PAPER NO. 64
AARON’S ROD: GOD’S TEACHING AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
A Call to Repentance
I
N understanding God’s teaching authority in the church (summed up in the budding of Aaron’s rod—Numbers 17), there are three tightly-connected parts that need to be considered. First, we are not to strain at gnats and swallow camels. If we cannot make this distinction, then there are problems. Second, we are not to put new wine into old wineskins. Again, if we cannot make this distinction, we will have trouble. Without these, we cannot get to the third part—we are to heed God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life. The grounds for this are shown in a particularly powerful way that is summed up in Aaron’s rod that budded, and blossomed, and brought forth fruit. This was placed in the Ark of the Testimony as a permanent testimony to this authority in the Church—authority that we have inherited and are to apply today.
1.
We are not to strain at gnats and swallow camels. Over the months and years there have been divisions/disputes that have arisen and not been settled in the church (locally and globally). Some have made attempts (as all should) to settle these by proceeding from the more basic to the less basic, from common ground, using the method of Rational Presuppositionalism (if we agree on the more basic, we will agree on the less basic) (see Paper No. 52) and laying out a foundation over the months and years. This has not been fruitful for the reason given in the second point: we are not to put new wine into old wineskins. Although these disputes have become more manifest over time, they go back months and years beyond this. It has affected various ministries, teaching (and the prerequisites for that), use of school curriculum, existential hermeneutics, the laying out of foundation given by oversight (God’s teaching authority) in the church, as well as the laying out of common ground (see Paper No. 2), and the ten steps from foundation to fullness (see Paper No. 54).
In the course of these disputes, personal background factors have emerged—most prominently, a certain kind of literalism from an evangelical background from which many have come. This literalism does not distinguish fact from interpretation and does not speak about a system in which there is more basic and less basic. In this way of thinking, all things are equally basic and therefore the gnat/camel distinction is blurred and perhaps rendered meaningless—it does not make sense in the frame of reference of literalism. As a matter of fact, because of this background factor, which has emerged more and more as a default position, we find ourselves going in opposite directions in trying to settle disputes. When speaking about straining at gnats, there is a straining— there have been contentions and contentiousness, and there has been no way out, as long as we cannot get this more basic piece in place.
2 Timothy 2:23 says that we are to avoid foolish arguments, they gender strife. And Titus 3:9 says again, we are to avoid foolish arguments, and that if contentions continue after the second admonition, we are to avoid it by cutting it off —do not pursue that, have nothing to do with that . There is this reality in the Church, and while it may and has manifested in the present in particular ways, it has been there longer. As a matter of fact, this problem is very old in history—in the history of the Church. It goes back to the dispute concerning circumcision. This dispute came out in Acts 15—unless you are circumcised, you cannot be saved. The outward reality of circumcision was observed, but the inward reality spoken of by Moses from the beginning, the circumcision of the heart, was not observed. This is an example of literalism—looking at the outward/the visible and not the spiritual reality signified (circumcision is circumcision is circumcision). Historically, this has also occurred particularly with respect to baptism. There are major divisions in the Church concerning this. Between the Reformed view and Baptist view. Baptists make a distinction between the Old and the New Testament in which the New Testament is said to be new in the sense of another, not a renewal and continuity of the Old Testament. They think that unless you have it explicitly stated that you must baptize children, then it is not to be practiced. There have also been disputes with Catholics concerning baptismal regeneration. They think that if you are baptized, you are saved—somewhat like, if you are circumcised, you are saved. Again, there is a kind of literalism on either side, in an antinomy that has not been settled. So, this is not new—there are long-standing disputes that have not been settled.
Another example of this is Christ’s statement, “this is my body,” and the idea of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. People feel very strongly about this because the words are right there. It is literal. It means what it says and it says what it means. Another example: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” This is another form that has been highly disputed—contentious—and much blood has been shed over this. Or, another: The doctrine of heaven and hell—mansions and glory and the literal fire into which people are cast, versus the idea of spiritual life and death to which these things point. And for good measure, consider how one should understand Armageddon from Revelation 19—speaking about a sword coming out of the mouth. This cannot and should not be taken literally. Or, the mark of the beast, that is 666, put on the hand and the forehead, taken literally. There are many examples of literalism and some have come out of that background, especially in evangelicalism—in the baptistic form of evangelicalism. Many people have been raised in this and are not even aware when this is occurring in their thinking. To say, “don’t strain at gnats and don’t swallow camels” does not make sense because this distinction is undermined by literalism.
