Is the position of a pastor over each church something the Messiah wanted? Did the apostles set up men with this title? Is this church position actually hindering the moving of God’s Spirit in these last days? This post takes a fresh look at the scriptures to see if what has been handed down since Roman times truly aligns with God’s word. It is an addition to the Appendix in this book titled “Proper Authority.”

By T. Alex Tennent   (2/1/2018)

In this Bible study I will mainly address the position of a Pastor, but this would also apply to the position of a Rabbi (in Messianic Fellowships).

Now, many might be surprised that someone would even question the matter of a Pastor’s position as head over each church, but let’s carefully consider what the word of God actually says on this important subject.

The scripture is clear that each believer is a member of Christ’s spiritual body:

1 Corinthians 12:27    Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

What did the Lord Jesus want for church authority?

The scripture is also clear on this, that Jesus (the Jewish Messiah) was appointed by God as the head over the body, the church:

^NAS Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

^NAS Ephesians 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 

^NAS Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.

So what we want to determine is whether the current situation in the body of Christ today, with each church having the Pastor as head of the church, is what the Lord Jesus wanted, and what the apostles appointed. We will see who the apostles appointed to lead the various churches shortly, but first let’s consider some words from the Messiah.

Jesus gave us some important words on church authority, and specifically what he didn’t want. In Matthew 23:1 he is speaking to his disciples (including the apostles) concerning the Pharisees, who at that time were the religious rulers of the people, and he says the following concerning them:

^NAS Matthew 23:6-8  “And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, ⁷ and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. ⁸ “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

⁹ “And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.¹⁰ “And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

¹¹ “But the greatest among you shall be your servant.

Now prior to this his apostles had argued among themselves on two different occasions as to who among them would be greatest (Luke 9:36 ; 22:24) and now Jesus tells them that they are to see each other as brothers (including the apostles). They were not to seek an exalted position over others with titles such as Father, or Rabbi (which meant master/teacher), or Leader. We can see from various scriptures given by the apostles that Jesus meant these things in a certain sense. For instance Paul said he was called to be a teacher, but he did not have people refer to him with the title of “Teacher Paul, Father Paul or Pastor Paul.”

^NAS 2 Timothy 1:11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.

So what Jesus meant was that none of them were the ultimate teacher over others, because he was in that position, he was the head of the church. Even the apostles were to consider themselves as brothers, not as exalted rulers with high titles such as Father.  They were to be extensions of Christ and the word of God. Yet teachers were an important function in the churches as we shall see. Even the word “apostle” was not a term for a high ranking official. At that time in Israel when Jesus called the twelve, it simply referred to one who was sent forth, a messenger.

I am going to suggest that the way many people refer to “Pastor” Smith or “Pastor” Jones today (using these hypothetical names) goes against what the Lord Jesus taught here. This is not meant as a statement against all the good men of God who are now in the position of Pastor (or Rabbi in Messianic Fellowships). It is only saying that what has been handed down to us from the Roman Catholic Church, where one man called “pastor” essentially has total control over each church, is not what the Lord Jesus or the apostles wanted to lead and head up the individual churches.

Where did the word “Pastor” come from?

It may be surprising to some, but the English word “pastor” is not found in the New Testament in most popular bibles today. It’s not in the New American Standard, not in the King James Version, not in the New International Version, or many other versions. So here we have been handed an entire authority structure with a head position of “pastor” in almost all churches today and this word is not even in most New Testament Bibles!

Now, the word “pastors” (plural) is used one time (in some New Testament Bibles), but it must be remembered that Jesus and the apostles did not speak English. In the one English scripture that has the word “pastors” (Ephesians 4:11, which we will look at shortly) Paul did not use the word “pastors,” but the Greek plural word for “shepherds.”

So where did the word and position of pastor come from? Our English word pastor comes from the Latin word Pasteur. Latin was of course the language of Rome, and it was here that this position of Pasteur is first seen. Rome came to be headed up by the “Pope” (who Catholics call the Holy Father) who they believe was the head of the earthly Church. And then over many Catholic parishes’ they appointed a “Pasteur” as head.

