PAPER NO. 65

AARON’S ROD: A PERMANENT WITNESS AGAINST THOSE WHO CHALLENGE GOD’S AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH

Existential Hermeneutics Applied

Introduction

This paper is a summary of three previously mentioned applications for the Church (see Paper No. 64). Each precept is tightly connected and if properly applied will help to resolve long-standing disputes. These are:

1. We are not to strain at gnats (the less basic) and swallow camels (the logically more basic).

2. We are not to put new wine (the doxological focus) into old wineskins (tradition/fideism).

3. We are to heed God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life (Existential Hermeneutics).

Existential Hermeneutics is the application of the doctrine of clarity and inexcusability (the whole Word of God) to the whole of one’s own life.

The teaching authority in the Church is to bring the Word of God to bear on divisions/disputes that arise.

When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram challenged the authority that God had given to Moses and Aaron, the Lord dealt most harshly with all those who brought division. As a permanent witness, Aaron’s rod that budded, blossomed, and brought forth fruit was placed in the Ark of the Testimony.

All are called to repent and submit to the Word of God lest we go the way of Korah (Jude 1:11).

  1. We are not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

    1. The Word of God distinguishes between camels and gnats (the logically more basic and less basic). The Lord says we should deal with the camels first—these are the bigger things, the weightier things, the more basic things.
    2. The method of Rational Presuppositionalism (RP) affirms: if we agree on the more basic, we will agree on the less basic. We are to proceed from common ground (see Paper No. 2) to the foundation to fullness (see Paper No. 54).
    3. Disputes which remain unresolved show there is a lack of common ground (not agreeing on the more basic).
    4. Without addressing the more basic (the camel in the room), there will be a straining (at the less basic gnats) which can and has produced strife (2 Timothy 2:23). Without the more basic in place, there is no way to proceed in resolving the divisions/disputes—the meaning of every word is disputed, endlessly.
    5. Divisions make manifest those that are proven. Personal background factors emerge, revealing opposing epistemic frameworks—among these, most prominently, is a literalism from an evangelical background (subjective Christianity).
    6. Contextualism (RP) is opposed to literalism. Literalism neglects, avoids, resists, and denies the logical distinction of less and more basic. It cannot understand the distinction because it undermines it. It renders the distinction meaningless by making all things equally basic.
    7. Literalism is a very old problem in the history of the Church (see Paper No. 16 – Part III; Paper No. 38 – point 5; Paper No. 49 – Response to FAQs; see the problem of literalism addressed throughout The Logos Papers).
    8. Many profess the teaching of clarity. Few understand it enough to apply it (see The Logos Papers and Philosophical Foundation).
    9. When one professes to know clarity (or how to apply it) better than God’s teaching authority, this presumption should raise red flags—it is the camel in the room with which all should engage.
    10. We should take the beam of literalism out of our own eye first, then we can see clearly to correct others (particularly God’s teaching authority).
  2. We are not to put new wine into old wineskins.

    1. We are not to put the new wine of the doxological focus into the old wineskins of our tradition/background (see Paper No. 35 – 3.3, 3.4; Paper No. 16 – Part IX).
    2. We are not to add the teaching of clarity to our tradition, but we are to repent for failing to see clarity rooted in our tradition. Our old tradition cannot see clarity because it undermines it.
    3. By clarity is meant what is objectively clear to reason (using RP) vs. what is subjectively clear to experience. Some common examples of subjective clarity include:

      1. Sensus divinitatis—intuitive, immediate, innate sense vs. objectively clear to reason by seeking diligently.
      2. “I always believed in God, but I didn’t see my need for Christ” —what “God” did we believe in if we did not see our need for Christ? Is it the God whose eternal power and divine nature are clearly revealed to all (objectively) in general revelation, so that all are without excuse?
      3. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” —we may take truths to be self-evident or clear intuitively in the comfort of our Judeo-Christian tradition vs. showing truth to be objectively clear to reason.
      4. “Some things are clear to my conscience”—subjective standard of inward testimony. Conscience is not Lord; the Word of God is Lord over conscience, and our conscience may not be well-informed.
      5. Common sense—assumes it is clear that appearance is reality (the sun rises in the east, the earth is flat, the sky is blue). Common sense takes the position of the observer for granted.
    4. By clarity is meant clarity and inexcusability (not clarity simpliciter). Clarity requires the application of existential hermeneutics—clarity and inexcusability applied to oneself first.
    5. Inexcusability is revealed in the conviction of death (meaninglessness, boredom, and guilt) due to our root sin of not seeking diligently.
    6. Adding the teaching of clarity to past traditions will not hold, causing the wineskin to burst, the wine to spill out, and the effort to be wasted (Hebrews 5:12).
    7. Objections arise against clarity from the old wineskin of subjective Christianity: faith without proof based on understanding (fideism), zeal without knowledge (pietism), and the outward letter of God’s law (legalism).
  3. We are to heed God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine and in life.

    1. The biblical account of Aaron’s rod is a perpetual sign to believers in all ages that God has set up an order of authority in his Church (Numbers 17).
    2. The context of Numbers 1–17 gives a cumulative focus on the preparation for the work of the priests and Levites (see Paper No. 64 – Part 3).

The teaching authority is shown through preparation by a way of life, speaking in the name of God—showing what is objectively clear, and building on the historic Christian faith.

  1. In light of the objective clarity of the cumulative revelation of God’s glory, the people murmur and complain, object to God’s order, and take the name of God in vain, bringing God’s judgment.
  2. The denial of God’s order of authority culminates in the gainsaying of Korah (Numbers 16).

Korah’s claim, all are holy and equally holy (all views are equally valid), is self-refuting and antiauthoritarian—it undermines the whole order of teaching authority established by God.

Those who side-step, disregard, or rebel against God’s order arrogate to themselves God’s teaching authority in pride, presumption, arrogance, and contumacious behavior.

A particular disregard of what is objectively clear brings God’s judgment in a particular way.

  1. The choosing of Aaron’s rod—God is the final judge among us. Resurrection life comes through the Word of God.

Implications

  1. If we cannot distinguish between the more basic and less basic, and objectively clear to reason and subjectively clear to experience, then there is no objective clarity, and therefore no inexcusability, no need for teachers in the Church, and no need for Christ.
  2. If there is objective clarity, we should submit from our hearts to the Word of God and his authority in the Church which brings teaching and correction based on clarity.
  3. If we cannot submit to teaching and correction, it is unprofitable to us and harmful to the peace and purity of the Church (Hebrews 13:17).
  4. We should continually renew/reaffirm our understanding and commitment to the standard of heeding God’s order in the Church to bring teaching and correction in doctrine (understanding) and in life (application)—especially when disputes arise.

This paper is posthumously published based upon the original work of Dr. Surrendra Gangadean

and has been edited by The Logos Foundation editorial board.


© 2021 Logos Papers Press