always God's superhuman messengers, consistent with the word's usual meaning in
the rest of the New Testament."[22] At this point I would merely quote W.
E. Vine. Concerning a similar issue in
another place in the New Testament he simply dismissed the contentions of
multitudes of scholars by reminding all and sundry that, "... there does not seem to be sufficient
justification for departing from the usual meaning of the words..."[23]
George Eldon Ladd also
sees this interpretation as requiring an unwarranted departure from the normal
usage of the word:
"The expression, the angels of the seven churches,
represented by the seven stars in the hand of Christ, is difficult, especially
since each of the seven letters was addressed to the angel of each respective church. This fact has led many commentators to
conclude that the angel stood for the
bishop of the church. This would be a
good solution for the problem except for the fact that it violates New
Testament usage. Aggelos was not used of Christian leaders..."[24]
Alan F. Johnson
extends this objection to the specific genre, and also to extant examples from
uninspired literature in the early centuries of the Church:
"The Greek word for angels (angeloi)
occurs sixty-seven times in Revelation and in every other instance refers to
heavenly messengers, though occasionally in the NT it can mean a human
messenger (Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25 [Gr.])."[25]
"A strong objection to the human messenger sense here is the fact
that the word is not used that way anywhere else in apocalyptic
literature. Furthermore, in early
noncanonical Christian literature no historical person connected with the
church is ever called an angelos."[26]
He adds an interesting point not considered by many others, and
certainly not by those who see these as human church leaders or messengers:
"...the stars are clearly linked in 3:1 with the seven spirits of
God."[27]
3.
Ecclesiastical Leaders.
MacArthur's denial in
insisting that "it cannot refer to angels here because angels are never
leaders in the church" is a straw man.
Nowhere is leadership explicitly associated with these angels in the context,
nor is there any indication of such an implication here. MacArthur is the one who wanted to
characterize them as "messengers"!
Where did this "messenger/leader" come in? How did we make the etymological leap from
"messenger" to "leader"?
The conclusions to the letters to each of the churches makes it quite
clear that they are written not to some human "chief" (or,
"key") elders, but, in fact, to the churches themselves viewed
corporately. Dennis Johnson points out
that the usage of the second person plural pronoun at various points in the
contents of the letters is another indicator that either "subgroups within
a congregation", or "the congregation as a whole" is being
addressed.[28] MacArthur is therefore focusing on an issue
that nothing in the context warrants, and by doing lays himself open to the
objection of having erected an eisegetical straw man to shore up his argument
that has nothing else to support it.
This straw man would appear to be constructed from his own
ecclesiastical presuppositions which he has then imported into the passage. Therefore, it must be concluded that
MacArthur's denial proves nothing, nor is it based on any convincing proof, and
may therefore be dismissed out of hand as without merit.
4. Loud
Silence.
If, in fact, MacArthur is
correct, and some "key" elder from each church is being addressed a
lot of explaining is in order. Are these
human members of the seven Asian churches then to be viewed as the only ones
held in Christ's hand (1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1)?
And why would that be? Where are
they, or the rest of the "non-key" elders mentioned in the bodies of
any of the letters in chapters 2-3? If
they, rather than the entire congregation are being held accountable as
"leaders" rather than mere "messengers", why do we not read
indictments or commendations of them in the letters? Why is there no mention whatsoever in any of
the seven letters concerning how they have either failed or succeeded in the
discharge of their leadership positions in these churches? Is this silence? Yes, it is.
It is a very loud silence that should lead us straight away from what
MacArthur sees in these "angels"!
Ladd "hears" this silence as well: "...in the seven letters, neither
angels nor bishops were rebuked."[29]
In conclusion, that the
burden of proof still lies undismissed in MacArthur's lap may be demonstrated
from two recent works on the subject.
The first is by James M. Hamilton, Jr.:
"These
are angelic beings that represent each church.
