Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church

New Believer. But if your so-called church was right when it was without a bishop from Nikon to Ambrose, then your current Belokrinitsky hierarchy is wrong, because it has no successive consecration. Metropolitan Ambrose, from whom it originates, before turning to you, as you yourself admit, was a heretic of the second rank. But on such heretics the apostolic succession of ordination ceases, and therefore your hierarchy is illegitimate, self-appointed.

It is known that Christ the Lord, having founded His holy church on earth, established and gave its leadership a hierarchy consisting of three ranks: bishop, priest and deacon. And so that these ranks of the hierarchy were not impostors, but chosen and sent to this great and holy service, Christ established consecration, or ordination, through which the above-mentioned ranks of the hierarchy are produced, and which only bishops have the right to perform. For clarity and comprehensibility, the succession of ordination can be likened to the succession of the human race, that is, just as all people come from one Adam by birth, so all priests and bishops come from one Christ by ordination. And just as each of us could trace our genealogy continuously back to Adam, if there were accurate genealogies, so every bishop can trace his genealogy of ordination continuously back to Christ.

Now take the trouble to indicate the succession of consecration of your hierarchy through only Orthodox bishops continuously from Christ to Metropolitan Ambrose.

Old Believer. You will first fulfill this proposal yourself, and then you can demand from us. First indicate the continuity of the ordination of the hierarchy of your church through Orthodox bishops alone from Christ to the present day, then we will do this too.

New Believer. We do not need to prove the continuity of the ordination of our hierarchy, because everyone knows that it comes continuously from Christ himself, through Orthodox bishops alone.

Old Believer. I don't know who knows this. But history testifies to just the opposite, namely, that it is impossible to carry out the succession of the ordination of your bishops through Orthodox bishops alone continuously until Christ, but will inevitably have to be carried out through heretics.

New Believer. How will you prove this?

Old Believer. There is a book: “Historical list of bishops and then patriarchs, holy and great church Christ, located in Constantinople, from the age of 36. Christ to 1834." It held a continuous succession of hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople from the Apostle Andrew the First-Called himself. And so, among the successors of this apostle there are many heretics, patriarchs of the Church of Constantinople, from which the Russian Church received its consecration and hierarchy. So from 355 to 359 the Patriarch of Constantinople was a heretic of Macedonia (Dukhoborets); from 360 to 371 the Arian Eudoxius; from 371 to 379 Arian ordained Arian Dimophilus. Thus, for twenty years the throne of Constantinople was occupied successively by heretics. Then, from 428 to 431 Nestorius the heretic; from 449 to 458 Anatoly, ordained by the heretic Dioscorus (acts of the universal collection, vol. 7, p. 113); from 491 Flavita the heretic; from 639 to 641 Pyrrhus the heretic (monothelitus); from 641 to 655 Paul the heretic; from 655 to 667 Peter the heretic (see year 678); from 667 to 669 Thomas, ordained by heretics; from 669 to 674 Constantine, also ordained by heretics (acts of the ecumenical collection, vol. 7, p. 119); from 711 to 714 John the heretic (Monothelitus); from 730 to 754 Anastasius the heretic (iconoclast); from 766 to 780 Nikita, also an iconoclast; from 815 to 821 Theodotus iconoclast; from 821 to 832 Anthony the iconoclast; from 832 to 842 John the 7th, also an iconoclast; and many others.

From this simple list of the Patriarchs of Constantinople it is clear that many of them were heretics and ordained heretics. And these heretics of the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople sometimes occupied the throne of this church for several years in succession, as can be seen, in addition to the above list, from the acts of the seventh ecumenical council, where, by the way, we find the following. When the question was discussed whether those initiated by heretics should be accepted into their ranks, the chairman of the council, His Holiness Patriarch Tarasius, said: very many of those who gathered at the holy sixth council were, of course, ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, teachers of the Monothelite heresy, since they were successive occupied the see of Constantinople, and after Peter, who was the last of them to occupy the see of Constantinople, no more than fifteen years passed until the sixth council. And the very bishops Thomas, John and Constantine, who were (at the see of Constantinople) during the above-mentioned period of time, were ordained by the above-mentioned heretics, and yet this was not held against them. This heresy continued there for fifty years. But the fathers of the sixth council anathematized (only) these four, although they themselves were ordained by them. The Holy Council said: This is obvious (Acts of the Ecumenical Council, vol. 7, p. 119). From this it is clear that from Sergius the heretic, Patriarch of Constantinople to Thomas, for fifty-seven years the throne of Constantinople was occupied successively by heretics and those ordained by heretics. And from this throne in 988, under Prince Vladimir, the Russian Church received its beginning: it received baptism, consecration and hierarchy.

So, if consecration of heretical bishops ceases, then it ceased long before the baptism of Rus', and therefore the ancient Russian church itself received and had a suppressed, illegal, self-proclaimed consecration, and your New Believer church now has the same consecration, and not Christ’s. This is your teaching, not ours, and this is where it leads you: you are obliged, according to your teaching that consecration ceases with heretics, to admit that both the ancient Orthodox Church and yours, the New Believers, did not receive and do not have a legal, uninterrupted succession of consecration, but have been interrupted, or, having renounced this opinion, admit, according to the teaching and practice of the ancient Orthodox Church, that even among heretical hierarchs the apostolic succession of ordination does not cease and is not interrupted, and in this case, admit that the Old Believer Church also has an uninterrupted ordination, although it passed for some time through heretical hierarchs.

New Believer. Why are you fooling me?! Well, let’s say that in the Church of Constantinople, at some times, the bishops were successively heretics for several years. History really proves this, and I will not argue against the evidence. But at the same times, in other places of the universal church, such as in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome and others, there were many Orthodox bishops. And you haven’t had those anywhere for one hundred and eighty years. This means there was a continuous succession of consecrations, but you do not. And therefore your current Belokrinitsky hierarchy has not received and does not have such continuity.

Old Believer. Thank you. So you yourself agreed that it is impossible and cannot carry out the succession of your consecration continuously until Christ through Orthodox bishops alone. And you demand it from us.

New Believer. How did I agree?

Old Believer. And so: you know that our ancient Russian Orthodox Church and your New Believers received the beginning of their hierarchy and ordination from the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

New Believer. I know very well.

Old Believer. And because of them, you refuse to carry out a continuous series of succession of ordination through Orthodox bishops alone, and therefore you rushed in different directions: to Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, and so on. If you had the opportunity to carry out this series of consecrations through the Church of Constantinople, then why would you point to Alexandria, Rome, etc. And by pointing to these churches, you confessed and confirmed that there was no continuous line of Orthodox bishops in Constantinople.

You yourself have likened the succession of ordination to the succession of the human race, that is, just as all people descend from Adam by birth, so from Christ all priests and bishops descend by ordination, and laity by baptism. Just as every person could trace his genealogy continuously back to Adam if he had accurate lists of his ancestors, so every bishop can trace his ordination genealogy continuously back to Christ. But tell me: can even one person trace his genealogy to Adam through the legitimate ones alone?

New Believer. Of course, no one can, because every person undoubtedly has many illegitimate ancestors. Even the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ himself went through many illegitimate births.

Old Believer. Fair. Now the question is: does the succession of the human race end with an illegitimate birth, so that whoever had illegitimate ancestors is not a person?

New Believer. Of course it doesn't stop.

Old Believer. In the same way, the succession of ordination does not cease, passing through heretics of the second or third rank. But if there were such a wise man who would argue that the succession of the human race ends with an illegitimate birth, then we would offer him to carry out the succession of his family through legal marriages and legal births alone: ​​otherwise he should consider himself a non-human. And he, instead, would have said: “although my ancestors were illegitimate, descended from illegal cohabitation, but at that time, in other places there were legal marriages and legitimate ones.” - What do you say to this? Is this an excuse, and not an accusation, to the person who answered this way? To this, of course, they would have remarked: we do not care that in other places there were other people from whom you did not descend, who were legitimate. Show that your ancestors are like this. Then only your answer will be correct and you will justify yourself. The same is true for your position. You claim that the succession to ordination ceases for heretics of the second rank. Therefore, you are required to carry out the succession of ordination of the bishops of your church only through Orthodox bishops continuously until Christ, and precisely through those from whom they are ordained, that is, through the Patriarchs of Constantinople. And you, instead, indicate that it was given in Alexandria, Rome, etc. there were Orthodox bishops at a time when there were heretics in the Church of Constantinople. Therefore, we will answer you the same way as we answered the mentioned subject: what does it matter if there were Orthodox bishops from whom your bishops did not receive ordination? You point out that all your bishops’ ancestors were like that by ordination. And this is something you don’t point out, because you can’t even point it out, but you demand it from us and reproach us. With us you point out the speck in your eye, but you don’t feel the log in your own eye.

To see that this is exactly the case, and also for a complete understanding of apostolic succession in the church, it is necessary to note that this succession is of two types: one by ordination, the other by faith. Even heretical bishops and priests have the succession of ordination, but only the Orthodox have the succession of faith. This is defined and explained by Saint Gregory the Theologian in his laudatory speech to St. Athanasius the Great, saying: He is elevated to the throne of Mark (the Evangelist) by the successor of his primacy, and no less of piety, for although he is far from him in the first, he is nevertheless close in the last. And that, in fact, is where continuity needs to be established. For like-mindedness (in faith) makes them one-throne, but dissent - different-throne, and one succession occurs only in name, and the other in the thing itself (created, his, part 2, p. 182). But your bishops and priests have succession only by ordination, but not by faith. They contain teachings and traditions that the entire Orthodox Church did not contain before Nikon, and therefore cannot carry out the succession of their ordination continuously until Christ, not only through Orthodox bishops, but also through like-minded people. Their succession, in this case, can be carried out from the present time only to Nikon, and beyond that it is impossible. In fact, which of the completely Orthodox bishops who were before Nikon contained what they contain? Who, for example, prayed with tripartite and cursed those who did not pray like that? It is clear that your bishops have apostolic succession only in name, not in the thing itself.

New Believer. It’s not true - we can list those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors even before us, according to the testimony of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons [book. 3, ch. 4].

Old Believer. Why don’t you read further: who didn’t teach anything and didn’t know anything, that these (heretics) are raving.

But, can you list a number of bishops, continuously, down to the apostles, who would teach what your bishops now teach and maintain what they contain? You cannot name such bishops further than Nikon and his accomplices. And therefore, what you cited from Saint Irenaeus does not justify you, but only accuses you. The following saying of St. Athanasius the Great fits the succession of your bishops: Who does not condemn the frivolity of Acacius and Eudoxius (bishops), who, out of zeal and affection for the Arians, sacrifice the honor of their fathers (who were at the first ecumenical council), or what guarantee is there for the fact that done by them, if what was done by the fathers is violated? Or why do they call them fathers, and themselves their successors, if they themselves condemn their decision? (his work, part 3, p. 121).

New Believer. What can you say about the apostolic succession of your society?

Old Believer. And the fact that we have always had it constantly, without stopping for a minute even during the period of non-existence of bishops from Nikon to Metropolitan Ambrose. It is known that we had priests continuously at that time. And not only bishops, but also priests have apostolic succession of faith and ordination. In the book “On Faith” we read: For every bishop has his own governors, consecrate them yourself. Many bishops received this grace through the ordination of Blessed Peter, and they are his vicars, and every presbyter is the vicar of that apostle, from whom he received the blessing of the priesthood [ch. 20, l. 182 vol.]. The “Helmsman” says: And David said: Your priests will be clothed with righteousness, and your sons will be in your father’s place, and you will make them princes throughout the whole earth. Place the apostles in the place of the children of Abraham, and the holy fathers, archbishops and priests in the apostle’s place [chap. 57, l. 595]. The book “Son of the Church” says: Great is the priestly rank: that is, the apostolic inheritance. Thus, the Old Believer Church, even during the period of non-existence of bishops in it, containing Orthodox faith and having priests, she also had vicars, or successors of the apostles, and, therefore, she always had and has apostolic succession not only in name, but also in the thing itself, not only in ordination, but also in faith. But your church does not have such continuity.

In general, it is necessary to note that regarding the succession of ordination, one must investigate as the holy fathers instruct, that is, even if the clergyman was ordained as a heretic, but is not a heretic himself, he must be accepted into his rank (see above). In doing this, the Old Believer Church and hierarchy are absolutely right. And those who accuse them, as the proverb goes, spit on the sun, spitting only on themselves.

And, indeed, you wanted, for example, to prove that the Old Believer Church does not have continuous succession from the apostles, but in fact it turns out that it does, and your so-called Orthodox Church does not have such succession, especially the succession of faith, because it contains many errors. She cannot prove the continuity of her succession by ordination, because due to her Luciferian heresy she denies ordination of heretical bishops, and it is not possible to carry out such succession through Orthodox alone. In view of this, you should not go so far as to invent empty accusations. Old Believer Church, but to pay attention to the real errors and errors of your church, they are countless.

New Believer. We'll talk about this another time. Now it's time to end the conversation. Just at parting, I will tell you frankly that no matter how you defend yourself, no matter how you accuse us, we will defeat you. We now have great power - missionaries who will certainly defeat you, if not with words, then with deeds, that is, they will bring some serious charges against you, put you on trial, put you in prison or send you into exile, or even to hard labor, if you will not accept Orthodoxy. They killed so many of your brothers.

Old Believer. That's how! You boast that your missionaries can do evil. But snakes can do evil, and demons can do even more. That’s why you’re intimidating in vain. Neither your promises nor your threats can shake a believing soul. There are promises and threats incomparably stronger and more amazing than yours. “When he overcomes and inherits everything,” says the Lord, “and I will be his God, and he will be my son.” The fearful part is in the lake, burning with fire and bogey, which is the second death (apocalypse, chapter 21, pp. 7-8).

The interlocutors dispersed

the conversation ended.

The Lord promised the Apostle Peter: "On this stone(apostolic faith) I will create My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail her» (Matt. 16:18); "glory in Churches in Christ Jesus to all generations, from century to century» (Eph. 3:21). The continuity of the Church is expressed in continuity of the chain of presbyteral ordinations. Christ chose the apostles (John 15:16), and the apostles ordained their successors to serve the Church: « Having ordained elders for them to every church"(Acts 14:23, 6:6), through whom all the fullness of grace received by the Church on the day of Pentecost is still transmitted: “ through laying on of apostolic hands the Holy Spirit is given"(Acts 8:18). “Do not neglect what is in you talent which was given to you... with the laying on of hands of the priesthood "(1 Tim. 4:14). The apostles further commanded that this gift of the priesthood be passed on to worthy successors: “For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you would complete what was unfinished and appointed elders in all the cities» (Titus 1:5); « Don't lay your hands on anyone hastily"(1 Tim. 5:22). By the end of the first century, the Christian communities of all more or less significant cities were led by ordained apostles elders, which were bearers of the fullness of apostolic grace received on the day of Pentecost.

