CHURCH GOVERNMENT ---- #INTRO, #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9,#10, #11, #12, #13.

 

INTRO--Where's God's Church?

Jesus DID build it!

by Bud Cocherell (written 1983) Today, Christianity is one of the world's largest religions. There are literally hundreds of organizations which say they are Christian and are worshipping the one and only Creator God. Each professes to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, as expounded in the pages of the Bible; each feels they have a keen understanding of the Bible and God's will for mankind. It seems very strange indeed that the majority of these various denominations use the same Bible on which to base their life styles, but they all differ in how they perceive what is written in this book. Is the Bible really a book that no one can understand? Has God purposely confused its meaning? Does it matter how we worship God, or which church organization we belong to? Let us examine these and other questions, using what the Bible really says as the final authority. The answers may surprise you and give you a new understanding of the real God of the Bible. THE CHURCH DISAPPEARS Shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we find a dynamic evangelizing church spreading God's truth throughout the world. Their spiritual zeal literally changed the course of history. But, dynamic as the church was, it all but disappeared from history after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. From 70 to 120 A.D. there was very little recorded about the true church of God. When historians again took up their pens to write about the church, we find that it had changed from the simple faith once delivered. Or could it be that the true church was all-but-destroyed, and then replaced by a false Christianity? (But the NT shows that false ministers were coming within the true Church of God and twisting and changing and perverting the original truth once delivered to the saints. History does record a movement away from 7th day Sabbath keeping to 1st day - Sunday observance. And history does record the Roman church adopting Easter in the second century A.D. So there is SOME history of what was taking place. It is written about it in various studies on this Website - Keith Hunt) Today we find churches, calling themselves Christian, that do not even faintly resemble what the early church was. We find confusion among the so-called Churches of God, many with differing teachings and views as to what constitutes the true Church of God pictured in the Bible. THE EARLY CHURCH The Apostle Paul admonished the Church of God at I Corinth to avoid confusion and division. "Now 1 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, that them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you say, I am of Paul; and I, of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and, I of Christ." (1 Cor.1:10-12). Paul asks, "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. 1:13). It is absurd to think that Jesus Christ is not quite sure how He wants His church to function, and really does not care how we worship and serve Him and His Father. Our great God is not the author of confusion (I Cor.14:33), but is an orderly being. Look at the order of all that exists. From the balance of the galactic systems down to the smallest atomic structure, all of the physical creation shows great order, not confusion. Since God set all the physical creation to function orderly, doesn't it make sense that He would have us to worship Him in an orderly structured manner, and not in many different ways? WHAT IS A CHURCH? To understand where the true church of God is, we must first understand what a church is. The English word "church" is translated from the Greek word "Ekkiesia" (ek-klay-see-ah), meaning a calling out, i.e. a popular meeting, an assembly, especially a religious congregation. Church simply means a group of people meeting together. So, you see, attaching the word church to a group or organization does not necessarily make them Christian. Some could contend that any group that meets in the name of Jesus is Christian. It is true that Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I am in the midst of them." (Matt.28:20). It is, however, very obvious when the entire chapter is read, that Jesus is only talking to His true followers and not to people in general. So we see that the church is an assembly of Christians and not a building or a corporation. The church is a group of Christians that assemble together. Many think just because they are a member of an organization called a church and believe in God, that they are Christians and are worshipping God correctly. This is a very dangerous assumption to make, especially when our eternal life depends upon the way we worship and obey God. ABOUT THE CHURCH Let us take a look at what the Bible says about the people who are the church. One of the first things we find about the members of the church is that they are not very popular. In fact, they are usually hated by most people. Jesus knew this would be the case and asked God the Father to protect them. "I have given them thy word; and the world has haled them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou should take them out of the world, but thou should keep them from evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." (John 17:14-17). Why are they hated by the world? The answer is really quite simple when we understand that Satan has deceived the whole world into following him. (Rev.12:9). Jesus warned of Satan's deception... "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall deceive many." (Matt.24:4-5). Jesus knew that the vast majority of people would find it easier to follow a false Christ than to follow Him, hence, the warning to the Church. DENOMINATIONS If Christ is not divided, then why are there so many differing churches and denominations professing to be Christian? The first reason is the same today as it was from the first days of human existence. That reason is rebellion. Adam and Eve rebelled against God In the Garden of Eden. The children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, after he had delivered them from slavery in Egypt. Mankind has been rebelling against his Creator from Adam until now. (See: Ezk.20:12-13; Isa. 30:9-10 and 66:3). For some reason people seem to think they can worship God any way they want. But, notice what He says through the Prophet Isaiah. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa.55:8-9). Jesus called the religious leaders of his day hypocrites, snakes, liars, and deceivers because they were not teaching God's truth, but were teaching their own philosophy, which was rebellion. "Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (Matt.15:7-9). Even some of the very elect of God fall into rebellion. Paul warned the young evangelist Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they. will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Tim.4:2-4). "Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." (I Tim.4:1-2). Rebellion can come in many forms and always separates the rebellious people from God the Father and Jesus Christ, no matter what organization they belong to. SATAN'S DECEPTION The second reason for so many differing churches and denominations is Satan's deception. In the early days of the church, Satan started his master deception and tried to destroy the true church from within. The Apostle Paul warned the church at Corinth, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor.11:13-15). Yes, Satan has ministers and even churches disguised as true churches of God. (Rev.2:9 and 3:9). If you were to ask one of these ministers if he was a false minister of God, he would most likely become very offended. The vast majority of people today have been deceived into thinking they are worshipping God correctly because of Satan's deception. "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Rev.12:9). Jesus knew this would happen and warned, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt.24:4-5). Jesus was not saying that people would say that they themselves were Christ, but would say that He was indeed the Christ. When we read Matt.24:11 & 14 with Gal.1:6-9, we can understand what Christ was saying. He was foretelling the time when false ministers would preach another gospel in His name, and many would be deceived into thinking they were following Him. Jesus' prophecy has come true. The majority of professing Christians today believe and preach a false gospel, not because they have predetermined to do so, but because Satan has deceived them. Satan is indeed the master deceiver. It is very obvious that the early church was not divided into many different denominations. It is also obvious that if all professing Christians submitted to God's rule in their lives, denominations would disappear. Contrary to what most believe, Jesus Christ does not sanction the many divergent churches that exist today. Jesus said, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt.16:18). He did not say He would build many churches, but that He would build His church, and it would endure. After being crucified and resurrected from the dead, Jesus instructed His disciples how He wanted His church to be constructed. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt.28:19-20). Notice, Jesus told his disciples to teach the things He had commanded. Christ was not only referring to the things He had taught during his earthly ministry in human form, He also meant for them to teach the things He had taught to Israel when He was their God before He became flesh. (Read John 1:1-11 & Eph.3:9). THE CHURCH PERSECUTED ... SCATTERED ... SMALL Jesus said, "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:20). Paul said, "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Tim.3:12). Jesus Christ understood mankind's nature and mind as no other man could. As the Creator God of the Universe and mankind (John 1:1-3: Eph.3:9), He had observed man's behavior down through the centuries and knew people would continue to oppose His truth as long as they were influenced by Satan. God's way of life is opposite to the way most people want to live. Most people do not like to be told they are living in sin and usually dislike people that tell them they are. John the Baptist was beheaded because he spoke out against Herod's sin of adultery (Mark 6:17-28). It is no different today. The true followers of Christ will be persecuted for speaking the truth of God. The prophet Zechariah foretold the church would be scattered after Jesus' crucifixion (Zech.13:7). Jesus himself repeated the prophecy, "And Jesus said unto them, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." (Mark 14:27). Also see John 16:32. The early church suffered much persecution and was scattered as Christians fled for their lives. "And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Acts 8:1). There are many other scriptures that show God's people will be very unpopular. (Read Dan.11:33-35; Ezk. 34). Even though the church has been persecuted and scattered throughout the centuries, it will continue to endure (See Matt. 16:18). Jesus called the church a little flock. "Fear not little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32). Though hated, despised, maligned, persecuted, and scattered by the world, this small group of people is the Church of God. But does being small and hated make a group of people the true church? Of course not! There are many small groups that say they are Christian, but are so far out of line with what Jesus taught they do not even come close to or resemble true Christianity. How about being hated? True, some small groups are hated for what they teach, but so are some large groups. "...and ye shall be hated of all nations, for my name's sake." (Matt.24:9). In these two scriptures (Luke 12:32 & Matt.24:9), Jesus is talking about a relatively small group of people compared to the world's population. The vast majority of the people "professing Christianity" would hate His people, just as the Jews of Jesus' day professed to believe in God and hated Him for what He taught. So it is in this age. God's people will be hated for preaching the truth as Jesus taught it. (John 17:14). A SIGN OF GOD'S PEOPLE Is there an identifying mark or sign upon the people of God? Is there something that one could observe and by it tell that the people, organization, or group, are true Christians? The answer is yes! True Christians can be identified and separated from those who are not. COMMANDMENT KEEPING The first mark or sign of a Christian is that he will be keeping the Ten Commandments of God. Jesus said, "if ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15). True Christians will have love and concern for each other. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous." (1 John 5:2-3). The apostle has a stinging rebuke for those who say they are Christians and do not keep the Ten Commandments. "He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2:4). A requirement for maintaining the Christian status is commandment keeping. A second mark or sign of God's people is that they will be observing God's Sabbaths and Holy Days. Notice what God says in Exodus 31:15-17. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." The prophet Ezekiel was inspired to write, "Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that 1 am the Lord that sanctifies them." "And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that you may know that 1 am the Lord your God." (Ezk.20:12,20). Other sabbath observances to be kept by Christians are the annual Sabbaths or Holy Days spoken of in the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus. Notice, they are a statute forever and are a sign of God's people. (Ex.13:9). Also see: Isa. 56:1-6; 58:13; and 66:22-23). Many will say the Sabbath and Holy Days were for ancient Israel and not for Christians today. But, what does the Word of God say? Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matt.5:17). The apostle Paul told the Galatian Christians that if they were Christ's, they were Abraham's seed, that is "Israelites." "And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal.3:29). Also see: Acts 7:1-7). Paul also told the Church of God at Colossae, "Let no man therefore judge you (in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ." (Col. 2:16-17). (See my study - "Colossians 2:16" - on that passage on this Website - Keith Hunt) A third sign of God's people is their love and concern for one another. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if we have love one to another." (John 13:35). While this would not seem to be a major sign of God's people, it is nonetheless, in a world torn with strife, war, divorce, murder, anger, hatred and violence. Love and hue concern for another human being is rare indeed, and is truly a sign of the people who follow the one who loved the world enough to give His life for it. THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE PAGANIZED The true Church of God will not be observing pagan festivals and holidays, such as: Christmas, Easter and Halloween. Although many "professing Christians" will say there is nothing wrong with observing these days, they do admit they are pagan in origin. The prophet Jeremiah gave this warning from God. "Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman. with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten It with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (Jer.20:2-4). Paul warns the church at Corinth not to bind themselves with Satan's false worship. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has he that believes with an infidel? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor.6:14-16). The Church of God will be doing the work of God in preaching the soon-coming Kingdom of God. This is the same gospel (good news) that Jesus Christ taught. "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God. And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15). This gospel is a far cry from the teachings of main-line Christianity today. It is a gospel so dynamic, so powerful, so diametrically opposite to what is taught in most churches around the world today, that most reject it. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim. 4:2-4). BE YE SEPARATE In a letter to the church at Corinth the Apostle Paul exhorted them to avoid mixing paganism with Christianity. (2 Cor. 6:14-16). He also told them to separate themselves from that day's religions. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you." (2 Cor. 6:17). The Church of God is not to participate in, or be a part of the world's religions or politics. This would constitute spiritual adultery, since the Church is to be the Bride of Christ, and is to act as His ambassador to this world. (2 Cor. 5:20). Surprising as it is, Jesus Christ did not form His Church to become a large powerful organization which would try to make this world, under its present leadership, a better place in which to live. Instead, He said, "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of this world. I pray not that thou should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as 1 am not of the world." (John 17:14-16) THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH If Jesus did not intend for His Church to become a powerful force and challenge Satan for world rule, then what did he form it for? The purpose of the Church is fourfold. Its first purpose is to prepare a people to help Jesus Christ rule this world at his second coming. "And has made us (them) unto our God kings and priests; and we (they) shall reign on the earth." (Rev.5:10). (Also see: 1 Thes.3-13; Rev.3:21 and 20:4-6). The second purpose is to preach the Good News of the soon coming government of God. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shag the end come." (Matt.24:14). (Often this is misunderstood per se. Jesus at another time said, we will not have gone over all the cities if Israel before the Son of man comes. The gospel will be preaches - shouted - to the word by the ANGEL that does so shortly before Jesus comes again. See Revelation 14:6 and mt comments on that part of Revelation in my "New Testament Bible story" - Keith Hunt) The third purpose is to preach the message of repentance. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20). The fourth purpose is to provide a place for those called of God (John 6:44), to grow in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18), and to learn and perfect the ways of God in their lives so they will be able to fulfil the great calling of the Saints. (Rev. 5:10). ONE CHURCH Does it really matter which church a person belongs to? If there is no God, and the Bible is not His Word put to print, then it does not matter which church a person goes to. In fact, why go at all? But, there is abundant proof that God the Father and Jesus Christ do exist and that the Bible is their Word and instruction manual to the human race. If one is truly seeking to obey God, then he should want to be with the group of people who are His. Jesus said, "I will build my Church." (Matt.16:18). And, to this church, His Father would call and place those who should be saved in this age. (Acts 2:38,39 & 47). There is only one Church of God, so says the Apostle Paul. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph.4:4-6). Jesus Christ has only one church He rules over. (Eph.1:22-23; 1 Cor.12:12-13). He has no other. The true Church of God has existed from the day Jesus organized it. It has endured the test of persecution and martyrdom throughout the centuries, and still exists today wherever true Christians gather to worship the Creator God and serve Him. (Matt.18:20) .................. NOTE: The one true Church of God, is its scattered members around the world. It is NOT just "one organization" of men. The body of Christ, are the SALT of the earth, sprinkled here and there. They are indeed the "very little flock" as Jesus said it, for that is how the Greek reads. The Greek is a double diminutive - LITTLE LITTLE flock. If you are willing to learn, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, willing to be corrected, willing and wanting to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, willing to live by every Word from God, as Jesus said we should do (Mat.4:4); THEN with humility in your heart, loving God with all your body, mind, and life, YOU can be a member of the ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD! Keith Hunt   INTRO-- Doctrinal Unity?   Is it Really that Important? IS IT REALLY IMPORTANT OR DO WE JUST NEED LOVE? by Keith Hunt "All of God's children will never be under one banner until Jesus returns" shouts many a Sabbath keeping church. And while I must agree with this statement as far as the banner of ORGANIZATION is concerned, there is another aspect of this often spoken phrase that I must - to some degree - disagree with. And that aspect is this. Far too many people I have met with in my ministerial travels across north AMERICA (Canada and U.S.A.) use the understanding and fact that history shows us that God's children have never been under one banner since the true church expanded further than the city of Jerusalem, to say we shall never all come to agreement and unity as to the teachings and doctrines of God. I have found a too casual - oh hum - shrug of the shoulder attitude - bordering on a "couldn't care less " a "well it doesn't matter" attitude, concerning unity in the teachings of the Lord. Some go as far as saying, "As long as we all agree in keeping the 7th day Sabbath and the other nine commandments, we'll all be in the Kingdom." But is this really so? We often ask the 1st day keeper to be willing to look at some plain verses of God's word to come to see the truth about the 7th day Sabbath - do we not - sure we do! Well, are we willing to look at some plain verses ourselves concerning the subject of doctrinal unity? We really do need to do so, for our attitude towards that subject could effect our being in the first resurrection or not. You think that is too strong a statement? Well please read on and be willing to go face to face with the questions I will pose and the verses I will quote. We often tell the 1st day keeper and/or those searching for the truth about which day is the weekly Sabbath, to be willing to be strong. Can we be strong as we face God's word about doctrinal unity ? God says to us, "Come let us reason together." Does it really make logical sense to believe that all 7th day Sabbath keepers will be in the first resurrection and the Kingdom at Jesus' return, when some only agree on the observance of the Sabbath and disagree on about everything else? Is God going to just "flip the switch" when He comes, so we all will have our wrong ideas and doctrines erased from our minds? Do we think it does not matter to God if during this life we make no attempt to search for the truth on all doctrines of His word? Does claiming to be a part of the true church that Christ founded, automating make it so? Because we come from a heritage that claims decent from the apostles - does that ensure us a place in the first resurrection, even if we are sincere in our beliefs? Saying, "Well we all teach obeying the 10 commandments including the 4th " - will that attitude be enough? Many will proclaim, "We keep the weekly Sabbath and the 7 annual Sabbaths" as if that guarantees them the Kingdom. Have we so soon forgotten that the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees kept the Sabbath and feasts of God? Have we forgotten that these religious groups obeyed other points of God's word (yet they differed in doctrine)? Have we forgotten they claimed decent from Abraham and an historical ancestry of great worth? HAVE WE FORGOTTEN WHAT JESUS SAID TO THEM AND ABOUT THEM? Perhaps we need to again read Mat.23, or remember He told them that the harlots, publicans and sinners (in their eyes ) would enter the Kingdom before them. Their attitude and practices in regards some of God's word was wrong and if repentance was not forthcoming, and changes made, they would not enter God's Kingdom. Is it possible that many 7th day commandment keepers TODAY are in the same boat with the scribes and Pharisees? Stop and LOOK!! We find today literally dozens upon dozens of groups that teach keeping the 4th commandment. It is true that many basically only differ in organization (being locally autonomous) and very little difference doctrinally. But on the other hand many groups have LARGE and BASIC doctrinal differences. For me to illustrate I am going to have to name names. Many of the Seventh Day Baptist churches teach as doctrine - going to heaven at death, the immortality of the soul, the Holy Spirit as a person, while other 7th day churches do not teach these doctrines, but say they are false. The Worldwide Church of God teaches a "pyramid church government" doctrine, other groups teach this is not Biblical. Many congregations teach that tithing is commanded of God for His people, while others teach it is not. The Seventh Day Adventists (main stream body) teach that Ellen White was God's prophet for the end time, but other 7th day keeping churches teach she was not. Some groups teach as doctrine that God has a sacred name and it alone should be used, while other churches say that is not so. Many Sabbath observing churches also teach the keeping of the Feasts found in Lev.23, while other churches teach those Feasts were "done away" with at the cross. We could go on and on with MAJOR differences between various 7th day observing churches. I think the point has dearly been made. SOME PLAIN VERSES If there is only ONE true God - if there is only one Jesus Christ, can we assume correctly that they agree with the teachings of all Sabbath keeping churches? Did Jesus, when walking this earth among the Sabbath observing groups of the society of nearly two thousand years ago, say that they were all just heading for the same sheep fold, but through different doors and along different paths? Did He agree with all the teachings of the scribes? No! Did He agree with all the teachings of the Pharisees? No! He could not be divided up into a hundred pieces. The church at Corinth thought Jesus could be divided for less reason than doctrinal - Paul asked them, "Is Christ divided?" He infers an answer of "no way" (1 Cor.1:12,13 ). Then he tells the Ephesian church, "There is ONE body (not one organized people under one banner), and ONE Spirit .... ONE hope of your calling, ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all..." (Eph.4:4-6). Can there be more than one Holy Spirit - speaking many major conflicting doctrines? Can there be more than one Jesus who died on the stake? Maybe there is and that's why we have different major doctrines - but I speak with foolishness. Maybe there is many "God the Fathers" and that is why some will be "raptured" away to Him before the tribulation, or will go to heaven at death, or will spend the thousand years in heaven, or some other time - again I speak with tongue in cheek. Paul says there is "one baptism" - surely God's word tells us what the truth is about that one baptism - by complete immersion or a few