I do not think the reference to "the angels of the seven
churches" is a reference to the senior pastor of each individual church,
with "angel" meaning something more like messenger, for several
reasons. First, pastors are not called
"angels" elsewhere in Revelation or the New Testament; second, the
book of Revelation is full of heavenly beings called "angels," which
makes it likely that these angels are also heavenly beings; and third, John
distinguishes between heavenly beings and human beings elsewhere in Revelation,
so if these were human beings it would probably be more clearly stated that human
pastors are in view."[30]
Finally, G. K. Beale has an interesting and extensive
treatment on this subject that includes the following:
"The aggeloi ("angels") in 1:20 include both heavenly beings and the earthly
churches, according to the idea of corporate representation, which is suggested
further by recognizing that angelic beings are corporately identified with
Christians as their heavenly counterparts elsewhere in the book..."[31]
Beale cites the following passages at this place:
Rev. 19:10 - And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he
said unto me, See thou do it not: I
am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev. 22:9 - Then saith he unto me, See thou
do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
Rev. 8:3-4 - 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer;
and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon
the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the
incense, which came with the prayers
of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.
He then remarks:
"Consequently, the
"angels" in 1:20b refer to heavenly beings who also represent the
church..."[32]
Later he adds:
"The conclusion that aggeloi
in 1:20b refer to heavenly angels who represent the church is supported further
by the following two broad considerations.
(1)
Stars as metaphorical for both saints and
angels in the OT and Judaism."[33]
The Old Testament passages cited here by Beale follow:
Dan. 12:1-3 - 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation
even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting
contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever
and ever.
Dan. 7:27 - And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under
the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High,
whose kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Dan. 8:10-11 - 10 And it waxed great, even to
the host of heaven; and it cast down some
of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11
Yea, he magnified himself even to the
prince of the host, and by him the daily
sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan. 8:24 - And his power shall be mighty, but not by his
own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise,
and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.[34]
The second of the "two broad considerations"
mentioned above by Beale is:
"(2) Angels as corporate representatives of saints in the OT, NT, and Jewish
writings."[35]
The Old and New Testament
passages Beale lists for this point are:
Dan. 10:20-21 - 20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I
return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the
prince of Grecia shall come. 21 But I will shew thee that which is
noted in the scripture of truth: and
there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your
prince.
Dan. 12:1 - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation
even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book.
Dan. 7:27; 8:10; and 8:24 (see
above).
Mt. 18:10 - Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto
you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which
is in heaven.
Acts 12:15 - And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she
constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.[36]
It may be
profitable to consider here the New Testament passages referenced by Alan F.
Johnson and John F. Walvoord where aggelos
is understood in context for human messengers:
Mt. 11:10 - For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I
send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mk. 1:2 - As it is
written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which
shall prepare thy way before thee.
Lk. 7:24 - And when the
messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning
John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the
wind?
Lk. 7:27 - This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I
send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Lk. 9:52 - And sent
messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the
Samaritans, to make ready for him.
Js. 2:25 - Likewise also
was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the
messengers, and had sent them out
another way?
As clear as these usages are in their respective
contexts, no such clarity for this exceptional usage exists in Revelation 1-3.
Therefore, I conclude by standing by my original
proposition on this subject:
"Any who suppose that the "angels" of the churches in these
chapters are something other than angelic beings as explained by Christ in Rev.
1:20 assume an insurmountable burden of proof."
Works cited:
G. K. Beale, The
Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999)
James M. Hamilton,
Jr., Revelation The Spirit Speaks to
the Churches, in Preaching the Word,
series ed. R. Kent Hughes (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
Alan F. Johnson,
"Revelation", in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 12
(Hebrews - Revelation), gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, assoc. ed. J. D. Douglas,
consulting eds., New Testament: James Montgomery Boice and Merrill C. Tenney
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), pp. 397-603.
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary
on the Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001).
Abraham Kuyper, The Revelation of St. John, trans.
John Hendrik de Vries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935,
1963).
