Is the pastor the modern day Moses?

[BadgerBoysMom]

It is my understanding that a number of things in the OT are a foreshadow of the things to come.

We are often taught (at my church) that the pastor is considered the modern day Moses. I am not certain that I see this or understand this. In fact I have been reprimanded by some in my church for even questioning him b/c God could cause me to be struck with leprosy (like Miriam) in the OT.

In the OT I understand that God spoke to specific people and that when He addressed the people it was through that specific person / prophet.

But in the NT it is my understanding that when the veil was torn and the barrier was broken thus the normal joes could talk to and hear from God.

We no longer needed the "high preist" to speak. Would you say this is correct?

I actually have different views on this so I am wondering what others have to say about this? Would this comparison be accurate in your assessment?

Thanks
BBM

[Truthseeker]

Moses is a type of Christ, not pastor.

[BadgerBoysMom]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Moses is a type of Christ, not pastor.

This is exactly what I believe... but not what I have been taught by my local assembly.

In reading and studying about Moses, I could not reasonably make the connection of Moses -> pastor.

Just wanted to be sure I wasn't way off base.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Moses is a type of Christ, not pastor.

YEP!

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

This is exactly what I believe... but not what I have been taught by my local assembly.

In reading and studying about Moses, I could not reasonably make the connection of Moses -> pastor.

Just wanted to be sure I wasn't way off base.

You're not. You've been fed something that is not true, based on what someone assumes from tradition. You'll actually only see the word "pastor" in the entire Bible nine times -- and ONLY ONE of those is in the New Testament, and in that case it is PLURAL The word refers more to a role that many could fill at any time, than it does to an "office" or title.

Moses was the "testator" of the old covenant.
Jesus is the "testator" of the new covenant.

[Billy Boy]

Originally Posted by jaamez

YEP!



You're not. You've been fed something that is not true, based on what someone assumes from tradition. You'll actually only see the word "pastor" in the entire Bible nine times -- and ONLY ONE of those is in the New Testament, and in that case it is PLURAL The word refers more to a role that many could fill at any time, than it does to an "office" or title.

Moses was the "testator" of the old covenant.
Jesus is the "testator" of the new covenant.

I have never heard this before. Does this mean the covenant was between Moses and the Jews? I always assumed moses was just the author.

[gloryseeker]

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

It is my understanding that a number of things in the OT are a foreshadow of the things to come.

We are often taught (at my church) that the pastor is considered the modern day Moses. I am not certain that I see this or understand this. In fact I have been reprimanded by some in my church for even questioning him b/c God could cause me to be struck with leprosy (like Miriam) in the OT.

In the OT I understand that God spoke to specific people and that when He addressed the people it was through that specific person / prophet.

But in the NT it is my understanding that when the veil was torn and the barrier was broken thus the normal joes could talk to and hear from God.

We no longer needed the "high preist" to speak. Would you say this is correct?

I actually have different views on this so I am wondering what others have to say about this? Would this comparison be accurate in your assessment?

Thanks
BBM

The Church is described as a body with interactive parts (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-26). For a person to have a healthy, functioning body, it is critical that all parts of his body are interactive and interdependent.

Look at the types of relationship, which is the problem with contained within your question, that often exists between a pastor and his or her leadership staff. Oftentimes, the battles that develop in churches are not over a church’s structure or style of government. Rather, conflicts are usually the result of the spirit the churches operate in. In other words, in an atmosphere in which staff members don’t honor the leader and the leader doesn’t honor his team, there is a constant struggle — even if it’s a subtle one — between the pastor and his staff members, and it needs to be dealt with. This goes beyond the issue of whether the Pastor is Moses or not.

The lack of honor that is rampant in our churches today is unbiblical, regardless of the specific structure that has been established for that ministry or local church body. The most important factor concerning unity in a church is not the specific type of government under which it operates — rather, it is the spirit or attitude in which the governing occurs.

An analogy to illustrate this could be illustrated in the shape of a container. It isn’t nearly as important as the content of the container. In other words, if a container contains poison, it can do harm to you, no matter how much you like the shape of the glass! In the same way, it is the spirit or attitude within a particular ministry — more than the specific operational structure — that determines whether or not the ministry is toxic.