Remember that the one time we see the word “pastors” in some bibles is actually the Greek word for shepherds. In Israel, a shepherd was not an exalted position that men sought after, it was a humble position for someone who watched over the sheep. Paul using this term would fit exactly with what Jesus taught about not having a high title that shows exaltation over others. Yet the word “Pasteur” was used for someone in Rome who wore the regal robes and had an elevated position and was in charge of the individual church, ruling others under the Pope.

Now some could argue that the word Pasteur actually means shepherd, and this is true, but word meanings often change over time. As was mentioned, a shepherd was a very lowly term in Israel; it was not a highly esteemed term. Yet the word Pastor in many churches is not so much seen as a lowly humble position for one who watches the sheep, but is rather more of an elevated term carrying authority over the other believers. When you are at a home fellowship and someone says that “Pastor” has just arrived, there is usually a certain reverence; someone in an elevated position is here, someone who is more than just a “brother” (as Jesus wanted).

Protestants do not like it when Catholic’s refer to men as “Father” as they feel it goes against what Jesus said. But is calling a man “Father Flanagan” really that much different than calling him “Pastor Flanagan?” In the Catholic Church today, the Priest over the Parish is often referred to by either one of these terms, as Father or Pastor.

Using another example of how words can change, if a man had four children and brought them up such that they were to always refer to him as “Pope,” you might find that a bit strange. And if he responded saying “Oh, Pope just means Father,” that may be true, but doesn’t using that word today carry forth a different connotation? In many cases today we see a similar thing, that when people refer to “Pastor Smith” or “Pastor Jones” it is not so much picturing a brother, but a man in an elevated position, something the Lord did not want.

Speaking of Pasteur/shepherd, Jesus said that he was the good shepherd, yet even he was never called “Pastor Jesus.”

^NAS John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me,

In fact this title of “pastor” was never applied to any apostle or to any man in the New Testament scriptures. The term shepherd was used in a metaphorical, pictorial sense; it was not a church position. The same is true for the sheep, we do not refer to ourselves as “Sheep Jimmy” or “Sheep Larry” because this is not our position in the church, it is only representing a symbolic picture, and the same is true for shepherd (pastor), it was never a church position with the apostles.

Let’s take a quick look at Ephesians 4:11, the one New Testament scripture with the word “pastors” (in most bibles), and remember that the Greek word spoken by Paul here was shepherds:

^NAS Ephesians 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

^YLT Ephesians 4:11 and He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as proclaimers of good news, and some as shepherds and teachers,

You can see that Young’s Literal Translation gives the translation that more accurately shows what Paul said, that they were “shepherds and teachers.” Again, “shepherds” was not to be a church position (any more than sheep was). The rules for Greek grammar show that this is speaking of the same thing, shepherds/teachers. The teachers “shepherd” the flock by bringing the good spiritual food, the teaching that is from the Lord (see Lenski’s commentary for more explanation on the Greek here, showing that the two words refer to the same position).

So the one time in which the Greek word for shepherds was translated into English as pastors is not a proper foundation for the position of a pastor. This verse does not create a position where one man is Leader, or Father, with complete authority to rule over each individual church.

Jesus told Peter (an apostle) to “shepherd” the sheep, but Peter was never called “Shepherd Peter” or “Pastor Peter” because this was never a church position:

^NAS John 21:16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

Who then did God and the apostles appoint to lead these new churches?

Strange as it may seem, when Paul tells the Corinthians who God appointed in the church the position of pastor is not even mentioned, but he does mention teachers:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

Since there was never an actual position of “Pastor” in any church the apostles founded this of course makes perfect sense that Paul does not mention a pastor here. Paul did not make a grievous mistake by leaving this position of pastor out here as the “head” of the church. Nor did he make a mistake by leaving out “shepherds” here, because shepherd was also not a church position. As we look more into the scriptures this will become clearer and clearer.