Some in the church have claimed that they believe in the teaching about clarity (see The Logos Papers and Philosophical Foundation), just not with the way it is applied by the leaders in church oversight. There are some implications that follow from this claim. First, oversight does not know clarity well enough to apply it correctly. Secondly, some say “we understand clarity better than oversight, so we can apply it better—in the academy, in seminary, and in the church.” In connection with this, it may manifest itself in such views and attitudes as: “We have outgrown our need for a CEO,” or “This is the Lord’s church, not oversight’s,” or “Many are ready to go on without oversight, or in spite of oversight.” This should raise a lot of red flags—especially when this is inquired of by oversight, but never engaged with.
These things are the camels. When oversight tries to address these, it becomes difficult when they are shunted into procedural moves. And while this is brought to the attention of others in the church, many do not deal with or disavow it. God will and has made known the heart in due time. So, there is this camel in the room about challenging the understanding of oversight—about the doctrine of clarity and how it is to be applied. No one is talking about it. This is a camel and it is what we should be talking about, not the gnats. We should not strain at gnats while swallowing camels. There is a distinction and it is scriptural. The Lord says we should deal with the camels first—the bigger things first, the more basic things first. We should take the beam out of our own eye first, and then we will see clearly to correct others—particularly to correct oversight. That is the first point: we are not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.
2.
We are not to put new wine into old wineskins. Specifically, we are not to put the new wine of the doxological focus into the old wineskins of our tradition (see Paper No. 35 – 3.3, 3.4; Paper No. 16 – Part IX), which did not speak of clarity or the need to repent for failing to see clarity. Put another way, many have brought their backgrounds with them and sought to add clarity to them. That is to put new wine into old wineskins. Again, just as it can be said the very distinction between camels and gnats is undermined, the distinction about clarity itself may be undermined.
When referring to clarity, this is speaking about something that is objectively clear to reason. This is the laws of thought, the test for meaning, versus something subjectively clear to experience. The following are some examples: 1) Some have said that the existence of God is clear to intuition—it is sometimes referred to as the sensus divinitatis. This says that we have this intuitive, immediate, innate sense. We don’t have it by seeking diligently; everyone just has this knowledge. That is an example of subjective clarity—clear to experience/intuition, but not objectively clear to reason. 2) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal… This has been challenged for the last 250 years and it has been found wanting. In the Judeo-Christian tradition we may think of this as a self-evident truth, and maybe we will fall back on the intuitional knowledge to make it such, but it has not held up upon challenge. It has been set aside more and more. Maybe that is something that we are comfortable with as part of our tradition—we take that to be self-evident or clear. 3) Some say, “some things are clear to my conscience.” That is a subjective inward testimony that is going on in terms of our conduct, consistent with what we believe to be true, but that is a subjective standard again, not objective. Conscience is not Lord; the Word of God is Lord over conscience, and our conscience may not be well-informed. We may try to impose that on others. 4) Common sense—it has been taken for granted that it is clear that the sun rises in the east, or that the earth is flat, or the sky is blue—this may happen (maybe for a long time) until we are able to understand we are taking the position of the observer for granted and we should not. These are examples of common-sense experience on which many rely. This was used much in the schools in New England coming over from the Scottish Enlightenment, but that has proven to be inadequate. We have these histories of what is subjectively clear to experience rather than objectively clear to reason.
We should not hold to clarity simpliciter. We are to hold to clarity and inexcusability. This is not speaking about ‘I believe in clarity, I just don’t agree with how you apply it’; this is speaking about clarity and inexcusability, and this it is to be applied to oneself first, which often generates an existential crisis. This is the application of existential hermeneutics. This inexcusability is revealed in the conviction of sin and death—not understanding the meaning of things and with that meaninglessness, boredom, and guilt. This is death, and this is due to sin—root sin of not diligently seeking. We must repent of the past that we have had without any teaching of clarity, rather than build on it and add to it. This is one of the reasons that clarity and inexcusability has not taken hold. It is not that it hasn’t been taught, but we are trying to build on this past/tradition, we are trying to put new wine into old wineskins, and this does not work.
Many have said, “I always believed in God, but not Christ. I didn’t see my need for Christ.” What are we to make of this statement? What “God” did we believe in if we did not see the need for Christ? Is it the God whose eternal power and divine nature are clearly revealed in general revelation? We fool ourselves into thinking that we believe in God and say we do not believe in Christ. This religion is a very old religion. It goes all the way back to Cain—it is the religion of Cain. He believed in God, spoke/responded to God, but did not see the need for the atonement and how this points to Christ—even though his parents wore coats of skin and he was supposed to understand what this signified. This is the religion of the deists. It is the religion of Judaism—they do not see the need for Christ, but believe in God. And it is the religion of Islam. So, we must not allow ourselves to add this teaching of clarity to our old/past tradition, without the foundation in place. After many years we will find the teaching has not taken hold, according to Hebrews 5:12, and the effort has been wasted. This is to add new wine into the old wineskin. This will cause the wineskin to burst, the wine to spill out, and there will be a waste. Again, this is what has occurred in the cases where we try to put the new wine of the doxological focus into the old wineskin of a background from evangelicalism, or other traditions, as mentioned above.