3) Alexandria Local Church founded by the Apostle Mark in 42.
List of apostolic succession of the Alexandrian Orthodox Church

4) Local Church of Constantinople, founded in the year 37 in the city of Byzantium by the Apostle Andrew, who ordained the Apostle Stachys, who was on the see from 38 to 54, as bishop (Rom. 16:9). He in turn ordained Onesimus in 54-68. Bishop Onesimus ordained Polycarp in 68-70 - and so on through 20 centuries. Now the 179th bishop from the holy apostles is Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill.
List of apostolic succession of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople

6) Russian Local Church:
In the year 37, the Apostle Andrew founded the Church in the city of Byzantium and ordained the Apostle Stachys, who was on the see from 38 to 54, as bishop. “Greet Urban, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved” (Rom. 16:9). He in turn ordained Onesimus (54–68). Bishop Onesimus ordained Polycarp (68–70). and so on through 20 centuries:

In 1054 one out of five Local Churches– The Roman Church, having distorted the apostolic teaching about the Trinity and introduced this heresy into the Creed, fell away from the One Apostolic Ecumenical Church, falling under the anathema of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1: 8-9)

Apostolic succession of the priesthood is one of the foundations for the historical churches (Orthodox and Catholic).

This principle means that a true bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ is only one who can show the continuity of his ordination directly from the apostles. On it are based the principle of the effectiveness of the sacraments, the fidelity of the teachings of the Church, as well as the spiritual power to “bind and loose.” The principle of continuity arises in the Church quite early - Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) and Tertullian (3rd century) already appeal to it. Later, this approach is enshrined in canonical documents and becomes the principle by which the true church is distinguished from the untrue one. And yet, there is reason to believe that this principle is not the only correct one. God is not obliged to follow what is established by people.

The meaning of the priesthood

The priest is the one who stands between God and man. His task is to represent people before God, on the one hand, and to reveal God to people, on the other. Even before the conclusion of the Covenant with Israel, we see examples of priests: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God (Genesis, chapter 14), Jethro, priest of Midian (Exodus, chapter 2). The real revolution occurs at the moment when God leads the people out of Egypt. God addresses the people of Israel with these words:
...you have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you [as if] on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself; Therefore, if you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you will be My possession above all nations, for all the earth is Mine, and you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; These are the words that you will speak to the children of Israel. (Ex.19:4-6)

In other words, God introduces a principle later called the “principle of the universal priesthood”: every Israelite is called to stand before God, and the entire nation is a priest to the rest of the nations of the earth. The entire people are thus called to be intercessors before God for the whole earth, for all other nations, and also to bring them knowledge of the True God. In this way the priestly and missionary vocation of the people of God is affirmed and united. Much time later, the Apostle Peter repeats this statement in relation to the Church:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people, to proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; once not a people, but now the people of God; [once] those who had not received mercy, but now they have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

So, we must remember that the people of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, are priests before God. We have the responsibility to intercede before God for the whole earth, as well as the mission to bring the Gospel to other people. But the principle of the universal priesthood also includes the fact that every Christian comes to God directly, that there is no need for any intermediaries between man and God. This applies to both people and rituals or material objects. God calls each of us to a personal relationship with Him, to direct communication. He wants us to talk to Him, He wants to answer us! And, if in the Old Testament for this it was necessary to perform a certain ritual, make a sacrifice, etc., then in the times of the New Testament the basis for our meeting with God is the sacrifice of Christ:
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter into the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus Christ, in a new and living way, which He again revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh... (Heb. 10:19-20)

But we see that, in both the Old and New Testaments, God sets apart a portion of God's people for special service before Him. In the Old Testament these people are directly called priests, in the New Testament several names are used: deacons, presbyters, bishops, as well as apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers... And when the principle of succession is discussed, we are talking about just these, especially isolated people.

Aaron and Melchizedek

Scripture tells us of two principles, two approaches to priestly ministry. In Hebrews these approaches are called “the priesthood after the order of Aaron” and the “priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.”
So, if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what further need would there be for another priest to rise up in the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Heb.7:11)

The Aaronic priesthood is based on the hereditary principle. If the boy is a descendant of Aaron, he automatically becomes a priest. Of course, this happens at a certain age, accompanied by a certain ritual in which the grace of the priesthood is transferred to him, but from the very beginning he is considered called to this ministry. God established this order in the Old Testament. And God worked through these priests even when they themselves were not faithful to God! Good example in this regard, this is Eli, who raised the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1-3), and Caiaphas, who prophesied about Christ (John 11:49-52). However, even in the Old Testament, God acted outside of the hierarchy established by Himself! The Prophet Samuel, not only being from the descendants of Aaron, but also not from the tribe of Levi, in fact, also performed priestly functions. Prophet Elijah too. They took upon themselves to make sacrifices, although it was expressly written in the Law that this was the lot of only the sons of Aaron! And all the prophets were those who represented the people before God and brought the people knowledge of the one God. Those. they actually carried out priestly service, if we understand it more broadly than just the rites in the Temple.

Apostolic succession is the New Testament equivalent of the Aaronic priesthood. Although there is no longer a hereditary priesthood here, there is no automatism that was in the Old Testament, but many of the signs remain the same. The ministry of a priest is not based on his personal relationship with God, but on the grace of the priesthood, which is transmitted through ordination. Thanks to this grace, the priest has the right to celebrate the Eucharist, in which the miracle of the presence of Christ occurs, this grace gives him the basis to proclaim the remission of sins, etc. At the same time, the priest himself may not be on the best terms with God at this moment - God will judge him for this, but this in no way reduces the effectiveness of the sacraments performed by this priest, since this effectiveness is based on the faithfulness of God, and not the personality of man. Perhaps this is true. God can act in this way, although the history of the Church is full of examples of terrible apostasy of hierarchs. And personally, it is difficult for me to imagine that the grace of the priesthood acted through such people. Indeed, even in the Old Testament we have examples of how God removed apostates and all their descendants from the priesthood (in fact, all priestly families, with the exception of the sons of Zadok: Ezek. 40:46; 44:10-16).
But just as there are priests “according to the order of Aaron,” so there are also priests “according to the order of Melchizedek.” The Melchizedek Priesthood was not based on the principle of succession, but came from a personal call from God:
And this is even more clearly seen [from the fact] that in the likeness of Melchizedek another Priest arises, who is such not according to the law of the carnal commandment, but according to the power of unceasing life. For it is testified: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. (Heb.7:15-17)
As already mentioned, prophets played this role in the Old Testament. In the history of the Church of the New Testament, the role of such “priests” was played by saints, elders, and mystics. Their ministry did not require official recognition and ordination; they often deliberately avoided it. However, their authority was often greater than that of the hierarchy because God's action in their lives was also related to their personal relationship with God. They actually knew God personally, and therefore could give people a much deeper understanding of the ways of God than those in whom only the external grace of the priesthood worked.

Pauline Priesthood

There is a striking example of this type of ministry in the New Testament: the Apostle Paul. He was not one of the Twelve. He was not among the Lord's disciples at all when Jesus was on earth. The apostles, when choosing a replacement for Judas, gave very clear principles of apostleship:
Therefore, it is necessary that one of those who was with us throughout the entire time that the Lord Jesus remained and spoke with us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He ascended from us... (Acts 1:21-22)
Paul clearly does not meet these requirements! When God calls him, in his own words:
But when God, who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, deigned to reveal His Son in me, so that I might preach Him to the Gentiles, I did not then consult with flesh and blood, and did not go to Jerusalem to the Apostles who preceded me, and went to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. (Gal.1:15-17)

He is not looking for people to recognize his ministry. He is looking for something else: to understand what the One who called him expects from him! Then the apostles recognize his apostleship (not immediately), but for Paul it was obvious from the very beginning. He preaches the gospel not because he received permission from people to do so, but because he met Christ and can no longer help but preach the gospel!
The priesthood in evangelical churches is based on the same principle. A person becomes a minister, pastor, teacher because he has experienced God's call to this ministry. By responding with faith to this call, a person receives both the grace to perform this service and the necessary gifts for its fulfillment. In ordination, the Church testifies that there really is God’s call in the life of this person, as well as his readiness to fulfill this ministry. Here is an example from the New Testament:
In Antioch, in the church there there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon, who is called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manael, a fellow pupil of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then they, having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3)

Paul (then Saul) and Barnabas had already experienced a missionary call some time ago. But finally, the moment has come when the appropriate time has come, and the Church confirms this calling in ordination. Ordination is not a purely human recognition. God works in ordination to actualize the calling, gifts, and talents needed for ministry. However, personal calling is primary. Experience shows that if a person enters into ministry without receiving a personal call from the Lord, his ministry will not last long.
Thus, ministry in evangelical communities is founded “according to the order of Melchizedek.” The personal calling of the Lord, the gifts by which a person fulfills his ministry, the personal relationship with God necessary to bring to people the knowledge of God, and not just knowledge of Him - all of this lies at the basis of the ministry in evangelical churches. This is a feature of the evangelical movement, and we need not look for evidence of apostolic succession. Just as Paul did not seek to ensure that his ministry was necessarily recognized by the Twelve.

The early Church could accommodate a variety of gifts and ministries. There was an apostolic core, but there were also charismatic ministers: prophets, evangelists, teachers. The unity of the Church was ensured not by a hierarchical structure, which did not yet exist, but by the action of the Holy Spirit among the disciples of Christ. Therefore, the Church was able to accommodate Paul’s apostleship, which was radically different both in calling and in the form of ministry. And not only to recognize, but also to put him on the same level as Peter, about whom the Lord Himself said: “On this rock I will build My Church.” Tradition, calling Peter and Paul together “supreme apostles,” thereby testifies to the importance for the Church of both one principle of the priesthood and the other. And the combination of these principles precisely gave the Church the fullness that allowed it “to testify with great power to the resurrection of Christ.” The recognition of Paul's apostleship by the other apostles testifies to their wisdom, which, unfortunately, is lacking in modern hierarchs. Because by denying the evangelical movement membership in the Church, they weaken the Church as a whole. Peter, James and John in their time “gave Barnabas and Paul the hand of fellowship,” without demanding that they change or accept ordination from them. Can historic churches do this today?

Report on IX Interview of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church of Germany.