Who then did the apostles themselves appoint to lead each church? As the various churches were forming and getting established we see who the apostles Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14) appoint:

^NAS Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

The term “elders” was a common term among the Jews going all the way back to Moses. God had told Moses to gather seventy men “from the elders of Israel” to help support Moses (Numbers 11:16).  This position continued down into the New Testament times, where we see the “elders” in Israel when Jesus ministered being those in the Sanhedrin (Greek = sunedrion, i.e. the Sanhedrin), but usually translated as “Council” in many English Bibles.

It is interesting that the apostles continued with this same word elders and appointed certain men in each church with this position. This was not used as a title, such “Elder Peter,” it was a term for those who were in leadership, having Godly qualities, and with a deeper understanding in the scriptures.

An elder could be an apostle or any other position, but it was the elders (plural) who were appointed to lead the individual churches (not a pastor with elders under him). This is clear from what we saw in the scripture above with Paul and Barnabas.

Why did the Apostles Always Leave the Pastors out of their Meetings?

After appointing elders in every church (Acts 14:23) a controversy came about in a certain district and a big meeting was called and no pastors were invited. This is not because they were being rude to the pastors in those churches, it’s because they did not have any pastors in those churches, because this was not a position appointed by God or the apostles:

^NAS Acts 15:1-2 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

The apostles Paul and Barnabas are not bypassing the pastors, nor are they undermining them by only inviting the elders to come, there were no pastors (or pasteurs) to invite since this was not an appointed position in the churches. They did not appoint one man with an elevated title to be ruler, teacher, and leader over each church.

Continuing with scriptures showing more of the same, Paul and Barnabas are welcomed into the church in Jerusalem by the apostles and elders:

^NAS Acts 15:3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. ⁴ And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

⁵ But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

⁶ And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.

When the “apostles and elders” came together why didn’t they mention “Pastor” Smith or “Father” Flanagan or “Rabbi” Goldstein here? Because they followed the words of Jesus and did not call men by these titles, there was no such positions. And when the controversy in the book of Acts was settled they wrote a letter from the “apostles” and “elders” and again, no pastors are mentioned:

^NAS Acts 15:23 and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

Would Paul be Disrespectful by Shunning the Pastors?

When Paul the apostle sent to the church in Ephesus he called for the elders of the church to come and meet with him, but why does he completely leave out the pastor? Now in the vernacular of most protestants Paul should have called for the “pastor and the elders,” but there were no pastors in position over the churches, so how could Paul call for them? 

^NAS Acts 20:17-18 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. ¹⁸ And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, 

And a few verses later he tells these elders (who the Holy Spirit has made overseers) to “shepherd” the church:

^NAS Acts 20:28-29  “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. ²⁹ “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; ³⁰ and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Now in most churches today if you tell the elders to “shepherd” (i.e. “to pastor”) the church it would cause total confusion, for we have been told that the Pastor is to shepherd the church, not the elders. According to most current teaching, the elders are only to support the one man who rules (i.e. the pastor). But our structure which has been handed down is not what Jesus or the apostles wanted. And as we saw earlier, although Paul tells these elders to “shepherd” the church, he does not mean that “shepherd” (or Pasteur) is a new position or a title. He also uses the words flock and wolves in the verse above, but those are also not church positions, only words used symbolically, as shepherd was.

Here are a few more examples of the scriptures referring to the elders, but never mentioning the “pastor” who supposedly rules over them:

^NAS Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 

^NAS James 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

And another verse where Paul mentions the “prophets and teachers” in the church located in Antioch, but completely leaves out Pastor Flanagan (and the Rabbi):

^NAS Acts 13:1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Why does Paul keep leaving out the pastor? Does he have a problem with the pastors who are ruling over the various churches, as teacher and head?  Paul is of course not being disrespectful or rude to the Pastors by not including them in any of these scriptures; he could not include them because “Pastor” was not a position in the churches. This position of Pasteur came about many years later in the Roman Catholic Church. Paul does this same thing in his letter to Rome (see Romans chapter 16), where he goes on for 16 verses mentioning various church leaders and ministers there and not once does he mention a Pastor. Again, Paul was not being disrespectful, it’s because no one was in this position, as it’s not what Jesus or the apostles wanted or taught.