In First Corinthians 10:11, Paul states that the Old Testament was written as an example for us. Throughout the Old Testament, we see examples that warn us to avoid complaining against leadership. Consider what happened when different people complained against the example of your question, a God-appointed leader — Moses. At different times, Aaron, Miriam, and Korah each rose up to object that Moses was too much of a one-man show. However, in each instance, God weighed in on the side of Moses. Not even once did God side with those who opposed Moses. It is important that in Jude 11, we are warned not to follow the error of Korah (who rebelled against Moses and was swallowed by the earth).

After Moses, another "one man" led Israel. His name was Joshua. Then in the book of judges, we read that only one judge at a time led the nation of Isreal. Later in the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, we find out that Israel also had only one king at a time.

Hmmm, is there a pattern? Never under any of the various forms of government throughout the history of the the nation of Israel, were God's covenant people without a clearly appointed, singular leader.

In the NT, the details aren't as clear, but we do have two examples of singular leadership within local groups or bodies. First, there was the time that James spoke up in the Jerusalem council, and afterward, the debating stopped (Acts 15:13-22). This indicates that he possessed a strong ability to lead - and that he was acknowledged and respected as someone having tremendous authority and influence. Peter, who was the leader of the 12 Apostles, feared men whom he thought were sent by James (Acts 11:1-18).

In Revelation, when Jesus dictates seven letters to seven churches, the letters are addressed to the angels of the churches. The Greek word "angel" means messenger. So were these "angels" some of the ministering spirits sent for to the heirs of salvation (Heb 2:14) - or were they human messengers? Since ministering spirits, called angelss, come daily before the throne of God, there would be no cause for Jesus to use a mortal being to write these angels a physical letter.

I could go on, but don't see the point. People today have a big problem with any form of leadership, thus the strong emergence of the house church in America. As long as your pastor is not abusing his position, but leads people into the promises of God why get concerned over what example is used. If he is abusive in his position, why stick around?

[Truthseeker]

In revelation it does say angel of the church but in no wise proves single leadrship of the church for even in acts when Paul spoked to the leadership of Ephesus he called for the elders of the church and said God made them overseers of the church.

Just because James spoke does not mean he was single leadership of a church.


Moses was a type of christ, this why Paul refers to them baptized unto Moses.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

The Church is described as a body with interactive parts (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-26). For a person to have a healthy, functioning body, it is critical that all parts of his body are interactive and interdependent.

Look at the types of relationship, which is the problem with contained within your question, that often exists between a pastor and his or her leadership staff. Oftentimes, the battles that develop in churches are not over a church’s structure or style of government. Rather, conflicts are usually the result of the spirit the churches operate in. In other words, in an atmosphere in which staff members don’t honor the leader and the leader doesn’t honor his team, there is a constant struggle — even if it’s a subtle one — between the pastor and his staff members, and it needs to be dealt with. This goes beyond the issue of whether the Pastor is Moses or not.

The lack of honor that is rampant in our churches today is unbiblical, regardless of the specific structure that has been established for that ministry or local church body. The most important factor concerning unity in a church is not the specific type of government under which it operates — rather, it is the spirit or attitude in which the governing occurs.

An analogy to illustrate this could be illustrated in the shape of a container. It isn’t nearly as important as the content of the container. In other words, if a container contains poison, it can do harm to you, no matter how much you like the shape of the glass! In the same way, it is the spirit or attitude within a particular ministry — more than the specific operational structure — that determines whether or not the ministry is toxic.

In First Corinthians 10:11, Paul states that the Old Testament was written as an example for us. Throughout the Old Testament, we see examples that warn us to avoid complaining against leadership. Consider what happened when different people complained against the example of your question, a God-appointed leader — Moses. At different times, Aaron, Miriam, and Korah each rose up to object that Moses was too much of a one-man show. However, in each instance, God weighed in on the side of Moses. Not even once did God side with those who opposed Moses. It is important that in Jude 11, we are warned not to follow the error of Korah (who rebelled against Moses and was swallowed by the earth).

After Moses, another "one man" led Israel. His name was Joshua. Then in the book of judges, we read that only one judge at a time led the nation of Isreal. Later in the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, we find out that Israel also had only one king at a time.

Hmmm, is there a pattern? Never under any of the various forms of government throughout the history of the the nation of Israel, were God's covenant people without a clearly appointed, singular leader.

In the NT, the details aren't as clear, but we do have two examples of singular leadership within local groups or bodies. First, there was the time that James spoke up in the Jerusalem council, and afterward, the debating stopped (Acts 15:13-22). This indicates that he possessed a strong ability to lead - and that he was acknowledged and respected as someone having tremendous authority and influence. Peter, who was the leader of the 12 Apostles, feared men whom he thought were sent by James (Acts 11:1-18).