I. The sacramental side of the life of the Church is very broad. It includes all sacred rites performed in the Church, as established “on the basis of the apostles and prophets, having Jesus Christ Himself cornerstone"(Eph. 2:20) - For every church sacrament, mysteriously imparting the created nature and, above all, man, the grace of the Holy Spirit, is, in its measure and degree (I Cor. 15:41), a sacrament given by the Apostolic Church to all believers for their sanctification, healing, deification. It is enough, as an example, to mention the rite of consecration of water, or monastic tonsure, in which the grace of God acts on believers with obviousness that leaves no doubt. Is this why among ancient church writers we often find in the enumeration of the sacraments those sacred rites, which later, although they ceased to be called sacraments, in order to distinguish by this name from among all the seven primary ones, they remained in the Church with the same meaning, meaning, and many of the uses to this day, which were inherent in them in the ancient Church. Recognition of this fact is vital important for a Christian, because it fills his faith with deeper content and thereby contributes to his greater sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, this recognition requires, as an indispensable condition, the acceptance, first of all, of the priesthood and shepherdhood as a special, different from the “royal priesthood” (I Pet. 2:9) of all Christians, a divinely ordained ministry through which the sanctification of all the faithful takes place with these manifold gifts of God’s grace. For if the apostolic succession, taken in in full of its expression, embraces the essence of the entire life of the Church in all its aspects and manifestations: in the teaching of faith and morality, in spiritual and sacramental life, in the canonical structure - then, ultimately, it is concentrated precisely in the special service of the priesthood and shepherdhood as the focus and the exponent of teaching, power and priesthood in the Church. For this reason, the question of the nature and forms of the transfer of the apostolic grace of the priesthood and shepherd from the first disciples of Christ to the endless series of their successors acquires special significance. 2. Holy Bible definitely speaks of the divinely established character of the apostleship (Mark 3:13-14; 6:7; Luke 6:13; 10:1; John 15:16; Acts 20:28; I Cor."15:9 ; Gal. 1:1, etc.) and other types of ministry “for the edification of the Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:28). It also indicates the forms of ordination to priestly service in the Church: election and ordination (e.g. Acts I, 16-26:14,23; 2 Tim. 1:6; Titus 1:5) Particular importance is attached to ordination, which is mentioned everywhere when placing shepherds in ministry. But how to understand these instructions Holy Scripture: as transient facts that took place in the first Christian communities, or as the eternal institution of God in the Church? Without now touching on the exegesis of the relevant passages of Scripture, which, alas, can no longer answer modern Christians of different denominations who are far removed from each other in their understanding of Scripture , let us turn to the Holy Tradition of the Church. What they say ancient fathers , who lived directly in post-apostolic times, about the significance of ordination, successively coming from the apostles, for the priesthood and shepherdhood, about the divine establishment of this ministry in the Church? Let us present their evidence. St. Clement of Rome: “The apostles were sent to preach the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God... Preaching in various countries and cities, they appointed the first-born of the believers, after spiritual testing, as bishops and deacons for future believers.” He: “And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention about the episcopal dignity. For this very reason, having acquired perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned ministers, and then added a law, so that when they rested, other proven men would take over. "So, we consider it unjust to deprive the ministry of those who were appointed by the apostles themselves or after them by other venerable men, with the consent of the entire Church... And no small sin will be upon us if we do not reproachfully and holyly deprive those who bring gifts of episcopacy." So, according to St. Clement, the apostles themselves appointed bishops and established the “law” of succession in these appointments for the future. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in his epistles writes about the episcopal ministry as established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and, hence, about the greatness of this ministry. Addressing the church of Philadelphia, for example, he writes: “I salute her with the blood of Jesus Christ, which is an eternal and unceasing joy for the believers, especially if they are in unity with the bishop and his elders and deacons, appointed by the will of Jesus Christ, whom according to His good pleasure He confirmed unshakably by His Holy Spirit. I learned that your bishop did not accept this service to the community of believers on his own or through people, not out of vanity, but out of the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." “For everyone whom a householder sends to rule his house must be received by us in the same way as the one who sent it. Therefore, it is clear that the bishop must also be looked upon as the Lord Himself.”4 Hence the natural conclusion: “For those who are God’s and Jesus Christ, those with the bishop."5 The request of St. Ignatius to the Philadelphians to take part in the election and installation of a bishop in Antioch: “Blessed, in Jesus Christ, is whoever is worthy of such service,” he writes about the future bishop, “and you will be glorified for it. If you want, then it is not impossible for you for the sake of the name of God, since the nearest churches have already sent bishops, and some presbyters and deacons." Since the martyrdom of St. Ignatius dates back to the year 107, therefore, at this time succession in the installation of bishops was a self-evident norm in the life of the Church. At St. From Irenaeus of Lyons, we learn that the apostles installed, for example, the first bishop of Rome, Linus, and then he successively lists his successors up to and including his time: “... now in twelfth place from the apostles, the lot of the episcopacy has Eleutherus. In this order and in such succession Church tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have reached us. And this serves as the most complete proof that the same life-giving faith has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to this day and handed down in its true form. And Polycarp... was made bishop of the Smyrna church by the apostles Asia". St. Irenaeus even writes: “Everyone who wants to see the truth can learn in every church the tradition of the apostles, revealed throughout the world; and we can list the bishops installed by the apostles in the churches, and their successors before us...” St. Irenaeus, using still apostolic terminology, sometimes does not make a distinction between the concepts of “presbyter” and “bishop,” but at the same time he speaks very clearly about the existence of constant apostolic succession in the Church. So he calls: “Therefore, we must follow the elders in the Church, those who, as I have shown, have succession from the apostles and, together with the succession of the episcopacy, by the good pleasure of the Father, have acquired a certain gift of truth; others who deviate from the original succession and anywhere was going to be suspected, either as heretics and false teachers, or as schismatics...” The following testimony of Clement of Alexandria seems very important. Talking about the last years of the life of the Apostle John the Theologian, Clement writes: “When, after the death of the tyrant, he returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he undertook a journey through neighboring areas to attract pagans (to Christ), install bishops, introduce order in churches, install clergy of one or more, designated by the Holy Spirit." As V. Ekzemplyarsky rightly notes, “from this place there is no doubt that, according to the views of Clement, in apostolic times the right of the communities of believers themselves to appoint members of the clergy was not recognized.” Such a right belonged only to the apostles and, as other fathers testify, to the bishops (presbyters) directly appointed by them and their successors. From the ancient period of the Church, several more patristic testimonies can be cited that confirm this idea. Tertullian: “Let them,” he says of the heretics, “give up the archives of their Churches, let them declare the order of their bishops, which has been successively continued from the very beginning, so that the first bishop has as a founder or predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men. In this way the Church is kept accountable. apostolic.." St. Hippolytus of Rome: “Let one chosen by all the people be appointed bishop, and when he has been named and is liked by all, let the people gather together with the presbyters and bishops present on Sunday. With the consent of all, let them lay hands on him, and let the presbyters stand In silence. Let everyone remain silent, praying in their hearts, “due to the descent of the Spirit. One of the bishops present, at the request of everyone, laying his hand on the one who is consecrated as a bishop, let him pray, saying this... St. Cyprian of Carthage: “The Church is one, and being one, it cannot be both inside and outside. If it was with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius..., who succeeded Bishop Fabian by legal consecration... Novatian... does not belong to the Church; and he who, having despised the Gospel and Apostolic tradition, inherited no one, came from himself , cannot be considered a bishop; cannot in any way have the Church and possess it not dedicated to the Church." “Or how can one be considered a shepherd who, while there is a shepherd who rules in the Church of God by succession of consecration, turns out to be a stranger and an outsider...?” “Our Lord... defining the dignity of the bishop and the government of His Church, says to Peter in Gospel: “I say to you...” (Matthew 16:18-19). From here flows the power of bishops (vices eriscoporum ordinatio) and the government of the Church consistently and successively, so that the Church is established on bishops and every action of the Church is controlled by the same rulers." "Therefore, it is necessary to carefully preserve and observe what, according to Divine tradition and apostolic example, is observed in our country and in almost all countries: for proper installation, all the closest bishops must gather in the flock for which the primate is appointed, and elect a bishop in the presence of the people... We know that this is what you did when you installed our comrade Sabinus; he was given the bishopric and hands were laid on him, instead of Basilides, with the consent of the entire brotherhood and by the determination of the bishops, both those who were present at that and those who wrote to you about him. And this arrangement, correctly completed, cannot be destroyed by that circumstance. .." etc. The following remark of St. Cyprian also seems important, that, for example, in Rome Cornelius was “ordained bishop by many of our comrades,” more precisely, “sixteen co-bishops.” The idea of ​​apostolic succession in ordination is expressed even more clearly by a contemporary and the like-minded person of St. Cyprian, Bishop Firmilian: "... the power to forgive sins was granted to the apostles..., and then to the bishops, who inherited them by succession of dedication. " The authoritative voice of ancient church teaching is the so-called Rules of the Holy Apostles, in which, according to this question we find the following instruction: “Let two or three bishops appoint bishops” (Rule I). “Let one bishop appoint a presbyter and a deacon and other clergymen” (Rule 2). The conclusion from the combined voice of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries on this issue is quite obvious : a) Priesthood and shepherding is a great ministry in the Church, and it was not established by people, but comes from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and is accomplished through the special action of the Holy Spirit. b) The bishop (the head of the local Church) receives grace and power in the Church by direct succession of ordination, coming directly from the apostles themselves. This is the “Divine Tradition” and the “law” of initiations in the ancient Church of the first three centuries. 3. But if the very fact of apostolic succession in the ordination of clergy in the ancient Church is not in doubt (one of the joint theses of the Third Conversation between representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, for example, reads: “Ordination since apostolic times has been accomplished through successive ordination with by the invocation of the Holy Spirit", does this, however, mean that succession involves the transmission of the grace of the priesthood ONLY through episcopal ordinations, or are other forms possible, such as, for example, the installation of presbyters and bishops by the community itself (lay laikas) or the installation of a bishop In the above statements of the fathers, although they speak only about bishops (presbyters) as bearers of the fullness of the successive grace of the priesthood, however, given the ambiguity of the newly emerging terminology among the ancient fathers (as in the Holy Scriptures), it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between individual hierarchical degrees and understand their significance in preserving the apostolic succession of the priesthood in the Church. This ambiguity of terminology and sometimes unclear expressions in the description of the appointment of a bishop by the ancient fathers led some researchers, including individual Russians (for example. prof. A. Pokrovsky, prof. A. Spassky, to incorrect conclusions. Naturally, the resolution of this kind of bewilderment can only be found in later testimonies - the fathers of the 1st and subsequent centuries - the era of the finally established terminology. Since the conciliar voice of the fathers has primary significance, we first point out the definitions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils related to this issue. The First Ecumenical Council, by rule four, commands “to appoint a bishop... to all the bishops of that region,” or at least three, if necessary, must “perform ordination.” One hundred and fifty fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in canon 28, making a determination about the Church of Constantinople and the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, in particular, decided: “... each metropolitan of the above-mentioned regions, with the bishops of the region, must appoint diocesan bishops, as prescribed by the divine rules ". The third canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council speaks about election to sacred service: “Every election of a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, made by lay leaders, shall be invalid... For he who is to be promoted to a bishop must be chosen by the bishops, like the holy fathers in Nicaea defined in the rule." The Council of Antioch in 341 determined: “Let no bishop be appointed without a council and the presence of the metropolitan of the region” (right 19). “Let the church decree be observed, which determines that a bishop should not be appointed except with a council and by the court of bishops who have the power to produce a worthy one” (Rule 23). Council of Laodicea 343: “Bishops, by the court of metropolitans and surrounding bishops, are appointed to the leadership of the church” (right 12). Council of Carthage 419: “Many bishops, having gathered, let them appoint a bishop. And according to need, three bishops, in whatever place they are, at the command of the first one, let them appoint a bishop” (right 13). “Let the ancient order be observed: less than three bishops, as defined in the rules, shall not be considered satisfied for the installation of a bishop” (right 60). Apostolic decrees: “Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops. If he is ordained by one bishop, then both he and the one who ordained him will be deposed. And if necessity forces him to be ordained by one bishop, due to the impossibility of more bishops being present, during persecution or otherwise For a similar reason, then he will present the consent of a larger number of bishops to this" (Book WS, chapter 27). The Council Rules, therefore, decisively state that only bishops can appoint, that is, consecrate, a bishop. The statements of individual fathers of this era on this issue, being unanimous both with the conciliar teaching of the Church and among themselves, are very numerous. We will therefore present here only a few as illustrations. St. Basil the Great wrote regarding the practice of accepting those who had fallen away from the Church: “But however, the ancients, I mean Cyprian and our Firmilian, decided to... bring them all under one definition; because, although the beginning of the separation was due to a schism, those who departed from the Church did not already had on themselves the grace of the Holy Spirit, since its teaching became impoverished after the suppression of succession, and although the first who separated had ordination from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands received a spiritual gift; but those who were rejected, having become laity, had no power either to baptize or ordain, and were not able to convey to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen.” What attracts attention here is the idea that Basil the Great, as a matter of course, speaks of ordination from the fathers through the laying on of hands, thanks to which only the minister receives the power to officiate as long as he is in the Church. Saint John Chrysostom, in his commentary on the first letter to Timothy (1U.14), writes: “He (Al. Paul) is not talking about elders here, but about bishops, because it was not elders who ordained bishops.” In a conversation with the words of the Apostle Paul to Titus, “For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you would complete what was not completed and appoint presbyters in all the cities,” he says: “Where there was danger and great difficulty, he corrected everything himself in his personal presence; and what brought more honor or glory, he entrusts to the disciple, namely: the ordination of bishops and everything else...” He, in a conversation on the Epistle to the Philippians: “But the elders could not ordain bishops.” The fathers of the local council in Alexandria (340), at which “almost a hundred bishops” were present, wrote the following in their District Epistle in defense of Saint Athanasius: “They say (Arians) that after the death of Bishop Alexander, when some, and even then a few, reminded of Athanasius, he was ordained by six or seven bishops secretly, in a secret place. These people also wrote this to the kings, who do not refuse to write any lies... And that many of us ordained him, in the eyes of everyone and with a general exclamation of all, “To this again, we who have ordained serve as more reliable witnesses than those who were not present and who tell lies.” Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus in his “Panaria” speaks against the Sebastian heretic Aerius: “He (Aerius) says that a bishop and a presbyter are one and the same. How is this possible? The episcopal rank gives birth to fathers for the Church, and the presbyteral rank, being unable to give birth to fathers, gives birth to children for the Church through the bath of regeneration, and not through fathers or teachers. And how can you supply to an elder who does not have the right to ordain? go, how can you call a presbyter equal to a bishop?" Evsenius Pamphilus reports, for example, about one of the cases of the installation of a bishop of Jerusalem in the 90s of the 2nd century: "When Narcissus retired into the desert, and no one knew where he was , then the bishops of the neighboring churches decided to ordain another in his place, whose name was Diy." All these testimonies of the fathers of the ancient Church (and they could be significantly multiplied) undoubtedly testify to the uniform practice of ordaining bishops in the ancient Church, and, consequently, and about a unified understanding of apostolic succession in the celebration of the sacrament of the priesthood. True, at first glance, the following words of Blessed Jerome from the Letter to Evangelus contradict, at first glance, the agreement of the fathers on this issue: “... the apostle clearly teaches that elders are the same bishops.. ... listen to another testimony, in which it is most clearly stated that the bishop and the presbyter are one and the same... (Tit. I, 5-7)... And that subsequently one was elected and made a leader over the rest - this was done for eliminating the schism... For in Alexandria, from the time of the Evangelist Mark even to the bishops of Iraklos and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one from among them and, having elevated him to highest degree, were called a bishop, just as an army makes an emperor, and the deacons from among themselves choose one who is known to be a zealous man, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do, excluding ordination, that a presbyter would not do?" However, in this case, Blessed Jerome did not express the idea of ​​ordaining a bishop as presbyters, since he directly concludes his message: "For what does a bishop do, excluding ordination, which wouldn't a presbyter do it?" Archbishop Lolliy (Yuryevsky) (+1935) in his deep scientific research the question of ordination in the ancient Church in relation to this testimony of Blessed. Jerome comes to the following conclusion: “As soon as we read the words of Blessed Jerome to this end, it will immediately become clear why he, speaking about the rights of the Alexandrian presbyters of the most ancient period, indicates that these presbyters “chose”, “erected to the highest degree,” “they named their chosen one bishop, acted like the army and deacons, but does not say that they “ordained” and acted like the bishops of other Churches. In this case, Jerome himself explains why the elders did not ordain: ordination is an exclusive function of the episcopal office. Not only in this passage from Jerome, but nowhere in his works at all do we find any talk about presbyters (priests) having anywhere and ever the right to perform ordinations and actually performing these ordinations When reading the above passage, the words of St. John Chrysostom involuntarily come to mind: “And the elders received teaching and leadership in the Church, and what he says (ap. Paul) about bishops, also applies to presbyters, for bishops are superior by ordination alone, and by this alone they appear to be superior to presbyters." Archbishop Lollius, thus, shows that this statement of Blessed Jerome does not in the least contradict his (Jerome's) own convictions, which he repeatedly expresses in his writings, nor, consequently, the general agreement of the ancient Fathers of the Church on this issue. The outstanding Russian historian of the last century V.V. Bolotov summarizes his research on the issue of ordinations in the ancient Church in the following words: "... we don't know any specific case, when the bishop was appointed by the presbyters." And even more decisively he writes about another possibility: "The supposed democratic principle of the church hierarchy turns out to be the least justified: nowhere do we find facts confirming it; There is absolutely no example of a community ever consecrating a presbyter or a bishop." Turning now to the previously raised question about the legal celebrants of the ordination of pastors of the Church, we can, based on the teaching of the fathers of the era of the Councils, state that the decree of sacred ministers (and first turn of bishops) is performed only by bishops; bishops have this right by virtue of the succession of their ordination coming from the apostles themselves; the grace of the priesthood granted to a shepherd at ordination can be taken away only because of his crime against the Church, and not by the will of the people; episcopal consecration is a special grace-filled character, different from the grace of the “royal priesthood” inherent in all Christians; this special grace of the priesthood, fully inherent in the bishop, has other, lower degrees, in particular, presbyter and deacon; presbyters and deacons cannot ordain. Only the bishop and, therefore, the apostolic succession of ordination in the Church is carried out only through the bishop. 4. The Fathers of the Church of the era of the Councils did not introduce, as we see, anything fundamentally new into the ancient church, or rather, the apostolic teaching on the priesthood and shepherd. They look at the priesthood as a ministry that receives special grace, and because of this a special right to teaching, government and priesthood in the Church, only through the legal succession of ordination, coming from the apostles themselves and continuing through the bishops. This same teaching was contained by the Church in the first three centuries, and it was precisely this that was preserved, based on, and referred to by the fathers of all subsequent centuries. And although in historical development In the life of the Church, individual forms changed, new prayers were introduced and entire orders of ordination of pastors were drawn up, but in it the dogmatic principle itself always remained unchanged: apostolic succession in ordination is carried out and preserved only through the bishop. At this point we see a complete consensus patrum. Theses according to the report The main conclusions on the issue of the significance of apostolic succession for the priesthood and shepherd according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church can be expressed in the following theses: 1. Apostolic succession in the entire scope of its content represents the completeness of the foundations of Christian knowledge and life in the Church. Hence, its unconditional significance for all Christians and especially for those who are called to a special service in the Church - priesthood and pastorate. 2. In a special meaning, apostolic succession means the continuity of ordination coming from the apostles, in the appointment of clergy in the Church. 3. This continuity comes from the apostles through bishops, who only, according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, have the right to ordain bishops, presbyters, deacons and other clergy. That is, the episcopate, according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, is the only legitimate successor of the apostles in the appointment of clergy in the Church. 4. Since all sacraments are divine-human, then by Divine institution in the Church the Holy Spirit acts in them through a certain and unchangeable in its essence human ritual. Such in the ordination of clergy from the beginning of the Church’s existence is successive ordination, coming from the apostles and carried out only through bishops. 5. Shepherding, being the direct responsibility of the clergy (mainly bishops and presbyters), is therefore naturally associated with the apostolic succession of ordinations.