drops of water. Surely God wants us to know if we go to heaven at death or do not. I think HE wants us to know if we go to heaven during the one thousand years or stay on this earth. In other words, there must be a one and only truth to the main doctrines that are contained in the word of God. Oh yes, we may have to diligently search the Scriptures to find all the verses God gives us on a particular subject or doctrine, but the Father does want us to know. Will we be willing to believe the sure promise Jesus left us when speaking about the Holy Spirit that was to came, He said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH" (Jn.16:13). Has the HOLY Spirit came ? Is there anyone claiming to be a Christian that does not believe that the Spirit came on the day of Pentecost and has been with Christians ever since? I have never met any. And we might ask - what is truth? Jesus said, "...your(the Father's) word is truth" (Jn.17:17). God's word will show us the things He wants us to know is truth. And the first part of verse one tells us we are to be sanctified by that truth. I can see no way around these plain verses and the absolute promise given to us that the HOLY Spirit will guide us into all truth. Either this is true as Jesus said, or Jesus is a liar - God's word is not inspired and the Father does not have the power through the Spirit to direct His children into all truth. I do not believe any of the aforementioned things are correct, and if you do not, then you have to believe what Jesus said as recorded in John 16:13! THE TIME FOR REVEALING TRUTH I have never met a single person who claimed to have all the knowledge of God's truths at the time of conversion and baptism. I doubt if there has ever been a mortal man or woman at any time who had all truth at conversion. Even the great learned Rabbi from Tarsus - Paul - upon conversion to Christ and baptism had to spend some time in Arabia being taught the truths of the gospel by the REVELATION of Jesus (Gal.1:11-17). Most of us do not even have the deep religious background and upbringing that someone like Paul had - most of us are truly babes in the knowledge of God's word at our conversion. Or we have been brought up on such false religious teachings that we must still reckon ourselves babes in the Lord when He first starts to reveal the truth of His word to us. It would seem God purposely never gives all His truth to any individual upon their conversion. He has a great reason for not doing so - it is a test to prove if a person really does love God with all his heart, life and mind. It is a life long test, to see if we will walk in His way whenever that way is revealed to us. I have known people who were true Christians for many years but did not keep the 7th day Sabbath - they did not know they should or they did not know that Sunday was not the 7th day. Then at some point God revealed this truth to them and they accepted that revelation and walked in it - they had met that test and were victorious. With others it is some other truth that is shown to them months or years after their conversion and baptism - then the test is for them to see if they will love the truth above all else. This is the way and working of the Lord. It is no wonder then that the apostle Peter was inspired to write, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby" (1 Pet.2:2). And some of God's children even after conversion and baptism - even after some years, are still more carnal than spiritual. You do not think this is possible, well you had better read Paul's first letter (first of the two left recorded for us) to the church at Corinth, and especially note chapter 3:1-4. With all the doctrinal fractions among those who claim to be God's children today, maybe we are still more carnal than spiritual. Possibly God is trying to reveal more of His truths to YOU, or revealing again truths you put aside and cast away. What are you doing about proving them and holding fast to that which is good and true (1 Thes.5:21)? DOCTRINAL UNITY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH As we read the first number of chapters of the book of Acts it is evident that for many years the New Testament church was in unity as to doctrine. It is very unlikely that Luke (the author of Acts) would not have told us about a lack of doctrinal unity if it had existed. This is given credence by the fact that he did record a large doctrinal difference in the matter of circumcision (Acts 15). What is important to note here is not that a doctrinal difference arose, but what God's people did about it when it had arisen. I go into this in some detail in my book THE NT CHURCH AND ITS ORGANIZATION (also now on this Website). Here I need only say that the truth was desired and was gained. The readers can study for themselves Acts 15 and see how the truth was arrived at in this particular case. My large (8x11 150 page and more) book on Church Government shows very clearly that God used many men to do His work and raise up churches in various parts of the Roman Empire, who did not know each other on a personal basis (i.e. Paul was used by God for many years before he met James, Peter and John) but were teaching the same truths of God's word. The apostles at Jerusalem could "add nothing" to what Paul had for years been teaching and preaching (Gal.2:1-10). Sure, false brethren and false apostles arose within and among the people of God (Gal.2:4) together with false letters claiming to come from Paul, Silvanus or Timothy (2 Thes.l:l; 2:2), but the true ministers and people of God remained in unity to the basic doctrines and truths of God's word. It is also true that corruptions and perversions of the truth of God's word, and the gifts of His Spirit did arise among the churches of God. But perversion of truth does not mean doctrinal differences were prevalent. Paul certainly had to correct the church at Corinth because of perversion of truth and a lax attitude towards open sin within the church. Yes, we can find from the book of Revelation some churches of God allowing idolatry and false teachings within their midst, but God always warned them about these sins and told them to repent. He showed them the truth and gave them time to acknowledge those sins and to put them away. Again all this does not prove disunity of doctrine but a merciful God correcting and leading with His Spirit His people into all truth. JESUS' REQUEST - IS IT BEING ANSWERED? Notice what Jesus requested of the Father in His prayer the night before His crucifixion "... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. That they all may be one; as you, Father are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us ... that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one...." (John 17:20-23). What Jesus is requesting here can not be organizational unity, for mass communication via Telephone, Radio, T.V. and Satellite is of this space age society. Before all this God's people went forth into all the earth with the gospel - raising up churches in all nations, many of whom never had contact with others in different areas and often did not know of the existence of other true Christians outside their own land, or if they did, were not able to meet them. Therefore Jesus must have been asking the Father to keep believers as ONE in unity of doctrine - doctrine not organization. It is clear from other words of Christ in the four Gospels that He spoke only the words of the Father - both He and the Father were in complete unity as to teaching and doctrine. Now as Jesus was a completely obedient Son of the Father - as He was willing to put aside the glory He shared with the Father - as He was willing to come to earth as God in the flesh and sacrifice Himself for the sins of the whole world - because of all this and more, is it logical to believe this prayer request of Jesus' went unanswered or contrary to the request? Many would want to believe so, but I for one can not believe that the Father would deny this request. With what I have expounded so far and the Scripture verses we have seen, it cannot be any other way than that the Father would grant Jesus His request. Is Jesus and the Father divided up a hundred different and often contradictory ways as to doctrine? Are they in disagreement and confusion? NO WAY! Not at all, for God says He is not the author of confusion (1 Cor.14:33) If He is not - then who is? WHAT SHOULD BE OUR ATTITUDE? One of the golden rules that Christ laid down was, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled" (Mat.5:6). I am sorry to say, but in all my travels I have not found this zealous attitude of mind among very many people. There is little deep down searching for the right as opposed to the wrong. It would seem not very many are crying out with Jeremiah, "O Lord, CORRECT ME, but with judgment" (Jer.10:24). We live in an age when the words of Rev.3:15-19 really do apply to the churches of God. A lukewarmness permeates the Sabbath keeping churches, while an attitude of spiritual smugness is proclaimed in mind and action. Too many people and too many 7th day observing organizations boldly claim they SEE, but in reality they are BLIND. And that is not me saying this BUT GOD!! (Rev.3:18). Fortunately for us the Lord is still leading, rebuking and correcting us into all truth IF we will be in a repentant attitude and ZEALOUS in thirsting for His righteousness (Rev.3:19). We are living in a time when people who knew God's truths have cast them off as a dirty garment - when many are only willing to live some of the truths they know - when many no longer have the love of the truth - when people will no longer diligently search the Scriptures to see if those things are so, as the noble Bereans did (Acts 17:10-12). But then all this was foretold was it not? Yes indeed - in 2 Thes.2:1-12. Jesus said that before His return - in the last days - deception would be so great that if it was possible even the elect would be led astray (Mat.24:24). And what is the way for the child of God to make sure he or she is not deceived? The answer is found in the three passages of Scripture already given - Mat.5:6; Acts 17:10-12 and 2 Thes.2:10. If YOU will love the truth, if you will search the Scriptures, if you will thirst for righteousness, then God will fill you with His Spirit which will "guide you into all truth" and YOU will be in the first resurrection to meet the Lord Jesus upon His return. THE REASONS FOR A LUKEWARM ATTITUDE There are many reasons people do not love the truth, and what I mean by this phrase is "acting upon truth". Acting upon truth means a change in thought and practice. Many will not be corrected, will not diligently seek for the right, because they know that if they find it then they must make a choice - go the way of truth and right or the way of falsehood. If the way of right is followed then it could mean loosing a job, putting a strain on their marriage, getting their children upset, developing problems with parents, or just being thought of as "odd." Yet I would say from my experiences with the ministers and people of the Sabbath observing churches, that the most prevalent proclivity to lukewarmness and a lack of the love of the truth is a "comfortable pew" attitude. Too many look to an organization - be it just local or national or worldwide. They just do not want to rock the boat they are in or jump ship if they must. I know of ministers who know the church they belong to, is preaching false unbiblical doctrines - but they will not speak out the truth. Other ministers know about corruption in MORALITY or FINANCES within the leaders of their church, but say and do nothing. Too many congregational members follow a personality regardless as to whether he corrupts himself or starts preaching untruths. Far too many make their church a social club and stay because of the "party events" it conducts on a regular basis. Some close their eye to truth because their church offers them a fine school to educate their children. Others have long lasting friendships they have built with people in the church they attend and do not want to jeopardize that friendship should they speak up for or stand up for truth. There are those with other family members(wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, aunt etc.) within the same church, and they feel they cannot possibly cause disunity among the physical family, because of God's truth. There are those who have been raised in a church and are now choir director, Sabbath school teacher, deacon or deaconess, youth leader, or hold some other "important" office that is more important to hold than proclaiming and standing for truth. I have known individuals who held the church building or choir or church organ more important and in higher esteem than doctrinal truth. Putting all these things before the love of the truth is all summed up in one word - IDOLATRY!! And that sin has been one of the deadliest sins that God's children have had to face from the time of Moses to the present. Jesus plainly told us that those who would be His disciples had to be willing to give up ALL, even their own lives if need be to be worthy to enter the Kingdom. HE taught His followers to thirst after righteousness - to build their house upon a rock that the winds could not blow over. One day He was asked if only a few would be saved (I understand this question to be in reference to the first resurrection) and His reply is very chilling, "Strive to enter in at the straight gate, for many I say unto you, will seek to enter in and SHALL NOT BE ABLE" (Luke 13:24). God is not playing games with our salvation - but ARE WE? The Father wants to give us the greatest GIFT in the whole universe - we need to take His offer of eternal life in glory very seriously! IS DOCTRINAL TRUTH THAT IMPORTANT? "Come on Keith," some are going to say, "the study of doctrine has its place but really now, it's not as important as you've been trying to make us believe. The main thing is that we all love one another and try to get along - we should overlook our doctrinal differences even if some of them are large ones." Many have probably been saying or thinking this way before getting to this section of this article. Some will have already put this article to one side because they feel doctrinal unity is not that important. But for you who have read to this point and do feel I may have validity in what I have so far presented - then this section should drive the nail home in showing that doctrinal unity IS IMPORTANT! We are admonished in Eph.4:14,15 to not be like children pushed around with every wind of doctrine by those who are just ready to pounce on you and lead you off into deception. But we are to have the truth and GROW UP into Christ in all things. Now growing up takes time and knowing the truth does not happen overnight - it takes study and study and more study. Paul told the minister Timothy to be zealous to show himself to God a workman that handled rightly the word of truth. He was telling Timothy to be on guard against false doctrines that destroy. Timothy was to purge himself from error and those who teach it and will not repent. Please read this in 2 Tim.2:15-21. There were THREE basis divisions Paul wanted Timothy to use in the "house of God" - the church. He was to give attendance to reading - to exhortation - to DOCTRINE (1 Tim.3:14,15; 4:13). Notice what Paul told Timothy in verse 16 of the above chapter, "Take heed unto yourself, and unto the doctrine - continue in them (the singular word "doctrine" used for all God's truths) - for in doing this you shall both save yourself and them that hear you." Paul wrote that all Scripture was inspired of God, and besides Scripture being profitable for instruction in the right and for reproof, it was also profitable for DOCTRINE (2 Tim.3:16). Timothy was, as part of his ministry to, "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season - reprove - rebuke - EXHORT with all longsufferinq and doctrine:" (2 Tim.4:2). Titus was to use sound doctrine to shut the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:9-11). It is very evident from the above that Paul thought "doctrine" was very important and that it could even be a matter of life or death! The apostle John did not beat around the bush - he pulled no punches when talking about doctrine. You will find what he said in his second letter verses 8-11. I will render for you verse 8 as some Greet manuscripts read, "Look to yourselves, that you loose not those things which you have gained, but that you receive a full reward." The things his readers had gained were the teachings (doctrines) of the Lord. Now verse 9. "Whosoever transgresses and abides not in the doctrine (singular heading but plural content) of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son." Jesus is the living truths of the Father - He came as God in the flesh and lived truth. Jesus is also the written word of truth (all the Bible) - it was He as God of the Old Testament, and the risen Lord of the New Testament, that inspired men to write the books that are contained in what we call the Holy Bible. So the "doctrine of Christ" is the various topical truths found throughout the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. God is able, as we have seen, to guide His children through the Spirit into all truth. This must be so in order for the child of God to obey and fulfil the command of verse 10, "if there come any to you, and bring not this doctrine (note Isa.8:20) - receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." I have had to obey this directive from time to time when certain pairs of individuals from well know religious organizations have come to my door. The Eternal is very jealous over His doctrine - we should be as well, and be on our guard against falsehoods and those who would perpetrate them. We are not to take this "lack of the love of the truth" attitude that is exhibited by far too many, lightly! Look at what John goes on to say in verse 11, "For he that bids him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." His deeds are evil because he causes many to believe and practice untruths. When people have been presented with the truth - when all their arguments to the contrary have been answered and they still set their mind as stone, and will not repent and change to follow the truth now revealed to them, then God's children must make a stand. In closing this article let me again say, there is only one truth about baptism, only one truth about where the millennium will be spent, only one truth about when and if we get to heaven, only one truth about the festivals of God etc. It is YOUR responsibility to find that truth - you can find it - search the Scriptures. Jesus has promised that His Spirit will GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH !! POSTSCRIPT The first question that many have asked after reading this article is WHAT are the MOST important doctrines that God's children will be unified on? That is a very good question in response to a study such as I have presented here. The Lord knew such a study as this one would be needed as people read His word. I'm sure I am not the first to present such a study. And so in His wisdom, He has given us a number of BASIC doctrines that His children are to be led into all truth concerning. We need not even be in disunity about the doctrines that are the first and basic doctrines. All of God's children - those led by His Spirit - will, in this physical life agree or come to agree upon the Biblical truth of these doctrines. Again let me reiterate - that must be so or what Jesus said and promised in John 16:13 is a lie. So what are these basic doctrines? They are given to us in HEBREWS 6:1-2. They are the basic FOUNDATION of all the truths God gives us through His word. REPENTANCE. This must cover and include the subject of sin. What is sin? It must cover the topic of law and grace. It must include the truth about the SABBATH QUESTION, which in turn will include the truth about the 7 annual Sabbaths. It must also cover the ramifications about other commandments. Is ABORTION murder? What about killing in a nations war machine or armed forces? Is the observance of pagan FESTIVALS such as Easter and Xmas idolatry? This first foundational doctrine in the line of basic progression in the principles of the doctrine of Christ covers a large area. FAITH. The most important aspect here would be saving faith in relationship to Jesus as the Messiah and sacrificial Savior of the world. BAPTISMS. This would cover the truths about water baptism and baptism of the Spirit. LAYING ON OF HANDS. As used in baptism, ordination, special assignments, sickness and healing. RESURRECTION. Covering the questions of why, how many, raised to what likeness, when. I believe this would include the doctrine of what is death and the second coming of Christ, and where the 1,000 year reign will be spent for the redeemed, and the White Throne Judgment resurrection of Revelation 20. ETERNAL JUDGMENT The truths about heaven, hell, second death and rewards. I understand EPHESIANS 4:4-6 to also be basic foundational doctrines. We see again Paul mentions baptism. ONE BODY. I think this would include the Biblical truth about Church Government. ONE SPIRIT. The truth about whether the Holy Spirit is a third person of the Godhead must be included here. ONE HOPE. This would include such truths as why did God create mankind? And where do we spend Eternity. ONE LORD. The truth about Jesus - who is He, what was He before His human birth, why did He come, and what is He doing now today? ONE FAITH. One basic foundational set of truths that are unchangeable. Those truths I think we are now covering. ONE God the FATHER. The truth about the Godhead (single, dual, triple) and is it expandable? Does God have a form and shape? Does He have a sacred name which only must be used? I believe the above are the "foundational" doctrines. Jude exhorted those of his day to "earnestly contend for THE FAITH which was once delivered unto the saints." The doctrines above would make up the foundation of THE FAITH given through Jesus and His word the Bible, for His true church since the Holy Spirit came to guide His followers into all truth. The truth concerning these doctrines can be found! God's children will find them! .................... Written 1987   1. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed Ancient Israel, before the New Testament Church of God began, was called the "church in the wilderness"(Acts 7:38). It was organized from the TOP down. There was God, then Moses, under Moses there were Elders, captains over thousands, and hundreds and so on down the pyramid of the chain of authority. Israel's church - state government - was THEOCRATICAL, from God down to a specific human leader who had total authority and leadership over every other person in the nation. Was Israel's type of government to be carried over into the Church of the New Covenant? If so then we should be able to find ample evidence to support this teaching from the writings of the New Testament. Let us humbly search to find the truth of the matter. by Keith Hunt Using a "Harmony of the Gospels" book, we find that the first recorded person we would classify as one of Jesus' disciples was Andrew, who spent part of a day with Him(John 1:35-40). Andrew soon introduced Simon his brother to Jesus. When Jesus saw Simon He instantly diagnosed his basic personality and said: "So you are Simon the son of John. You shall be called cephas(which means 'stone')." Harmony of the Gospels by Ralph Heim. Now did Jesus by giving Simon a new name establish him as HEAD apostle? The next day Jesus found Philip and he brought Nathaniel to Jesus. Again Christ discerned the character of Nathaniel, "Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile" (v.47). Because you were the first to be called as one of Jesus' disciples, or given another name, or have Christ state your personality in a miraculous way - does that mean you are head disciple? If so, Andrew could claim it as first named or recorded disciple in the ministry of Jesus. Peter could claim it as being given a new name. Philip could possibly claim such an office as he was the first recorded person that Jesus said the words "follow me" to.The truth is, in none of these passages did Jesus name anyone as HEAD disciple. Actually the official calling of Peter and Andrew was some time later, see a "Harmony of the Gospels" book. And James and John were also called at the same time. If you study the Harmony of the Gospels you will see that between these two incidents in John chapter one and Luke chapter five(also recorded in Matthew 4 and Mark 1) Jesus had disciples already following Him. Jesus chose 12 to be His close inner circle (Mark 3:13-19). In the list of these twelve as given by Mark and Luke, Simon Peter is put first. Now does this automatically of itself prove that Peter was the CHIEF apostle? Let's not assume anything but prove all things from God's own word. WHO WAS THE CHIEF APOSTLE? For three and one half years Jesus was in close fellowship with His chosen twelve disciples. He knew their strengths, weaknesses, and their personalities. He had ample time to determine WHO if anyone should be head apostle, who should be second in command, who third, and so on down the line. We have recorded for us in the four Gospels three separate incidents where Jesus could have made it very plain to them who He had chosen to be chief among them and head of all the ministers in the Church, the one with final authority and the power of veto. The first incident is found in Mark 9:33-35 (the same account is also given in Mat.18 and Luke 9) where we read: "And they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house He asked them, ' What were you discussing on the way?' but they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the GREATEST. And He sat down and called the twelve." Here was Jesus' golden opportunity to tell them the governmental structure He wanted among themselves, here was His chance to declare to them, the one, two, three, in the authority line. But what DID He say? "And He said to them, if anyone would be first (desired to be, wanted to be) HE MUST BE LAST OF ALL AND SERVANT OF ALL" (RSV, emphasis mine). Jesus did not even hint that there was to be a pyramid type of Church structure. He told them that if anyone in their own mind desired such a position as being "top dog" that person had better put himself last and be servant to all the others. To be the greatest in God's sight is to be humble and put such a desire of exaltation out of your mind and go about serving! Months went by and the disciples, or at least two of them, forgot what Jesus had taught them. It is human nature to think that in a group of twelve surely someone must be the greatest, and maybe that someone is ME! On a certain day James and John came to Jesus and asked Him if THEY could be the ones to sit on His right and left hand in the Kingdom. Jesus said only the Father had the authority to decide who would be given those positions, it was not for Him or for them to decide (Mark 10:35-40). The account in Mark continues to say: "And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John, and Jesus