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of
John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972).
John MacArthur, gen. ed., The
MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997).
John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A
Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966).
******************************************************************************
Soli Deo Gloria,
John T. "Jack" Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA
1, 5, 14 NOV 2012
Edited:
19 DEC 2012
13 MAR 2013
12, 16 APR 2014
Theocratic
Congregationalism
by John T. Jeffery
Copyright 2012 by
John T. Jeffery.
All rights
reserved.
The use of
excerpts or reproduction of this material is prohibited
without written
permission from the author.
Contact
information for the author:
Voice messages:
(570) 342-5787
[1] I
am employing this Latin expression here not in quite the same sense as it was
originally employed by the Reformers to present Christ as the only Savior and
the only Way of salvation. My intent in
using it with reference to the government of the Church is to present Christ as
the only Head of the Church and His Theocracy as the only form of church
government. This slogan is sometimes
also expressed in the ablative case as "Solo Christo".
[2]
The Southern Baptist Convention, the General Association of Regular Baptist
Churches, and Sovereign Grace Ministries.
[3] Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order, PROPOSAL (SGM Polity Committee, October 28, 2012), pg. 6.
[4] See on this Benjamin
L. Merkle, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Academic & Professional, 2008), pg. 31.
[5] Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order, PROPOSAL
(SGM Polity Committee, October 28, 2012), pp. 4-5. See Appendix 4: Extract (cover to end of
page six only).
[6]
This may be a moot point for Sovereign Grace Ministries and others who maintain
that apostles are extant throughout the history of the Church including the
21st century! Sovereign Grace Book of
Church Order, op. cit., pg. 5.
[7] On this issue see especially Merkle, op. cit., pp. 34-36.
[8] In
this case I am not utilizing this Reformation watchword or slogan as marking a
distinction from the traditions of Romanism, but rather from the authority
issue inevitably involved with the clericalism inherent in elder rule
(especially the common misunderstandings associated with this). This usage of the slogan would be directly
related to the Reformed opposition expressed in it to the pretended authority
of ecclesiastical councils and papal pronouncements.
[9] Any who suppose that the "angels" of the churches
in these chapters are something other than angelic beings as explained by
Christ in Rev. 1:20 assume an insurmountable burden of proof. See Appendix 3: Excursus on the significance of the usage of "angels" in Revelation
1:20,and in the introductions to each of
the letters to the seven churches (Rev.
2-3).
[10] "Solus
Spiritus is
a Reformation watchword we ought not to forget." Gary Brady, "JOC
Calvin 06" (15 SEP 2009), on Heavenly
Worldliness at http://darbygray.blogspot.com/2009/09/joc-calvin-06.html [accessed 2 NOV 2012]; reposted as
"Sinclair Ferguson on John Calvin and the Holy Spirit" (10 SEP 2009),
on Banner of Truth Trust at http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1646 [accessed 2 NOV 2012].
[11] Ed Trefzger, email to Semper Reformanda list (17 MAR 2010), Subject: "Book Review:
The Democratization of American Christianity, Reformed Baptist
Fellowship"; in response to Jeffrey T. Riddle, " Book Review
Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale
University Press, 1989): 312 pp.", posted on Reformed Baptist Fellowship at http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org/2010/03/17/book-review-the-democratization-of-american-christianity/ [accessed 1 NOV 2012]; from Stylos at http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/03/book-review-nathan-hatch.html [accessed 1 NOV 2012]. I would add that the very notion of a
clergy/laity distinction implicit in clericalism is entirely inconsistent with
the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer, and can only be explained
where it is found as "the graveclothes" of the Romish cult. I would contend that each of the three points
of the "Discussion Outline" above, not just the last, would argue
against such a distinction.
[12] The term “rescriptus” (literally, “written over”), is
usually associated with an early 5th century Greek manuscript of the
Bible. “Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
(Paris, National Library of France, Greek 9; Gregory-Aland no. C or 04,
von Soden δ 3) is an early 5th century Greek manuscript of the Bible, the last
in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible (see Codex
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). The manuscript is
lacunose.