“I will glorify those who glorify Me,
and those who dishonor Me will be put to shame.”
(1 Samuel 2:30)

This work will be devoted to the very important topic of continuity in the Church. The relevance of this topic is difficult to overestimate. What is apostolic succession? Who are the real successors and heirs of the apostles, and who are the false ones? What are the marks of the true heirs of the apostles? What is the mechanism of transmission, spiritual inheritance and what is the role of the so-called. “ordination/ordination”? I will try to answer these and other questions. I hope that this work will help sincere Christians, who have decided to follow only Jesus, to finally free themselves from the bonds of lies that bind the mind and emerge from the captivity of ignorance into freedom.
These questions about succession and ordination also worried me at one time. After I received deliverance from sin through FAITH alone, this very question of the ordained priesthood arose before me in full force. I did not want to brush it off, but to receive a reasonable explanation from God. I waited patiently for an answer whole year. All this time I worked, devoted time to family responsibilities, but the main part of my mind was immersed in this topic. I was not idle. Every day I read the Bible, thought, reflected, went to services in the church (Orthodox) where I saw these ordained priests and waited for an answer from God. I was waiting for an answer to a fateful question for me. And the Lord answered me. My shepherd answered me through the Scriptures and the letters of the Apostles.
“Our soul is delivered, like a bird, from the net of those who catch it: the net is broken, and we are delivered.” (Ps. 123:7)

I will utter what has been hidden since the creation of the world

The Church was not formed out of emptiness. It was formed by the same God who once created Israel. The Church as an institution was the spiritual heir of Israel. The apostles were the spiritual successors of the ancient prophets. Disciples of Jesus: "they entered into their labor." (John 4:38) Therefore, I will often use ancient stories from Scripture to understand this complex issue of the succession of the Spirit, and determine in it the role and place of the so-called “ordination” (ordination), which some place undue reliance on.
It is common for a Christian to love and know the Holy Scriptures. The stories that tell of the lives and struggles of the ancient saints from Adam to John the Baptist are relevant and edifying for the follower of Jesus. God's character is revealed in the actions of the ancient saints. But especially important for a member of the Church are the stories of the life of Jesus and the letters of the Apostles. The writings of Paul occupy a central place in the Apostolic Heritage. I’ll even say more... (just don’t get me wrong), the letters of this “thirteenth apostle” are more valuable for understanding the teachings of Christ than the narratives from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which only later became called the Gospels. Why? I'll explain now. In the so-called The Gospels describe earthly life Jesus from birth to death. This is the “life” of Jesus. People read with emotion about the miracles of Christ, read His parables with delight and... they absolutely do not understand the teaching of the New Testament! They do not understand it not because they are stupid, but because it is not expressed explicitly. This indirect style of Jesus’ speech corresponded to the ancient prophecies about the behavior of Christ: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the creation of the world.” (Matt. 13:35) The Gospels are filled with descriptions of the miracles of Christ, His parables, His sayings, some of which were addressed only to the Jews, who were obliged to fulfill the Law of Moses, and have no direct relation to us. A modern pagan who reads the Gospel of Matthew runs the risk of completely misunderstanding the essence of the New Testament. Someone is needed to “chew and put in his mouth” the only way to obtain righteousness (i.e., justification) before God.
After his resurrection, Jesus did not withdraw or become silent. Christ began to speak through the Apostles, who no longer spoke in parables, but spoke to people openly and directly, proclaiming “the mystery of Christ” (Col. 4:3). It was Paul who turned out to be the one who, more clearly than others, knew how to “chew and put in his mouth” the essence of the teachings of Christ. It is not for nothing that God sent this chosen one to the pagans. It was Saul-Paul who wrote the letters in which he described in great detail the only way to obtain salvation and righteousness, through FAITH alone in the power of the Word of the Creator. This theme is present in all the letters of this outstanding man. However, this topic is most fully revealed by the Apostle of the Gentiles in his letter to the Romans. In this letter, he revealed in detail, with many examples, the essence of the difference between the Old Testament and the New, and convincingly proved why Faith in the Word of the Living God is the only and sufficient way for complete liberation from sin. Paul described in detail, saying modern language, the “technology” of salvation, through FAITH.
Why did he pay so much attention to FAITH? Because this is the only road to purity and holiness in God. This is the only one “the narrow way” (Matt. 7:14)(i.e. an inconspicuous path) leading people to salvation. After admitting your guilt before God, this is the only thing - the right step, followed by an instant response from God, making us righteous and not wicked before Him.

preach another Jesus

What other themes do we see in Paul's letters? We see discourse about the Sabbath (according to the law), about the Law itself, about food (according to the law), about circumcision (according to the law). What is the reason for their appearance? Paul did not write academically on abstract topics that have a distant relationship to real spiritual life. The appearance of these themes was dictated by life itself. These topics are evidence of attacks on Christians. Paul's disciples were pestered by other "followers" of Christ, who sincerely believed that faith alone was clearly not enough for salvation. These church members (who also considered themselves followers of Jesus) attacked our forefathers with questions:
- Why don’t you get circumcised? After all, God commanded this to be done even by the patriarchs!
- On what basis do you not keep the Sabbath? This is the commandment of the Lord!
- Why do you eat everything? You are ignoring Scripture!
This is a short list of the main “attacks” on the first true Christians. Paul, in his letters, taught his disciples how to respond to these “attacks.” The main danger for Christians saved by faith came not from the pagans, but from the camp of those who believed that faith alone was not enough for salvation. It was in opposition to these false apostles and others like them that Paul called for boldly entering into battle with them, putting on the armor of the Gospel - "helmet of salvation" And "armor of righteousness". The above attacks were precisely those "flaming arrows", from which he reliably protected "shield of faith"(They protected themselves from unbelievers by faith.) The lot of Paul's disciples was not only a blind defense. They could successfully counterattack by taking “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17). It was these attackers that Paul called “heretics” (Titus 3:10). "Disgusting" from these heretics, i.e., without wasting precious time on convincing them, believers “having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:17), preached the Gospel to the pagans who wanted to hear the Word of God.
Behind all these attacks on Paul's disciples was the devil, who really did not want people to become righteous, so that they would be completely freed from sin. That is why the Apostle wrote: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:11-12)
It turns out that Christians are in a spiritual war with the devil himself, which began in Paradise: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.” (Gen.3:15)
The fallen cherub knows how to skillfully expose people to the sword of God’s righteous wrath. Once upon a time, the prince of darkness convinced Adam and Eve to deviate from the Word of God, and thereby brought the first people under criminal charges. The result is a break in the covenant with God, expulsion from Paradise, spiritual death, and then physical death. If Adam had known what the consequences would be, he would never have disobeyed this frivolous prohibition:
“Only from the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, do not eat it or touch it, lest you die.” (Gen.3:3)
But Adam was convinced that nothing bad would happen if he violated this ridiculous commandment.
When the preaching of the Gospel began and people began to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life by FAITH in the Word of Jesus, the devil immediately resisted. He used the same deception tactics. He convinced the followers of Christ that faith alone in such serious matter how reconciliation with God is clearly not enough, but something else needs to be added to FAITH for reliability. This increase was: circumcision, Sabbath, food restriction, etc. This seemingly pious addition to FAITH (after all, it couldn’t get any worse) completely destroyed the Gospel. Man again fell for the same bait as the primordial Adam. Man again disobeyed God and, accordingly, did not achieve the result He required. Man did not achieve righteousness and purity, although he sincerely tried to please Him. It was these deceived Christians that the devil set against the disciples of the Apostles, trying to steal from them the righteousness and purity in Christ. Pay attention to the devil's favorite tactics! He does not act directly, but through people like you. Based on this danger, Paul wrote the following lines: “But I am afraid, lest, just as the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning, your minds too may be corrupted, straying from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if someone came and began to preach another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not receive, then you would be very lenient towards him.” (2 Cor. 11:3-4)
Paul's competitors told his students something like this:
- Is the truth revealed only to Paul? Is he smarter than everyone else? We are also followers of Jesus Christ and approach the matter of salvation more seriously, coordinating everything with Scripture.
Exactly "another gospel"(i.e. another Gospel), concealed within itself mortal danger for those who believe. In Paradise, the devil convinced people to ignore the frivolous (childish) commandment not to eat fruits from the same tree. However, failure to comply with this small rule led to catastrophic consequences - DEATH (Eternal). When the Gospel of Jesus sounded, the same spirit that had once deceived Adam now urged not to attach much importance to another small rule - FAITH, as too simple and frivolous a way to achieve justification before God. However, it was precisely this rule, inconspicuous at first glance, that gave and is now giving a fantastic result - ETERNAL LIFE!
We still hear:
- Well, what did you get on with: faith, faith, faith, faith... Did you believe and that’s it... and folded your arms?
Nothing has changed since those apostolic times. The tactics of the ancient serpent remained the same. Only the form has changed, only the packaging in which the same deception is wrapped has changed. We, now reading the story of the events in Paradise, exclaim in bewilderment, shaking our heads:
- How could you let yourself be deceived so easily! Didn’t Adam see that he was being fooled! All the devil's deception is sewn with white thread! Oh no! This number would not work with us!
The paradox is that the devil cleverly pulled off exactly the same “number” during the time of the Apostles. He is successfully doing the same thing today, as Paul predicted: “But evil men and deceivers will abound in evil, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13)
Salvation BY FAITH lies literally “under people’s feet.” However, the evil spirit, through his servants, convinces not to attach special importance to FAITH. He tells people, through his agents of influence, that FAITH is “dead in itself” (James 2:17). He, ridiculing FAITH, speaks through a message that plays the role of Trojan horse, as “demons believe” (James 2:19). Two short shots to the Doctrine's head kill the entire body.

Be careful, brothers, that no one deceives you

But there was another one "hot arrow" from the arsenal “the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). So that Christians would not be struck by this arrow, it was necessary to write a separate, unsigned message. This is the so-called book of Hebrews. The main theme of this Apostolic Letter is the priesthood of Christ.
The apostles convinced their disciples that by accepting Christ by faith, they received the maximum that a person can receive. By accepting Jesus into our hearts, we have achieved completeness.
“Therefore, just as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
being rooted and built up in Him and strengthened in the faith, as you were taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving” (Col. 2:6-7)
“And you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:10)
But the devil, acting through his servants, tried to convince the disciples of the Apostles that they were missing something:
— Faith in Christ alone is not enough! Priesthood must be added to faith. Then there will be completeness!
Warning about this trick, the Apostle wrote: “Take heed, brethren, lest anyone lead you away through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8) We are not talking about pagan Greek philosophy. We are talking about those same “pious additions” from the Law of Moses, in the form of circumcision, the Sabbath or the priesthood. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (philosophy). Those. under the pretext of spiritual growth, you will be asked to take a certain supplement. Beware, this is a deception! It is no coincidence that Paul structured his speech this way and spoke about wisdom (philosophy). He wants us to remember the sad story of Paradise again and be vigilant. In Paradise, the devil also started talking about wisdom, and under this “sauce” he deceived Adam and Eve:
- “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5)
- “And the woman saw that the tree... gave knowledge” (Gen. 3:6)
The “arrow of the priesthood” shot at us by the evil spirit, the Holy Spirit acting through his servants, did not convince "to waver in mind". The Spirit of God urged us to remain in "His rest", because we have: "The great high priest who passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." Therefore we will not agree with "a different gospel." We “let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)
Hebrews is the antidote. It is not for nothing that the devil is represented by a serpent. The throw of a poisonous snake is lightning fast, and one bite is fatal.
Satan to this day remains the same murderer, “inventive for evil.” The Father of Lies has perfected his old deception. He no longer protests against the high priesthood of Christ. He came up with the doctrine of special intermediaries - priests, between the High Priest Christ and ordinary Christians. He came up with the theory of an ordained priesthood supposedly originating from the Apostles themselves. Behind this “conspiracy theory” lies the same old lie. It is a lie that faith in Christ is not enough. It is a lie that it is impossible to be saved without special intermediaries.
In response to the danger of being struck down by these modern weapons and becoming captives of church Babylon, God dresses his people in the body armor of faith.
Unfortunately, many people taking their first steps towards Christ have been caught in this snare. "another gospel". Many unconfirmed Christians have been misled by this doctrine of the ordained priesthood. This ordained priesthood, like the ancient Goliath, frightens and makes unconfirmed souls timid.
“And a single combatant named Goliath, from Gath, went out from the camp of the Philistines; He is six cubits and a span tall.
A copper helmet is on his head; and he was clothed with armor of scales, and the weight of his armor was five thousand shekels of brass;
brass kneepads on his feet, and a brass shield on his shoulders;
and the shaft of his spear is like a weaver's beam; and his spear was six hundred shekels of iron, and before him went an armor-bearer.” (1 Samuel 17:4-7)
The Devil has professionally equipped his best martial artist in "scale armor" from cleverly chosen quotations of Scripture. Official church history and canons - "brass kneecaps are on his feet". Many authoritative supporters of ordination - “His very spear was six hundred shekels of iron.”.
“And he stood and shouted to the armies of Israel, saying to them: Why did you go out to fight? Choose a person from yourself and let him come to me.
if he can fight me and kill me, then we will be your slaves; if I overcome him and kill him, then you will be our slaves and serve us.
And the Philistine said, Today I will put to shame the armies of Israel; give me a man, and we will fight together” (1 Samuel 17:8-10)
“And all the Israelites, when they saw the man, fled from him and were very afraid.
And the Israelites said, Do you see this man speaking? He comes out to revile Israel. If anyone had killed him..." (1 Samuel 17:24,25)
At all times, in response to spiritual threats from false teaching, God has fielded His warriors who have defeated the enemy.
“And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your body to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
And David answered the Philistine: You come against me with sword and spear and shield, but I come against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, which you have defied;
“Now the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will kill you, and take off your head, and will give the carcasses of the army of the Philistines to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth, and all the earth will know that there is a God in Israel” (1 Samuel 17:44-46 )
The God who inspired the prophets of Israel lives! God lives, who gave wisdom to the Apostles! God lives, who will teach us how to resist these lies in the mouths of modern false prophets!