Was the Apostle Peter less than a Pastor?

In almost all churches today the authority structure is different than what the apostles set up. Today, the pastor is the head of the church, and the elders would be in a lower position, in submission to the pastor. But Peter, an apostle, refers to himself as an elder (not a Pastor), showing that the position of elder in the apostle’s day was much different from what has been handed down to us by Rome:

^NAS 1 Peter 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, ² shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;

³ nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. ⁴ And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Here again, according to our current Protestant vernacular, Peter, like Paul, would have also been seemingly undermining the Pastor of each church by writing to the elders (plural) and telling them to shepherd (i.e. Pasteur) the flock. After all, the church authority structure handed down to us was that the elders are to submit to the pastor. But in Peter’s day there were no pastors because God and the apostles did not appoint any pastors (or a Pope) to rule over or to lead the various churches. It was the elders plural (a term which included apostles, prophets, and other leaders) and not a situation where a single pastor was ruling over each church. Some today may not like this, but as we have seen it is very clear in the scriptures.

Some could look at verse 4 above, and say that Jesus was the chief shepherd and those under him leading the churches are shepherds. This could be true if we understand that the elders were the ones shepherding. But it would not be true if we try to say it was a Pasteur over each church doing the shepherding as ruler and head (with the elders under this one man who has the title of Pastor).

And as we saw in the beginning of this study, what the Lord Jesus wanted for the leaders in the churches was to consider themselves as brothers; it was not to be one man elevated above all others with a title such as Rabbi (or Pasteur).

Now some may believe that things go much better with one man making the decisions. And they could say that makes sense to avoid a situation where you had four elders in gridlock over making a certain decision. But the scripture says our thoughts are not His thoughts, and that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts, so our human belief should not override what we are given in the word of God. We see an excellent example in Acts chapter 15, where several men of God, apostles and elders, came together on a contentious subject but the Holy Spirit was allowed to lead. Various men gave input and expressed different points but they wanted God’s heart on the matter, it was not one man ruling over the others to make the decision (Acts 15:2-6, 22, 28).

Perhaps the reason the Lord gave the authority structure he did, and why the apostles set up what they did based on his instruction, was to avoid what happens in some churches where one man becomes elevated as Pastor? To avoid where that one man may then require all to refer to him as “Pastor Smith” (or whatever his name is). Then he clamps down on all doctrine such that people are not even free to study the word of God for themselves, or to discuss things among themselves, or to come to decisions on what is scripturally true using their own mind. Instead of using their God given ability to discern truth, believers are told to “be submissive” and to yield to the verse that says to obey those who “rule over you” (Hebrews 13:17).

However, this is a poor translation of the Greek in that scripture. The Greek in that scripture is more along the lines of “be persuadable” to those who lead among you (i.e. those they appointed as elders, to lead in each church). That verse does not say to bypass our God given right to decide what is true according to the scriptures, and to instead submit to anything we are commanded to believe. God gives each person the right to believe what they think is true, yet He also wants us to be persuadable and yield to any new truth when it lines up with the word of God.

John the apostle in his later years also leaves out the supposed pastors. And when you read the Book of Revelation you see he pictures various elders in heaven but not a single pastor, here are just a few times John mentions the elders there:

^NAS Revelation 4:4 And around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.

^NAS Revelation 5:5 and one of the elders said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.”

^NAS Revelation 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?”

^NAS Revelation 11:16 And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,

John was not being rude by not mentioning one pastor in heaven. Since this position did not exist there was (of course) no pastor he could have listed there.  Now, just as was said earlier, someone could argue here and say well the pastor was one of the elders. But one must not create a Church position called Pasteur/Pastor, having powerful authority over others, and then insert it into the bible when it is not given by God or the apostles. Just as others should not say that the Pope was also an elder, and that’s why he wasn’t specifically mentioned by John. Believers must not insert the positions of Pope and Pastor when the apostles do not give them as positions in the scriptures.