called them to Him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles LORD it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU." They were not to exercise rulership over each other, they were not to be like the governments of this world, having a system of dictatorial pyramid authority. Continuing: "But whoever would be great among you must be your SERVANT, and whoever would be first among you must be SLAVE of all" (verses 43-44). How this incident must have come to the apostle Peter's mind when he exhorted the elders: "Likewise you younger(in age and/or length of service) submit(honor, respect, look to with appreciation) unto the elder(in age and/or ones who have served longer in the ministry). Yes, ALL of you be SUBJECT one to another and be clothed with HUMILITY. For God resists the PROUD(the self-important ones, those who would rule over others and put themselves in some great office of authority) and gives grace to the HUMBLE" (1 Peter 5:5, emphasis and amplified myself). What words from a mighty man of God. Mighty in the way the Lord used him. Think about Acts chapter two, then chapter 10, and 15. Think about the great miracles Peter did even to the point that when his shadow passed over people they were healed! Peter was a pillar in the Jerusalem Church of God (Gal.2). Yet he also made his errors and went away from the path of truth at times, so that the relative new comer to the apostle function, the apostle Paul had to correct and rebuke him openly (Gal.2). But he took it as a true child of God, he did not allow his pride to get in the way, or allow his "ego" to be hurt and a root of bitterness to spring up. He was exercised to bring forth the fruits of righteousness from all the corrections he received from the Lord. And so could pen those great words above. Peter was a humble man, he was willing to be subject "one to another." Oh, how all the ministers of the Church of God need to exhibit the character of Peter in this matter. I have personally seen the exact opposite manifested many times by some who call themselves the ministers of God. I wonder how many times the Lord has seen this wrong attitude practiced down through the centuries? Even after these two separate incidents, there still arose a third time when: "A dispute also arose among them, which of them would be regarded as the greatest" (Luke 22:24, RSV). Jesus again told them they were not to be like the governments of this world. He gave them HIS EXAMPLE! Be a servant, do not have the "I'm the greatest" attitude. He did specifically promise those twelve(Matthias replacing Judas, Acts 2) a throne each - ruling one tribe of Israel in the Kingdom(Mat.19:28). But He never said any of those thrones would be above the others. Just as He never said any one of them would be above the rest in authority in this physical life within the function of the Church. What Jesus taught them over and over again was to have love and service among themselves. What He inspired Peter to tell all Elders was that they should be humble and be willing to be subject to each other. DID JESUS MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH? Some teach that Christ made Peter chief apostle over the New Testament(NT) Church. Others teach that the true Church today is headed by ONE man! Those who teach this idea often give Matthew 16:18-19 as proof to the supremacy of one authoritarian man as head of the Church. The Roman Catholic church claim the Pope is the direct descendant of Peter who they say was made chief apostle by Christ. But what is the real truth? Let's examine these verses in Matthew very carefully. Jesus said: "And I say unto you, that you are Peter(Greek is Petros - meaning a 'stone') and upon this rock(Greek is Petra - meaning a 'ledge' or 'shelf of rock' or 'crag of rock') I will build my church" (Mat.16:18). Notice the true meaning as originally written in the Greek language. The English word "stone" is translated from the Greek word "Petros" meaning a single stone or loose stone. The Greek word "Kephas" means such a stone. But when Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church" the Greek word used was not Kephas or Petros but PETRA, a large massive rock. Speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness, Paul wrote: "For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST"(1 Cor.10:4). The CHURCH is described in Ephesians 2:20 as, " being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE." Here Christ is said to be the HEAD or chief, the final authority of the Church of God, not some individual mortal man! The real foundation of the Church is Jesus. "For other foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which IS Jesus Christ" (1 Cor.3:11). He is shown in Revelation 1:13-18 to be the living head, in the midst of the Church. Read also these passages - Ephesians 5:23; 4:15; 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18,19; 2:19. THE DISCIPLES GO FORTH Mark tells us that Jesus chose 12 special disciples (chapter 3:13,14). Luke says He called them apostles(chapter 6:13). It is written He sent them "out to preach and have authority to cast out demons" (Mark 3:14,15). Notice it! They were sent out to do WHAT? Have dictatorial power and authority over the members of the Church? Have authority of each other, over other ministers of Christ? NO! They were given authority over DEMONS not other ministers. Jesus never said they were to rule God's children with an iron hand, lording it over them, acting like some little Hitler cracking the whip. Later again Christ sent out the twelve. He gave them POWER and AUTHORITY yes, but over what? Not over each other - no! He gave them authority over demons and power to heal every disease and infirmity (see Mat.10:1-4; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2). He sent them out TO PREACH! Preach what? Personal authority over one another, a pecking order of Church organization? God's word says, "......to PREACH the KINGDOM OF GOD." Jesus later appointed 70 others. He sent them out "two by two" to do His work. He did not say that one of the two was chief of the other. They were obviously a TEAM - two by two - two standing alongside each other, neither having binding authority over the other, but both being subject to each other and the younger respecting the older as we have seen in 1 Peter 5. Please read carefully this account as given in Luke 10. The only authority they had was to heal, cast out demons, and preach the good news of the Kingdom. Jesus had ample time and opportunities to explain in some detail to His first disciples how the Church should be structured along a pyramid authority line if that was what He wanted it to be like. But we find no such teaching from the lips of Christ in the gospels. On the contrary, we find the exact opposite teaching. His people and ministers were to be organized on two basic pillars - LOVE to each other and a SERVING SERVANT attitude. Only those who have some personal gain to follow for the wrong reasons can fail to see these two pillars taught over and over again in the four Gospels. The rest of the NT shows this does not mean ministers and members are to be "door mats" to each other. Everyone walking over each other, ignoring one another. It does not mean there is to be no "correction" within the Church. It does not mean there is to be no logical organization, for Paul was inspired to say that things should be done "decently and in order" and that God was "not the author of confusion" (1 Cor.14). What it simply means is that everything the Church does, its ministers (elders/overseers) and members, is to be done with respect of each other, humility and submissiveness to each other, and with love and service for one another in all things. Some of the last words Christ said to His disciples was not that they should try to dominate and establish authority over each other in a hierarchy Church structure, but that collectively they should with team work effort, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.. ....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you...." (Mat.28: 19-20). Here Jesus gives a THREE PART commission to His ministers and followers: 1) make disciples 2) baptize 3) teach what Jesus commanded. This is NEW Testament instruction for the NEW Covenant Church of God and there is not one word here or anywhere from the lips of Christ about establishing a "pecking orde" of authority for His ministers and members of His spiritual body. Take a good look at Jesus' words found in Mark 16:15-18. Again we have instruction to go and teach and baptize. The sheep of the fold are to be fed and taught. Disciples are to be made from all nations - preaching of the gospel. The Bride is to be prepared for the Bridegroom. Certain signs (as the Lord gives and directs, see 1 Cor.12) would follow within the Church. These signs were very evident in the apostolic Church of the first century. In somewhat of a lesser degree they are evident today among God's people, but will be more powerful and more abundant near the return of Christ. Again you will notice in all this, in all these signs, there is not one word about some GREAT order of hier-archal Church structure to prove to the world the Church of God is the true and only body of Christ. The largest "Christian'' church in the world today (with over one billion members) claims that its church structure from one head man down, is part of the proof that they are the true Church founded upon the apostle Peter. As we can see from the four Gospels, NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! Famous King Arthur of British history who fought with his noble Knights against the invading Anglo-Saxons, is famous in part because of his establishing the "round table." He and his top Knights, we would call them today by the name of "generals" - all gathered round to discuss their plans of attack and defense, seated at a ROUND table. King Arthur said he wanted it so, so that there would be no head or no tail. All would feel as important and as necessary as the next, including himself. In the center of the table going in a full circle were the words: BY SERVING EACH OTHER WE ARE FREE. Christianity had been well established for centuries in the British Isles before Arthur came on the scene. It had been brought there by many of the original disciples of Jesus. It was a much purer Christianity than came later to Britain via the Roman Catholic church. King Arthur was a God fearing man and his realm was founded upon the "good book." I'm sure he knew and had read the words of Christ as found in the gospels, part of those words being "the Truth shall make you free." Arthur did not choose those words for his round table, but took the teachings of Jesus that we have been looking at, and put the heart of them into a phrase for his famous table - "By Serving Each Other We Are Free." If only the Church of God, its branches and its ministers, down through the centuries, had always taken King Arthur's attitude of heart, many problems springing from self-important vanity and ego would have been eliminated, and much hurt and damage and falsehood would have given way to humble teachableness and growth. There are MANY truths in the word of God, one of them is what King Arthur had come to so clearly see. No organization, no government, no body of people can survive for long if it is not founded on some basic godly principles. Arthur knew service was one of those true foundations to keep a people out of the chains of bondage and sin, and so he had engraved in the round table: By Serving Each Other We Are Free. About 1500 years after King Arthur led his people with those words, another leader over another part of the same peoples in a different land, led his people with similar words that history will etch into stone. His words were: "Do not say what can my country can do for me, but say, what can I do for my country." Those words of President John F. Kennedy are the essence of what Jesus taught His ministers and disciples. Please allow me to paraphrase what Christ taught His followers: "If any one of you would desire to be the chief minister with all and final authority. If any one among you would get close to adopting the attitude of 'How can the other ministers and people of God, the Church of God, serve me' then that individual had better humble himself and go about serving everyone that belongs to me, and for whom I gave my life. For I did not come to put my feet up and be served by you all, but I came to serve you. So you go and do likewise to each other. Do not say,' what can I get from the Church' but ' what can I do for the Church.' " It is time for some in the Church of God to REPENT! To repent of the rotten stinking, filthy, arrogant, conceited, vain, attitude of mind and actions of words and deeds, that manifests itself too often and by too many ministers towards other ministers and members in the Church, an attitude of being a self-righteous authoritarian dictator over others perceived to be of lower in "rank" than themselves in the chain of Church ministry and structure. It is time for those who have been guilty of such errors to humble themselves under the mighty hand of the Lord, and to prayerfully re-study this whole subject of the MINISTRY and CHURCH GOVERNMENT to see more clearly from the teachings and examples of the New Testament what the plain truth really is! THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IS STARTED After Jesus had ascended to heaven (Acts 1:6-11) the disciples were together in Jerusalem (v.5). Peter stood up and spoke to them. Did that make Peter the head apostle? The account does not say it did. Those who claim this proves Peter was chief minister, must read into the account something that is completely absent, and they do this to try to uphold a teaching that can not be established with Biblical fact. In any group of persons you will have dominant leader type people who will naturally lead out, Peter was one of those individuals. Many studies today have been done by Business Firms looking for leaders to prove this human natural phenomenon. Peter was a"'born leader" as we say. He told the others that someone had to be chosen to replace Judas (v.16-22). Now notice verse 23, " And THEY appointed two...." It does not say that Peter chose two, or James, or some other "chief/s" among the apostles, but it says "They" the whole 120 of them (v.15) chose the two. The account does not tell us HOW they chose the two men. So that indeed does leave room for some administrative variance within the workings of the Church. They could not decide which of these two men should take the place and office of Judas. The teaching is clear, no apostle standing up here to tell everyone that he and he alone had final authority to decide the matter. What did they do? The account tells us they prayed and cast forth lots (v.24-26). It is not the purpose of this study to examine what these lots may have been (the readers can avail themselves with the Bible Commentaries for such inquiries). Whether this was a voting ballot or pulling of straws makes no difference to the point we want to make here. NO ONE MAN DECIDED THE ISSUE! Not even two, or three, or four, or some board of persons. The matter and decision to be made was too LARGE and IMPORTANT to be left to one man or a few men. Peter certainly did not have sole authority to decide who would take Judas' place. Not only that, but once that decision was made, he did not have authority to ANNUAL it either! Is this an example that some issues are only for God to decide and an organization may have to resort to casting some type of "lot"? Well yes it is and then no it isn't. Let me explain. Both men were qualified in the eyes of human beings. They had met certain necessary criterion. Obviously, for whatever reasons, the Holy Spirit was not giving the brethren any "clear" or "obvious" mental answer as to which man should take Judas' place within the twelve disciples. This was a once in a life time problem, maybe a once in the life of the New Testament Church. This was not an every year, or every 10 year occurrence for the Church of God. It was unique! God had chosen the twelve disciples - it was only fitting He should choose the man who would become part of that special company, after all that man would be given one of the thrones to rule one of the tribes of Israel(Mat.19). If an issue or situation should arise within a Church of God organization that could be seen as just as important to the one here in Acts, then I say this is an example left for us that could be followed. But then, I must seriously question any organization that believes it has a problem as important as choosing one of the twelve apostles. PETER'S POWER? After the Holy Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter was very bold in his preaching of Christ. Thousands were converted by his sermons. Great miracles were done by Peter. We can read of all the things that Peter did and said in the first five chapters of the book of Acts. Indeed it is true that Peter did take a leading role in the early days of the Church. But is there any word in these first chapters that Peter was chief or head in authority over the other eleven apostles or the whole Jerusalem congregation? No! Not one single word! Can we find in these chapters or anywhere (we shall come to Acts 15 later) in the entire book of Acts, where ANY apostle claimed he was "boss" of the rest of them and they had to comply with his demands and "jump to his tune"? No! Does having the ability to speak with authority - preach powerfully - do miracles - automatically qualify a person to be chief or head of the Church? If it does, then the apostle Paul would have been qualified to have dethroned anyone and taken over the Church. Look at his record! When some men wanted to boast of their deeds and talents, and others were looking at these men with great admiration, Paul said to the Corinthian church, "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.....are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often" (2 Cor.11:18,23). Paul continued to list his deeds for the gospel in verses 24-28. He was given visions and revelations of the throne of God, possibly he was taken up to the throne of the Lord, although he was unsure if it was reality or in the minds eye vision (chapter 12:1-7). At another time he told the Corinthians he spoke in tongues more than any of them (1 Cor.14:18). There were times when Paul did great miracles through the power of God's Spirit (Acts 19:11-12). God used him to write 14 books of the inspired New Testament scriptures. The number 14 is the number for deliverance and salvation as used by God in His word. The number 7 is the number for perfection and completion. The number 2 is for the Godhead (presently only the Father and the Son). Now 2 x 7 = 14. Paul was used to write not only salvation but DOUBLE perfection. With ALL THIS Paul never once wrote that he was the human head of the Church, nor did he ever state that Peter or any other man was the head of the Church under Christ. The nearest thing we can find in Paul's writings is the acknowledgement that some men were looked upon as leaders and pillars of strength in the Jerusalem church: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation....but privately to them which were of reputation. But of these who seemed to be somewhat...." Notice what Paul goes on to add to that statement, "whatever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person, for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me, and when JAMES, CEPHAS (Peter) and JOHN, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:1,2,6,9). It is I think more than interesting to note the order of the names of the individuals Paul stated "seemed to be somewhat" in the Jerusalem congregation - Peter's name does not appear first in line. If there is any significance to the order of names (and that question could be very debatable) and if Peter had been made head of the Church by Christ, then Paul was doing an injustice to Peter's authority by placing his name after that of James'. But the truth is, Paul is not stating in this passage that any ONE man was head of the Jerusalem church or the Church of God as a whole. There were leading men in the church at Jerusalem just as there would be in any other local church where there was a plurality of ministers. Yet that fact does not prove certain ministers "lorded it over" other ministers with dictatorial authority. While we are on the subject of the order of names as used in the NT I will take some time to answer the argument put forth by some concerning Paul and Barnabas. Some have claimed that Paul was "over" Barnabas - that Paul had authority over Barnabas. They have given as proof of this, the order of names. One Church of God organization in a piece of literature on Church Government admitted that before Acts 13 the name of Barnabas appeared BEFORE the name of Paul - see Acts 12:25 and 13:1,2. Then they went on to say that AFTER the Holy Spirit separated Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:1-3) for a special work, it was Paul's name that appeared before Barnabas' name. They quoted certain verses to prove this, thus claiming Paul had authority over Barnabas. The verses they gave were as, Acts 13:13,43,44-46,50; 15:2, 35. Now that looks pretty good IF you believe there is significance in the order of names, IF you believe the NT teaches an authority "pecking order" of ministerial structure, and IF YOU READ THE BIBLE WITH TUNNEL VISION! It blows my mind that some would try to prove a point of doctrine by giving you certain verses they claim shows the truth they preach WHILE WITHIN THE SAME CHAPTERS ARE VERSES PROVING THE OPPOSITE, if you believe the order of names has meaning in authority. Read carefully from Acts 13:4 all the way to chapter 15:35. Ah,ah, did you spot the verses that some glide right over with blinkers on their eyes? There's one in chapter 13:7. The name of Barnabas is put before the name of Paul, and that is AFTER verses 1-3. Another is in chapter 14:12. Yes Paul was the chief IN WHAT? He was the chief in speaking! Not authority! Paul like Peter was a fine speaker. All ministers are to be able to teach(1 Tim.3:2), they do not have to be great speakers or preachers. When conducting evangelistic meetings as Barnabas and Paul were doing it is only natural and wise to let the man with the gift of preaching do the speaking most of the time. Notice verse 14 of chapter 14. The name of Barnabas appears BEFORE that of Paul's. Then after Paul's name was put before that of Barnabas' in Acts 15:2 Luke (the writer of Acts) turns right around and places Barnabas' name BEFORE Paul's in verse 12. In verse 22 Paul's name is placed before Barnabas' by Luke, then in verse 25 he again reverses it and puts Barnabas' name first. Such is the folly of men who want to cling to false teachings and will not be corrected by the word of the Lord. They just do not have the "love of the truth" (2 Thes.2:10). From reading the first few chapters of the book of Galatians and the rest of the epistles of Paul, together with the book of Acts, one thing becomes very clear to those who have an honest heart and will accept the truth of the word. Paul acknowledged there was a work of the Lord coming from Jerusalem, an organization with leading men such as James and Peter, a work that belonged to God, preaching the same basic truths that he Paul and Barnabas and others were preaching. But not for one minute or one second did he ever believe God was not also using him and others to also do the "work of God." Paul believed with all his might that he was just as much an apostle as the twelve were. That he had just as much authority in Christ as any of the rest. It is clear from the writings of Paul that he did not believe in any hierarchy pyramid, one man down authoritarian Church of God government, where men ruled over men with dictatorial power. Paul respected other ministers who were truly called and faithful to God. Paul had deep love and respect for all of God's children, especially for those who went the extra mile in serving the brethren and doing "the work." Paul was a humble man, and God made sure he would stay that way by giving him a "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor.12:7-9). Paul was a submissive man, he was both submissive to God and to man. Concerning his submissiveness to other men/brethren, we can find many examples. A few will suffice. The account in Acts 9:23-25 was no doubt at the request of the disciples who did not want to see Paul killed. Notice the humility Paul exhibited even after being personally taught by Christ Jesus, in what he wrote in Galatians chapter 2:1-2 (with chap.1;12). He was willing to let other ministers examine his beliefs and teachings so nothing would be done in vain. He recognized they also had the Spirit of God and were able to ascertain truth from error. What an attitude! Think about it! Jesus had personally appeared to him on the road to Damascus and brought him to repentance and conversion. He had been personally taught by Christ. The Lord had given him many of the gifts of the Spirit. He had performed healings and miracles. Yet, this man was willing to be examined by some of the leading apostles to make sure he had not run, or should run, in some useless vain manner that would save no one. Now that is some beautiful heart and mind. Every minister who calls himself a minister of the Lord had better cultivate that attitude of Paul. He didn't go around acting like some pompous swell-headed "know it all" from the number one University of the country. He didn't proclaim to the world that he was the "only" apostle of God. He never claimed that it was him who had the final authority in the Church. Those who can not be like the apostle Paul are destined to find themselves wallowing in the mire of their own filthy vainness with whatever religious empire they established being taken away and given to others of more noble humility and character. How many ministers are willing to have their work and teachings and writings, examined for possible errors by other ministers filled with the Spirit of the Lord? In my experience I am ashamed to say, it is very few. Even when done in the right spirit of mind, most get their "back up" and think they are being "attacked" if someone questions their teaching as being correct. We may not all agree on every last little verse in the word of God, but we should endeavor to disagree without being "disagreeable." Paul was willing for other reputable ministers to examine the way he ran in the work of the Lord. Paul was willing to submit to other ministers when it was right and correct to do so. Another example of that can be found in Acts 21 and verses 17 through to 26. What was Peter's power and authority? Well, it was no more than Paul's! If Peter got out of line, if he was in complete error, if he was in the wrong and committing sin, then Paul had no hesitation in correcting him, and if need be in front of others at that (Gal.2:11-21). THE EARLY CHURCH AND COMMUNISM There are some people who have put themselves into a communal type of life. They all dress alike, eat together, work together and share equally their