What do we hear from the lips of our contemporary “church giant”? What are we, the heirs of the false apostles, putting into our ears? How "another gospel", is trying to enslave us and deprive us of freedom in Christ?
— The legal priesthood is not a spontaneous assumption of the duties and opportunities of the priesthood, but a continuous chain of laying on of hands and bestowing the grace of the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament, dating back to the apostolic age, and having its beginning from the Apostles.
- At the ordination, the bishop says a prayer: “Divine grace, which always heals everything that is weakened and restores the weakened, this very pious deacon “name” is elevated by my ordination to the presbyter: let us pray for him - may the grace of the Most Holy Spirit descend on him.”
— Since then, successively and without interruption, all members of our three-order hierarchy (bishops, presbyters and deacons) have been ordained in a legal order in the Church, through episcopal ordination in the sacrament of the Priesthood.
- Christ appointed the Apostles to shepherd His Church, they ordained bishops, those who followed, and so on until our days. If there is a break where there is a break, as with heretical sectarians, there is no Priesthood, but there is suicide and death.
This is what the adherents of the theory of continuous ordination teach. This is a kind of church “electric circuit”. A religious “plug” is inserted into a socket (the apostolic century), and in the 21st century a light bulb comes on—the Bishop.

But what to do if the “light” doesn’t light up? Why doesn't the ordained bishop shine the light of the gospel? If the light does not light, there is a break in the “circuit”, but the bishop is correctly ordained, i.e. There is a “chain”, but there is still no light. Let's turn to God to understand this difficult issue. Let's listen carefully to what "The Spirit speaks to the churches".
To do this, we will look into the Scriptures (the books of the Old Testament), which contain priceless stories. They will help shed light on this topic. The God of the ancient righteous is our God. He hasn't changed. He always cared about spiritual leaders and looked for their successors. The Lord was always looking for husbands “according to your own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). The Creator has always taken care that this holy relay of the Spirit does not fade away. This relay of God's chosenness can be clearly seen throughout the entire Holy Scripture. Some leaders were replaced by other leaders whom God chose to serve others. These new names will appear again and again throughout human history, until the day Jesus appears from heaven.
Why did God choose some and reject others? How did some chosen ones pass on to others the good gift of the Spirit? What role did the hand or the sacred oil play in this spiritual relay? Was the external or internal given priority? What is the formula for transferring power and leadership? To these important questions, as we analyze the sacred stories, the answer will begin to emerge.

And the Lord looked upon Abel

Before we turn to the history of Israel, which is very rich in the material that interests us, let's look at the history of the children of the primordial Adam - Cain and Abel. Everyone knows that Cain killed his brother Abel. What caused the first murder on earth? What is the reason for Cain's rage and uncontrollable anger towards Abel? It turns out that this one is very ancient history is directly related to our topic.
“After some time, Cain brought a gift to the Lord from the fruits of the ground,
and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat.” (Gen.4:3,4)
This was not a simple sacrifice to God in gratitude for a good harvest. It was a competition, it was a competition between two contenders for the championship.
Adam himself is not mentioned at all in this story, as if he had withdrawn so that only God could be the judge. Or maybe the father, knowing the violent character of his eldest son, was afraid to tell him about his unworthiness?
“And the Lord looked upon Abel and his gift, but did not look upon Cain and his gift. Cain was greatly saddened, and his face fell.” (Gen.4:4,5)
God gave primacy not to the elder Cain, but to his younger brother. God elevated Abel above Cain and the other descendants of Adam. Cain clearly did not count on the fact that seniority would not be given to him. His pride was greatly hurt. What is the logic of the reasoning of the rejected and distressed Cain? He reasoned something like this:
- Since God allowed me to be the first to be born, then this means there is a sign from above. My father Adam was also created first in relation to mother Eve, and he dominated.
Cain's reasoning is not without common sense. The Apostle Paul, discussing the eternal primacy of a husband over his wife, also pointed out as an argument the primacy of Adam in relation to Eve:
“But I do not allow a wife to teach, nor to rule over her husband, but to be in silence. For Adam was created first, and then Eve..." (1 Tim. 2:12-13)
However, in God's opinion, Cain's external and carnal advantage was clearly not enough. The Creator of the world looked at the heart. In his internal state, in his spirit, Cain was inferior to Abel, so he was rejected as a leader.
This article can already end. For discerning people, this story alone is enough to understand the topic of apostolic succession. However, let's continue. There are many such instructive stories ahead.

And he placed Ephraim above Manasseh

Looking ahead a little, I want to draw your attention to one of the names of God. When God spoke to Moses, he introduced himself like this: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Ex.3:6)
Thousands of years later, God is called the same way - Jesus, Peter, Stephen. What is this? And this is the formula for the continuity of the Spirit. In this name of God lies our whole theme.
But this chain of names, this sequence of God’s chosen ones, which has already become familiar to us, could have been completely different. A modern proponent of continuous ordination would never have chosen Isaac as Abraham's successor. The Orthodox, if he were a contemporary of the patriarchs, would recognize Esau as the legal heir, and call Jacob a sectarian.
“If the Lord were not with us, let Israel say” (Ps. 123:1)
Let us turn to the moment when God chooses a man named Abram to become the founder of God's new people. The Lord makes a covenant with Abram and says that he will have many descendants, like the stars in the sky. Abram serves God faithfully. Years pass, but he still has no children. At one point, Abram complains to God:
- “Behold, you have not given me descendants, and behold, one of my household (Eleazar of Damascus) is my heir” (Gen. 15:3)
But God rejects this candidacy:
- “He will not be your heir; but the one who comes from your body will be your heir” (Gen. 15:4)
Time passes, and still no son. Sarah, seeing that the years are passing, taking the initiative, invites Abraham to “enter” her servant Hagar in order to have a child with her. (The laws of that time permitted such actions and this was not a sin.) And indeed, a son, Ishmael, (“God hears”) is born from Abraham and Hagar. Ishmael is Abraham's firstborn.
12 years pass. God again appears to Abram, commanding him to henceforth be called Abraham (“father of the multitude”) and tells him the stunning news that 100-year-old Abraham and 90-year-old Sarah will have a son. And it is he who will be Abraham's heir!
“God said: Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you will call his name Isaac; And I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.” (Gen.17:19)
What about Ishmael? Is he the same son of Abram?
“And concerning Ishmael I have heard you: behold, I will bless him, and will make him grow, and multiply him greatly, greatly...
But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this very time next year.” (Gen.17:20-21)
God's choice was not in favor of Ishmael, the eldest (in the flesh) son of Abraham, but the youngest, so that Isaac would be the heir and successor of Abraham after him. Seniority is given to Isaac, God's chosen one:
“Thy seed shall be named in Isaac” (Gen. 21:12)
Isaac, the heir of the covenant, was born according to the Word of the Lord. The Apostle Paul, commenting on these events, concludes:
“That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are recognized as the seed.” (Rom.9:8)
A similar story happens with the children of Isaac. After Rebekah became Isaac’s wife and became pregnant, “the sons began to beat in her womb, and she said: If this happens, then why do I need this? And she went to ask the Lord.” (Gen.25:22)
God answers her and speaks about the future of these children:
“The Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb, and two different nations will come out of your womb”;
Next, God lifts the veil of time and speaks a secret: “One nation will become stronger than the other, and the greater will serve the lesser.” (Gen.25:23)
In other words:
— Seniority will be given not to the eldest son, but to the youngest.
Esau was born first, after whom Jacob was born, holding on to his brother’s heel. When Isaac grew old, he decided to bless his firstborn, the eldest son Esau, so that he would become “lord over his brothers and that his mother’s sons should worship him” (Gen. 27:29).
In other words:
— Isaac decided to ordain Esau, his firstborn and favorite, as leader and successor after himself. But God’s choice was not in favor of Esau, but in favor of Jacob, and he, with the help of his mother (who knew this secret even before the birth of the children), in fulfillment of the Word of God, miraculously receives Isaac’s blessing.
“Isn’t Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord; and yet he hated Esau...” (Mal.1:2,3)
Esau's rejected reaction was very similar to Cain's:
“And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him; and Esau said in his heart, “The days of mourning for my father are approaching, and I will kill Jacob my brother.” (Gen.27:41)
The same principle of chosenness is not external signs, can also be traced in the story of the children of Jacob. Grandson Abraham had 12 sons. And then the eleventh child, named Joseph, had an interesting dream. Joseph naively tells the dream to his older brothers:
“Behold, we are binding sheaves in the middle of the field; and behold, my sheaf rose up and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves stood round and bowed down to my sheaf.
And his brothers said to him, “Will you really reign over us?” will you really rule over us? And they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.” (Gen.37:7)
But the 17-year-old boy had another dream, which he could not resist telling his father and brothers:
“Behold, I saw another dream: behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars worship me.” (Gen.37:9)
“... and his father rebuked him and said to him: What is this dream that you saw? Shall I and your mother and your brothers come to bow down to the ground before you?” (Gen.37:10)
Unlike the angry brothers, God's chosen one Jacob drew attention to this: “His brothers were angry with him, but his father noticed this word” (Gen. 37:11)
Joseph is God's chosen one, after Jacob. God gave him seniority. He was preferred over Jacob's other children. Joseph's subsequent story clearly confirms that God's choice was correct.
The same story happened to Joseph's children. Joseph had two sons in Egypt. The firstborn was Manasseh, the second was Ephraim. Joseph was informed that his father Jacob was sick. Joseph takes his two sons with him and goes to the aged Jacob so that he would bless them before his death.
“And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand against Israel’s left, and Manasseh in his left hand against Israel’s right, and brought them to him.
But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, although he was the youngest, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh. He put his hands this way with intention, even though Manasseh was the firstborn.” (Gen.48:13-14)
This was no ordinary blessing.
“And Joseph saw that his father had laid his right hand on Ephraim’s head; and it was unfortunate for him. And he took his father's hand to transfer it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh,
And Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, for this is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.” (Gen.48:17-18)
Apparently Joseph thought that his father was old, his eyes became dull and he got confused.
“But his father did not agree and said: I know, my son, I know; and from him shall come a nation, and he shall be great; but his younger brother will be greater than he, and from his seed will come a numerous nation.
And he blessed them that day, saying, Through thee shall Israel bless, saying, God do unto thee as unto Ephraim and Manasseh. And he made Ephraim superior to Manasseh.” (Gen.48:19-20)

