The “church with its Bishops” not only gained control, they also gained acceptance by sacrificing themselves to serve the people, instructing them, approving or disapproving their actions and blessing them. Their use of Old Testament symbols and concepts were used to validate their position that their tradition has divine approval by demonstrating continuity in God’s overall plan. To convey this continuity, their priests looked much like the Levitical priesthood of the Mosaic Law. The garments resembled those worn by the Levitical priests.
This association with the Old Testament forms accomplishes the opposite effect on those who understand that the new was a fulfillment of the old. The Bible teaches that under the new covenant, Jesus gave the final sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:8-13), fulfilled the law (Mat 5:17), nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:14). By “new,” the Hebrew writer argues that “he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away” (Heb. 8:13). Under this new covenant, we have one high priest through whom we have access to the throne room. Every child of God is invited, as a part of the kingdom of priests, to come to the throne room of God, not to some physical closet to have an institutional priest intercede on his or her behalf. That priesthood of the Old Testament was removed in Christ.
Therefore, this popular notion among Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy that there is continuity between the Old and New Testament forms is no proof of authenticity. To the contrary, it proves that we are still held to the symbols that prefigured the new kingdom. The figure or signs of the old do not prefigure themselves but something very different and superior. This means that we are not under the new covenant of grace because we still have the elements of the old typology. Historically, when such Old Testament forms carried over into the new, it meant that they had been influenced by the same kind of Jews that Paul fought in his writings. The same Jews in his day were demanding circumcision and other Jewish forms that brought them back into bondage. Paul wrote the Galatians that they were so soon removed from Him who called them into another gospel (cf. Galatians 1:6-7). It is more probable that, after Constantine’s influence of pomp and grandeur, efforts were made to justify their practices by comparing themselves to the Old Testament priests. No one dare link their practices to imperial Rome or pagan thought. However, even if they could show their link to the Old Testament, they cannot be linked to Jesus Christ because he removed that priesthood. If people want to link themselves to Jewish tradition, they are aligned with those Jews who tried to assimilate their traditions as law into Christ’s way and were condemned for it. Still, as already pointed out, it is more probable that they are linked to Roman imperialism, a form of government that should have no place among God’s people. Mark records Jesus saying to his disciples:
“You know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all. For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45; cf. Matthew 20:25-28)
The true mark of this later type of leadership is in the example of service from all God’s people. For this reason, Paul discusses the nature of the one body with its many members (1 Cor 12:12,20) as being dependent on one another to provide a needed service. He did not say they were dependent on the clergy for their life. Also, the text quoted above is not applied to a local church, but the one living body of Christ with its many members.
If we can adopt a system wherein men may stand in the place of God as his representative, to receive confessions, administer “sacraments,” and give the interpretation of Scripture, then we find some cohesiveness or continuum that justifies its right to exist. But, the church institution with both its “bishops” and “priests” occupy a place of rule that is not found in Scripture. Once we buy into the idea that there is a special class of priests, we may separate that special class from others of a lower class.
This has many repercussions. Foremost, people begin to think of the church as a place to which we go and a place where we can be served by that special class. Instead of the church being people whose daily lifestyle is given to serving God and fellow man without limitation of time and place, it is now associated with religious organizations that have a meeting place and a time to perform its duties. The Old Testament priests chosen from the tribe of Levi did “serve in things pertaining to God” at the physical temple. But, this OT pattern is no longer in effect.
In today’s culture, the claim that a tradition had its origin with the apostles of our Lord is similar to the modern claims of performing “notable miracles” through the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet, there are no undeniable proofs and any attempt to “try the spirits” (1John 4:1) is met with opposition. The very fact that people are offended by the doubts calls into question the truthfulness of their claim to the miraculous power of the Spirit. No New Testament miracle was ever denied. No opposition questioned it. Never! Now, that’s what is called a “notable miracle.” Among today’s so-called “miracle workers, ”the observer is just expected to blindly accept this claim without studying the proofs? Why would anyone do such a thing?
Similarly, when Catholics make the claim that they have received the traditions of the apostles from whom they also have received a succession of authority, why would anyone blindly accept that claim, either? If someone arose from Jerusalem, claiming to be the Christ, would you just blindly accept it without testing the veracity of such a claim? Of course, any error can follow the example of Satan by quoting Scripture to support their error. Today, passages that are clearly addressing the apostles as Christ’s ambassadors are boldly claimed for themselves. Butchering the context of Scripture to support their claims, people are convinced to believe lies (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10) and follow perversions of men.
There is an alternative to the claim that they are the original church and it is much more reasonable to believe. Given the many warnings of apostasy, it is more reasonable to believe that bishops started teaching a view of the “church” that is not supported in Scripture and actually broke from the tradition of the apostles without disavowing their allegiance to them. Naturally, breaking all ties would not have been in their favor among people. Chapter one establishes the clear and unmistakable warnings of departures that arose among the bishops. We are still reaping the product of their thinking and practice. As long as we blindly follow our tradition without studying the evidence for their origins, we will be found in the ditch with our bishops. Jesus says, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). Instead of the church being an organization of bishops to whom the people go to receive the sacraments, the Bible teaches that it is the “called out ones,” a body of saved ones. The one and only head of God’s people is Jesus Christ, our High Priest. He is the only one through whom we have access to God, the Father. The church is neither the Savior, nor the medium through which we receive blessings from God. The church is the saved body of priests who have direct access to God through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. No man has the authority to seize that position. The presence of priests in some official capacity of church order is no where taught in the Scriptures. When asking for any biblical evidence for it, all you’ll hear is that the practice of the church has been handed down through the church in an unbroken chain of oral tradition. A blind man can see that his proposed chain has been broken, added to, taken away, and modified through the years of its existence. The New Testament pattern does not harmonize with the teachings of Roman Catholicism.
By the second century, the results of error were already well established with those in power, positioning the church as an organization with its one bishop rule. That the “church” in any given area had elders and deacons is not questioned, here. That these were religious “offices” of authority is the issue. We object to the development of an organization of bishops who positioned themselves as the source of authority whereby the truth, as they taught it, is defended. The leadership of God’s people in the New Testament was recognized by the lifestyle of service rather than by a title or sociological office that suppressed people into conformity.