pooled wealth. Often Acts 4:32-37 and 5:1-11 are quoted to justify this way of living. Are these verses in Acts teaching this type of communistic life for Christians? In verse 32 the multitude of disciples said that their possessions they counted not just belonging to themselves but to others also. That is an attitude of SHARING! We must understand and remember that the Church was just starting - people were being converted by the hundreds and thousands(3, 000 on the day of Pentecost alone - Acts 2:41). They had found the truth of God, they would be excited, joyous, and naturally wanted to stay on in Jerusalem to rejoice with and fellowship with the disciples who had been with Jesus for three and one half years. Imagine the monumental task it would have been just to have fed and housed all those converts. They had come from all parts of the known world to observe the feast of Pentecost and were now converted to Christianity. Some were willing to sell their houses and lands to give help to those in need. They gave AS every man HAD NEED(v.45). Yes, those who had some real-estate were willing to sell some or all of it and give the money to the apostles who in turn gave that money to those in need as the situation arose. Even when they did sell a possession, it, the money, was still THEIRS to do with as led by the Holy Spirit. "As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And (even) after it was sold, was not(the money) at your disposal and under your control?......" (chapter 5:4, Amplified Bible). Ananias and Sapphira died because they LIED about the price, not because they were unwilling to practice communism (see chapter 5:3). The NT Church never taught a communistic life style. God's word teaches no such doctrine. But the word of the Lord does teach a GIVING and a SHARING. A HELPING your brother as he needs it (1 John 3:17-18). There was a need at that time in the Church's early beginning, an unusually LARGE need, and all who could and wanted to help, feed, clothe and house the brethren, did so readily. SEVEN ARE APPOINTED As the Church grew there would(as with any growing organization) naturally arise problems that would need resolving. This is the case as we start into the sixth chapter of Acts. Certain things were being neglected(v.1). This was brought to the attention of the apostles. They called the other disciples(many of them) and asked them to choose seven men, whom the total 12 apostles would agree to appoint over this matter of physical duties (v.l-4). These seven men were chosen from among the "multitude of the disciples." The apostles you will notice did lay down certain qualifications that were to be found in choosing the seven. But the initial choosing of these "diakonein" (today we call them deacons) was done by the multitude of disciples. No indication here of some head minister calling or appointing seven of his personal choosing. Even the twelve apostles did not do it all by themselves. They were quite confident that the other disciples were qualified to find men in whom was the Spirit of God, wisdom, and honesty. Perhaps in this situation the multitude of disciples were better qualified than the apostles in finding the right men, as they were more personally and intimately acquainted with these local men. Maybe they all lived in the same general area and attended the local synagogues together. Whatever the case, for this specific circumstance (which may or may not arise today) the apostles felt the congregation should get involved. There had to be some system for choosing these men, but we are not told what that system was they used. God merely gave us the principle - we then have the liberty under the same situation to work out the details. Perhaps all the disciples were asked to submit a name either orally or in writing. Maybe it was a "secret" ballot vote. Maybe some men even volunteered for the responsibility. Whatever the method, one thing is for sure, it was not some dictatorial man throwing his weight around who chose them. After this mutual search for the seven candidates it is important to notice that the whole group of 12 apostles appointed them to that duty. Verse three says: "whom WE MAY appoint over this business." I am sure that if the Holy Spirit had spoken to the twelve that one or more of the seven was not suitable, they would not have been appointed and the multitude would have had to find new candidates. What this means is that the bottom line, is that the ministers have the last word on those chosen for the duties of deacons. This was a special situation, a never before situation in the early life of the NT Church. It can not be used to claim the NT Church of God is to be run from the bottom up, the members picking by democratic vote their deacons and ministers. Many Protestant churches so operate this way, but not one verse in the NT can be found to support this view or practice. I have personally witnessed members of a Protestant church hiring ministers from a "preaching talent" contest, only they did not call it that as such, but an "invitation" to preach with respect to being hired. They chose a certain fellow who declined the offer to go to another church, and then offered the job to the runner up, who accepted. God, through the Holy Spirit, did things a certain way at the start of the NT Church within certain circumstances of context, because it was not already in place, and something needed to be done to solve the problem. Acts chapter six and verses one to seven was one of those contexts. Later God inspired Paul to set down for the minister Timothy and the Church of God, what specific qualifications were required for the Eldership and deaconship (1 Timothy 3:1-15). The word of God is clear that it is the already ordained Elders in the Church who have the last word on who they will lay their hands upon in ordination to Eldership or deaconship. The members may have some input to ascertain or to help the Elders ascertain that a man has basically reached the qualifications of 2 Timothy 3, but it is the Elders who must give the final decision, and it is their hands that are laid on the candidate. Any group of ministers within a local church or area of churches would know over a period of time, by "their fruits" the men whom God was calling to the ordained Eldership. The same principle would apply to those worthy of ordination to deaconship. In a less structured situation more help from the congregation could be needed to make sure 2 Timothy 3 was followed and met. And in those circumstances the words of Paul to Timothy(an already ordained Elder) would apply even more: "Lay hands suddenly on no man...."(1 Tim.5:22). To be continued   2. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed STEPHEN'S WORK One of the seven chosen men was a man called Stephen. It is written that he did great wonders and miracles(Acts 6:8). He is not called an Elder, he was one chosen to serve "tables" and the brethren in physical matters. Yet he did WONDERS and spoke very boldly. Stephen was given some of the gifts of God's Spirit that Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 12. In that passage of scripture Paul shows us that God can give through His Spirit, ANY of the different gifts listed to ANY member of the body of Christ, whether in the classified "ordained ministry" or not. Paul in discussing Spiritual gifts is talking to the whole congregation at Corinth not just the Elders (see chapters 12:27 and 1:1-10). We must always be careful not to "hand-cuff" the Lord in what we think He should or can do through any human being. At one point in Jesus' ministry the disciples found a man doing miracles in His name, and because he did not belong to their Group they asked Christ to give them permission to tell him to stop! Jesus said: "Do not forbid him to stop, for no one who does a mighty work in my name, will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39-40). How does this square you may ask with Jesus saying that there would be one shepherd and one fold? Quite simply this: All that are the children of God, with the Spirit of God, belong to the ONE spiritual body of Christ. The one true Church of God, the people of the Lord in whom is the Spirit of Christ are scattered all over the world, they are connected together through one spiritual organism called in scripture "the body of Christ" and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED in some physical BUILDING on some physical piece of paper, in a physical CITY in some COUNTRY on earth!! Here in the gospel of Mark is the plain truth that God can and does work with various persons in various parts of the country or world, AS HE CHOOSES! And these persons may or may not KNOW THE OTHERS EXIST! How vain and arrogant of man to think or proclaim to others that he and his work is the "only" work of God on the earth. I can think of only one man who could have claimed correctly to have been the only work of God on earth - that man was NOAH! Elijah, from an honest heart, believed he and his disciples were the only work of God on earth at the time, and in voicing this to God he was answered with a resounding NO! The Lord told him he was not the only work of God. The Lord had reserved 7,000 others who had not bowed the knee to Baal! Elijah DID NOT KNOW THEY EXISTED! How foolish is the heart of man at times. How deceivably pompous can the mind of man become, as to think God is limited to one man and/or one organization at a time, for His work to be done in the earth. God is God! Man is not God, we did not make Him, it was He who made us! He is the POTTER, we are now merely the clay. God can at ANY TIME He chooses, raise up as many persons and as many independent corporate organizations to do His work as He wishes. It is not we humans who tell God WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and with WHOM, He will work and do things. It is HE WHO TELLS US! One large Church of God organization in this 20th century, thought they were the only ones in the world doing the true work of God. They eventually adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of Church Government and their head leader called himself the "only apostle of God on earth." Back in the 60's before this "head-master" became so vain with personal glory, the organization did believe they were the only ones around with all "these wonderful truths" of God. Then a few of their ministers went to South America, into the hills and valleys. There to their amazement they found peoples who believed and practiced all the same basic doctrines they practiced and taught. These people even observed the festivals of God and in some ways had more truth than the USA organization, for they were observing the feast of Pentecost on a Sunday which the organization in the USA thought was error, but later came to see was the truth. When will we ever learn that it is not God who needs us, it is us who NEED GOD! Why if need be, the Lord could raise up the stones on the road to preach His word. That being the case He certainly is able to use different men and different corporate organizations in different parts of the world to do His work, all at the SAME TIME! Peter was used by God to do a work towards the circumcision, while Paul was used by the Lord to do a work towards the UNcircumcision - so it is written, so it was done. Well let me get back to the account in the book of Acts about Stephen. Certain of the religious leaders and their followers started to dispute with Stephen. Now he did not say that he had no authority to discuss religious matters with them. He did not run off to get permission from the chief apostle or Church board in Jerusalem. He just disputed with them. And he did it so effectively they could not withstand his wisdom. He was brought before the council and defended himself so well answering them with power and inspiration, it actually ended up costing him his life (Acts 7:54-60). Stephen did ALL OF THIS and there's not one word about him being ordained to some set "rank" of authority in the Church. At best he was appointed to serve "tables." This account alone (we shall see others later) should blow away the idea that deacons and lay members are to just "pray and pay" and leave the teaching and preaching and witnessing to the truths of God to the ordained Eldership. If the Lord chooses to use a deacon in a POWERFUL MIGHTY WAY for His truth and work, He will do so. And who is any man to withstand God? THE CHURCH IS SCATTERED One famous preacher of the Church of God in this century wrote a book before he died, and in it he had a section that he was going to prove to his readers and followers that the lay members were not to preach the gospel or go out expounding the word of God to the world in general. He was trying to prove from the scriptures that it was only the ordained ministers or elders of the Church that were given that commission. He used for the proof of his teaching verses from the beginning chapters of the book of Acts, some before and some after chapter eight. But like so many before him(and no doubt there will be others after him) who wandered off into doctrinal error, he took out the horse blinkers and wore them as he read the chapters he would get his so called "proof texts" from. He read right over and failed to show his readers a text that would have drilled holes in his doctrine to sink it to the bottom of the sea. That text friends is found in Acts 8. I want you to mark this in your Bible and never forget it! Let's begin with verse one: " And at that time(when Stephen was put to death) there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem; and THEY(the 'ekkleesia' - called out ones - the church) were ALL scattered abroad except the apostles." The CHURCH is made up of all the collective members in whom is the Spirit of God and Christ. The Church is not the ministry - the ministry is PART of the Church. The only part of the Church that was not scattered abroad were the 12 apostles. Now notice it, verse four: "Therefore they that were scattered abroad (all the members of the Church, all but the 12 apostles) went everywhere PREACHING THE WORD!" I did not put it there friend. It has been in your Bible all these centuries. It was there when this leader I talked about above wrote his book in which he tried to prove the exact opposite. There it is in plain black and white, easy to understand, no College degree needed. Under certain circumstances and as He wills, when He wills, God can use any members of His Church to PREACH THE WORD! So it is written, so it was done. God will not be limited by the wishes or false ideas of men. PHILIP PREACHES Among the seven of the "diakonate" of Acts 6, was a man named Philip. He also was given some mighty gifts of God's Spirit. He was not of the twelve apostles. He was not an ordained elder. But notice how the Lord used him: ".....then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and PREACHED Christ unto them" (Acts 8:5). He also did miracles and healings! (v.6-7). God used Philip to do a MIGHTY work in Samaria (v.8-12). This deacon did not have to get the "okay" from some head apostle before he went to do the work of the Lord. He did not have to ask his local minister/pastor for permission to be used by the Spirit of the Lord. The apostles in Jerusalem found out AFTER the fact what work Philip had done in Samaria, and then they as a collective decision, sent Peter and John to help out(v.l4). There is no indication or evidence in this section of scripture that Philip was performing spiritual works that were "out of rank" for his deaconship. That were only to be performed by some man ordained to some rank of ministry. This example alone should "blow to pieces" the idea that men are ordained to a rank ministry and have certain duties or workings they can not perform because those duties are only for "higher" ranked ministers. Such false teachings are derived from one Biblical error and one carnal human error. The Biblical error is found in ONLY looking to the Old Covenant and how God arranged things under that disposition, while ignoring the fact that today we are under a New Covenant and under that covenant certain changes have been made by God Himself (i.e. physical circumcision is not required, a change in the priesthood, no central city to worship God in, animal sacrifices not necessary). The New Covenant clearly shows by example and by direct teaching/commands, that the basic form of Old Church/State Government is not to be the order for the New Covenant Church of God during this present age. The carnal human error is that of the heart of man venting and taking pleasure in having dictatorial authority over other men, which in turn leads organizations to establish a "rank and file" system among its leaders. As Jesus said to His disciples, that is how the unconverted nations rule among themselves, but it was not to be so for His servants and followers. The Lord is plainly showing here in Acts chapter 8, that if He wants to take a deacon, or any man of the Church and use him to perform miracles or healings or preach the word some-where, He WILL DO SO! And He will do so without having to answer to any other human man He ordained to the Eldership or not, and certainly not answering to any man made rank system. After the work Philip did in Samaria, God gave him another assignment (v.26). He sent His angel to tell Philip to go to a certain place and to meet a man of great authority under the Queen of Ethiopia. Philip was used to expound the word of God more clearly to this eunuch and baptize (a deacon baptizing? Yes! And we shall see later that you did not even have to be a deacon to baptize people. Now that should blow a hole in more false doctrines of men) him into the very family of God (v.27-38). I hope you are seeing the truths of God as never before. Too many have been spoon fed, have had their thinking done for them, have allowed men to manipulate the scriptures without "proving all things and holding fast to that which is good." By reading the Bible with an open and clear mind, by willing to be corrected, the word of God and the Spirit of God will guild us into all truth and as Jesus said: "The truth shall make you FREE." Again, the lesson to learn, and God gives that lesson to us over and over again in the book of Acts, is to NEVER LIMIT the Lord, especially under the New Covenant. He will work whenever He wishes and with whosoever He chooses for the preaching of His gospel and the saving of souls. Another fine lesson here is that Philip did not become all puffed up and self sufficient. At this juncture in his converted life he did not know everything. He did not realize he had to lay hands upon those he had baptized for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Peter and John taught him that when they came (v.14-17). Philip was humble and worked with other men of God. Do you see the TEAMWORK going on here in the early NT Church of God? In passing, and while I'm talking about the "laying on of hands" after baptism for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Some may say that this example of Philip shows that it is only the ordained Elders (Peter and John) that can perform this duty and function. The very next example God gives us of Philip in the same chapter shows this thought to be incorrect! Philip ALONE, without Peter and John, is taken to meet the Ethiopian eunuch. He only is used to teach him more clearly the word of God. It is only Philip that the Lord uses to baptize this man. No ministers (ordained/appointed) or apostles from Jerusalem came along with Philip to lay hands on this eunuch after he was baptized. From the experience in Samaria concerning the laying on of hands, Philip would have known now that he should do likewise, after baptizing someone. Before leaving this chapter and its examples and lessons, there is one more thing to meditate on. The eunuch went back to Ethiopia as a converted Christian, filled with the Spirit of God. He was in a position of great authority (in the world of the Ethiopian nation). He would have been very excited about his new found truth. Do you think he would have been totally silent about it? Do you believe he would never have shared the truth of God with anyone in his nation, and others of importance in the government? I believe he would have been used by God to do a mighty work in Ethiopia for the spreading, teaching, and preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit was very very active in those days within the Church of God, the world was being turned upside-down. Paul and others were later accused of that very thing - turning the world upside-down with their teaching and preaching. God must never be hand-cuffed in what He can do, when He can do it, and by whom He can do it! PAUL IS CONVERTED TO CHRIST On the way to Damascus to persecute the people of God, Saul (later known as Paul) is struck down by a blinding light and hears Jesus speaking to him. Blinded, Paul is brought to Damascus where he is three days without food or drink (Acts 9:1-9). God sent a man called Ananias, a disciple (the usual Greek word for the word 'disciple') not an apostle or elder, to heal Paul and to baptize him (v.10-18). Here is a clear example of a disciple or a follower of Christ, used by God to heal, to baptize, to lay hands upon a new convert into the family of God and receive the Holy Spirit. Saul or Paul was converted to Christ. He had a religious background in Judaism, but now the clear truth of God's word was revealed to him. The scriptures he had grown up on began to take on new meaning. Paul did not now run off to some supposed "head quarters" Church of God to come under their authority. He tells us in the book of Galatians that Christ personally had him go to Arabia and there He taught him. Then after returning to Damascus for some unspecified time (from his conversion to returning to Damascus was 3 years) he went to Jerusalem for a very short period and visited only Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:11-20). This whole account shows a somewhat "no rush" no "big concern" on Paul's part to get "in line" with those in the Jerusalem congregation. It reminds me of the people I told you about earlier in South America that the famous USA Church of God found observing all the same basic doctrines as themselves. I told you this happened in the late 60's. Well the USA organization sent ministers back to them asking them to be a part of their work and organization, and acknowledge their head leader as God's end time "man of the moment." It was reported to the USA Church of God headquarters that they were just laughed at and told: "God we know, Christ we know, and Paul, Peter, James, but who is....(the leaders name, which I will not give here)." I well remember from the publication of this USA organization's inner magazine to its members (I was a part of them) the article about discovering the existence of these people in South America. Then like hot coals of fire nothing was ever said about them again. It was many years later, when I was personally talking to one of the very ministers who was sent to visit them, I found out why the USA organization forgot about them and went on as if they never existed. The South American people of God had not only never heard of the Lord's supposed human "king pin" leader, but they were not about to believe he was God's only "apostle" for the end time, either. The South American Church of God were not only correct about keeping the feast of Pentecost on a Sunday, but they have also been proved correct that God does not work through one "minister" or apostle (if you want to use that word) at a time. For that minister of the USA organization was never alone in what he taught and preached (other ministers of his day in the Church of God believed and taught the same truths, but went their separate way. I now have the facts to prove that is true), is history. New light and evidence is coming all the time that proves God has worked with different ministers, in different parts of the world, often during the same time frame, who did not always know the others existed, but were teaching, preaching, and practicing, the same basic doctrines, which often included the observance of all the festivals of God as recorded in Leviticus 23. A great deal of historical Church of God Sabbath-keepers and related history has been done and is continuing to be done by Richard Nickels. His books and articles can be obtained by writing to: Giving and Sharing, PO Box 100, Neck City, MO 64849.  