It receives its name, as a
codex in which the treatises of Ephraem the Syrian, in Greek
translations, were written over ("rescriptus") a former text
that had been washed off its vellum pages, thus forming a palimpsest. The later text was produced in the 12th
century. The effacement of the original text was incomplete, for beneath the
text of Ephraem are the remains of what was once a complete Bible, containing
both the Old Testament and the New. It forms one of the codices for textual
criticism on which the Higher criticism is based.”
[13] C. S. Lewis, “Equality,” in Present Concerns: Essays
by C. S. Lewis, quoted in Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The
Quotable C. S. Lewis (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1989), pp. 152-153, and cited by John
Piper, Sermon, “The Child to Be Born Will Be Called Holy—the Son of God” (Luke 1:26-38), December 25, 2005, on Desiring God at http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-child-to-be-born-will-be-called-holy-the-son-of-god [accessed 23 JUN 2011].
[14] John MacArthur, gen.
ed., The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), pg.
1,993, s.v. "1:20 the angels".
[15]
See, for example, his notes at Mt. 3:2
and Mt. 3:8, op. cit., pp. 1,396 and 1,397.
Especially note his explanation in his book, The Gospel According To
Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, "Follow Me"? (Grand
Rapids: Academie Books, 1988), pg. 32, "The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means "to think
after." It implies a change of mind, and some who oppose lordship
salvation have tried to limit its meaning to that. But a definition of repentance cannot be
drawn solely from the etymology of the Greek word." On this see also Chapter 15 in this work
where he addresses the subject of "The Call to Repentance", op. cit.,
pp. 159-168, and especially pp. 161-165.
[16]
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), pg. 35.
[17] Abraham Kuyper, The Revelation of St. John,
trans. John Hendrik de Vries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1935, 1963), pg. 123.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
Ibid.
[20] "It is properly understood here as referring to
human messengers to these seven churches.
These messengers were probably the pastors of these churches or prophets
through whom the message was to be delivered to the congregation." John F.
Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1966), pg. 53.
[21]
Ibid. Walvoord cites the following in
note 4 on this page: "William F. Arndt and Wilbur F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
s.v. aggelos, pp. 7-8."
[22] Dennis
E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on the Revelation
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), pg. 62.
[23] W. E. Vine with C. F. Hogg,
"Thessalonians", in Collected writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1996), s.v. 1 Th. 5:10 - "Or sleep".
[24] George Eldon Ladd, ibid. The emphasis is Ladd's.
[25]
See also Walvoord, op. cit., who cites Mt. 11:10; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 7:24, 27; and
9:52.
[26] Alan F. Johnson, "Revelation", in The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 12 (Hebrews - Revelation), gen. ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein, assoc. ed. J. D. Douglas, consulting eds., New Testament:
James Montgomery Boice and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1981), pg. 430.
[27]
Alan F. Johnson, ibid.
[28]
Dennis Johnson, ibid.
[29]
Ladd, ibid.
[30] James M. Hamilton,
Jr., Revelation The Spirit Speaks to
the Churches, in Preaching the Word,
series ed. R. Kent Hughes (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), pg. 51.
[31] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary
on the Greek Text, New International
Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1999), pg. 217.
[32]
Ibid.
[33] Beale, op. cit., pg. 218.
[34]
The marginal reading in the Authorized Version is "Heb. people of the holy
ones". Beale notes parenthetically
that both here and in Dan. 7:27 this expression, "people of the
saints", "...may be intentionally ambiguous so as to allude both to
angels and to Israelite saints".
Ibid.
[35] Beale, op.cit., pg. 219.
[36] I
find it surprising that Beale would cite this verse as an example coordinate
with Mt. 18:10, since the "mistaken identity" in this latter case
obviously refers to Peter's ghostly apparition or "spirit" following
an execution that did not take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment