God's economy vs Deputy authority

[Indiana]

In my fellowship here in Southern California the last three months, a sister gave me a copy of this revolutionary word on Deputy Authority. Can she be challenged based on the Bible, or not? In other words, is the prevailing deputy authority concept manifestly and demonstrably wrong in the Local Churches?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD’S NEW TESTAMENT ECONOMY
VS.
DEPUTY AUTHORITY



The Definition of
God’s New Testament Economy

What, specifically, is God’s New Testament economy in this age? This term has been used much--but what truly, according to the pure word of God, does this terminology mean?

Economy is, of course, the way a person or thing operates in order to obtain its goal or go about its business. Is there, specifically, a difference in the way God “goes about His business” in the New Testament than He did in the Old Testament? We are told in precise words that there is (Jer. 31:31 –34; Ezek. 36:26 –29; Heb. 8:8–12).

God foretold to His people that He would establish a new covenant with His people in the latter days. He even told His people what the details of that covenant would be (Jer. 31:31-34) and reiterated the items of that very covenant after it was effected (Heb. 8:8-12). Not only so, but that covenant was,and had to be, effected at the price of the precious blood of Christ. Therefore, that covenant is to us no more just a covenant--but it is a testament, a will, effected by the death of Christ.

How very significant the elements of that New Testament must be to us since they necessitated the highest price in the universe to secure for us! Surely, as Christians, there is nothing more paramount than this for us to guard and pay our allegiance to in this age. That will or covenant is what God Himself declares to be the precise statement of His New Testament economy.

Furthermore that will is directed at specifically one thing: that is, to restore the direct headship of God over His people by supplanting all rules, laws, principles, and speakings of man, whether they be by prophets or any other men. Therefore, to the extent that any man attempts to establish himself or his ministry as God's unique spokesman in this age, he is coming directly against the heart of God's New Testament economy and setting aside one of the most distinct elements for which Christ died.

A Contrast Between
the Old and New Testament

The book of Hebrews, the most distinct book in the Bible comparing and contrasting the believer's New Testament inheritance with the inferior substitutes in the Old Testament begins by announcing:

"In many portions and in many ways, God, having spoken of old to the fathers in the prophets,has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (Heb.1: 1-2a)

This means that in the New Testament age, God's mode of speaking has changed. We no longer need to go to one man to learn the mind and heart of God. Not only do we not need to go to one man, but the very
concept of going to one man as the oracle of God is directly opposed to what Christ shed His blood to produce for us as New Testament children of God.

The Element of
God's New Testament Economy

The primary elements of what Christ died to purchase for us as our New Testament inheritance are listed in Hebrews 8:10-12. They are:

(1) That God would impart His laws directly into the mind and heart of every believer (rather than necessitating them to either read them off a tablet of stone somewhere or hear them from an external spokesman).

(2) That the believers would no longer teach their fellow servants to know the Lord because all shall know Him (no longer necessitating a spiritual mentor because He now indwells us all).

(3) That God would be our God and we would be His people.

(4) The forgiveness of sins.

Coming against point one or two is just as definite a violation of the New Testament as coming against point four; that is, coming against Christ having shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins. What a serious sin it is to set up any man as the unique spokesman for God in the New Testament age!

Elevating Leaders is
An Affront to
God's New Testament Economy

The Apostle Paul unquestionably realized this fact, therefore, when the Corinthian believers divided themselves against one for another by boasting, "I am of Cephas," "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," he neither explained to them the sequence of "first order apostle, second order apostle, third order apostle," etc., nor did he initiate a doctrine of "deputy authority" and claimed that there was only one "unique oracle" in every age, and that, of course, he himself happened to be that one. Instead, he declared, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God made to grow; so that neither is the one who plants (I, Paul) anything, nor the one who waters (Apollos), but the One Who makes to grow, God" (1 Cor. 3:6-7).

Paul realized that the lifting up of any man (including himself), among the believers, was in direct violation of God's New Testament economy, a damage to the Body of Christ, and an affront to God Himself. No doubt, that is why Paul thanked God that he did not baptize any more than two believers among them. He surely did not want to compound their problem of boasting in men any more than it was already compounded, and possibly even suffer the judgment of God's jealousy upon himself, as well. Although it is absurd to compare anyone of our age to the stature of the Apostle Paul, through whom the majority of the New Testament was written, brothers with far less stature and even some of questionable character have been much quicker to take upon themselves a glory which Paul so wisely refused.

Nowhere in the New Testament is the concept of "deputy authority" even hinted at. To the contrary, Jesus stated,"The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 20:25b-26)

God Desired Direct Headship
Over His People
Even in the Old Testament Age

It appears that not just in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, also, it has been God's desire to be the direct ruler over His people,rather than allow them to submit to a visible "king". That is why, when Israel asked for a visible king (God being their invisible king) to judge them like all the nations, God told Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me" (1 Sam. 8:7).

Let us learn from the parable spoken by Jotham in Judges 9:7-15. No proper person of life (olive, fig or vine) will take any position of authority. Only one without life (thorn) will rule over others and eventually destroy them.

Even the leaders established in the Old Testament, such as Moses, Joshua and David, were types of Christ as God's uniquely Anointed One, leading all of God's people. We fall into much error today when we misapply the authority given to these figures to any so-called leaders in our present day. Not only so, but as previously stated, the elements of the New Testament for which Christ died are directed at just this point--to abolish all mediators, whether human or otherwise, between God and man, and re-establish the direct headship of God over every one of His chosen and redeemed people.

The Erroneous Teaching
of "Deputy Authority"

Let us lay to rest, once for all, the erroneous teaching of "deputy authority" as a governing principle in the New Testament--overriding man's individual conscience, sense of righteousness and holiness, and direct lordship by Christ Himself.

The Bible tells us nothing more clearly than the fact that human government must always bow to man's conscience and the direct rule of God over the individual.

Obedience directly to God is the only unqualified obedience a man can give. All men are fallen. Because of that, our obedience to any man can and must be limited and qualified to the extent each man's individual conscience can support it.

The Bible also makes clear to us that God is no respecter either of any man's person (Gal. 2:6; Acts 10:34; James 2:1) or any man's position.

We are, in the New Testament,told to submit to "elders" and also to submit "one to another" in love. This should indeed be our hearts' attitude toward every member of the Body of Christ--but only so far as our conscience and the direct rule of God support that submission.

We are told in plain words,"The head of every man is Christ" (1 Cor. 11;3), and "There is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the Man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5)

It is true that at the time of Noah, after man's conscience had failed as the unique governing agent, God established human government. However, whenever human government--whether that government is familial,secular, or spiritual—comes into conflict with the direct rule of man by God, the Bible shows us clearly that man pays heavily, even grievously, for not submitting to God and overthrowing that government.

Man is always held accountable. He is held directly accountable to God whether his allegiance to the "deputy authority" was through his own ignorance, his own preference or personal loyalty, his own improper motive or ambition, or through the deceit of the one proclaiming that authority. The ramifications are generally disastrous. Not only so, but the judgment falling upon the mistakenly obedient one is far greater than that on the misleading "deputy authority." No man can shirk his individual responsibility and accountability to God.

The Example of Moses and Aaron

Take for instance, the Old Testament example of Moses, so often cited by W. Lee and his followers as the epitome of deputy authority. No doubt Moses’ responsibility for God's people and his commission to lead them are substantiated in the scriptures more clearly than that of any other man. In that sense, Moses is far more a type of Christ, the uniquely Anointed One, than he is a type of any other man. The New Testament repeatedly substantiates this (John 5:46; Heb. 3:3; Luke 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:7-11). Due to that, I believe it is dangerous for any man in our age to liken himself or any other man to Moses.

Still, Moses, unlike Christ, did fail to perfectly fulfill God's representation among God's people. At that point, therefore, we are given a clear picture of what happens to a man or men who fail to act when even an unmistakably appointed minister of God fails in his representation of God's authority. (Interestingly enough, this is never cited by those who would like to use Moses as justification for lording it over God's people.)

Apparently, Moses was faithful to God's commission throughout the entire forty years in the wilderness, with the exception of misinterpreting God's feeling toward the people at the waters of Meribah (Num. 20:10-13). At that time Moses became angry and smote the rock before God's people, in spite of the fact that God had said simply to speak to the rock. For that single offense, Moses was not permitted to enter into the good land of Canaan, but was allowed to view the land.

However, for our purposes, we need to see what was done to Aaron for the sin which Moses committed but Aaron did not publicly separate himself from. Aaron lost both his life and his ministry when Moses committed the sin of misrepresenting God before the people. There is no record that Aaron committed any sin of his own other than failing to stand against Moses' sin of representing God before the people (Num. 20:24, 10-13).

God had said to Moses, "You shall be as God to him (Aaron)" (Exo. 4:16). Surely, if there is anything that resembles "deputy authority" in the Bible, it could not be stronger than Moses' God-appointed relationship to Aaron. Yet Aaron still faced a judgment greater than that upon Moses, when he failed to stand with God directly at the waters of Meribah.

Another incident which illustrates the same point of God's drastic judgment upon one of His people who failed to listen to Him directly, but obeyed a "delegated authority," instead, is the incident of the man of God and the old prophet (1 Kings 13). The man of God was told directly by God not to eat, drink or remain in that city (1 Kings 13:9-16). However the old prophet declared that he, too, was a prophet and had been told by an angel of the Lord to bring him back, feed him and give him drink. The man of God, therefore, hearkened to the elder "delegated authority," instead of the direct speaking of God--which,as with Aaron, cost him his life.

Consider, also, the New Testament example of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Surely, the husband has been appointed on earth as head over his wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). still, Sapphira lost her life for not separating herself from the sin of her husband in this matter, but "covering" him by lying to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the Scriptures give us numerous positive examples of men, either for God's sake of under His direct leading, overthrowing the rule of those originally appointed over them governmentally. As part of Gideon's original commission by God, God ordered Gideon to throw down the altar of Baal that belonged to his father (Judges 6:25).

When Nabal, Abigail's husband, despised David and his men and determined to do evil against them, Abigail rose and took loaves, wine, raisins, cakes and figs to him. She said to David concerning her husband, "Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, even Nabal" (which means 'fool'); for as his name is, so is he" (1 Sam. 25:25). For that "rebellious" deed of protecting David's interests (who is a type of Christ), Abigail was given the privilege of marrying David, and is presented to us in the Scriptures as a type of the church militant.

In the New Testament we are told concerning secular governments, "Let every person be subject to the authorities over them. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose will receive to themselves judgment" (Rom. 13:1-2).

Yet when the rulers charged Peter and John not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you judge; for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20).

Even secular governments which recognize the supreme authority of God over the individual. For instance, in America a man can be court-martialed and even executed for deserting or failing to bear his military responsibility in time of war. However, if he can prove that his unwillingness to bear arms is truly a matter of his conscience in answering directly to the all-sovereign God, the government will bow and not override that man's conscience.

Then, too, the international tribunal at Nuremburg established to judge the Nazi war crimes committed under Hitler declared that man is responsible for his own actions--in spite of any orders he may have received from a higher authority. They further declared that soldiers and citizens have a moral obligation to disobey orders and laws which violate their consciences in dealing with other men.

If an international, non- Christian tribunal recognizes and bows to the direct supremacy of God over man versus that of any "deputy authority," how much more we Christians must come to the same definite recognition.

- A.F.

********

* In the New Testament economy there is no thought of hierarchy. On the contrary,God's economy in the New Testament makes all the believers of the same rank.This is the reason that the Lord Jesus said that we all are brothers and that only Christ is our Leader, Guide, Instructor, and Director. Although God's economy puts all believers in Christ on the same level, the natural concept is that in the church, as in any social group or organization,there should be a special class of leaders.
- L.S.of Ephesians p.348

* I am sorry that some Christians utilize Brother Nee's book, Spiritual Authority, to make themselves an authority over others. This kind of authority is self assumed.
- L.S. of Revelation p.742

* Others have asked me if the elders have authority. This question springs from the natural concept concerning rank. If we were not under the influence of the natural concept, we would not raise this question. I repeat, in the church there is no such thing as rank. Rather, we all are stewards of the grace of God,and we submit ourselves one to another.
- L.S. of Ephesians p.364

* None of us in the church life should hold to any personal standing. Of course, we must stand firm for the Lord's testimony. However, we should not claim any standing, title or position for ourselves.
- L.S. of Philippians p.93

* To control others means to make decisions for them and to tell them what to do or not to do. It is to put people under your direction. In the Lord's recovery, we must hate this kind of control. No one should exercise control, because we all are under the one Lord and have the one Spirit living in us and leading us.
- L.S. of Matthew p.655

* Exalting spiritual giants not only destroys the church; it also causes us to be self-deceived. ...In the Lord's recovery there must not be the exalting of any person.
- L.S. of 1 Corinthians p.291

* One should never be so mistaken as to consider oneself the authority. God alone has authority; no one else possesses it.
- Spiritual Authority p.120

(No. SA-01, free of charge)
The Word & The Testimony
P.O. Box 2185
Anaheim, CA. 92814

------------------------------------------------------------------------