Oh that all the Lord's people were prophets

Let's explore the Scripture further... The Jews settle in Egypt and live well with Joseph alive. But Joseph dies at the age of 110. Another king rises in Egypt and begins to mistreat the fertile people of Israel. He enslaves these people, forcing them to do backbreaking work. This is not enough, Pharaoh issues a decree to kill every Jewish boy born. Boys are the future of war. Having matured, one of them can rebel, become a leader and deprive the Pharaoh of so many slaves. In exactly the same way, 2 thousand years later, King Herod will act, killing all children from 3 years old and below, in order to mow down his rival, the newly born King, with this deadly scythe. But the future Leader of our salvation miraculously survived. This is how it was in those distant days. One boy miraculously survived, and even ended up in the house of Pharaoh to be raised, where he was given the name Moses. When Moses reached the age of 40, “it came into his heart to visit his brothers the children of Israel. And, seeing one of them being offended, he stood up and took revenge for the offended one, striking the Egyptian.” (Acts 7:24)
Moses acts decisively and by this action seems to say:
- Brothers! Why do you tolerate such mockery of yourself? We must decisively put an end to this shameful slavery.
“He thought that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand; but they didn't understand.
The next day, when some of them were fighting, he appeared and persuaded them to peace, saying: you are brothers; Why do you offend each other?
But the one who offended his neighbor pushed him away, saying: “Who made you a leader and a judge over us?” (Acts 7:25-27)
The question arose about the formal legitimacy of Moses' authority, which he really did not have. Yes, none of the people really gave Moses any authority, but he had actions, there were actions that none of the Jews could dare to take. But unfortunately, for the enslaved Jews, they did not see in Moses the leader of their salvation. The price of inattention is an extra 40 years of humiliating slavery. And all this for inattention to the actions of the Lord, who wanted to save his people. Please note that 40 years of walking in the wilderness, when God did not allow the unbelieving generation into promised land, preceded these 40 years. One generation died in Egypt, another died in the desert.
From Abel to Moses we see the same picture.
1. When choosing a spiritual leader, God gives priority not to the external, formal and carnal, but to the internal, invisible.
2. True shepherds are constantly persecuted by their “counterparts”. Cain kills Abel. Ishmael mocks Isaac. Esau wants to kill Jacob. They get rid of Joseph by selling him into slavery. Moses is “handed over” to the oppressors.
3. But God continues to “push his line.” Instead of the murdered Abel, the righteous Seth is born, and Cain is expelled. Isaac grows up, and Ishmael, who was annoying him, is taken aside. Jacob remains alive, and Esau resigns himself to his fate. Joseph does not die, and saves the descendants of Abraham. Rejected in his youth, Moses, 40 years later, becomes in demand for Israel.
I would like to address my contemporaries:
- If in your community it is not the Kingdom of God, but a Pharisee state... If you are powerless sheep, and there are unscrupulous wolves behind the pulpit... If instead of freedom in Christ there is church slavery... It means that somewhere nearby is a modern Moses, through whom God wants to save you. Be attentive to the actions of the Lord. Your fate depends on it.
Young prophets are sometimes naive (why did Joseph tell his dreams to his brothers?) They lack experience and caution (the example of Moses). But time passes and this “ugly duckling” grows into a beautiful white swan.
Let me turn to the modern “Moses”:
- Don’t be embarrassed by the fact that they don’t listen to you (woe from mind). Be patient and don't give up. Look at the fate of Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and similar chosen ones of God and draw the right conclusion.
40 years later, God sends Moses for the second time, now matured, to Israel in slavery. If earlier Moses himself took the initiative, now God has to persuade his chosen one to take on this difficult task. However, Moses doubts his success, remembering his first unsuccessful attempt and pointing out his lack of eloquence, asks God to send someone else:
“Moses said: Lord! send someone else whom you can send.” (Ex.4:13)
There is no other Moses. God additionally equips the savior of Israel with the gift of miracles and gives him the eloquent Aaron as an assistant.
Power is a heavy burden. Power means great responsibility and hard work. Life of Moses - good for that confirmation.
“And Moses said to the Lord: Why are You tormenting Your servant? and why have I not found mercy in Thy sight, that Thou hast laid upon me the burden of all this people?
Did I carry all this people in my womb, and did I give birth to him, that You say to me: Carry him in your arms, as a nurse carries a child” (Num. 11:11-12)
God, deciding to help Moses in this difficult work, says:
“And the Lord said to Moses, Gather for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be their elders and officers, and take them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you;
I will go down and talk to you there, and I will take from the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, so that they will bear the burden of the people with you, and you will not bear it alone.” (Num. 11:16-17)
God wants to ordain 70 assistants to help the leader.
“Moses went out and spoke the words of the Lord to the people, and gathered seventy men from the elders of the people and set them around the tabernacle.
And the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was on him and gave it to seventy elder men. And when the Spirit rested on them, they began to prophesy, but then they stopped.
Two of the men remained in the camp, one's name was Eldad, and the other's name was Modad; but the Spirit rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp.” (Num. 11:24-26)
A sign of empowerment was prophecy. Today's orthodox zealots would clearly be outraged by the fact that modern Eldad and Modad were prophesying. Their logic is simple:
- Since you did not approach the tabernacle (the external form was not observed), then the Spirit cannot be on you.
But Moses’ young and zealous assistant, Joshua, behaved in exactly the same way: “... my lord Moses! forbid them. But Moses said to him, “Are you not jealous for me?” Oh, that all the Lord’s people would be prophets, that the Lord would send His Spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:28-29)
But then the time comes when Moses must die, and he asks God to give the Jews a leader in his place:
“May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, place a man over this congregation,
who would go out before them and who would come in before them, who would lead them out and who would bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord would not remain like sheep that have no shepherd.
And the Lord said to Moses, Take unto you Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hand on him” (Num. 27:16-18)
Moses ordains Joshua, giving him the authority to lead the congregation of the Lord. Notice that Moses ordains his successor, in whom "there is Spirit". What does this mean? This eloquently suggests that the laying on of hands even then was not a sacrament, not magical effect, but a solemn ritual (rite) in which there was nothing supernatural. Ordination, like anointing with oil, are ancient documents, this is a certificate (our modern documents are called “certificate”. Marriage certificate, birth certificate, etc.). Ordination is a certificate of authority. Evidence for people of God’s completed election.
Remember how the Apostle Paul, to prove the importance of FAITH, and not circumcision, hooked on one story with Abraham:
“For what does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom.4:3)
Then the “chosen vessel” unexpectedly suggests looking at all this from a different angle:
“When did you get imputed? after circumcision or before circumcision? (Rom.4:10)
- But really...
“Not after circumcision, but before circumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness through the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he became the father of all who believed while uncircumcised, so that righteousness might be imputed to them also” (Rom. 4:11).
Moses' successor, Joshua, already had the Spirit of the Lord even before his ordination, which was confirmed by his God-pleasing behavior, when he and Caleb showed loyalty to God, being among the 12 spies sent to the promised land.

The Lord will find Himself a husband after His own heart

The Book of Judges of Israel is an amazing book. As we read it, we see how God regularly raised up leaders for Israel. These judges were from different tribes, not closely related, but acted in one Spirit.
“And the Lord raised up judges for them, who saved them from the hands of their robbers;
When the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord Himself was with the judge and saved them from their enemies all the days of the judge: for the Lord had compassion on them, hearing their groan from those who oppressed and oppressed them.” (Judges 2:16-19)
Here they are, the chosen ones of God: Othniel, Ehud the left-hander, Samegar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Thola, Jairus, Jephath, Samson. All these chosen ones of God did not have any human ordination or anointing with oil. There was no “chain”, no transfer of power from one judge to another. They didn't even see each other in the eye! However, their exploits and lives testified that the “hand of the Lord” was on them.
The 1st book of Samuel describes the fate of the judge of Israel - Elijah, who had two sons - Hophni and Phinehas.
“But the sons of Eli were worthless people; they did not know the Lord.” (1 Samuel 2:12) The Holy Scripture gives them this description. After the death of their father, one of them would take the helm of the Israeli society. However, instead of the people who disgraced His name, God puts an unknown boy named Samuel as leader.
“Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: Then I said, “Your house and your father’s house will walk before Me forever.” But now the Lord says: Let it not be so, for I will glorify those who glorify Me, and those who dishonor Me will be put to shame.” (1 Samuel 2:30)
This was the last judge from God before another period in the history of Israel - the era of kings.
“When Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel.
His eldest son's name was Joel, and his second son's name was Abijah; they were judges at Beersheba.
But his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside into greed and took gifts and judged wrongly.” (1 Samuel 8:1-4)
Could Samuel really not teach his children the commandments of the Lord? The Prophet chose the names of the children with the best intentions. Joel - “Jehovah is God.” Abijah - “my father is Jehovah.” But the children also had a father in their person, best example, for which you didn’t have to go to distant lands.
Scripture says: "Samuel made his sons judges over Israel". What does it mean? This means that he laid his hands on them, prayed and gave instructions. But Scripture testifies: “But his sons walked not in his ways.”. Samuel was unable to convey to them the Spirit that was upon him and his children, alas, were only carnal heirs. The human hand is a poor conductor of the Spirit.
“And all the elders of Israel assembled and came to Samuel at Ramah,
and they said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways”; (1 Samuel 8:4-5)
Up to this point, the speech of the elders is absolutely correct, and everything would be fine if they then said something like the following:
“Now Samuel ask the Lord, as Moses once did, and let God, who knows the heart, show you who to appoint as leader after you.”
But the speech of the elders looked like this: “Therefore set a king over us, so that he may judge us like other nations.” (1 Samuel 8:5)
"Other Nations"- these are pagans. The elders are looking for a way out of this situation. However, they see improvement in leadership in a different, pagan form of government.
“And Samuel did not like this saying, when they said, Give us a king, that he may judge us.” (1 Samuel 8:6)(To me personally, this story is very reminiscent of the situation with the first Christian emperor Constantine)
Why did Samuel not like this initiative of the elders? It's not about the new name of the leader. The king of the eastern peoples is a despot. The king was a living deity, and the king's word was law. Everything that was connected with the king was sacred and sacred. The book of the prophet Daniel describes the moment when the official royal decree of Darius could no longer be canceled even by the king himself. The prophet Daniel was thrown into the lions' den, against the wishes of Darius himself. (Dan. 6 ch.). For the same reason, his son Jonathan was almost killed by King Saul when he unintentionally violated his father’s royal order: “I tasted... a little honey; and behold, I must die.” (1 Samuel 14:43) The people barely defended Jonathan, by whose hand the victory over the enemy was won.
There was another pitfall in the idea of ​​the kingdom. Royal power was passed on by inheritance, from father to son. If previously God sent leadership from Himself, choosing a judge Himself from any tribe, now power will be transferred by carnal inheritance from the father-king to the son. If the king is a righteous man, it is not a fact that his son will inherit the spirit of his father. What if there are no worthy sons? What then? Then there's trouble. Nothing can be changed. The Jews tied themselves down and made them dependent not on God, but on chance. It was almost impossible to influence this situation. This significantly deprived God of maneuver in the ability to place the righteous in power. The era of the kings of Israel is mainly the era of wicked kings. The righteous kings can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is why the institution of prophets arose, through whom God acted, as opposed to the wicked Kings, officially endowed with power.
“And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, so that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:6-7)
Even after Samuel announced to them the unfavorable consequences that awaited them under a king with unlimited power, the people did not change their thoughts.
“... and then you will rebel against your king, whom you have chosen for yourself; and the Lord will not answer you then.
But the people did not agree to obey the voice of Samuel, and said: no, let the king be over us" (1 Samuel 8:18,19)
Samuel makes Saul king over Israel by pouring sacred oil on his head. But already in the second year of his reign, the young Tsar twice disobeyed the commands of the Lord. To which Samuel says: “The Lord will find for Himself a man after His own heart and will command him to be the leader of His people” (1 Sam. 13:14)
Saul is an example for all bishop-presbyters who decided to shepherd the Church not according to the Word of the Lord. Church leaders think that since they have been ordained as a pastor, grace still remains on them, no matter how much they deviate from the teachings of Christ. San is on his own, a man on his own. Lulling the excited parishioners to sleep, they came up with an original rationale: “The impression from gold and lead seals is the same” (Gregory the Theologian).
Saul's example shows just the opposite. Saul was appointed leader of God's people by Samuel himself, but he soon abandoned obedience to God.
Saul's reign was a great burden for Israel. Samuel grieved over the “imprint” that the apostate Saul left on the people of Israel. If God had thought the same way as St. Gregory, he would have said to the saddened Samuel:
- Don't be sad, Samuel! The imprint of this lead seal is the same as that of the gold one!
However, God was not at all happy with such an “imprint.” The devil was satisfied with such an “imprint”, but God was not. The Lord urgently intervenes in this situation and says to Samuel:
“And the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected, lest he should be king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided a king for Myself among his sons.
And Samuel said, How shall I go? Saul will hear and kill me." (1 Samuel 16:1-3)
Elder Samuel fears Saul's revenge, since he knew well how Cain, Esau and others like them behaved. False shepherds always destroyed their competitors with manic rage. ( The high priests Caiaphas and Annas will do the same in the future towards Jesus Christ.) Samuel secretly anoints young David, unknown to anyone, as king over Israel, while King Saul is alive.
In choosing David, God is again guided by the same principles as in choosing Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and other chosen ones. God's choice again was a surprise even to the prophet Samuel, as it once was to Abraham when choosing Isaac, to Isaac when choosing Jacob, to Jacob when choosing Joseph, and to Joseph when choosing Ephraim:
"He(Samuel) When he saw Eliab, he said: Surely this is His anointed before the Lord!
But the Lord said to Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature; I rejected him; I don't look the way a person looks; For man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
And Jesse called Abinadab and brought him to Samuel, and Samuel said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this.”
And Jesse brought Sammah down, and Samuel said, And this the Lord hath not chosen.
So Jesse brought his seven sons to Samuel, but Samuel said to Jesse: The Lord has not chosen any of these.
And Samuel said to Jesse, Are all the children here? And Jesse answered: There is an even smaller one; he is tending sheep. And Samuel said to Jesse, Send and take him, for we will not sit down to dine until he comes here.
And Jesse sent and brought him. He was blond, with beautiful eyes and a pleasant face. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for it is he.”
God is again guided not by the external, but by the internal. God looks not at the visible, but at the invisible.
“And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him among his brethren, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon David from that day forward.” (1 Samuel 16:13)
Adherents of the sacrament of ordination can point us to this episode as proof of their rightness: “And the Spirit of the Lord rested upon David from that day onward.”. Supporters of the sacralization of sacred rituals should note that David will officially become king only many years later:
“And the men of Judah came and anointed David there to be king over the house of Judah” (2 Samuel 2:4)
“And all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel" (2 Samuel 5:3)
This secret anointing was unofficial. No one recognized this anointing, including David’s brothers. David's secret anointing was manifested in his Godly actions, which were noticed only by discerning people, of whom, as we know, are a minority. Only many years later would it become clear to all of Israel that David truly had the right to officially reign. But this will not happen soon...
If everything is governed by a sacred ritual-sacrament, then why did the Spirit of God leave Saul, without any formalities and rituals?
“But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” (1 Samuel 16:14)
The apostate remains in power in Israel, and the true heir of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is forced to wander through the deserts and mountains, pursued by the spiritual heir of Cain and Esau.