Again, this teaching is not to be negative concerning the many good men of God who are now called pastors or are in that position. I also am called pastor by a church in Pakistan that I preach in (via Skype). They don’t use that term as an exalted position ruling over others, but they consider me as a teacher and brother. They have been handed down the same basic authority structure as we have, all of us thinking it was from God, and they called me pastor out of respect (before I fully understood this from the scriptures). However, if I were in the leadership of a English speaking church today, knowing what I now know, I personally would not take the title of “Pastor.” The reason for this is that I believe such a position can often do more harm than good, and often it does not allow the Lord Jesus to be the head of the church, because the Pastor has taken over the head position. It often puts one man on a pedestal above others, when the Lord did not want that (even though many people do want it).

There are of course many good men today that are in the position of pastor that are unaware that this position was not handed down by God, by Jesus, or by the apostles, but rather it came through the Roman Catholic Church. There may be a reason for the Lord to make this truth clear in our day, so that His last day’s spiritual body can function as He intended. Whether that is the reason or not, the important truth to lay hold of is that the Lord Jesus does not want a situation where one man rules over the people in an exalted position, demanding all to believe every doctrine he teaches, and not allowing each believer to follow their own conscience.

Paul did not “Rule Over” the People

When some sought the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching lined up with the word of God, Paul did not rebuke them. He did not react with insecurity and say “how dare you question the authority of an apostle!” But instead he spoke well of them, even saying they were “more noble-minded” than others because they sought the scriptures to confirm if Paul’s words lined up with the word of God:

^NAS Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

This of course does not mean that there is no authority in the church, because we have seen the scriptures that clearly show delegated authority. But God is the highest authority and we are required to follow Him and His word first. God set Christ as head of the church, not each pastor. Peter and the apostles proved that God was the ultimate authority when they spoke to the High Priest and the Sanhedrin saying they would not stop teaching about the Savior:

^NAS Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men.

Ultimately, Christ and God’s Spirit Should Lead the Members

Paul knew that in the spiritual body of Christ, that Christ is the head of the body, and the various members have different functions. According to the scriptures, the head of every man is Christ (not the pastor/pasteur):

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 12:20 But now there are many members, but one body.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

^NAS Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

Paul understood the parables the Lord gave at the Last Supper, that we the members in the body are spiritually the pieces of the one bread, and we all partake of this one bread in the giving and receiving in the body of Christ:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 10:17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

Paul spoke of a body ministry, where one has a psalm, one has a teaching, one has a revelation, etc (1 Corinthians 14:26), where the various members give and receive spiritually, not where all sit before a pastor and then go home after he is done:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 12:4  Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.

⁵ And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

⁶ And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

⁷ But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

⁸ For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

¹⁰ and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

¹¹ But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

¹² For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body,

What Paul teaches is not one man ruling over the people, giving a sermon and when that is done the service is over, but rather a church that is led by the Spirit of God. We are not to be led by a pastor, but by the Spirit of God, with the various elders in the churches giving guidance and direction: 

^NAS Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

This is not teaching what’s known as “equal elders” because there really is no such thing. Any time you have 3 or 4 elders they will not really be equal, one will more likely be a more anointed speaker, one may be a better teacher, or a better scholar in God’s word, another may be better at leading. The foot is not really equal to the eye, nor is the hand equal to the ear, but all of the members are needed in the body (see 1 Corinthians 12).

The purpose of this teaching is to avoid what can be seen in some churches today, where one man controls all doctrine, and decides what the people must believe. Our current authority structure in most churches today hinders Christ from being the true head, or from bringing any new truth to the people (such as this study for instance) because one man can effectively forbid it.

The scriptures say that there is a latter rain coming, a teaching rain from God that will grow up the produce, speaking symbolically of the people:

^KJV James 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.

^KJV Joel 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.

^NIV Deuteronomy 32:2 Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants.