3.
We are to heed God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life. Historically, many churches have had membership standards which affirm this. This is summed up well in the biblical account of Aaron’s rod that budded, blossomed, and bore fruit. This is not an incidental thing. This has been made a permanent witness to the Church through all the ages. God prepares those who are to teach the Law. In the Old Testament, a group was set aside—the priests and the Levites helping them. The account in the book of Numbers from chapters 1–17 brings this into focus. As we get the context in place and see how much the focus is placed on the preparation for the work of the Levites, we will be able to see more clearly Korah’s opposition—his rebellion. We should remember that the book of Numbers is given after the book of Leviticus and presumes this, just as Leviticus is given after Exodus, and the understanding of how to build the tabernacle. These build one on the other.
1) The book of Numbers begins with the census of all the tribes, and then in that context, 2) the Levites are selected out in connection with all the tribes. They are selected out in a particular way, which is in place of the firstborn (this is mentioned several times in Numbers chapters 3 and 8). After this, 3) the camp is arranged and it is laid out so things are done decently and in order. And duties among the Levites are specified as part of the preparation of God setting up the order. 4) Next, there is an application of their work—the unclean are removed from the camp and the Law is being applied. It is necessary that discipline is maintained and the Levites are to exercise that duty. The unclean are removed from the camp because they could not continue among others as if there was not a problem of uncleanness. Interestingly, it speaks about the Nazarite vow, which is taking a vow to separate yourself and live under greater restrictions that will cause you to be more devoted for holiness. Whether it is the Levites or those outside like the Nazarite, they can draw near, but there is need for preparation. The Levites have this preparation regularly and in an ongoing way.
5) There is a priestly benediction on the people, the altar is dedicated, the candelabra is lit, and the Levites are cleansed in order to be in the Holy Place, where God reveals himself. The Passover is observed and, again, in a special way the Passover spared the firstborn in Israel, and the Levites now stand in place of the firstborn as being particularly dedicated to God. The tabernacle is set up, and the cloud signifying the presence of God comes upon the tabernacle. All of this is by way of preparation for the order for teaching in the Church by the Levites. 6) A special function was given to the priests (not just the Levites) to call to the assembly of the people. The trumpets are to be blown by Aaron and his sons. Calling a holy assembly is the work of those who are most dedicated to the service of God in holiness.
7) At this point, the Israelites depart from Sinai and they lust for food—for meat (remember the previous preparation of food and water given to the people during this time). And God sends them quail and sends judgment upon them. In light of the burden of the people’s murmuring and complaining on Moses, a new layer is added at this time—a new layer of leadership—the 70 of the elders of Israel. We should keep this in mind as there will be murmuring and complaining that Moses did not lead them into the Promised Land. But we should notice what is happening and why they do not go in.
8) Next, we have a very particular objection to the teaching of Moses through Miriam and Aaron. We should consider what Miriam and Aaron should have known by way of Moses’ life from the very earliest way in which God set him aside and prepared him. But they overlook that—something about Moses being married to an Ethiopian woman is brought up by Miriam which shows her lack of knowledge. She challenges Moses—Is teaching the Word of God only through Moses? Her pride is revealed and she is struck with leprosy as an outward sign of her pride. She is unclean for a period of time and set outside the camp until she can come back in. All of this would have been known by everyone in the camp and they should have been learning from this. The question is, did they learn?
9) Next, we have the account of the twelve spies and of those twelve, only two are faithful. Though they had seen God’s glory revealed in many ways, they did not pay attention (Numbers 14:20-25). The Third Commandment is violated. They took God’s name in vain and God did not hold them guiltless. He said that they will not go into the land for their unbelief. 10) The unbelief is the reason for their wandering in the wilderness and in their presumption to overcome that, they were struck down by Amalek. All of this teaching is going into, and leading up to, the event with Korah. 11) Then there was a Sabbath-breaker and the law was applied. We should notice the objective revelation—there is objective clarity and the lawbreaker was executed. 12) The Israelites were told to wear fringes on their garments to remember to do all of the Law.
13) Now, we come to Korah and his denial of God’s authority (Numbers 16). He does this in a particular way. From the King James Version:
“Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: [they stirred up others to join them]
And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: [they have stirred up a rebellion among a significant number of leaders]
And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?”