the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha

After David, the royal throne was inherited not by his eldest son Absalom, who rebelled against his father, but by the son of that same Bathsheba, the wise Solomon. The compiler of wise parables and the organizer of the first temple, in turn, could not convey wisdom to his son, Rehoboam, who received the nickname “poor-minded.” Such is the law of the transmission of the Spirit, which is transmitted not by flesh, not by blood, not by the desire of the husband, but as God himself wants it.
In this regard, the history of the relationship between Elijah and Elisha is interesting. When the time came for the prophet Elijah to finish his life path, God commands him to leave behind a spiritual heir - another prophet for Israel.
“And the Lord said to him: Now anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat from Abel-meholah to be a prophet in your place.” (1 Kings 19:15-17)
Before his ascension, Elijah asks his zealous disciple, who did not lag behind him a single step: “Ask what you can do before I am taken from you” (2 Kings 2:9)
In response, the modern Orthodox would only shrug his shoulders and think to himself something like this:
- I’ve already been ordained... What else could I be missing?
But the real successor of the prophet behaves differently:
“And Elisha said, Let the spirit that is in you be doubled on me.” (2 Kings 2:9)
In response, Elijah says: “And he said: What you are asking is difficult.” (2 Kings 2:10)
Translating to more clear language, Elijah seems to say:
“You are asking the impossible from me, you are asking from me something that does not belong to me and I cannot dispose of it.”
And pointing to the zealous disciple the One who truly possesses this right, Elijah continues his speech like this:
“If you see me taken from you, it will be so for you, but if you do not see it, it will not be so.” (2 Kings 2:11)
Elijah worries about the cause of God. He wants to see confirmation that Elisha will indeed be his successor and continue his work. That's why he starts this conversation.
“As they walked and talked along the way, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated them both, and Elijah rushed into heaven in a whirlwind.
Elisha looked and exclaimed: My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and his cavalry! And I didn’t see him again. And he grabbed his clothes and tore them in two.
And he picked up Elijah's mantle that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan;
and he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water with it, and said, Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah—He Himself? And he struck the water, and it parted this way and that, and Elisha crossed over.
And the sons of the prophets who were in Jericho saw him from afar, and said: The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha. And they went to meet him and bowed down to the ground.” (2 Kings 2:11-15)
In the same way, once the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and began to ask that her sons sit one on the right hand and the other on the left near Christ the King. To which Jesus replied: “To let them sit on My right hand and on My left does not depend on Me, but on whom My Father has prepared.” (Matt. 20:23)
The power of whom to impart the Spirit belongs to God and Him alone. He does not need any advisers; He rewards only the worthy with the Spirit. God's choices are often very unexpected. Bearers of the Spirit, no matter how much they wish, cannot transfer the Spirit to another person, either through the laying on of hands or through anointing with oil. They cannot ask God for a candidate, much less force Him, through the above-mentioned external rituals. They must find a worthy candidate and ask the Lord about him. And if God rejects this candidacy, then do not resist the will of God, but trust Him. However, the true bearers of the Spirit themselves know this “mechanism” for choosing a worthy successor and there is no need to explain it to them.
God's election to leadership must necessarily manifest itself in a person's life and be confirmed by the testimony of other carriers of the Spirit. This rule is clearly seen in the life of Joseph. The first-born of Jacob's children was Reuben, and Joseph was born only the eleventh. Life has put everything in its place. Before his death, Jacob confirmed Joseph's primacy over his brothers and explained why.
“Reuben, my firstborn! you are my strength and the beginning of my strength, the height of dignity and the height of power;
but you raged like water - you will not prevail, for you ascended to your father’s bed, you desecrated my bed, you ascended.” (Gen.49:3-4)
Reuben's advantage was taken away and his father explained why.
“Joseph is the branch of the fruitful tree, the branch of the fruitful tree above the spring; its branches extend over the wall;
upset him, and the archers shot at him and fought against him,
but his bow remained strong, and the muscles of his hands were strong, from the hands of the mighty God of Jacob. From there is the Shepherd and the stronghold of Israel,
from God your father, who will help you, and from the Almighty, who will bless you with the blessings of heaven above, the blessings of the deep that lies below, the blessings of the breasts and the womb,
the blessings of your father, which exceed the blessings of the ancient mountains and the pleasantness of the everlasting hills; let them be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the chosen one among his brothers.” (Gen.49:22-26)

no one accepts this honor by itself

In general, the theme of chosenness runs like a red thread throughout Scripture. Election of the righteous to implement God's plans. The selection of an entire people, such as Israel, in the midst of pagan states, for a special mission. Choosing the leaders of God's people. The election of Christ Jesus as the savior of the world.
Before we move on to the New Testament era, it is necessary to clarify the concept of the priesthood.
The first priest of the chosen people as such was Moses’ brother, Aaron. He was called “high priest”, his children were “priests”. Aaron and his children were entrusted by God with the responsibility of overseeing everything that was done in the tabernacle of meeting (later in the Temple), everything related to sacrifices, which is written about in detail in the book of Leviticus. The tribe of Levi was given to help them. After the death of the high priest, his eldest son took his place. The “Priesthood” did not make a person a superman. “Priest”, from the word – DEDICATION, i.e. election by God to a special, honorable work-service from others, and no one else had the right to do this. (Example of Korah, Dathan and Abiron)
“And no one accepts this honor of his own accord, but he who is chosen of God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:4)
This continued until the true High Priest came - Christ. The one sent from God, the true High Priest, Jesus, was killed by the lawfully appointed High Priest of Israel, Caiaphas. There is nothing new in this significant act, if we remember how Cain, Esau and other representatives of the carnal succession acted. Caiaphas turned out to be the true spiritual successor of the murderer Cain.
Since the time of Saul and David, a new institution of power has appeared in Israel - the kingdom. Royal power was passed on from father to son. Kings, like High Priests, were anointed with sacred oil when vested with power. This continued until the God-promised King of Israel, Christ Jesus, came.
Jesus Christ united in himself the true High Priest and the true King. He founded His Kingdom - the Church, all of whose members received a special, exalted status. An ordinary member of this society surpassed John the Baptist himself in glory: “he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Therefore, the Apostle Peter calls all Christians without exception: “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5). And further: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9)
John also writes about this: “To Him, who loved us and washed us from our sins in His Blood and made us kings and priests to His God and Father, be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen” (Rev. 1:5,6).
The Church of Jesus Christ is a kingdom consisting of only priests, i.e. people especially close to God and dedicated by Him to various ministries: “There are different ministries, but the Lord is the same.” (1 Cor. 12:5) That is why the Apostle Paul called his ministry a sermon: “Let us perform sacred acts” (Rom. 15:16)
If the entire Church is priests, then where did a separate group of people come from who only call themselves priests? On what basis do these people believe that they are fulfilling a special mission of mediation, assigned only to them, between the high priest Christ and the rest of the church?
Let us turn to Apostolic times. Is there any mention of priests in the first Church?
“As they spoke to the people, the priests and the captains of the temple guard and the Sadducees came to them,
being annoyed that they teach the people and preach in Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts 4:1-2)
“And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem; and many of the priests submitted to the faith.” (Acts 6:7)
From these two examples from the historical book of Acts, it is quite clear that we are talking about temple priests offering sacrifices according to the Law of Moses.
And in the letters of the Apostles there is not a single mention of priests as a special group within the Church.
In the article: I described how monks in the Middle Ages, driven by the spirit of asceticism, corrected sacred texts and added the word “fasting” to them at their discretion.
A similar story happened with the term “priesthood.” Only here a different technology of forgery was used. Technology, as they say now, of “incorrect” translation.
“How do you say, “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us”? But the lying reed of the scribes turns him into a lie” (Jer. 8:8)
Supporters of the priestly caste often cite as evidence their favorite passage from Paul's letter to Timothy:

According to their concepts, the Apostle singled out special people, calling them the priesthood. It is known that the educated Paul, who was primarily oriented towards the Gentiles, wrote his letters in Greek. Let's look at the original and see what word is written where in the Slavic translation, and after it in the Synodal Russian translation of the 19th century, the word “priesthood” appears. In the original Greek (GREEK NEW TESTAMENT) the word is written: for some reason translated by the Orthodox as “priesthood”. You don't need to be fluent in Greek to read it correctly as: PRESBYTER. What does this change? What's the difference: a priest or an elder? There is a big difference.
The leaders of the first church communities were called presbyters and bishops. These were identical concepts. Greek word“presbyter” is translated as “elder”. This is an analogue of the Hebrew word “zagen”, i.e. “elder” (literally: “gray-bearded”). This term indicates both the age and spiritual maturity of a person. Another Greek term “bishop” was translated as “overseer”, i.e. the one who supervised. Please note that the words “presbyter” (senior) and “bishop” (supervisor) are devoid of sacred connotations. There is nothing mysterious about these names. Everything is simple and clear. Bishop-elders performed the functions of leaders, mentors, counselors, shepherds and elder brothers for ordinary church members. All these actions were aimed only at helping the Christian grow spiritually. They did not have only one function - the priestly one, which is associated with a cleansing sacrifice. This function belongs only to Christ. Only the Lamb Jesus, having sacrificed Himself, cleanses the person who believes in the Gospel and introduces him into His Kingdom - the Church. Only He cleanses the sinner with His Blood and makes him holy and blameless before God. Only after this one-time cleansing does Christ trust the good shepherd (presbyter-bishop) with the flock for whom He shed His blood.
Others mistakenly think that the New Testament serves as some kind of amendment to the Law. The Teachings of Christ are a kind of novel, designed to improve some provisions of the Mosaic legislation, without touching the foundation itself. This is exactly how the first church heretics thought. For them, FAITH was an addition to the commandments. Strange as it may seem, even the Bible itself now feeds this delusion, in its external form, because... Many people perceive the Bible as a single organism. The Bible consists of two unequal parts. The first, large and voluminous one is the books of the Old Testament. The second, small one is the books of the New Testament. The first, impressive part looks like the main contract with God, and the second, small part looks like an addition to this contract.
However, New Testament was in every sense a NEW AGREEMENT! He was completely different! Therefore, the result was different - complete reconciliation with God. Complete liberation from sin and complete forgiveness!
“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this; for it is said:
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their hearts, and write them on their minds,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
But where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no need for an offering for them” (Heb. 10:14-18)
Proponents of the ordained priesthood like to quote this phrase from the book of Hebrews:
“With the change of the priesthood there must be a change of the law.” (Heb.7:12)
“You see,” they say, the priesthood cannot be abolished, but only changed. There were priests in Israel and there should be priests in the Church.
When you hear such “evidence”, do not forget that in front of you is a religious cheater or a slave of this system, deceived by the propaganda of lies. Remember that such reasoning is designed for the elementary ignorance of people who are too lazy to look into the letters of the Apostles and think for themselves.
Representatives of the church priestly caste, having understood the “change of priesthood” in their own way, like an apple from an apple tree, did not stray far from the Old Testament forms. Or rather, what they left from is what they came to. They definitely need to build temples (large and expensive) in which they perform sacred functions. They always dress in special, priestly clothes and burn incense. They also take tithes and do not work. An old song in a new way.
So what did Paul mean when he wrote about a “change of priesthood”?
“So, if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what further need would there be for another priest to rise up in the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Because with the change of the priesthood there must be a change of the law.
For He of whom this is spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one approached the altar.
For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:11-14).
“The abolition of a former commandment occurs because of its weakness and uselessness,
for the law brought nothing to perfection; but a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" (Heb. 7:18,19)
Supporters of false "priesthood changes", for some reason they don’t think about another phrase found in the same sentence: "change of law". What means "change of law"? Its complete cancellation! Cancellation, not improvement.
But I want us to trace the course of the apostle’s reasoning, which is deadly for our opponents. Therefore we read further:
“For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:11-14).
What does it mean? This means that God chose Jesus as high priest, not according to the Law and in circumvention of the Law. If you want it according to the law, get Caiaphas. Want to "immaculate and not involved in evil", then you will have to rely not on the carnal (ordination, anointing with oil, genealogy), but on the personal qualities of the candidate.
“So Christ did not take upon Himself the glory of being a high priest, but He who said to Him, You are My Son, today I have begotten You” (Heb. 5:5)

God chose Jesus as the Christ (i.e., the Anointed One), just as He once chose Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and other righteous people for whom nothing “shone” if not for God, who does not look at the external, but on the internal. The Lord was guided in His choice by the personal positive qualities of people, and not by external criteria.
Paul would never have become an Apostle if it had not been for God. Formally, the places of the 12 Apostles were already taken. In place of the fallen Judas, Matthias was elected (that’s it, there are no empty seats!). But Saul-Paul (who did not walk with Jesus, did not see Him, and did not witness His resurrection) proved to be more prolific in spreading the Gospel than 12. To this day, the letters of this man occupy a central place in the canon of books of the New Testament (as they say : “for a clear advantage”). It’s scary to imagine if they weren’t there!
Therefore, Paul “chosen not by men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:1), and paid so much attention to personal positive qualities candidate for bishop-presbyter of the Church. These qualities are: “not arrogant, not wrathful, not a drunkard, not a murderer, not a covetous man, just, holding to the true word according to doctrine, so that he may be able to teach sound doctrine and reprove those who resist” (Titus 1:7- 9) . These qualities will really come in handy when leading a community. But for performing “sacraments”, for temple rituals, for religious-mechanical sacred rites, these qualities are practically not needed.
The leaders of the Churches did not make any “New Testament sacrifices.” This sacrifice was once made by Jesus, offering "Self as a sacrifice." (Heb.9:28) Through this sacrifice, those who believe in Him receive complete liberation from the power of sin.
“For by one offering He has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).
Bishop-presbyters exercised pastoral and mentoring functions in relation to church members already cleansed by the blood of Christ.

in the bonds of untruth

What then is the meaning of ordination, mention of which we often find in the book of Acts and the letters of the Apostles? How to understand these phrases of Paul:

“Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Timothy 4:14)
There are several points to consider:
Firstly, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the ancient speech culture. This is how the Apostle writes about a woman 2000 years ago:
“However, he will be saved THROUGH childbearing, if he continues in faith and love and holiness with chastity” (1 Tim. 2:15)
The sentence is structured in such a way that if you read it “as written,” it turns out to be absurd. It turns out that the salvation of the soul is connected with the birth of children. A formula appears in the mind of the reader: “if you give birth, you will be saved.” And if a woman does not give birth, what then? In any religion it is not customary to think, it is customary to perform it, although it is not clear. Holiness, faith, love and chastity are relegated to the background in this proposal, although according to common sense they should of course prevail. Without a doubt, Paul placed faith, love and chastity at the forefront, and mentioned the birth of children along the way, recalling that family life is not an obstacle to spiritual heights.
One more example:
“And I want you to be without worries. An unmarried man cares about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but a married man cares about the things of this world, how to please his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:32,33)
Again we have before us the speech of the Apostle, which in no case should be perceived as a formula. Is a married man really just a wife-beater? Paul's point is that a single person can become a missionary. This special ministry required that the missionary not be bound by the care of his wife and children. Missionary work was one of many ministries in the Lord, neither higher nor lower than others.
Secondly, it is necessary to clarify the term “ordination” itself. The verb “ordained” in Greek is rendered by the verb cheirotoneo, (“ordination”) which literally means “to choose by a show of hands.” This is the same verb that was used to describe how voting took place in the Athenian legislature. What is voting? Voting is, first of all, an EXPRESSION OF WILL. Through what symbol it is expressed is not important.
Thirdly, it was the pagans who gave sacred meaning to the rituals. For them, the words and actions of the priest, performed by him in a certain sequence, were a sacred untouchable formula. Any, even a slight deviation from this formula, crossed out and negated the desired result. Actually, that was magic. The pagan was absolutely sure that if the ritual was performed correctly, then the spiritual result would be achieved. The pagan mind was confident that through the external it was possible to influence the internal, through the visible to influence the invisible. The pagans essentially forced and coerced their gods through ritual. Christ himself warned his disciples against slipping into pagan thinking:
“And when you pray, do not talk too much, like the pagans, for they think that for their many words they will be heard” (Matt. 6:7)
"Verbosity", i.e. prolonged prayer, according to the pagans, led to the desired result. The external influenced the internal. Jesus gave His disciples not a long, but a very a short prayer"Our Father".
There is a striking example in the book of Acts that is directly relevant to our topic. This is a story involving Simon Magus.
“There was a certain man in the city named Simon, who had previously practiced magic and astonished the people of Samaria, posing as someone great.
Everyone listened to him, from the smallest to the greatest, saying: This is the great power of God.
And they listened to him because for a considerable time he amazed them with his sorceries” (Acts 8:9-11).
When Philip arrived in Samaria with the good news, the people believed in the Gospel and were baptized.
“Simon himself believed and, having been baptized, did not leave Philip; and seeing great powers and signs being done, he was amazed” (Acts 8:13)
The former sorcerer was baptized and seeing real miracles, he was amazed and did not leave the evangelist Philip.
“The Apostles who were in Jerusalem, hearing that the Samaritans had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John to them,
who, having come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
For He had not yet come upon any of them, but only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16).
Why did this situation arise? The fact is that the Samaritans have long been at enmity with the Jews. This enmity went back hundreds of years. The temple was in Jerusalem and Samaria. Due to religious hostility, the Jews did not accept Jesus in the Samaritan village, because... He “had the appearance of one traveling to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:53).
When the Samaritans accepted the Gospel, God wants from the first days to cure the long-standing disease of division and create one people in His Kingdom. The likelihood that the churches of Samaria would again begin to lead a separate life was very high.
The Samaritans, having believed in Jesus, of course received healing of their hearts from sin. They certainly received eternal life and peace with God. Then what does it mean: "He(Holy Spirit) I haven’t been to any of them yet.”? We are talking about one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the form of other tongues. This gift was accompanied by initial stage who believed in Christ, serving as external proof that God accepted non-Jews into His Kingdom on an equal basis with purebred Jews.
“Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, brought them money,
saying: Give me this power, so that whoever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.
But Peter said to him: Let your silver perish with you, because you thought to receive the gift of God with money.
You have no part or lot in this, for your heart is not right before God.
So repent of this sin of yours, and pray to God: perhaps the thoughts of your heart will be forgiven you;
for I see you filled with bitter gall and in the bonds of wickedness" (Acts 8:17-24)
The former sorcerer, and now a “Christian,” brought money to the Apostles to buy a position. This act looks completely wild from the perspective of the teachings of Christ. However, Simon does this openly, due to the fact that priestly positions in the pagan world were bought and there was nothing wrong with that.
Peter scolded such a candidate, giving him a far from positive description: “I see you filled with bitter gall and in the bonds of unrighteousness.”
But in the action of the former sorcerer there is one more moment that very accurately shows the thinking of the pagan: “Simon, seeing that through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given...”
Simon looks through the eyes of a pagan and sees a sacred rite in the laying on of hands. For him, the laying on of hands is a formula that gives the right and authority to bring down the Spirit.
“I’ll lay my hand and the Spirit will come.” If I don’t put it on, it won’t work.
Simon is located "in the bonds of untruth" I didn’t know that the Spirit could descend on people without ordination: (Acts 10:44). God never made Himself dependent on the will of man, much less a ritual. The “clay” cannot command the “Potter”.
The fact that “ordination” did not guarantee anything is well demonstrated by the episode in the life of Paul described in the book of Acts. Ap. Paul, having gathered together the elders of the city of Ephesus, said to them:
“For I know that after I am gone, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among yourselves men will arise who will speak perverse things, so as to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29,30)
Of these ordained elders, whom Paul himself personally taught for 3 years day and night, “People will arise who will speak perverse things.”
An ordained Elder of a church community had to rely not on the rite of ordination, but on a close, living relationship with the risen Jesus. Losing this connection and departing from the Gospel, such a bishop turned into an ordained "a fierce wolf, not sparing the herd". Such an ordained presbyter repeated the fate of King Saul, from whom “The Spirit of the Lord departed” (1 Samuel 16:14).

Without father, without mother, without pedigree

Ordination in the first Church founded by Christ was just a rite and ritual, devoid of mysterious content. It was a solemn, memorable, God-approved ritual of ordination, but not a “sacrament.” This solemn dedication to an important service in the Church, of course, evoked reverent experiences and emotions in the initiate. Indeed, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Himself chooses you for the most responsible service. Jesus Himself tells you: “Feed My sheep.”
The ordination as an elder took place in the presence of members of the Church. Ordination is an ancient document (certificate). The hand of the dedicator symbolized the hand of God. The ordained one had to strive to fulfill the accepted ministry. He was to grow and prosper in this election. The living God has only living relationships with his servants. No inertia, only a reaction to the instructions of the Living God. That's why Paul wrote to Timothy:
“For this reason I remind you to stir up the gift of God, which is in you through my laying on of hands” (2 Tim. 1:6)
“Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Timothy 4:14)
All the various ministries in the Church were called "gifts", because everything stemmed from the main gift - salvation in Christ.
And if ordination is not a symbol, but a “sacrament” that guarantees something, then why “warm” it? It “warms” itself.
As a leader in the Church, God has a special demand. The beginning of the Apocalypse begins with a “debriefing” of the leaders of the seven churches. Christ very strictly asks each shepherd for the state of affairs in the community: “... and if not so, I will soon come to you and remove your lamp from its place, unless you repent.” (Rev. 2:5) “I will remove your lamp” - i.e. I will remove you from the post of presbyter, despite your ordination.
Jesus did not promise the Church a quiet life on earth. Peaceful life was replaced by oppression and persecution of the followers of Christ. Human continuity in the form of ordination from one generation of Christians to another could only exist under ideal conditions. Attacks on the Church by pagans or heretics allied with strongmen of the world This, naturally, violated this human, visible relay of continuity. However, the Wise God has provided for everything. The severing of visible ties did not break the spiritual, invisible to the eye, connection between generations of Christians. The same God who once raised up Abraham, Moses, the judges and prophets of Israel, also raised up new leaders of the Church. The main thing is that the Spirit is the same.
In difficult times for the Church, when the organizational component was disrupted, a mechanism from God was turned on, never failing, operating according to the principle: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither the beginning of days nor the end of life, being like the Son of God” ( Heb.7:3)
It is not known from where new shepherds appeared, whom God raised and raised Himself to serve other Christians. For the time being scattered Christians gathered around these chosen ones. Naturally, these new leaders did not have human ordination. However, all the members of the Church, united around them, saw the hand of the Lord on them. The Spirit of God, manifested in the lives of these chosen ones, was the main document certifying their authority from God:
“Who is such not according to the law of carnal commandment, but according to the power of unceasing life” (Heb. 7:16)
Look carefully at the orthodox who believe that they have preserved the Apostolic succession through ordination. If there is ordination connecting them with the Apostles of Christ, then there must also be the Apostolic Spirit. As Paul said: “And he who is united to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17)
Look at the morality of their parishioners, what is it? The morals of the laity are very far from ideal. But maybe the morality of priests is at its best? Alas: “Like the priest, so is the parish.” Well, and vice versa: “what is the parish, so is the priest.” The ordination in which they trust and which they constantly trumpet on every corner as proof of Apostolic succession exists. But there is no Spirit manifesting itself in the lives of both priests and their parishioners. What role then does their ordination serve? Why do they hold on to him so tightly? What does it give them?
Ordination in their midst acts as a gate through which a stranger cannot penetrate. Go inside this religious system allowed only to monastery slaves. Only those who obediently agreed to serve monasticism will be allowed into power, through ordination, and then to the first - lowest level. Only those who have accepted monasticism can rise higher up the hierarchical levels - another gate. In theory, the best, the most honest and the smartest should be selected. However, in reality, things are exactly the opposite. Ordination promotes negative selection.
How can God change something for the better in this system that has been preserved for thousands of years? How to introduce your person into it? No way. The system will immediately identify him as a stranger and throw him out. That is why the Apostle wrote:
“Let us therefore go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13)
Nothing in this monastic system can be changed. You only need to get out of this church Babylon, saving your soul:
“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out from her, my people, lest you share in her sins, or receive her plagues” (Rev. 18:4)
With ordination in the orthodox environment, the same metamorphosis occurred as with the copper serpent once made by Moses. God once used it as a means of salvation from the poison of snakes that bit the Jews in the desert. However, later the Jews deified this instrument itself and began to worship it: “The children of Israel burned incense to him and called him Nehushtan” (2 Kings 18:4).
The symbol separated from its purpose and began to live an independent life. The ritual took the place of the spirit. The servant sat down in the master's place. Why common sense? Common sense is no longer needed.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap up for themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-5)
The first church used ordination as a symbol, as a ritual in placing a person into ministry. (Some kind of visible sign had to be used) However, this action was never given a mysterious and hidden meaning that endows a person with superpowers. Cannot be ordained caring mother, into a good engineer, a skilled mason and a singer or artist. Is it possible to become a pastor of a church? After all, this is absurd. It `s Magic.
This absurdity in the Church benefits only the devil. Only he is interested in having an organization, a nomenclature without the Spirit. The evil spirit realized his plan in church Babylon, carrying out a brilliant special operation to rebuild the church through Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. God warned long ago about this coming church “restructuring” through his chosen ones. Particular attention is paid to this topic in the book Apocalypse.
Some members of the Orthodox Church, seeing the troubles and numerous deviations from the Gospel, tolerate the perpetrators of this mess. They naively believe that these bishops, no matter what they are, still preserve the apostolic succession within themselves through ordination in the so-called. sacrament of the priesthood.
“Although they are apostates, they are not heretics!”
If God approved of such a hope, then many stories found in Scripture would have to be rewritten or hidden from people. Based on this orthodox hope, only Saul (even an apostate) should have transferred power to David. However, God sends Samuel to pour holy oil on David, bypassing Saul. Saul had nothing good to impart to David. Saul could only bring down a sharp sword on the blond head of his “successor”. Only death could he convey to him. This is what he tried to do, chasing David throughout Israel. Miraculously surviving, David once shouted to his pursuer from a safe distance: “as the ancient parable says: “From the wicked come lawlessness” (1 Samuel 24:14)
From the lawless Saul came only lawlessness in the form of apostasy from the will of God and the murder of innocent people. Do you hear this, you who hope for the ordination of your Bishops, whom you can barely endure?! This is what the prophet David shouts to you through the centuries: “FROM THE LAWFUL COME LAWLESS!!!”
The ordination of the Orthodox performs not only the function of a gate that does not allow outsiders (smart, honest, courageous and sensible people) who could harm the system, as I wrote about above. Ordination is the gate of ecclesiastical Babylon, preventing prisoners from leaving this city. The doctrine of the ordained priesthood is like an ancient, well-guarded gate preventing captives from going free in Jesus. The doctrine of the ordained priesthood binds the minds of the prisoners of church Babylon, as if by chains. They would be glad to leave these Bishops, but they were convinced that such a teaching was instilled by the Apostles themselves. I just want to say to these unfortunate people:
- If they are not even to your heart, then even more so to God.
Tell me, you who hold on to your episcopal robes, does an Orthodox bishop look like the Apostles in appearance? The honest answer is no!
But maybe he is internally similar to the Apostles? Is he the bearer and custodian of the Apostles' Teachings about FAITH?
- Alas, alas.
To give the theory of continuous ordination a plausible appearance, our opponents had to create more fog and mystery. All we hear is:
- Sacrament! Priesthood! Ordination!
They deliberately “tabooed” this topic. But the pagan priests behaved in exactly the same way in ancient times, keeping the secret of the calendar, to which they did not allow anyone close, and through this they ruled over society. (The Pontiffs of Rome lost their monopoly after claims formulas tied to the calendar were published. Those who wish can also take an interest in the ancient rite of the Romans called “mancipation” (manus - hand), and how they tried to abuse it)
When this incense smoke cleared from the breath of the Lord, it was discovered that behind all these pompous words there was nothing but ignorance of faith and the desire to rule over people.
“For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned Me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed out for themselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” (Jer.2:13)
We are directly commanded to distance ourselves from people who deviate from the Teachings of Christ, despite their outwardly flashy pious appearance: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Avoid such as these” (2 Timothy 3:5).
The fact that some cannot live without priests with censers and bishops with panagias proves once again that these people do not have a direct, living connection with Jesus. For them, Jesus is not enough for salvation.
And we will hope for living communication with Jesus! Christ gave us real freedom and did not make us dependent on a person, no matter what he was.
“And they are not thirsty in the deserts through which He leads them: He brings out water for them from the rock; cuts the rock, and waters flow out.” (Isa.48:21)
“Behold, God is my salvation: I trust in Him and do not fear; For the Lord is my strength, and my song is the Lord; and He was my salvation.” (Isa.12:2)

release the tortured to freedom

At one time (in 2000) I figured out, primarily for myself, the topic of the ordained priesthood: “If you are wise, you are wise to yourself” (Prov. 9:12)
I wrote this work to help those who love the Truth, so that they would be finally established in salvation. So that in following Jesus no one could tempt them to lead them astray from this path. I do not claim exclusivity in the study of this important topic, but I think that the examples and arguments I have given will confirm some in the truth, and will make others think.
Darkness is afraid of light. Lies are afraid of the truth. Misconception fears honest and unbiased research. Religious darkness dissipates under the rays of the Teachings of Jesus.
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; For He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor, and He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach freedom to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).