(See also Zechariah 10:1; Hosea 6:3; Isaiah 2:2-3, etc)

And right now a system has been set up through Rome that can effectively keep this latter rain from God’s people.  Giving one man (i.e. the Pastor) power to decide what others believe is a major obstacle to the Holy Spirit leading and to the Lord revealing new truth for the people, because this one man can shut down any new truth from the Lord (who is supposed to be the head). As members of the body of Christ we need to allow to the proper authority that the Lord wants in His church, and move away from the inherited traditions and structures that elevate one man as the head.

 

Those who teach the Saturday resurrection usually believe in a Wednesday crucifixion (which they believe was the 14th day that year). They are not always clear on whether they believe the last supper was the Passover or not (my book makes it clear that it was not). The Saturday resurrection option is popular among those who understand that Jewish law would never have Jesus crucified on the holy 15th-day high Sabbath, but this Saturday option falls short of the scriptures because of the reasons listed below:

1. No early historian even mentions a Saturday resurrection, because all of the sides in the early disputes agreed on the Sunday resurrection. Several early doctrinal disputes did arise between Roman Christians and Messianic Jewish believers, and the “Setting the Table 1” chapter of The Messianic Feast documents some of these disputes. The Messianic Fourteenthers (i.e., those early Jewish believers who were called this because they understood that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day) wrote of a Sunday resurrection, as did those called Church Fathers in Rome. Although early Jewish believers disputed the Roman concept of a 15th-day crucifixion and other Roman beliefs, both sides in these early doctrinal disputes wrote of and agreed on the Sunday resurrection.
2. Paul called Jesus the “first fruits” because his resurrection on Sunday (the morrow of the Sabbath) fulfilled this offering (Leviticus 23:10–14; 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). Early church writer Clement of Alexandria (a Fourteenther who understood that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day) wrote that the resurrection was on the morrow of the Sabbath (i.e., Sunday), when the priest was to offer up this sheaf of the first fruits. In the following quote, early “Fourteenther” Clement shows how Christ fulfilled this offering: “He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf” (click here for full quote in book, on p.381). Clement shows another way the Messiah’s words about being resurrected “on the third day” could apply, with a Thursday crucifixion and Friday being the 15th day high Sabbath and first day of the seven day Feast, then Sunday would have been “on the third day” of this seven day Festival. By forcing a Saturday Sabbath resurrection it would render Christ as our “day-early first-fruits” offering, by it not taking place on the “morrow of the Sabbath.”
3. Those who teach this Saturday resurrection usually believe in a Wednesday crucifixion, but this would make Sunday the fourth day since Jesus was delivered up, condemned, and crucified instead of the third day since “these things” happened (Luke 24:1, 19–21; John 20:1). Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). He did not mean to the exact second, but that he would be in the tomb for a portion of three different days and nights. The occurrence of the Last Supper on late Wednesday and the crucifixion on Thursday fit this perfectly. He was in the tomb for a portion of Thurs-day, Fri-day, and Satur-day, and for a portion of Friday nighttime, Saturday nighttime, and Sunday nighttime (Sunday nighttime started at sundown on Saturday). The Wednesday crucifixion with a Saturday resurrection would have Jesus in the tomb for a portion of four days—Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. This Saturday option does not fit the scriptures, and the Messiah said the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). There is no Greek variant in these verses that would change this timing.
4. Some say that the Saturday resurrection is the only way to fulfill the three days and three nights exactly by having the Messiah resurrected late Saturday afternoon, exactly 72 hours after he entered the “heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). But the Jews did not have stopwatches or atomic clocks to mark exact times, so when Jesus said “three days and three nights,” he did not mean exactly 72 hours to the minute. In the Old Testament interpretation, even a portion of a day or night counted as the whole day (such as for ritual cleansings). Jesus said he would be in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights just as Jonah was in the whale, and no proof exists that Jonah fulfilled this timing to the exact minute.
5. Jesus also said he would be killed and arise from the dead on the third day (Matthew 16:21 and Luke 24:7), meaning the third day after he was killed. The scriptures are clear that the Thursday scourging and crucifixion fulfills this, where Friday is the first day since, and Saturday is the second day since, and as the disciples are walking on Sunday it is the “third day since these things happened” (which is exactly what the scriptures prove in Luke 24:1, 19–21).
6. The Saturday resurrection option rejects Mark 16:9, which states (in Greek) that Jesus arose early on the first day of the week—our Sunday. Also, if Jesus had arisen on Saturday, why would he have waited more than twelve hours (until the following day) to reveal himself? Some say that the scripture in Matthew 28:1, translated as “in the end of the Sabbath” by the King James Version, shows a Saturday resurrection. But the Greek actually says “after the Sabbaths,” with the plural “Sabbaths” probably referring to the 15-day Sabbath (Friday that year) and the Saturday Sabbath that followed it.
7. Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 show Mary Magdalene and the others leaving very early in the morning (while it was still dark) with spices to anoint the body. If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, why would these women have risen and left home in the darkness of Sunday morning when they had all day Friday to complete this task? After all, if the 14th-day crucifixion was Wednesday and the 15th-day Sabbath was Thursday, then Friday would not have been a Sabbath—and that would have been the obvious time to anoint the body, rather than waiting until the fourth day when decay would have set in. By waiting until Sunday (Luke 24:1) to come and anoint the body they would have known that corruption would have set in, as was said of Lazarus on the fourth day, “by this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead four days.” (John 11:39). And the scripture says of the Messiah that he would not see corruption (Acts 2:25-27).
8. Mark 16:1 specifies that the women “bought” the spices and were now coming to anoint the body. Therefore, they probably purchased the spices right after the crucifixion (as Thursday the 14th day was ending) and before the 15th-day high Sabbath set in, as Luke makes clear (23:55, 56). It would also have been legal to make this purchase anytime after sundown of the Saturday Sabbath.
9. The proof for the Sunday resurrection is quite strong; it is the only possible way to fit the template challenge for this Jewish feast (see link here), whereby all of the scriptural time keys harmonize and make sense. While it is true that when Mary Magdalene and the others arrived early Sunday morning, Jesus had already arisen, it must be remembered that anytime after sundown on Saturday would then be Sunday.
10. Any option that does not have Jesus eating the Passover at the last supper would still have to explain Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7, which on the surface appear to show it was the Passover. The “Three Major Greek Keys That Unlock the Gospels” chapter lists what I believe is the proper way to interpret these scriptures, using the accepted rules of Greek grammar.