Richard has since died when I wrote this study, so his writings may not exist. Paul, it is true, was a unique individual, with a unique calling to conversion and into the ministry of Christ Jesus. His calling was directly with signs and wonders, and personal visitations from Jesus. No man was needed to ordain/appoint Paul as a minister of the Lord. No ceremony of ordination in front of others wherein men already in the ministry would lay hands on him and so induct him as an Elder of the Church. So, yes, God can do it that way IF He so chooses. After all He is God. He is the potter and we are the clay. But that is not the way the Lord does it MOST of the time. The book of Acts and Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus, show that God works through other ministers to ordain men to the ministry of Jesus Christ (Acts 14:23), with at times input from the congregation. As the Church grew spiritually and in literal membership and appointed ministers/elders, God gave Paul inspired instruction for the Church about the basic qualifications needed for any one to be ordained to the pastor/eldership or deaconship (1 Tim.3; Titus 1). Such an undertaking is very serious business. So serious in fact that it is not surprising we have two other very important scriptures on this matter in the NT. The one is found in - 1 Timothy 5:22. The other in James chapter 3 and verse 1. Please read this second one in the Amplified Bible translation, and see some of the Bible Commentaries. PAUL ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he wanted to join himself to the disciples, but they were afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). We have seen from Paul himself in the book of Galatians that it was three years from the time of his conversion to the FIRST time he went to Jerusalem. You may like to review this in Galatians 1:11-20. It was a relatively short visit it would seem, although we can not be sure of that. Paul says he abode with Peter for 15 days. He does not tell us the exact length of his stay in Jerusalem. He stayed with Peter for 15 days but he may well have stayed with other brethren also, Paul just does not give us all the details. After that visit to Jerusalem Paul was in no hurry to return. It was to be 14, yes, fourteen years later before he went back to that city - Galatians 2:1. And from the following verse we see that he did not keep in very close communication with the apostles and/or those in reputation at the place where it all started, for, he was willing as we have seen to let them examine his gospel among the Gentiles. That would strongly indicate a severe lack on his and their part as to what they and Paul had been doing/teaching and preaching over that period of 14 years. Obviously from all this Paul and those who worked with him such as Barnabas, felt God was working with them just as much as with those in Jerusalem. They did not feel the necessity or that it was a doctrine of God, that one human man was in authority over the Church and that they had to report to him, or get permission to do this or that in the work of the Lord from some board of men in a certain city. Many believe the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 came after this second visit of Paul to Jerusalem. We shall look at that important chapter of the book of Acts later. So what are some of the lessons we can gain from the calling, teaching, and preaching of Paul? First: God is able and free to raise up any man at any time for the work of the Kingdom and preaching of salvation. God is able to reveal His truths to any person, at any point in time, and in any area of the world, regardless of who else God may be using at the same time. The overwhelming NT examples show that in this age of the New Covenant, the Lord does not work with just one dominant leader in His Church, that no one man has dictatorial authority over the other ministers or members. In this age God is using various ministers with spiritual gifts and abilities as the Holy Spirit imparts. Second: Those that God calls to the work of the ordained ministry will, as led by the Spirit, work together in small or large teamwork groups. Peter did not work as a single self-sufficient minister, neither did the apostle Paul. Their work was not always in the same area throughout their lives, and they did not always have exactly the same ministers to work with in their close immediate circle, but co-operate and work with other servants of the Lord they most assuredly did do. None of the apostles or elders believed or taught that any man was an "island unto themselves." They all knew that "iron sharpens iron" and the inspired proverb: "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov.11:14). Third: The Lord directly called and ordained Paul to the ministry. There is no evidence that he was ordained by other human men. God is free to so ordain/appoint if He chooses, but this is clearly by the teaching and examples of the NT, an exception to the norm. God has established in the New Covenant by example and direct command that men are appointed to the Eldership by other Elders and by meeting certain qualifications. MINISTERS ARE SENT Acts chapter ten again shows us God directly inspiring and working with a man, without that man having to give account of his every move to other men. Peter is sent to the Gentiles to bring salvation to them. There was within the early Church freedom to work where the Holy Spirit directed. God's Spirit should never be hand-cuffed by over organization. It is written: "Quench not the Spirit........ where the Spirit of the Lord is there is l i b e r t y" (1 Thes.5:19; 2 Cor.3:17). Then on the other side of the coin liberty is to be used carefully (James 2:12). As we have seen, God wants a respectful, loving, servant attitude within His ministry and Church. He does not want a minister or group of ministers "bossing about" with high-handed conceit, another minister/s. Yet, He also does not want a high-handed "one man show" attitude from any single minister of His either. Those that had gone forth from Jerusalem preaching the word (Acts 8:4) had great fruits to show for it (see Acts 11:21). So much so that the Church in Jerusalem, "sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch" (v.22). This shows us that a Church does have the right to ask a minister to undertake a special assignment. I say ask, because I do not see where they can demand - not within the Spirit of the Lord anyway. Notice verse 25, Barnabas acting within his liberty as a servant of God, goes to find Paul in Tarsus and brings him back to Antioch, where they stay for a whole year as teachers of God's word (v.26). In the 13th chapter of Acts we see the Holy Spirit leading within a congregation of God's people. A job was to be done - not a lot of ''red tape'' required - just be guided by the Spirit, send the men with a special blessing (this was not an ordination to the ministry - they were already ministers) and get out there and do the work. For a time they also had John Mark with them (v.l-13). The next point we need to note is in chapter 14:23, ''And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting." We find that FASTING and PRAYER accompanied ordination. Fasting and prayer by the minister/s who were to ordain to the Eldership other men was a serious undertaking which required serious preparation and meditation. In keeping with Titus 1:5 and Acts 20:17 we see that a plurality of Elders were ordained in every church. It would seem that the Lord is telling us that He wants to safeguard His sheep by shepherding them with more than one shepherd to each fold. This would minimize to some extent a wolf in sheep's clothing coming and devouring the flock. I said minimize, not completely stop it, as seen by what Paul said in Acts 20:29,30. We must remember all of these examples can only be applied when there are many churches, with many converts, and with many qualified men who could be appointed to the Eldership. Any combination of the above factors could mean that it may not be possible to have a plurality of ministers in a single congregation. Obviously there did not seem to be a large problem for Paul and Barnabas to ordain elders - plural, in the churches, at that time. It will be asked: "Does not this verse contradict what Paul taught Timothy (1 Tim.3:6; 5:22)?" Remember that in many of these towns where Paul and Barnabas taught, there were older Jews or Gentile proselytes who were very well versed in the scriptures and could not be looked upon as novices by any means. As far as not being in a hurry to ordain, we need to keep in mind that when Paul gave that instruction to Timothy, the Christian Church had to a large extent established itself in growth and structure. Here they were at the beginning of a new era, different circumstances do warrant different methods at times within the liberty of God's law. At the start of the NT Church era it would, for the sake of stability among the new converts, be very important to have established leaders. They did not have Radio, VCR, TV, Conference Call phone lines, or Cassette tapes. THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE This part of Acts - chapter 15 - is of great value to us for the understanding of how the NT Church of God worked as a team on difficult issues. There is much in this chapter for our edification. 1. Important doctrinal issues that effect the individual as well as the stability of the Church as a whole, will arise from time to time. Because differences arise which must be "ironed out" does not mean the Church of God is not the body of Christ. It is HOW those issues are resolved that proves the true character and people of God. 2. Ministers from the various parts of the land and earth, came together in conference at a designated location (verses 1-6). 3. The indications from verses 12,22,23,25, is that the conference was an open forum with congregational members present. Certainly the decision reached was approved by the whole congregation. 4. There was much disputing. Time was given for all to speak (v.7). 5. It would seem from verse 19 that James played a leading role - maybe presiding as chairman. It was he that gave the "judgement" that everyone agreed was the correct one. This by on means teaches that James was head apostle, like a Pope of the Church of God. As Paul had written to the Galatians, James was of reputation and a pillar in the Jerusalem assembly, together with Peter and John. If James was presiding as chairman, with his wisdom and leadership abilities, it is only natural he would have seen the "truth of the matter" and summed it all up as to what the Holy Spirit was guiding them to do. 6. We notice that there was no voting on doctrinal issues. It was not a case of the majority wins. God's truths that are clearly taught by the word are not up for "voting on." 7. The truth was arrived at by two criterion: (a) By what God had done through the Holy Spirit (b) By what the scriptures plainly taught (verses 7-12 and 13-18). PAUL AND BARNABAS SEPARATE In verses 36-41 of Acts 15 we have recorded the different opinions of two ministers, differences that could not at that time be resolved, and which resulted in the two men who had worked together for some time in the gospel, separating and going their different ways to do the work of God. What are the lessons we can learn from this? 1. It was not a difference in doctrine over-which Paul and Barnabas separated, but what we would call today administration - who was going with whom to do "the work." 2. Where administration of the work of the Lord is not defined by or in opposition to the word of the Lord, FREEDOM is allowed. Yet within that freedom men's ideas and personalities may on occasion - clash! In most cases it should be able to be solved, but this was one time it could not. 3. Paul and Barnabas remained servants and apostles of God. Both continued to do the work of the gospel. 4. Despite the weaknesses and differences of men, God is able to work with and in them, often turning what may appear to us as adversity into VICTORY for Him. Truly, the Lord works in mysterious ways at times His wonders to perform. 5. Neither Paul nor Barnabas took their disagreement to a higher court of Elders, or some "chief" apostle over them, to try and get the other "black listed" or kicked out of the ministry or disfellowshipped. IN RETROSPECT What can we see as we look back on our study? I will list 10 points that I see. 1. Jesus calling His ministers and telling them that, no ONE individual or small "board" of individuals would have total dictatorial control and authority over the entire Church of God or other Elders. Jesus taught that he who thought himself more important and above the rest, had better be the greater humbler servant to all. 2. A Church and ministry that was filled with the POWER of the Holy Spirit. A driving zeal to get on with spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God. 3. As the Church grew and the physical burden increased, the establishing of an ordained/appointed " Deacon - servant" ministry (Acts 6) to help take care of such matters. 4. We see that the gifts of God's Spirit were boundless, given freely as He saw fit, to the Elders (Acts chapters 2-5), to the Deacons(Acts chapters 6-8), and to the whole membership of saints (1 Cor.12 and 14). 5. God directly called others to the apostleship and ministry (Acts 9). And ministers ordained other men to the ministry (Acts 14:23). 6. Local churches and elders that had a great deal of freedom within the law of God (Acts 11:19-26; 13:1-13). 7. Churches raised up with ordained elder S - (plural, Acts 14:23). 8. Brethren, Deacons, and Elders held together with the common bond of the Holy Spirit, the love of God, and the same basic fundamental truths of the word. 9. Major doctrinal issues resolved by ministerial conferences with the members of the host congregation in attendance, and participating in the decisions (Acts 15). lO. A Church not handcuffed or weighed down with over organization. In closing this section of our study I must, because of recent abuse within certain parts of the Church of God, re-emphasize the teaching of Jesus about a humble servant attitude that all His ministers and followers were to have towards one another and towards the spiritually blinded of the world. Satan has devastated parts of the body of Christ in the last 30 years because this humble servant attitude was not maintained by some Elders, and the sin of vain, authoritarian power and dictatorial rulership was exhibited by various ministers over other ministers and the brethren. The words of Phillip Keller (a one time keeper of sheep) are fitting at this point in our study. I will quote from chapter 3 of his book: A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23. We pick it up as he is talking about the requirements needed for sheep to lie down. "The second source of fear from which the sheepman delivers his sheep is that of tension, rivalry, and cruel competition within the flock itself. In every animal society there is established an order of dominance or status within the group. In a penful of chickens it is referred to as the 'pecking order.' With cattle it is called the 'horning order.' Among sheep we speak of the 'butting order.' Generally an arrogant, cunning and domineering old ewe will be boss of any bunch of sheep. She maintains her position of prestige by butting and driving other ewes or lambs away from the best grazing or favorite bedgrounds. Succeeding her in precise order the other sheep all establish and maintain their exact position in the flock by using the same tactics of butting and thrusting at those below and around them..........Because of this rivalry, tension, and competition for status and self-assertion, there is friction in a flock. The sheep can not lie down and rest in contentment. Always they must stand up and defend their rights and contest the challenge of the intruder.......... This continuous conflict and jealousy within the flock can be a most detrimental thing. The sheep become edgy, tense, discontented and restless. They lose weight and become irritable. But one point that always interested me very much was that whenever I came into view and my presence attracted their attention, the sheep quickly forgot their foolish rivalries and stopped their fighting. The shepherd's presence made all the difference in their behavior....... In any business firm, any office, any family, any community, any church, any human organization or group, be it large or small, the struggle for self-assertion and self-recognition goes on. Most of us fight to be 'top sheep.' We butt and quarrel and compete to 'get ahead.' And in the process people get hurt......... In contrast to this, the picture in the Psalm shows us God's people lying down in quiet contentment.......The endless unrest generated in the individual who is always trying to 'get ahead' of the crowd, who is attempting always to be top man or woman on the totem pole, is pretty formidable to observe. In His own unique way, Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd, in His earthly life pointed out that the last would be first and the first last. In a sense I am sure He meant first in the area of His own intimate affection. For any shepherd has great compassion for the poor, weak sheep that get butted about by the more domineering ones. More than once I have strongly trounced a belligerent ewe for abusing a weaker one. Or when they butted lambs not their own I found it necessary to discipline them severely, and certainly they were not first in my esteem for their aggressiveness. Another point that impressed me, too, was that the less aggressive sheep were often far more contented, quiet and restful. So that there were definite advantages in being 'bottom sheep.' But more important was the fact that it was the Shepherd's presence that put an end to all rivalry. And in our human relationships when we become acutely aware of being in the presence of Christ, our foolish, selfish snobbery and rivalry will end. It is the humble heart walking quietly and contentedly in close and intimate companionship of Christ that is at rest.......When my eyes are on the Master they are not on those around me. This is the place of peace. And it is good and proper to remind ourselves that in the end it is He who will decide and judge what my status really is. After all, it is His estimation of me that is of consequence. Any human measurement at best is bound to be pretty unpredictable, unreliable, and far from final " (A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, pages 31-33).  End quote           To be continued. First written 1983. Re-written and revised 1996.           ...........................              3. Church Government           What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed LOCAL CHURCHES As the NT Church started to grow - first in Jerusalem - the Lord began to show that the ministers (12 apostles) should not undertake to try and do all the spiritual AND all the physical duties. Seven, wise, Spirit filled men were chosen to take care of "this business" (the physical duties) so the apostles (ministers) could "give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:1-4). The FORM of local Church Government began in Jerusalem. There was always more than one Elder ruling or guiding (and it is the ministers who guide the church, not a board of deacons, or congregational members, see Heb.13:7,17; 1 Tim.3:1-5, 14-15; 4:11-16) the Jerusalem congregation. Paul acknowledged to the Galatians, some such as James, Peter, John, were of reputation and seemed to be 'somewhat' in Jerusalem. He stated they were pillars, but he never stated they (James,Peter,John) had all power and dictatorial authority in all matters within the church at Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church was large in numbers. There were other apostles there besides the three mentioned by Paul. There were no doubt also other Elders there also, who had been ordained after the Holy Spirit had come on the feast of Pentecost. Nowhere can we find by teaching or example that any NT church was under the dominance of a few self appointed demagogues, not within the ranks of God's true ministers anyway. We can find a false minister ruling like a Hitler, one of the churches and casting out the true brethren, see 3 John 9-10. The Church of God at Jerusalem was a fine example for all churches to follow in the apostolic age. It is the ideal left for us also, as is the church at Philippi. There is no teaching in the NT that one man was to have all the authority over a local church. Instead the example is all churches were guided by a plurality of Elders! Never, if at all possible, should the guidance of a church be placed in the hands of just one individual. The person on whom everything depends might acquire too great an importance, become the center, the "king pin" and eventually distract the believer from looking to the one and only true leader - Christ Jesus. Human nature is such that it is just too easy for man to start following another man (it happened to the people in Corinth - 1 Cor.1:12) and POWER can turn the head of even a true minister of God if he alone has all authority. It does happen! It has happened even during this twentieth century in the Church of God. It is indeed a true saying that goes, "Power corrupts, and complete power corrupts completely." Each NT church was pastored and governed by a plurality of Elders as the following scriptures show: When Paul and Barnabas had completed a tour through a number of places, we are told that, "....they ordained them elder-s (plural) in every church" (Acts 14:19-23). While at Miletus, Paul, "....sent to Ephesus and called the elder-s (plural) of the church" (Acts 20:17). The letter to the church at Philippi is addressed, "....to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishop-s......" or overseers, elders - plural (Phil.l:l). To the church at Thessalonica it was written, "We beseech you brethren to know them (plural) who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you" (1 Thes.5:12). Titus was to ordain elder-s(plural) in every city (Titus 1:5). The activities of the Jerusalem church were carried on by elder-s (plural), see Acts 15:1,2. And those who were sick were instructed to call for the elder-s(plural) of the church for prayer and anointing (James 5:14,15). So clearly taught in the NT scriptures is this pattern, it is hard to understand why so much of Christianity ever departed from it. But then so many truths of the word of God have been departed from by so many. We need also to be honest with the instructions and examples left us by the NT church and admit that, there is no evidence to support the idea that churches were governed by the lay members. Lay persons were not authorized by God to ordain, to hire, to fire ministers. They could bring their serious complaints about a minister to another minister for judgement and corrections (1 Tim.5:19,20). The lay members could not vote on what would be the doctrines of the Church of God. They could be present at important ministerial conferences as seen from Acts 15 and given proper respect by all. What could the lay member do if after taking their grievances of an Elder/s apostasy into sin or doctrinal error to other ministers and no repentance was forthcoming, and the local church was falling into practicing unrighteousness? They could leave that minister/s and attend a congregation where the elder/s were faithful to the Lord and truth was being practiced. I also realize today that it can be very difficult in some small Churches of God to find men(plural) who are called to function as Elders. Often it is fortunate if there is ONE who has met the qualifications given by Paul in 1 Tim.3. If there is only one man who can be appointed as elder, what can be done to safe guard against corruptions and vanity, on the elders part, and idolizing him on the part of the congregational members. Here are a few suggestions. 1. A single local pastor/overseer together with the congregation should diligently search for, find and maintain, contact (via letter, e-mail, tapes, magazines, phone etc.) with other Elders in other local churches. This should be done to inter-act as much as time and distance allows, so the single Elder church is not isolated. 2. A single Elder congregation should try as distance and expenses allow, to have other Elders from churches with the same beliefs, visiting and speaking and fellowshipping with them. 3. The one Overseer church must make sure that the Pastor is using the gifts of the Spirit to the fullest, as given to the saints. A true Elder under these circumstances will help, teach, train, give every opportunity for other men to be used of the Lord as the Eternal wills, and so the door is always open for more men within that congregation to be called and appointed to the Eldership ministry. He will regularly be encouraging the congregation to keep praying that "God will send more laborers into the harvest." Local men who can meet the qualifications of 1 Tim.3 and so join him in the Eldership. THE EXAMPLE OF PHILIPPI Paul founded the church at Philippi - his first in Europe - during his second missionary journey (Acts 16). As we read the first and last number of verses in chapter four, it is clear that there was a special spirit of love and giving between Paul and the brethren in Philippi. Notice the governmental structure of the church there: "Paul and Timotheus to all the SAINTS (believers) in Christ Jesus, with the BISHOPS (elders/pastors) and DEACONS (servants)" (Phil.l:l). There were OVERSEERS (Bishops/Elders)-plural, governing the church at Philippi. There were DEACONS (plural) serving the church, and there were all the SAINTS (plural) at Philippi. The church founded by Paul followed the example that the Jerusalem church years earlier had been guided to adopt - a plurality of ministers to oversee the spiritual and physical work of the Lord - a plurality of deacons to administer the physical duties of the church under the Elders. Both groups working to serve the saints of the church, and ALL working together to spread the gospel to the entire world as their means allowed them, and as the gifts of the Spirit were distributed among all present. All of this done with love and respect of each other. That's how it was between Paul and the church at Philippi - that's the example - that's the ideal for us to follow! THE OVER VIEW As shocking as it may sound to some, the NT never designates one particular town or city as "headquarters." There are no such words as "the headquarters of the Church in Jerusalem" in the NT. Not one writer even came close to claiming Jerusalem as the "headquarters church" or any such title. If any did think it was Jerusalem because the "temple" stood there, then God put an end to that idea in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the temple under the Roman boot. As Jesus said to the woman at the well: ".....believe me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain nor yet in Jerusalem, worship the Father........the hour comes and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him" (John 4:21-23). The NT never designates any one man as chief apostle or elder. All were equal as ministers, showing mutual submission and humble respect to each other (1 Peter 5:1-5). All were individually free to do God's work as led by the Holy Spirit and within the bounds of the law of the Lord, yet all worked together (as best they could for the age they lived in, and their differing personalities and callings and gifts) to "make disciples of all nations." From the writings of Paul, and examples of the book of Acts, we see different Church of God congregations working together to serve the brethren (when in times of need during periods of famine) and the ministers. There is no way to close our eyes to the fact that the body of believers during the apostolic age were divided into various Church of God "camps." You had the work that the Jerusalem church was doing. You had the work that God called Peter to do (and probably others with him) - going to the circumcision. You had the work that Paul and Barnabas were called to do by the Holy Spirit. Then later the work Paul (and others with him) did to the uncircumcised. There was the work Barnabas went off to do(and no doubt some others with him). I am sure the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip baptized did a work in Ethiopia. Apollos had his work in the Lord. It is clear in Paul's epistles, some were "with him" in the work God was doing in "that branch" of the Church. Some were with him in a "somewhat" way, others with an "off and on" way, while some were fully 100% all the way with Paul and his "work of the Lord." There were brethren who were probably 100% with the branch of the work that Peter was doing. Others were fully behind Apollos and that branch of God's work. Barnabas I'm sure had his faithful supporters. If they had lived in our 20th century their work of God and supporters would probably have legally registered as a charitable work with the government and country they were living in, whereby also having a legal name. So the many branches of the Church of God today is not really so new after all. The apostolic age was very similar in many respects to our age concerning the working of the whole body of Christ. God, through Paul only took exception to this somewhat natural way of man and circumstances, when it exhibited itself in carnal sin. When the brethren allowed puffed up vanity, pride, and arrogance to dominate their attitude into thinking their little branch of the body of Christ was the only true work of God on earth, and the only place where the Spirit of the Lord could be found. When brethren started to look down their long vain noses at other brethren. When some started to "compare" men with men, and ministers with ministers. When they