Scripture singles this out in the book of Jude along with the religion of Cain and the error of Balaam as ways in which we go astray. The gainsaying of Korah. His claim is self-refuting. If all are holy and equally holy, why then is there a need for anyone above any other and therefore, why should anyone teach? He is undermining the whole office. That is the deeper claim of Korah. It is antiauthoritarian—not just against Moses’ authority, but, if we follow that reasoning, all views are equally valid. If our approach is at the level of gnats and subjective clarity, all views are equal. Unless we can get to the more basic, we cannot resolve this. One gnat is as good as another; one subjective certitude is as good as another. Korah came at it in this way and it was confronted and exposed (Number 16–17). The three families who were leaders were cut off in a particular way—the earth opened and swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. They had challenged the teaching authority that God set up in the Church.
After this, the 250 princes who had put fire in a censer and drew near to God were consumed by fire. And on the next day, 14,700 of the congregation were struck down in their continued murmuring and complaining. Finally, to settle all of this, God calls them to bring out the rod of every tribe and to lay them before Him. The rods are laid before God, and He says the one that blossoms is the one chosen by Him. When they are brought out the next day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds. This was shown to the people and “the Lord said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.” (Numbers 14:10)
Aaron’s rod is the perpetual sign to believers in all ages that God has set up authority in his Church. They teach and they bring correction. Those who teach are to have preparation, and this does not come by way of genetics, in terms of sonship. The preparation to teach is by their way of life and part of this is that they hold to the historic Christian faith. Many who step into that office without holding to the historic Christian faith are arrogating to themselves a position they have no right to step into—they have not been prepared by the work that has gone before. This is something very specific that can be seen objectively. Merely being around in history and having a tradition is not the same as the historic Christian faith—this is what we should look to. And we should not only hold to the historic Christian faith, we should seek to hold to it as consciously and consistently as we can. Korah had complained saying, we didn’t get the promised land, and we had it better off in Egypt, and you want privileges. He fully denied and overlooked God’s miracles through which Moses showed that he was sent by God. He had a disregard of what was objectively clear. It was on this basis that he was able to take the steps that he did. Heeding God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life is epitomized in this account of Aaron’s rod that budded over and against Korah’s rebellion.
Conclusion
As was mentioned at the beginning, the three main parts above are tightly connected. The following further draws out these connections and some implications with respect to our becoming more conscious and consistent in our commitment to heeding God’s teaching authority in the Church.
First, if we cannot distinguish between the more basic and less basic (camels and gnats), and if we cannot distinguish between objectively clear to reason and subjectively clear to experience, then there is no objective clarity, no need for teachers in the Church, and no need for Christ. We can come to the knowledge of the existence of God by going from the more basic to less basic. If that does not hold, then there is no way to get to the clarity of general revelation (objectively clear to reason). And if we cannot distinguish between what is objectively clear to reason versus subjectively clear to sense experience, then we cannot get to objective clarity. Without objective clarity there is no need for teachers (to bring teaching and correction) because there is nothing to be taught. Without objective clarity there is no way to speak about inexcusability. Without inexcusability there is no sin and therefore no need for Christ.
Second, if there is clarity by going from the more basic to less basic, and objective versus subjective clarity, then objectors must submit from their hearts to oversight and learn what they need to learn. They should not continue to object—especially when teaching and correction is brought down to the level of what is clear. We are not to reject what is clear to reason.
Third, if we cannot submit to teaching based on what is clear, and to oversight that brings this, that is unprofitable for us and harmful to the church (Hebrews 13:17).
Fourth, by way of application, we should continually renew/reaffirm our commitment to the standard of heeding God’s teaching authority in the Church. There are many reasons for speaking about renewal. Deuteronomy 31:10–12 speaks about the Law being read every seven years to everyone. There is a sabbatical pattern in our lives where there is to be renewal every seven years. Teachers renew their commitment yearly. There is a renewal of all the vows we take whenever we hear these taken by others. There is a renewal when we observe the sacrament. We are called to make a renewal when we engage in the process of cumulative self-examination with respect to our growth in understanding the Word of God, and in our godliness, service, and witness. We are called to examine ourselves considering the reality of the curse as a call back from sin and death—this is continual/lifelong. And particularly, when disputes arise concerning understanding the doctrine of clarity and how this is applied in practice, we are called to reaffirm our understanding and commitment to the standard of heeding God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life.
This paper is posthumously published based upon the original work of Dr. Surrendra Gangadean
and has been edited by The Logos Foundation editorial board.