Conclusion: To believe the Saturday resurrection, we therefore have to believe that the apostles and the early Messianic Jews did a horrible job of teaching and handing down the supposed truth of a Saturday resurrection, because both sides (the Messianic Jewish believers and the Roman Christians) fully agreed on the Sunday resurrection.

Why it even matters: There are many reasons why it matters whether Jesus (Yeshua) was raised from the dead on Saturday or Sunday. For one thing, the Messiah said to buy the truth and sell it not. Truth is always important; oftentimes it builds out bigger truths that can only happen correctly if the smaller foundational truths you build upon are in fact true. The Sunday resurrection fits with a Thursday crucifixion (where Sunday is the 3rd day since all “these things happened”—i.e., arrest, trial, and crucifixion—Luke 24:1, 18, 19, 21). This then opens the door to understanding that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day in which the lambs were offered up, which then proves that his final supper the night before could not possibly have been a Passover. This then opens one’s eyes to the fact that they were eating regular leavened bread at this meal (all of the Greek scriptures show this as Course 1 proves linked here). And finally, this proves that the unleavened-bread Communion ritual handed down by Rome was not what Jesus or the early Messianic Jews taught or believed, which then helps us to see what the Messiah really meant in his vitally important parables at the last supper. This is all explained in my book, The Messianic Feast: Moving Beyond the Ritual.

So what did the Lord mean in the Last Supper parable with the one leavened bread? In Course 1 of my book The Messianic Feast: Moving Beyond the Ritual, it was thoroughly proven that the Lord held, and then broke into pieces, one leavened bread at this meal. Since the Passover lamb would be sacrificed the following day, then leavened bread was perfectly legal as per God’s law this previous night. In fact, all of the scriptures use the Greek word for daily leavened bread to refer to what was shared at this supper. But what does this mean?