thought and voiced that their group and their ministers were "the greatest" and beyond that to the "only ones" then Paul was inspired to CORRECT them without pulling any punches, see 1 Cor.1:10-31; 3:1-23; 4:1-21. Read the above sections of scripture in a modern translation. Let the corrective words sink deep into your mind. Realize what was going on and the carnal party spirit being exalted. Paul had to painstakingly prove to them that Christ was "in charge" of His work. All true ministers of God such as Peter, Apollos, and he Paul, belonged to Christ and were being used where, and in what way, with what gifts they had been given, to do the will and work of Jesus. What a sad commentary is todays branches of the true Church of God. While most of them preach and teach the same basic truths and doctrines of the Lord, too many of them (their members and ministers) act as if they had no idea there were other branches of the vine out there, and many of those branches came from the very same single branch at one time, the ministers all being a part of the parent ministry. Now many of them display an attitude of contempt and disdain towards each other, even to the point of pretending the others do not exist. The local churches were not governed/ruled/cared for, by one head elder or by a "church board" of deacons or church persons, but by a plurality of elders who were the bishops or overseers, and who were helped by the servants of the "diakonate" - deacons who administered the physical duties under the guidance of the ministers, and who served the saints, respecting them as also part of the team (again I refer you to Acts 15). Each local church supported the local elders and other ministers (out in the mission field) with their everyday needs (personal and for the gospel) as the word of God instructed and their generosity (over and above their duty) allowed. We today do live in an age that in many respects is far different than the first century A.D. One of those differences is we have the power to MASS evangelize via Radio, TV, Video, and Magazines. Someone must have the responsibility to function in those work stations if they are used to spread the gospel. The Holy Spirit gives gifts of wisdom, knowledge, helps, and governments (1 Cor. 12). It is then only common logic and correct administration to appoint to the work of mass evangelism, those who have the talent and gifts to do such work for the Church. Every person in the body of Christ has a part to play as Paul so thoroughly explained in 1 Corinthians 12. Everyone is not the hand, everyone is not the head, everyone is not the foot. The body is not one member but many, yet the many members make one body. Everyone is needed and necessary for the harmonious function of the body. This is a truth, yet it is also a truth that the elders collectively have the oversight and pastorship (shepherds serving and caring for the sheep of the flock) for the whole body and for the whole work of that body. We need to meditate on the words of Paul as found in Ephesians 4:11-16. I will quote those word here as given by the Amplified Bible. "And His gifts were (varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us) some to be apostle(special messengers), some prophets(inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, travelling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers. His intention was the perfecting and full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), (that they should do) the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church), (That it might develop) until we all attain oneness in the faith and in the comprehension of the full and accurate knowledge of the Son of God; that (we might arrive) at really mature manhood - the completeness of personality which is nothing less than the standard height of Christ's own perfection - the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ, and the completeness found in Him. So then, we may no longer be children, tossed (like ships) to and fro between chance gusts of teaching, and wavering with every changing wind of doctrine, (the prey of) the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men, (gamblers engaged) in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead. Rather, let our lives lovingly express truth in all things - speaking truly, dealing truly, living truly. Enfolded in love, let us grow up in every way and in all things into Him, Who is the Head, (even) Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. For because of Him the whole body (the church, in all its various parts closely) joined and firmly knit together by the joints and ligaments with which it is supplied, when each part (with power adapted to its need) is working properly (in all its function), grows to full maturity, building itself up in love." THE MINISTRY - ITS FUNCTIONS We read about elders, bishops, apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Do these names refer to different offices of RANK within the church? By a careful study of the scriptures and the Greek NT, the word of God shows that EVERY minister of the Church is a bishop and pastor as well as a teacher and elder. Consider the following evidence from the scriptures on this point: Paul instructed Titus, "Ordain elders in every city as I have appointed you" (Titus 1:5). Then Paul went ahead and explained the qualifications of these elders and said that an elder is a bishop (v.7). Note the word "for" connects verse 7 with verses 5 and 6. Plainly the elders in each local church in every city were bishops which in the Greek means "overseer." This is quite different from the commonly assumed idea that a bishop bears rule and authority over a group of churches or less important ministers. This truth is also seen in Acts the twentieth chapter. Paul, "....sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the church...."(v.17). Then in speaking to these elders he said: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS (bishops - same Greek as in Titus)" verse 28. So again we see that elders and bishops are the same! Then Paul exhorted these elders of Ephesus, "to feed" (Greek means pastor) "the church of God...." These elders from Ephesus then were referred to as bishops, and pastors as well as elders. All of these expressions referring to the SAME office or function. Then any minister of God, can at any time, be referred to as, i.e. elder Jones, or pastor Jones, or bishop Jones. He is all these words mean from the moment of his ordination, regardless as to whether he is overseeing one or more individuals or one or more local churches. The above truths can be studied in such works as "Word Studies in the New Testament" by Robinson, Earle, and other Greek scholars. APOSTLES, PROPHETS, EVANGELISTS, PASTORS AND TEACHERS? Where do they fit into all this? Are they RANKS within the ministry? Notice! "And God has set some in the Church, first apostles, secondary prophets, thirdly teachers (l Cor.12:28). In Ephesians 4:11 Paul adds "evangelist" after prophets, and expands teachers to "pastors and teachers." We have seen that all elders are pastors and bishops and overseers. They are also teachers, for we see that one of the qualifications for a bishop is that he is able to teach - l Timothy 3:2. Pastors and Teachers are the same - an ordained/appointed minister - an elder. But not ALL elders were apostles or prophets or evangelists in the strictest sense of those words. It is something like this: All people living in the USA are Americans, but not all Americans are Californians. Who decides which man will be an apostle, or prophet, or evangelist? Do men, other ministers pick an individual and ordain him to the "rank" of prophet, or evangelist, or apostle? THERE IS NO VERSE IN THE ENTIRE NT TO UPHOLD SUCH AN IDEA. If it is for man to so do then truly it would be a ministry built on rank. But what says the word of God? "And God (not man) HAS SET some in the Church." God alone must determine who does what function in the ministry. True, God uses His Holy Spirit to lead and inspire other ministers concerning various functions that some elders will perform as needed in the Church and as their individual gifts allow. Such is an example in Acts 13 with Barnabas and Paul. And there may be certain prayers offered and a special laying on of hands dedication for the work to be undertaken, BUT you will notice in that example no person was ordained to another "rank" of ministerial authority and power over other ministers. Nor can any example of any Roman Catholic Church type rank ministers be found in the NT. Some minister/s may ASK and REQUEST another minister to perform or undertake a certain task or job, but the minister has the right to accept or refuse, God being the guide and his individual circumstances coming into consideration. Again, there should be an attitude of loving co-operation and understanding on all sides. Maybe much prayer is needed, sometimes prayer together with fasting is called for. All circumstances must be considered including those of the wife of the minister called upon by others. Certainly the life of a minister of God and his wife (who is also a part of his ministry) is a life of service to the flock of the fold, but in some branches of the Church of God there has in the past been too much "barking" and ordering around of each other as if some were masters over puppy-dogs. Loving respect tied together with humility is what Jesus wants from all His servants as they work together to feed the sheep and make disciples of all nations. GOD HAS SET SOME in the Church, "FIRST (not in rank but function in spreading the gospel) apostles, SECONDARY (in function in proclaiming the good news) prophets (and evangelist added in Eph.4:11), THIRDLY (in function not rank) teachers (pastors in general, Eph.4:11), after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps (deacons), governments (those with good business and administrative skills), different tongues"(1 Cor.12:28). A STUDY OF FUNCTIONS In studying the Greek words and examples in the NT on the various functions of the ministry, I believe we can come to these basic conclusions: 1. An APOSTLE was never an office of absolute, dictatorial authority, but was "one sent" to preach the truths of the Kingdom of God to a large area. As such it was a calling and commission to do God's work, not some lofty rank within the Church. Peter was an apostle and also an elder, as was John also (1 Pet.l:l; 5:1; 3 John 1). 2. PROPHETS were either inspired fore-tellers of events(such as Agabus in Acts 21:10-12), or powerful preachers who taught within the Church (1 Cor.14). Prophets of the latter type are most definitely with us today in the Church, and prophets like Agabus will come again before this age comes to a close. Some ministers have a special gift to understand and put together the many prophetic passages of the Bible, that could also be classified as fulfilling the function of prophet. 3. EVANGELISTS were ministers who primarily preached to the UN-believers, in contrast to Prophets who mostly preached to the believers. An "evangelist" was a minister who had been given the special gift of inspired preaching to the public at large. He could also be pastoring one or more churches. The man Timothy was such a person and elder. It is obvious from Paul's writings to him that he was pastoring at least one church, and probably more, yet he was requested by Paul to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5). So it is understood he had the ability to function in that office also. 4. PASTORS and TEACHERS. Many Greek NT scholars believe this is referring to the one office and function of the eldership in general, who were not fulfilling any of the above specific functions. 5. ELDERS usually meant an older person in age as well as more mature spiritually. And though used in reference to all the ministry, was used by Paul to connote those among the congregation who were already elders - already doing the work of the ministry and now should be officially ordained/appointed in recognition of that fact (Titus 1:5). 6. DEACONS were servants of the Church to administer much, if not all, of the physical duties (Acts 6). Great was their work and responsibility - great was their need for wisdom and other qualities (Acts 6:3; 1 Tim.3:813). They, like anyone else in the body of Christ, could receive any of the gifts of the Spirit (Acts 6:8). Though not a part of the eldership ministry, at times and under special circumstances would receive the gift of powerful preaching as other congregational members did (Acts 8:1,4-8,12; 11:19-22). 7. DEACONESSES as Phebe (Rom.16:1) were women who served in the Church, not only among other women but men also and the ministers (Rom.16:2). The Greek had no separate word for female deacons - the one Greek word covered both sexes. Contrary to the opinion of some who think Paul was a male sexist and "put down women" is the fact of many verses in Paul's letters where he had nothing but high respect for women, and commended many to different church congregations, with loving commands that they receive them with all honor and dignity, as faithful servants of the Church and as co-workers with him in the gospel. Yes, there was and is a ministry in the Church of God. A ministry that emphasized SERVICE more than being served - gentle encouragement more than strong rebuke. Being "helpers of your joy" more than policemen or authoritarian rulers. A ministry that emphasized visiting, counselling, anointing the sick, teaching truths, preaching truths, and encouraging the brethren to remain steadfast to the "faith once delivered" more than criticizing or condemning. The ministry of the Church was seen as a life time calling or profession which God placed upon a man. The apostle John was functioning as an Elder right up to his natural death. Of course I say this in the context that all normal mental faculties are working correctly. There is no teaching or example in the NT to suggest the appointment to the Eldership was limited to just a chosen time frame of weeks, months, or years. All natural reading of God's word shows the latter idea, to be just that, an "idea" from man. Unless the man clearly had dis-qualified himself by not upholding the qualifications to Eldership as outlined in 1 Tim.3, he was when accepting the call to spiritual overseership within the church, accepting an appointment for the rest of his life. His functions and work load as an Elder could vary along the way, from MORE to LESS, depending on the situation, his health, the needs of the churches, and God's giving of gifts to do the work. There were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and deacons, but not necessarily in that order, and not every local church had all of those ministry functions within its membership. An elder could have one or more FUNCTIONS at the same time! He could be a Pastor/Teacher in a local church, and an Evangelist at the same time. Or he may function for a time primarily as an evangelist. A minister may function both as an Apostle and Evangelist. Or an Apostle may function for a time as a Pastor and Evangelist. A Pastor could also be a Prophet at times. And so it went and so it is as the Spirit of the Lord directs and gives gifts to men. Paul at times was functioning as an elder/pastor in a local church, an evangelist, as well as being an apostle - all at the same time! No one seemed to be keeping record but God, and a few carnal minded enemies that had it in for Paul and others. There was a work to be done and doing it was the prime concern for the true men of God. Jesus, as the head of the Church would decide WHO did WHAT and WHEN. LIVING OFF THE GOSPEL? A true minister of God is a man who knows he has been called to a life long service of unselfish giving of his time, energy, and ability, to teach the word of the Lord to others. It is a call to be employed not of men but of God - an employment that is really a full time job - 24 hours a day - 7 days a week if required. His boss (Jesus) can call on him to work in pastoring, teaching, visiting, anointing the sick, performing weddings, conducting funerals, as well as the basics of studying the word and prayer. All this and more he can be called upon to perform in his duty as a servant of the Most High and as an Elder in the Church of God. The true servant of the Lord has not been called to the ministry to see what physical things he can accumulate for himself, to see how much personal wealth he can acquire for his family from others. He is, like Paul before him, willing to give up all for the service of Christ. He is willing to labor abundantly, suffer persecution and imprisonment for the gospel, face perils from every direction for the works sake, going without many of the comforts of life if needs be, and willing to care for the Church of God (2 Cor.11:23-28). This is the true minister of God! A servant to the people of God, and the slave to his master the Lord Jesus Christ. He has been called to do a special work within the body of Christ, and in the course of doing that work sometimes the comforts and stability that most members of the Church experience may have to be sacrificed. But the question must be asked and answered: Can the servant of the Lord LIVE OFF the people he is serving? Paul had to answer that question for the church at Corinth. His answer is recorded in 1 Corinthians 9:1-18. The LIVING BIBLE gets to the heart of the truth of his words. "I am an apostle, God's messenger, responsible to no mere man. If in the opinion of others, I am not an apostle, I certainly am to you, for you have been one to Christ through me. This is my answer to those who question my rights." Some were saying Paul had no right to live off those he served. "Or don't I have any rights at all? Can't I claim the same privilege the other apostles have of being a guest in your home? If I had a wife, and if she were a believer couldn't I bring her along on these trips just as the other disciples do and as the Lord's brothers do? and as Peter does?" Peter and others were married. Celibacy for the ministry as taught by the Roman Catholic Church can not be found in the pages of the Bible. Those ministers with wives often travelled together at the expense of the brethren. "But must Barnabas and I alone keep working for our living, while you supply these others?" The people at Corinth were not against supporting in a physical way the ministers of Christ, but they would not support Barnabas and Paul for some reason. "What soldier in an army has to pay his expenses? And have you ever heard of a farmer who harvests his crop and doesn't have the right to eat some of it? What shepherd takes care of a flock of sheep or goats and isn't allowed to drink some of the milk? And I'm not merely quoting the opinions of men as to what is right. I'm telling you what God's law says. For in the law God gave to Moses He said that you must not put a muzzle on an ox to keep it from eating when it is treading out the wheat. Do you suppose God was only thinking about oxen when He said this? Wasn't He also thinking about us? Of course He was! He said this to show us that Christian workers should be paid by those they help. Those who do the plowing and the threshing should expect some share of the harvest. We have planted good spiritual seed in your souls. Is it too much to ask in return for mere food and clothing? You give to others who preach to you, and you should. But shouldn't we have an even greater right than them?" Paul and Barnabas were instrumental in raising up the church at Corinth. "Yet we have never used this right but supply our own needs without your help. We have never demanded payment of any kind for fear that," not that they couldn't have asked for support, but for fear that, "if we did you might be less interested in our message to you from Christ." They were not willing to give to Paul and Barnabas, but as Paul found out they were willing to give physical support to other ministers that preached to them. "Don't you realize that God told those working in His Temple to take for their own needs some of the food brought there as gives to Him? And those who work at the alter of God get a share of the food that is brought by those offering it to the Lord. In the same way the Lord has given orders that those who preach the gospel should be supported by those who accept it. Yet I have never asked you for a penny." A true minister of God will preach the word, but will not force or demand any physical thing from those he serves. He will work at an other job to supply those needs if he must, as Paul did at times. He was by physical trade a tent maker. "And I am not writing this to hint that I would like to start now. In fact, I would rather die of hunger than loose the satisfaction I get from preaching to you without charge." That is the unselfish attitude of the true minister of God. " ..........under this circumstance, what is my pay? It is the special joy I get from preaching the Good News without expense to anyone, never demanding my rights."  It was right for Paul to live off the gospel, but often he did not. TODAY'S ARGUMENT In certain quarters some argue that overseers/elders should never live off the saints, but should always hold a secular job to support themselves and their families. Often this argument is held on to by quoting just certain verses of scripture, while ignoring others. Much deception has been promulgated in religious circles by so reading and teaching the Bible. Paul certainly held a job of tent making AT TIMES, but nowhere can we find any example or statement that Paul ALWAYS provided for himself because he worked full time at a secular trade or occupation. After the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, we cannot find any statement that any of the apostles worked full time at a secular job to support themselves and their families, for the necessities of this physical life. Some may have worked at a trade some of the time, or had investments they lived off, but we cannot know that either, because the word just does not say. One thing we are told, people did GIVE to the church, this we can plainly see from the early chapters of the book of Acts. It is proper at this time in our study to answer a few arguments, and put the record straight. Some do not like this concept of a paid ministry, because such would single out certain ones that could be thought of as "a class or office of people" somehow special (whatever they mean by special) because the church would be employing and paying them for their work, above all the others in the church. So they either do cartwheels with the word of God to make it try and say something it does not say, or they just do not want to discuss the topic of "paid ministers." To them all members are "ministers" (and I thoroughly expound all that in part two and three of this book), so the idea of "church employed/paid ministers" doing spiritual work, causes a problem, for it would indeed put certain men in a class or office different than the rest of the membership ministers. And if all are ministers or elders, who would decide which men would be chosen to be full time and paid by the congregation? A lot of in-fighting, politicking, and wire pulling (brown nosing it is also called), could go on. Many church groups have split in two or more ways for far less wrangling. If to solve or never have to face such a problem, you teach there never was a paid ministry in the NT church, then we are back to showing that argument cannot be founded upon the word of the Lord. Was Jesus a minister of God? Oh, you bet! Was Jesus called, and sent by God the Father to do His work? Christ Himself said many times that He was sent by the Father! Did Jesus work at fulfilling that calling? Yes indeed He did, very much so. He did it for THREE and ONE HALF years - FULL TIME!! Jesus did not work at some secular job while being employed in the Father's ministry for those years. Nor did the chosen 12! Peter stated they had "forsaken all and followed you" - Jesus (see Mat.19:27). Even a young child reading the gospels can see that Jesus and His 12 disciples, WERE FULL TIME IN THE MINISTRY! They lived off those they served and whatever money or investments they had put away, which for some of them (who were not at all wealthy) would have been very little if any. Concerning Jesus collecting tithe money from people. One thing is for sure, there is NO SCRIPTURE that says He and His band of men DID NOT collect or receive tithes. They did have a treasure bag, Judas was keeper of it the gospels relate. Further evidence that they MAY have collected or been given tithe money is the fact that the people living under the Old Covenant did believe in tithing, it was part of their heritage and culture. Jesus would certainly have had no hesitation in accepting tithes that some would have thought belonged to the priesthood of the temple under the OC law, because Jesus was GREATER than the temple. He was the God who instituted the temple laws in the first place. Whether or not they collected or were given tithe money at that time is beside the point. Jesus and His band (inner core of men) did not have secular jobs during the three plus years of Christ's ministry. They were full time in the service of the Lord, and lived off 1) their investments, bank accounts 2) what people gave them in the way of food, lodging, and money. The example of Jesus should be quite enough, all arguments to the contrary should now come to an end, yet it does not. Some it seems love to argue just for the sake of arguing. What about Peter's statement in Acts that "silver and gold have I none." How does this prove they had secular jobs and did not live off those they served? If they had secular employment, then Peter would have had some silver and gold in his pocket! It is obvious the apostles DID HAVE MONEY from chapter 2:42-47 of Acts (and also chapter 4:32-37; 5:1-2). The early disciples pooled their physical wealth and gave to each as needed. Peter would have need, and so he would have received as needed, for his needs as others also. His living expenses would have been provided for. There is no record anywhere that Peter had a secular job after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The pooled wealth was for their needs so I doubt that Peter was walking around with piles of silver or gold nuggets in his pockets. What Peter said to the lame man was a "figure of speech" as well as the truth of the matter. He was going to give the man far more than anything physical silver or gold could do for him. He was going to give him his legs in full health to walk and run on! What a miracle in the name of Jesus. A miracle which led Peter to preach another sermonette to the people about Christ. Some want to argue about this "money" thing as opposed to "food and clothes." Let me ask you: What is the difference if a church buys houses or apartments for its full time ministers to house them in, and pays all costs of upkeep, taxes, heating/air condition, utilities etc. brings them boxes of food each week, buys their clothing, gives them a car and pays their gas and repairs, all in order for them to do a full time work in the church, OR gives them money to have all these necessities of life whereby they can be full time in God's work? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? It all boils down to "governments" in the church (1 Cor.12:28). One local church may want to do it the first way mentioned above. Another local church may decide to use the second method. Each local autonomous church (and I do believe in local autonomy) has the liberty to decide how they will provide the necessities of life to their full time servers. The last question I want to answer under this section of our study is the question often asked today as to WHY the law of tithing to the church of God is NOT mentioned in the NT. Why did Paul not plainly teach and preach that Christians should now tithe to the church of God? The answer is found in Acts chapter 21 to 26. Paul NEVER PREACHED AGAINST THE OLD COVENANT PER SE! None of the Jews could find any fault with Paul, even when they had tied up and before the courts of the land. Many IN the church were zealous for the law! It was their liberty in Christ to so do. The Old Covenant with the Temple PRIESTHOOD AND RITUALS was still in operation - 70 A.D. had not yet come! Was the OC instituted by God? Sure it was! Was the laws of the priesthood and tithing to THEM instituted by God? You bet it was from God! 70 A.D. had not yet come. The Temple still stood, the priesthood, rituals, and tithing to that system was STILL IN VOGUE! People in Judah were still following those laws, and GET THIS, MANY IN THE CHURCH WERE STILL ZEALOUS FOR THOSE LAWS (ACTS 21)! It was within Christian liberty to keep them if you wanted to! It was then within Christian liberty to tithe to the temple priesthood IF YOU SO CHOSE! That is WHY you cannot find Paul or other apostles DOGMATICALLY preaching or teaching that the members of the church HAD TO TITHE to the church only, for they KNEW such was not the case! Many scholars claim the book of HEBREWS was written shortly before 70 AD. Paul (I believe the evidence shows Paul was the author) knew what was going to happen in 70 AD (by inspiration and revelation) to the Temple and Priesthood (coming to an end), and so was able to write what he wrote in chapter 7 about tithing, the official one priesthood that would be left, and the changes God had made from Old to New Covenants. The changes that would officially come to pass in 70 A.D. Paul was answering the question about priesthood and tithing once the Old Covenant priesthood was literally gone. Up to 70 AD Christians were at liberty to tithe to the Temple priesthood IF THEY WANTED for it was STILL FROM GOD! It was still an ordinance of the Lord's that He had not yet brought officially to an end. Paul, Peter, James, or any other apostle, could not demand that all tithing was to go to the church, not while the temple and its priesthood still stood. Hence they never taught such a thing in their writings. But they did teach that the ministers of the Lord had the authority to live off those they served. Early in the NT church that is one of the main reasons (what I've stated above) as to why people sold lands etc. to meet the needs (as tithing could not be demanded to be given to only the church) of all the members who continued to stay on in Jerusalem, and who had no secular work there because they were far from home and where their work was situated. Remember many who were converted after hearing Peter's sermon had come to Jerusalem to observe the day of Pentecost. They had come from all parts of the Roman empire. ATTITUDE FOR THE LAY MEMBER What does the Lord require of the congregational member of the Church of God? "REMEMBER them which are the guides over you" (Heb.13:7 KJV with margin reading). A true servant of the Eternal God should be worth remembering, he has been called to serve the members of the Church and preach the truths of the word of the Lord to all who will listen. In remembering him you remember the Lord. Jesus said, "The laborer is worthy of his hire." The servant of the Lord labors in the care and feeding of the flock of the sheepfold - the children of the Lord. Paul was inspired to write, "Let the elders that rule well (fulfil their calling with extra care and effort) be counted worthy of double HONOR..... for the scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn...." (1 Tim.5:17-18). God loves a cheerful giver! (2 Cor.9:7). .................... First written in 1983. Revised and edited in 1996. To be continued   4. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed APPENDIX All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. JAMES 3:1 The argument is that ALL and EVERYONE in the body of Christ should be teachers. That all can take turns in the church to teach or be elders. With this argument comes the idea that James is NOT contradicting this notion, but is saying that people should not become "GREAT teachers" or "be not GREAT BIG (DEAL) teachers." Teacher with proud swelled heads of vanity and dictatorial authority. But is this the truth of the matter. Was James meaning an "attitude" of mind, or was he simply telling his readers that many should NOT ASPIRE to want to be ELDERS/overseers (who must teach - 1 Tim.3) in the church congregations? The truth is found from the Greek. This is one instance where the peculiarities of the Greek language can cause confusion. "polus"(many) can mean "great big" or "much" (but not "deal"). However, the word in James 3:1 is not "polus"(singular) but "polloi"(plural). As Zhodiates says: ".....(II) In the pl.masc. polloi......means many. With nouns of multitude it means great, large." (i.e. a great large multitude.) In James 3:1 the plural "polloi" IS followed by a "noun of multitude," namely "didaskaloi" (teachers). (i.e. be not a great large multitude of teachers). Here's how the NRSV puts it: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." You may want to look up this verse in many other translations. I have not found any that translate it as "great big deal teachers" or conveying an attitude of mind. If James was trying to convey a meaning of "great big deal" teachers he would have used something along the lines of "hyperlian" (as in 2 Cor.11:5 for "superlative") or, another word with "hyper-" or other in it. THE WORD - HIERARCHICAL The question of the use of this word in regards Church Government keeps being raised. There is I believe some confusion in some minds as to HOW and as to WHAT is meant by this word in the context of CG (church government). Some are saying GOD is hierarchical - always was and always will be, and has always governed as a hierarchy and will always so do. Some say God is not under the NT (New Testament) governing in a hierarchical manner, and never did even under the OT (Old Testament). Both sides accuse the other of being theologically incorrect. What is happening here is the misunderstanding of how each side is using the word hierarchy and what context it is used in. The GODHEAD (God) is indeed hierarchical. It is written, "God is the head of Christ." Jesus Himself said, "the Father is greater than I." And, "the one sent is not greater than he who sent him." So God has always ruled as a hierarchy - from the TOP DOWN, and always will so rule. God the Father is supreme in authority, then comes Christ Jesus, second in authority. Then it is written, "Christ is head of the Church." And as Jesus said it is the Father who will determine who sits on the right and left hand of Christ, in the Kingdom. The question then is, WHERE does the hierarchy go, if it goes anywhere, in relationship to the physical members of the NT church in this age? And this is where all the debate about Church Government really lies. The debate is not really over the hierarchy of God per se, but: Is the NT church to be hierarchical in human structure of persons? Or, trying to make this as clear as I can to the reader, the question is: Does the Bible, especially the NT, teach that the church Jesus built is to be STRUCTURED and GOVERNED like the human hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church - one single flesh and blood human who has all and final authority over all other elders and ministers and lay persons on matters of doctrine, ethics, morality, and administration? This is the argument and question, not whether God rules hierarchically, but whether the physical ministers and lay persons within the NT CHURCH are to organize themselves in structure as have the people and ministers of the Roman Catholic church, and/or, is the NT church run on a democratic form of the congregational persons voting into office elders and deacons and doctrines etc. Has God decreed for the NT church that it is to have ONE supreme physical man as head, with all final authority over all things that pertain to the running of the church? This is the question that concerns many today in the Church of God. This study has addressed THAT question, and I believe given the truth of the matter as found in the plain teachings and examples of the NT. ANCIENT ISRAEL - DID THEY HAVE A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM? Among all the debating over this topic, there has now risen another question: Did God institute a human hierarchical system in ancient Israel? Some say it is clear God did do so. Others say He never did. Those on the side of "no He never did'' say that Exodus 18 was only of human institution - namely Jethro and Moses without God in the picture. They claim that God gave His Spirit to other men (i.e. Num.11) so Moses was NOT the "chief" among the physical Israelites. They say that the supreme "one man rule" of the Kings of Israel was of human request and not the desire of God. I have great difficulty accepting their arguments and reasoning not the least is just a simple reading of the OT. It seems clear to me that God DID, most of the time RULE or tried to rule (if the people would respond) ancient Israel through the leadership, guidance, and inspiration of a DOMINANT authoritarian leader that had final authority in matters of God and the ways of God. Let's go back to Exodus 18. Was this JUST of men? Or was it also of God? Was this ONLY an idea of Jethro? Or had God given it to Jethro (at least backed him in it) and did He inspire Moses to adopt Jethro's advice? Notice what is missed by many, it is found in verse 23. "If you do this thing, AND GOD SO COMMANDS YOU, then you will be able to endure...." Jethro did not want Moses adopting his idea and suggestion without consulting God about it! Obviously Moses did consult God and God did approve because we then read "So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said"(v.24). The account in Deut.1 would also bear this out. This pyramid structure of government - Moses as "top chief" - the supreme in authority over other lesser rulers of people, who were over still lesser rulers - this Roman Catholic structure of OT church government - WAS FROM GOD, it was ORDAINED of Him, sanctioned and set in order of Him. Just because the empire of Babylon, or Egypt had an established religious "priesthood" does not mean God could not establish His own priesthood for Israel if He so chose. God's probably came first, and other nations copied, for Satan is the great counter copier of the truth, but he perverts it. God giving His Spirit and rulership ability to others besides Moses is only wise and just. But that does not take away the plain truth that Moses was HEAD and SUPREME human authority over all other humans in the organized state/church of Israel. It was Moses who commanded them at that time to do the things they needed to do (Deut.1:18). He still maintained the number one leadership role under God. All the hard matter they were to bring to him for settlement. I have no trouble with that fact, because it is clear from reading the OT that God, organizationally, did operate DIFFERENTLY with different people at different times. After Moses, the supreme human authority over Israel was passed to Joshua. After Joshua there were a number of individual leaders God used from time to time to guide and judge Israel. The Lord even used a woman, one single person, to judge Israel - Deborah. She lived in mount Ephraim and "the children of Israel came to her for judgment"(Judges 4:4,5). Samuel was the last of the judges to directly under God, lead and rule and guide the nation and church of Israel. Again, I just can not see any other way but to accept the fact that from reading the story of Samuel, he was chosen by God to be the ONE human authority over all other humans(including the priesthood) in the state/church of Israel. He was directly inspired and talked with God as did Moses. Sure it was the people of Israel who humanly wanted a KING to reign and rule them, and not God's desire, but the CHURCH government side of the state/church of Israel still had its Levites, priesthood, and HIGH priest who was "chief" over the other priests. Yes, there were others who had the "spirit of the Lord" - who worked in the state religion of God, did the Lord's work and served the people, yet there still was a high, top of the line, priest. The example of ELIJAH and ELISHA is a classic. There was a school of prophets, many were "with" Elijah, but to me it is evident from just reading the story, Elijah was TOP GUN, with top authority under God in doing the work of God. When the Lord called it a day for Elijah, Elisha was chosen to take over number ONE position in the work of God. So, by and large, under the OC as God dealt with Israel and Judah, especially in religious matters, there was most of the time, a human structure of rule that was Roman Catholic in nature (as shocking as that seems to some today). And this worked for God towards His people for that time BECAUSE 1) He often directly, verbally, and in some cases VISIBLY, inspired and talked to the one head man over His work, i.e. Moses, Samuel, Elijah. 2) God had judges that were filled with His Spirit (Num.11). 3) God instituted the URIM and THUMMIM for often judgments and decisions (see a Bible Dictionary). I have no difficulty in accepting that God did work under the OC with Israel on a human pyramid structure of rulership. I believe that is QUITE EVIDENT from a reading of the OT. BUT the question is: IS GOD WORKING ON A HUMAN PYRAMID - ONE AUTHORITARIAN, ALL POWER, MAN - WITHIN HIS NT CHURCH? The body of this study has addressed that question and answered from the pages of the NT scriptures. JESUS - THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER? In showing that the NT church of God was never to be organized with any ONE single human being, having all power and all authority over all ministers and members of the church, further confusion in some minds has been thrown up by those who find it difficult to accept the truth that God does CHANGE the way He does things from time to time. The confusion arises from people "shouting out" the verse in Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the SAME yesterday, today, and forever." I will now spend some time and space to answer this. Recently within the church of God, this verse has been one of the most MISUSED and MISUNDERSTOOD verses of the NT. In the context of Church Government, those who see that God used a human pyramid with Israel under the OC, cling to Heb.13:8 and say God must then be using a human pyramid structure of government for His NT church under the NC age. So they must try to fit the NT scriptures into their idea and really do some magic tricks with some pretty plain verses, that would blast their notions out of the water. Then on the other hand those who see the truth that the NT scriptures teach no such doctrine for God's church as a Roman Catholic structure of ministerial pyramid authority and "rank" system, they, based upon Heb.13:8, must try to prove that God NEVER EVER had a human pyramid system in ancient Israel under the OC age. Both sides are missing the bulls eye and causing confusion in people's minds. They are running with only one leg on TWO counts: 1) They do not see or have forgotten, that God DOES CHANGE things at times in His plan, as His plan unfolds from age to age. He does make adjustments and amendments from time to time as needed and as He sees necessary, according to His will. 2) They do not see what the MAIN TRUTH and PURPOSE is for Hebrews 13:8 God does CHANGE and is not the same in certain things. Most of you know it, so don't jump too hastily to say I'm contradicting Heb.13:8. When did God institute circumcision? Was it with Enoch? Or was it with Shem? Was it with Noah? NO! It was with ABRAHAM and his seed! Before Abraham it was NOT THERE as a covenant for God's people! With Abraham and Moses it was! No male could become a full OC Israelite unless they were circumcised in the flesh! No male could partake of the Passover unless circumcised! So important had physical circumcision become to Israel under the OC that some were teaching within the NT church that it was still necessary to "be saved." The issue had to be brought to a head in the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. The NT shows plainly that physical circumcision is NOW under the NC of no religious concern (Rom.2:28,29; 1 Cor.7:19; Acts 15; Gal.6:15). God has CHANGED circumcision (physical) from a MUST under the OC to a NOTHING under the NC. Whatever way you slice it, there has been a change in physical circumcision from the OC age to the NC age, and all of it was instituted and de-instituted BY God! God has not always been the "same" in some respects. The law of TITHES was a certain way to a certain TRIBE under the OC. That was decreed and instituted by God. Now the NC makes it very clear that there is a CHANGE, and that change is decreed and instituted by God. See Hebrews the seventh chapter. Note the very word 'change' is used in verse 12. There was a certain type of priesthood involving a certain tribe (Levi) under the OC. Now under the NC there is a NEW high-priest from another tribe, with a new priesthood of His own (see again Heb.7 and note verse 12). All this was decreed and instituted by God - a CHANGE for Him, not the same as before! Remember the God of the OC was the one who became the Christ of the NC (you may want to request the article that proves that truth). Under the OC physical animal sacrifices were instituted by Christ - God. They were a MUST for all Israelites under the OC. Now under the NC there is a CHANGE - animal sacrificing is NOT DESIRED or required by God (see Heb. 10:1-18). There is NO Levitical priesthood, and NO temple. Animal sacrifices CAN NOT be offered to God, even if those two physical requirements were in place the NC shows it is NOT required in this age. God has CHANGED the way He does things, He is not always the same in all operations of His plan. Under the OC vows were permitted and wow to him who did not follow through with them. Under the NC there are to be no vows or swearing but a "no" or a "yes" for the Christian. There has been a change - Jesus is not doing things exactly the "same" today as before. Jesus said to the Pharisees that "divorce for any reason" was permitted and allowed under Moses - the OC. But "from the beginning it was not so." Jesus under the NC does not allow divorce for every reason, the law is changed. Jesus is not governing the NC Israel as He did OC Israel - things are not the same with Him in certain respects. The OC itself is CHANGED. Who instituted the OC? Why Christ did, the God of the OT. The OC is changed to the NC, which is based upon BETTER promises and is a BETTER covenant (see Heb.8). The OC never automatically gave the "Spirit of God" or "eternal life" to those under it. The NC gives BOTH! That is a CHANGE, that is not the same, that is a change in the way God - Christ, has acted and done things differently in different ages. Under the OC God did not give them the HEART to obey (Deut.5:29; 29:1-4) - under the NC all that has changed (see Heb.8 again). The promise from God is not the same! Now, do you see the truth of Heb.13:8? The words "the same" must be understood in the light of the TOTALITY of the word of God as to HOW Paul was using them. and the CONTEXT Paul was using them in will also give us the correct understanding of what is the "same" about Christ in the past, present, and future. Let's look at the context of Hebrews 13. Verse 7, Paul tells his readers to remember (look to, esteem, take note of) those who rule (lead - mrg. reading) them. He tells them to remember those ministers who have led them and spoken the word of God to them. He tells them, "whose FAITH FOLLOW." Did he mean by those words - doctrine, certain technical ideas of theology? I think not, for sometimes even God's true ministers have incorrect doctrines at times (remember how we observed Pentecost on a Monday for 40 years or more before finding we were wrong). The context again shows us what Paul meant by the words "whose faith follow." The next words and sentence make it clear, "considering the outcome of their CONDUCT." They were to consider their CHARACTER OF PRACTICAL DAY TO DAY LIVING. Paul was not first of all concerned with small points of doctrine, of course he knew that God's leaders they were to remember, would have the correct BASIC doctrines of God right, or he would have warned them about false leaders coming as wolves in sheeps clothing. That was not his concern in verses 7 and 8. His concern was they look to and follow the faithful servants of God in their CONDUCT of character and living, which matured or evidenced (outcome) in "Jesus Christ - the same yesterday, today, and forever." The true leaders of God (whatever they may have had in small errors of doctrine) speaking the true word of God, were trying to set the right example of faithful living in holy character of daily conduct AS JESUS CHRIST HAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST, IN THE PRESENT, AND WILL IN THE FUTURE FOREVER. This is what Paul wanted them to see and follow in those leaders - the HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER OF CONDUCT AND PURITY OF LOVE, JUSTICE, PEACE, MERCY (all the fruits of the Spirit) that was the sum total of Jesus Christ from past eternity to future eternity. He started to talk about DOCTRINE in verse 9! He was not talking about theological issues as the changing from the OC to the NC and what was not the same with them, or other "not the same" as before doctrines, in verses 7 and 8. Verses 7,8 are concerned with HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER in daily living not about doctrinal changes God may have made from one age to another age (i.e. circumcision, baptism, covenants, tithing, priesthood, vows etc.). When Jesus was dealing with Adam and Eve, when He was dealing with Enoch, when He was dealing with Noah and others under THAT age, when the doctrine of circumcision, Levite priesthood, rigorous animal sacrificial system and other OC laws of Israel were NOT in effect, He - Jesus - was HOLY and PURE and RIGHTEOUS and JUST in all His CONDUCT towards those He was governing. When Christ was dealing with Moses, the people of Israel and all under the OC (with instituted laws of physical circumcision, tithing to Levi, a priesthood, sacrificial system, vows, divorce, and the like, that would change later), He was HOLY and PURE and RIGHTEOUS and JUST in character towards those He was ruling in THAT age. When Jesus deals with those He is leading today under the NC with its changes from the OC, He is still HOLY, JUST, PURE, and RIGHTEOUS in CONDUCT and MIND as He has always been and will always be for eternity. Also with all this the PLAN and PURPOSE of God in creating mankind has always been the same, yesterday, today, and forever. That spiritual character of purpose will never change, it will always be the same, as before the foundations of the earth were laid when that plan and purpose was formulated. When Christ deals with, leads and guides, all the physical people during the 1,000 year reign (millennium) of the Kingdom of God on earth, with WHATEVER changes the earth and NC will have (the prophets say physical animal sacrifices will again be offered in a temple in Jerusalem by a priesthood) during that age, He will still be the SAME in Holy Righteous conduct. On into the WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT age, the NEW heavens and earth age, and out into eternity. Whatever God decides to do, whatever His plans, whatever CHANGES, whatever will not be the same, along the way, one thing will always remain the SAME - the Holy Righteous conduct of Jesus Christ (and God the Father) will FOREVER remain unchanged. Under all situations, under any covenant agreement, under all circumstances, with all people, God will be always JUST, LOVE, MERCY, HOLY, PURE, RIGHTEOUS and whatever other word can describe PERFECT SINLESS perfection of CONDUCT. The Holy character and divine plan and purpose of God and Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Ah, yes, He may change some doctrinal things from time to time as He wills (after all He is God, not us humans, and can do what He wishes, when He wishes, in the manner He wishes and with whom He wishes - we are the clay He is the potter) but His holy sinless conduct has and will always remain THE SAME! Now that is the truth of the matter concerning Hebrews 13:8 as it is also with Malachi 3:6. Truly as Jesus said "the scriptures can not be broken." There is no contradiction in the word of the Lord, and so the truth about NC church government does not contradict the truth about OC church government, and the sum total of both does not contradict Hebrews 13:8. LOGIC, AND WHO TODAY COULD BE HEAD OF THE PHYSICAL CHURCH? Stop and think - let's use some logic. If God has decreed that His NC church for this age was to be humanly pyramid in structure, then with all the various BRANCHES of the Church of God that have "come out" of the one organization called the "Worldwide Church of God," WHICH human man is chief of the others, the one with all authority that the other ministers must say "yes sir" to? Is it Ted Armstrong or Ron Dart who is "directly under Christ"? Is it David Hume from the UCG who is next in authority under Christ? How about Rod Meredith from the LCG, maybe it is he who is top dog? Then possibly it is none of the above, but ministers like Fred Coulter of the CBCG, or John Ritenbaugh of the COG, or John Pinkston of the CGSD? Maybe it is Gerald Flurry of PCG. Her's another problem, if it is one of these men, now that the WCG has split into many organizations, how can this TOP man exercise authority over the others in any practical way? Further, if you believe Herbert Armstrong was God's TOP man in God's NT pyramid structure of human ministers, believing God has always had a human pyramid hierarchical structure in His NT church (as the RC church teaches), THEN TELL ME, if you can, WHO WAS TOP GUN in authority and power BEFORE HWA took over, and further more, tell me WHEN and WHY did HWA take over from the one before him? And further still, WHO was the chief minister before that, and before that, and so on down the historic line? The Roman Catholic church can tell you as they see it, so what about the Church of God and those that uphold the same type of idea as the RC's. Let's face it, the whole idea of human hierarchical authority in the context of the NC Church of God is LAUGHABLE when you recognize the true history of the true Church has been SPLITS upon SPLITS. The truth is HWA became leader of ONE part of the true Church of God, there were other parts teaching the same basic doctrines in other parts of the world, and yes keeping the festivals of Lev.23. Such a branch was found by WCG ministers in South America back in the 1960's. That has been the norm for God's people since the days of the last apostle of the first century A.D. - John. There has never really been UNITY among God's people since the end of the first century. And even during the apostle Paul's time a pretty strong case can be built from NT verses that God's people had trouble with unity even during the life time of Christ's original apostles(i.e. 1 Cor.l-3). The plain truth is, if the last 2,000 years says anything about the true Church of God and unity, it will NOT BE A REALIZATION until Jesus Christ returns to establish God's Kingdom on earth. Those who cling to the teaching that God is still using the same form of church government in the NT age as He used with Israel in the OT age, must somehow try to find verses in the NT that would seem to support their hypothesis. The RC church has for centuries claimed that the apostle PETER was "chief" and authoritarian head of all other elders and apostles mentioned in the NT. The body of this study has examined the scriptures they use to expound the "supremacy of Peter" teaching and has found such ideas to be totally without any truth in fact. Now I must answer arguments that have been put forth by some in one branch of the Church of God, that PAUL had dictatorial authority over a church and/or churches as well as certain ministers. 