In Revelation, when Jesus dictates seven letters to seven churches, the letters are addressed to the angels of the churches. The Greek word "angel" means messenger. So were these "angels" some of the ministering spirits sent for to the heirs of salvation (Heb 2:14) - or were they human messengers? Since ministering spirits, called angelss, come daily before the throne of God, there would be no cause for Jesus to use a mortal being to write these angels a physical letter.

I could go on, but don't see the point. People today have a big problem with any form of leadership, thus the strong emergence of the house church in America. As long as your pastor is not abusing his position, but leads people into the promises of God why get concerned over what example is used. If he is abusive in his position, why stick around?

I understand what you are saying, but I have been getting a different thought over the last several years. The Idea has come to me that in the early church that the ministry of the individual groups were multipul and not singular. Made up of several persons not a singul person.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Note Paul teaches us that God gave.... God did not give the church to the ministry but the other way around. Paul list the ministry commanly known as the five fold ministry. there is a distinct purpose for them. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry the word for perfecting is better translated equiping, we have this idea that it is the minstrys job to straighten us the saints out. I don't think this is so

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

as we are instructed we are to work out our own salvation so what is the ministrys job? For the equiping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Just as God gave the gifts of the spirit for the edifying of the body of Christ which is the church, God gave the ministry for the edifing of the body of Christ. Is there a single direct leader in the church I don't think so. Are we ready for things to be the way God disigned it to be I think we are closer then ever before. Several churches I have fellowshiped with are now set up much this way with the pastors as the main figure head but the church is actual controled by the ministring body.

And finallyyou referanced OT alot from the point of veiw that you are looking from but when you begin to see things from a differant point of view you see even the way OT examples look differently. At least I do. I am not trying to start and argument but I just wanted to throw a different point of view in here.

[Godsdrummer]

[QUOTE=gloryseeker;716752]The Church is described as a body with interactive parts (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-26). For a person to have a healthy, functioning body, it is critical that all parts of his body are interactive and interdependent.

Look at the types of relationship, which is the problem with contained within your question, that often exists between a pastor and his or her leadership staff. Oftentimes, the battles that develop in churches are not over a church’s structure or style of government. Rather, conflicts are usually the result of the spirit the churches operate in. In other words, in an atmosphere in which staff members don’t honor the leader and the leader doesn’t honor his team, there is a constant struggle — even if it’s a subtle one — between the pastor and his staff members, and it needs to be dealt with. This goes beyond the issue of whether the Pastor is Moses or not.

The lack of honor that is rampant in our churches today is unbiblical, regardless of the specific structure that has been established for that ministry or local church body. The most important factor concerning unity in a church is not the specific type of government under which it operates — rather, it is the spirit or attitude in which the governing occurs.

Im sorry I wanted to address this too. Honor is earned just because someone is in a position that deems to be honored does not mean we are to honor just for the sake of honor. True men/women of God are honored because of thier spirit. I there is a lack of honor in the church than someone needs to check their life and it might be the leader. We are all just men after all. Again I think the ministry (pastors) take on too much. After all who is the head of the church? It is not the pastor!

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Notice nowhere is the ministry mentoned in the hiearchy of the body of Christ, so where does that put the ministry?

[@Peace]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Moses is a type of Christ, not pastor.

Word, Truthseeker.

Pastors are not modern day Moses', and they certainly aren't the capstone of a heirarchical preisthood, Jesus is.

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Furthermore...

Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

And yes, pastors are just one part of the ministry. I would say if anyone "weilds power" in the apostolic church structure moreso than others, it is the bishop. And even then, the greatest will be the least... etc.

I do think that there are some very serious problems with overly dominant Pastors, and others with these office titles, who arbitrarily threaten the flock with supernaturaly inflicted bodily harm should their "authority" be challenged, and do other foolish unchristian things. It seems there are many which would rather lord over God's flock than lead it gently by and in accordance with the traditions of the apostles. That said, most of these who I speak of are sincere men just trying to serve God, and this is the way that they were taught-- the wrong way.

So, are you ready for my typical Procrustean conclusion of your confusion? Whatever you don't see lining up with scriptural, exegetical teachings and example in your church, I blame as a direct result of a hold-over from...

Your's truly, the "church" of Constantine.