First and foremost, it means that the unleavened bread ritual passed down since Roman times was not what the Lord wanted or what the Jewish disciples taught. Instead, they knew the Messiah was teaching spiritual truth in parables as he so often did. To ascertain what the pieces of the one leavened bread that Jesus broke represent, one only needs to see what the original followers all taught—that WE are the members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27, etc.). The bread and its pieces did not represent Christ’s human body as the Romans believed, but us, the members of his spiritual body.

This is what Paul understood and what he received from the Lord concerning what the Last Supper parables really meant:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:23  For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread…

The Greek word for bread that Paul uses above (arton) is the one for daily leavened bread. It is also singular and therefore should read “a bread.” Below, Paul also refers to this one bread Jesus broke (and gave to the disciples at the Last Supper and told them to partake, and that it was his body). Now, we know that Roman theologians mistakenly believed this was the Passover (where unleavened bread was required by God) and that they also took the words of Jesus literally (and not as a parable), thus creating their unleavened bread Communion ritual. But this is not what the Jewish Paul understood concerning what he said he received from the Lord:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 10:17  Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

This is the understanding of what Jesus really meant. This is the true spiritual communion that we are to share—partaking and sharing God’s love (and His word) with His spirit in the midst of the members of the spiritual body. This will be part of how Christ is formed in us according to the scriptures. This will fulfill the new commandment for the new covenant as given by Jesus at this Last Supper:

^NAS John 13:34  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

This is a spiritual communion, not a ritual. The ritual was simply a man-made tradition that has voided the word of God by missing what Jesus meant, something Jesus actually warned against:

^NAS Mark 7:9  He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

^NAS Mark 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The unleavened bread ritual as kept by almost all churches has confused what Jesus really meant in his parable, turning his spiritual teaching on sharing God’s word (the bread of life) and His love (the new wine of the spirit) into a ritualistic man-made tradition with unleavened bread (called “the bread of affliction,” Deuteronomy 16:3). These are a few of the many truths that are made clear in this book and that shed light on what the fulfillment will be of the long-time Jewish history of a coming Messianic banquet or feast.

Course 1 in the book proves that Jesus ate regular leavened bread at the Last Supper, it being the evening before the Passover sacrifice.

A reader wrote in asking: “Having Jewish friends, they go to great lengths to get anything with leaven out of their houses many days before Passover. Would this make sense for Jesus to eat leavened bread on the evening before Passover?”

First of all, thank you for this excellent question. Although it is true that many orthodox Jews today work to clean out leaven many days before the Passover, when interpreting these scriptures we have to ascertain what the customs and idioms at the time of Jesus were. In most aspects the first-century Jews were much more stringent to keep God’s laws than Jewish people today. Peter would refuse to associate with those of another nation, and the Jews were going to kill Paul when they thought he had brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the Temple precincts.

However, it is very clear from the history in the Jewish Talmud (written a few hundred years after Jesus) that eating regular leavened bread, even on the morning of the day of the sacrifice (the 14th day) was perfectly legal. According to God’s law through the scriptures, all leaven in the land had to be destroyed before noon. The Talmud states:

GEMARA: We see thus, that at the commencement of the sixth hour, all agree, Chometz* must be burned.

[*that which is leavened]

They then go on to say that this is understood from the fact that leaven was not to be present in Israel when the blood of the Passover was shed (Exodus 34:25). And since the legal allowable time for the Passover sacrifice was between noon and sunset on the 14th day, then the leaven had to be destroyed before noon (noon was called the sixth hour, and the “commencement of the sixth hour” was 11:00 AM).

So the Messiah and the disciples eating regular leavened bread at the Last Supper (the evening before the Passover lamb sacrifice) would have been perfectly appropriate, for as the Talmud states concerning the 14^th day “so that in the morning leavened bread may be eaten while in the afternoon it must not.”

(See p. 455 in the book for these Talmud quotes.)