1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-3 is often quoted to give credence to a "Supremacy of Paul" idea. One writer states: "Although he certainly must have had much information and probably also counsel from other leaders of the Church, the apostle Paul had authority to make the decision to disfellowship this sinner. Obviously, he was not seeking permission from any committee or 'church board' to carry out this action" (What Is the Biblical Form of Church Government? GCN-Global Church News, Vol.3, No.5, p.5). Please turn to 1 Cor.5 and read verses 1-12. Can you find anywhere in these verses where Paul said anything like: "As I have authority over you all and your elders, I command you to disfellowship this sinner." Or, "I am in authority and you MUST DO as I say, so cast this sinner out from among your fellowship." Or, "I have sole authority to judge and declare what the rest of you shall do with this sinner." No such dictatorial authority can be found in this passage! If it was a common fact that Paul had some sort of '"supreme - you must do as I say because I have authority over you and your ministers" rank, and the Corinthians KNEW IT, then surely somewhere in the two letters he wrote to them, he would have had point to tell them. Just look at all the things he had to CORRECT and INSTRUCT them on! As I read those letters it comes across to me VERY CLEARLY, that the Corinthian church, its members and elders, were NOT standing in AWE of the apostle Paul as some "chief" authority that they had to bow down before and lick the dust off his feet. Paul had to correct them on following MEN and not the ONE and only HEAD of the church - Christ (chap.l-3). Paul had planted - raised up the church at Corinth, but it was Apollos who WATERED, yet it was God who gave the increase(chap.2:5,6). Some were following neither of these two men but were looking to PETER as authority (chap.l:l2). Paul tells them that all of God's ministers are FELLOW WORKERS - one is NOT ABOVE the others - God is in charge, not men. They were to consider THEM (Peter, Apollos, Paul) as SERVANTS of Christ, none were to be puffed up against another (chap.3 to 4:7). Paul tells them they were acting as if they had no need of ANY minister to guide them (chap.4:8-13). Here was Paul's opportunity to set them in line and tell them it was HE - Paul, that had personal dictatorial authority over them, but he did no such thing. He goes on to use words not of dictatorial power but one who was spiritually more MATURE than they, to WARN and INSTRUCT them as to HOW they SHOULD be living and acting in the Spirit. "I do not write these things to shame you, but as my BELOVED CHILDREN I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I URGE you, IMITATE me. For this reason I have sent Timothy who will REMIND you of MY WAYS in Christ, as I TEACH everywhere and in every church" (v.14-17). Do you see how Paul conducted himself towards people? Not as some "big cheese" authoritative "I am the boss around here" head apostle with final power over all others. Not as someone saying "I will make the decision and you all will obey" but he presented himself as a servant of Christ, a fellow worker with other elders of Christ, a spiritual mature father of others he had brought to Christ through the gospel, someone who had to warn yes, but who also URGED, PLEADED with and ENCOURAGED others to IMITATE himself as he walked and imitated Christ (chap.11:1). Yes, and in all of that there could be times when POWERFUL correction may have to be used (see Paul's instruction in 2 Tim.4:1-4) as he explained to them in verses 18-21. Now chapter 5. It had been reported to Paul that OPEN incest was being practiced and the church was ignoring the situation - allowing it. Paul had to CORRECT them, show them their ERROR, so he did. He had to INSTRUCT them the WAY of Christ in regards to HOW a church should act towards a person doing such blatant sins and not repenting of it, while still being a member of the church and everyone knowing what was being practiced by this individual. Paul told them he personally had to judge the case, just as if he was there within the congregation, as each of them must do. And his judgment was that such things CAN NOT be allowed to be practiced within the church, as if no sin was being done, or as if grace was to be extending towards the sinner by allowing him to remain with them while practicing such a sin. Notice clearly what Paul said: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER, along with my spirit, with the power of out Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan"(v.4,5). Read it again, get it CLEAR! The decision to disfellowship the sinner out of the church into the unconverted world of Satan was to be a COLLECTIVE church matter! "....when YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER ALONG WITH my spirit..." Paul wanted them ALL to come to the SAME judgment as he, a mature spiritual father to them had come to. The judgment decision was to be passed by THEM collectively, when they gathered together, and Paul would be among them in spirit. If Paul ONLY had authority to make the decision to disfellowship this sinner, no such language would have been needed from Paul to them, no GATHERING TOGETHER would have been needed on their part. Paul would have merely told them he knew what was going on, he had made a decision, he had authority over them all including their elders, and they were to tell the sinner that Paul had disfellowshipped him and that was all there was to it. Paul would have said to them that they were to send him this sinners address and he would write to him telling him that he was disfellowshipped on the authority of Paul himself. Or he could have told them that one of their elders was to tell this man that Paul had made a decision to disfellowship him, and that it would be announced from the pulpit to the whole congregation on the Sabbath. He could have told them to tell the sinner "Just tell him I've judged and he is disfellowshipped." No such words are here recorded, no such words from Paul as: "By the sole authority invested in me over you all, I now disfellowship this sinner. You are commanded to do as I say." No such words can be found from the mouth of Paul because HE FOLLOWED CHRIST! And Christ had given the 1, 2, 3, of disfellowshipping. The local church had FINAL judgement and authority NOT ANY ONE SINGLE MAN (Mat.18). That is why Paul said to the church at Corinth "when YOU are GATHERED together along with my spirit." Paul went on to say, "with the POWER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST" not with his (Paul's) power or authority, as some "highest" court judge, but with CHRIST'S authority. And Christ had already given His authority on such sinful matters in the church and how to handle them (Mat.l8). Paul had previously INSTRUCTED them about the way of Christ in regards un-repented open sins within the church and how THEY were to JUDGE such matters inside the church (v.9-13). But in this matter of a member practicing incest they were NOT judging when they SHOULD HAVE BEEN! And Paul had to correct and instruct and URGE them to do the right thing in this situation. There is a VAST difference between CORRECTING, INSTRUCTING, URGING, and PLEADING with someone to act upon the way of Christ, and dictatorially stating you and you alone apart from other humans or body of humans, have full authority to disfellowship someone. Of course this kind of individual power is very prevalent in "cultish" organizations. Paul did not come close to acting with any such demagogue authority. Notice how he corrects and instructs them about judging, and courts of law in chapter 6. Brother was taking brother to the courts of this world for justice and trouble solving between themselves. Did Paul think that the church at Corinth did NOT have the ABILITY and the spiritually mature elders among them to JUDGE? No way! This was a church full of "spiritual gifts" and prophets (chap.12 through 14). They had the "wise" among them, they had those who could judge, but they were not using those gifts, and those men, as they should have, so he had to "tongue in cheek" use SHAME to get them to see their errors (chap.6:2-6). He wanted THEM to judge the matters pertaining to the church. He wanted them to judge the matters between brothers, not the courts of the unconverted world. He wanted them to judge matters of serious sins being practiced openly within the church. He did not say anything about them just handling the minor problems, little sins, while he, as chief authority would personally judge the "hard" cases and serious sins, and have sole authority to disfellowship. Paul wanted them with their elders and the spiritual gifts they had to JUDGE, and to govern their congregation in the way of Christ. Paul was CORRECTING yes, Paul was INSTRUCTING yes, Paul was WARNING yes, Paul was URGING and PLEADING, yes. He was ENCOURAGING, yes, but it was they - as a collective body and unit - elders, deacons, and saints, who were to judge and act and walk the way of Christ Jesus in all things. The church at Corinth was willing to listen to Paul, they were willing to be corrected and taught. They did disfellowship the sinner for his practice of incest. When he writes his next letter to them he has heard that the sinner is truly repentant, but the church is holding back its forgiveness and comfort towards him. He then must INSTRUCT and URGE them to now do what Christ would do. See the beauty of this love expressed to the church and repentant sinner in 2 Cor.2:1-11. Please read it in the AMPLIFIED BIBLE TRANSLATION. The sinner was censured for his sin not by Paul per se, but "by the MAJORITY" (v.6). He tells them in verse 7 to FORGIVE, to COMFORT, to encourage the repentant man lest he despair. Notice verse 8 in the Amplified Bible. "I therefore BEG you to reinstate him in your affection and assure him by your love for him." The NKJV says, "Therefore I URGE you..." The same language as in his first letter. There is no "I command you by my authority" language. Nothing here about Paul telling them he will allow him back into fellowship so they must obey. Nothing about Paul writing to the man and telling him that on his authority only he could come back. No, the ultimate DOING was in their hands. Paul could GUIDE, TEACH, INSTRUCT, CORRECT. He could URGE and BEG them to follow the way of Christ, to follow him as he followed Christ. He could PLEAD with them to LISTEN to him, but it was finally, when all was said and done, UP TO THEM TO DO THE WAY OF CHRIST! You will note in this also - in this re-instating of the now repentant sinner - it was THEY who had to do it! Paul did not say that he would do it. Paul FORGAVE because the sinner was repentant. They forgave - Paul forgave. The church at Corinth was not writing to Paul to acquire his authority for getting this man reinstated. Paul had been told the sinner had repented and he was INSTRUCTING the church what the way of Christ would now be. He was URGING - BEGGING them to show love, mercy, forgiveness, comfort and encouragement to this man, and to allow him back into fellowship. The chances are very likely that this man went through all this - the 1, 2, 3, steps of Mat.18, the final judgment and decision by the majority to disfellowship, the period of repentance, the caring, encouragement, forgiveness, and reinstating to full fellowship again, WITHOUT EVER HEARING THE NAME OF PAUL!! I have spent time on this issue because the plain truth of the subject of excommunication from the church has been greatly MISUNDERSTOOD, PERVERTED, and ABUSED by a number of denominations of Christianity over the years, including sadly to say, some branches of the Church of God. It seems few really understand what the word of God correctly teaches on this subject. This is one time when the voting majority of the church must make the decision to disfellowship, and not any single elder or group of elders. I have written in great depth and detail the truth about this subject in an article called "Disfellowshipping - What the Bible Really Teaches." I have to my pleasant surprise also discovered over the years that some fundamental Protestant churches as well as the Seventh Day Adventist church not only understand but practice the truth of this doctrine in their structure of church governing. When done correctly as Jesus taught and all the NT enjoins, it is most loving, merciful, and rewarding for the whole church. It brings the sinner, the elders, the deacons, and the saints together in a humility that transcends human ideas. It brings the church together as a FAMILY in a way that only trials, tests, pain, sorrow, crying, humility, forgiveness, mercy, and love can do. Not all the truths of the Lord are easy to accept or enjoyable to enact (from the human emotional view) but the end result is the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them who are exercised thereby. As Jesus said, " You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."           .....................................  To be continued   5. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed APPENDIX Continued All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. HIERARCHY IN THE MILLENNIUM Some may argue that God's government in the age to come (the millennium) will be hierarchical (Christ over everyone, David over Israel, the 12 apostles under David, each ruling a tribe of Israel - Ezek.37; Jer.30; Mat.l9), so the NT church and its physical ministry should follow that example. This idea is faulty and weak with a number of flaws. 1) It fails to see that the persons mentioned (Christ, David, the 12 apostles) in the context of the millennium, are ALL in the God Family - the very God-head, at that time. And as we have before proved, the Godhead has always been hierarchical in government. In this age of the church we are dealing with physical flesh and blood people, whether elders or deacons or saints, they are not perfect, holy, sinless spirit beings. 2) The argument fails to ask the question: What instructions has the Lord given in the NT scriptures as to HOW the NT church is to be governed, regardless as to how God did things BEFORE, or as to how He may do things in the FUTURE, in the age to come? As we have proved, the Lord does do things differently as He chooses from time to time, or age to age. 3) Leading from above, it fails to see that God CHANGES His dealings and approach to some things at times, as He works out His UN-changing purpose and plan. His holy righteous character and purpose never changes, it remains the same, but His administrative dealings with people may, if He so desires. As we have stated before in the millennium a physical temple, with a physical priesthood, with physical animal sacrifices, will again be part of God's administration and economy as He deals with physical people during that age. Such is NOT part of His administration today under the present age. THE CHOOSING OF ELDERS AND GOVERNING THE CHURCH We have covered this somewhat in the body of this study, but a little more space is need here also. One writer (GCN - Sept/Oct 95, p.5,6) can see (from such passages as Luke 6:12-13; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9; Eph.4:11-13; and let me add Acts 1; 13:1-3; 14:19-23) that the clear example ALL through the word of God, is that called and chosen Elders of the church and work of the Lord, are chosen in TWO ways: 1) By God Himself - i.e. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, John the Baptist, Paul. 2) By other Elders - Acts 14:19-23; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9 etc. There is NO instruction nor ANY example in the NT to show that any "church boards" or "church committees" of saints, EVER chose or voted men into the office of ordained/appointed elder. Never, in the NT can you find any group of saints/members of a church LAYING HANDS on a man to appoint him to the eldership ministry. There is no instruction or example in the NT where LAY persons (as a whole or as a board/committee) gave orders or told the elders of a church HOW to RUN and GOVERN/GUIDE the church. The clear teaching of the NT is that the Elders guide and govern the church, as I have before proved in the body of this work (even more specific proof is presented in part two and three of this book). Yet, the elders ruling the Church of God is not as little vain dictators in some military army. This I have also proved before, and will so show again later. Does the lay person have ANY responsibility then? Yes indeed! Very much so. They are not to be so "broad minded" that their brains fall out! They are not to leave their minds at the door when entering the church. The examples and instructions for all of God's children are MANY, i.e. Mat.24:4,5; Acts 20:17-30; 17:10-12; 2 Tim.2:15; 3:15-17; Titus 1:9,10; 3:9-11; 2 Pet.2; 1 John 2:18-29; 4:1-6; 2 John 4-11; 3 John 9-11; Jude. As before shown ALL in the church have a duty to follow Mat.18 in relation to problems within the membership of the church, regardless of office and function. Then if a serious problem arises with a minister, two or three or more can take their case to other ministers for justice (1 Tim.5:19-21). The saints member must always remember Acts 20; 2 Pet.2. Some Elders MAY go off into apostasy and heresy. After all the above actions are taken, the congregational member must reject those elders who will not repent, and leave to find ministers who are faithful to God's word. PAUL IN AUTHORITY OVER TITUS? Now I must answer in depth the argument put forth that Paul had some "authority" and as one stated it "especially in administrative matters" OVER Titus. Some use a Bible translation that renders Titus 1:5 this way: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city AS I COMMANDED YOU...." Now to the English reader the words "I commanded you" or "as I command you" will trigger a certain mind set - DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY power, a "thou shalt" as if God was speaking. It is interesting to look up this word in STRONG'S concordance. It is number 1299 from 1223 and 5021 "to arrange thoroughly, i.e.(spec) INSTITUTE, PRESCRIBE, etc.:- appoint, command, give(set in) order, ordain." If we have Paul as saying to Titus: "you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I thoroughly arranged with you...." our English mind takes a different view, that Paul was not acting as some overbearing dictator funnelling out commands to those beneath his superior rank. It is more conciliatory, kind, and affectionate towards Titus. Yes, there is a sense of spiritual INSTRUCTION and leadership with Paul over Titus in these words and letter. So also as Paul wrote to Timothy and instructed him on how to govern the church. Does this contradict what I have written and expounded in the body of this work? No! Not at all. The very words and life of Paul PROVE he taught no such doctrine as a "ministerial authority rank" within the NT Church of God. Turn to the book of Philippians. The letter is from both Paul and Timothy and it is to ALL three levels of the ministry - SAINTS, DEACONS, BISHOPS (elders) - verse 1. Please keep that clearly in mind. Chapter 2 verses 3,4 are POWERFUL in relation to this subject of Church Government. "Let NOTHING be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind LET EACH ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN HIMSELF. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the INTERESTS OF OTHERS." Paul instructs - under INSPIRATION - that everyone in the body of Christ, all in the church at Philippi (elders, deacons, saints) - have HUMILITY to look upon others better than themselves. WOW!! What teaching from Paul. How then do you think he treated Timothy and Titus? What attitude of mind do you think he had towards them or anyone in the Church of God? What was Paul's spiritual relationship with Timothy and Titus? How did HE HIMSELF explain it? As a hierarchical rank relationship? As a, "I'm over you in authority and don't you forget it" attitude? He himself tells us about his relationship with these younger ministers. "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly........you know his proven character, that AS A SON WITH HIS FATHER he SERVED WITH me in the gospel" (verses 19,22). Notice, Timothy served WITH Paul, not under Paul, and that in Paul's own words. He followed his own inspired writings of verses 3,4. It was a spiritual father/son relationship that Paul had with Timothy and Titus. A loving, warm, honorable, and mutually respectful relationship. There is not one word from Paul to Timothy or Titus about any RANK authority he held over them. nothing about him reminding them of his superior position in the ministerial "pecking order" of church hierarchy. Nothing even about church administrational authority so they had better obey. There is plenty of INSTRUCTIONAL TEACHING, WISE ADVICE, SOUND INSIGHTS, HELPFUL POINTS, REMINDER OF THINGS, ENCOURAGEMENT, REQUESTS, and all done in a spiritual father/son relationship. Here were two younger men in age and length of service in the ministry, and here was Paul older in both areas, who had spent time helping, guiding, teaching Timothy and Titus the "ins and outs" of being an effective Elder. They had worked WITH - along side - Paul in the work of the gospel. There had grown a mutually loving BOND between them, as a father to son, and son to father. No "authority" statement was needed on the part of anyone. Here we find a perfect example of Peter's inspired words of his first letter chapter five, verses one to six. The younger elders were to submit and respect the older elders, and ALL were to submit/respect each other in clothes of humility. Paul and Peter spoke the same language, the same truths, the same doctrines, and they followed and obeyed what God inspired them to write, as I have before shown. Paul's humility is profoundly evidenced - 1 Cor.15:9. What a contrast with Paul and some dominating "authority" ego ministers that have risen in this 20th century, within the very Church of God. This father/son - brother/sister/mother - relationship was very important in the mind of Paul(hence God's mind, as he inspired Paul) as he instructed ministers on how to function in their office within the church, how to relate to the brethren of the church. Note carefully what the Lord wrote through him in 1 Timothy 5:1-2. "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity." This has been God's instruction all along for the elders, it has been in the word for nearly 2,000 years, yet many ministers in the Church of God have fragrantly rejected or conducted themselves in complete antithesis to these words of the Lord, in this 20th century. Many elders have brought dishonor upon the name of the Church of God by the way they talked to, corrected, instructed, guided, and just plainly conducted themselves towards the children of the Highest, for whom Christ died. I pray that those who acted less than what these verses instruct will deeply repent and seek the forgiveness of the Lord, and turn about to get in harmony with God on how to conduct their relationship with the brethren of the church. Now consider all this with one more light added - a HUGE flood-light indeed! Who was this man Paul and what did God do through him? He was converted on the road to Damascus by Christ PERSONALLY appearing and talking to him (Acts 9). Who since Paul has had that experience? Paul's calling and commission by God was revealed to another man and recorded (Acts 9). Who since Paul can claim that revelation? He was personally TAUGHT by Christ (Gal.1). Who since Paul (and maybe John - with the book of Revelation) has been given that honor? Find such a person who claims it and you have found a conceited liar. Paul was given visions and revelations WAY BEYOND most others (2 Cor.12; Acts 16). Who in this 20th century can claim such phenomenon? He was given the gift of TONGUES and HEALINGS (1 Cor.14; Acts 19:11-12). Who in this 20th century was given such gifts for the work of the Lord? Paul physically suffered unbelievable hardships, pain, troubles, and persecutions for the gospel (Acts 9:16; read the rest of Acts; Cor.11: 16-28). Who in this century can boast of such things in the flesh? He was finally put to death as a Christian martyr (2 Tim.4:6). Who in the Church of God in this century can claim such a death? Finally, Paul was used by the Lord to write DIVINE INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE - God breathed scripture - 14 books of the NT that are directly INSPIRED of God (2 Pet.3:15-17). Who since the apostle John and the book of Revelation can claim that accomplishment? Find such a person and you have found a pompous fool. Now with all that under Paul's belt, do you not suppose he had just a little tiny bit of '"authority" to instruct others in how to "behave yourself in the house of God" (1 Tim.3:15)? You bet your bottom dollar he did! Yet Paul said his relationship with Timothy (and so Titus also) was not built upon an authority rank system, but one of a father with a son, and that Timothy served WITH him in the work of the gospel. Now if that was Paul's attitude, example and way of life, as it was, a man so mightily used and inspired of God, then can ANY other man to follow him in the ministry be any different? Not if they are following Paul as he followed Christ (1 Cor.11:1). Nobody in this century or before has come CLOSE TO BEING A Paul, anyone thinking or claiming so has never clearly read the NT, but has been blinded by their own vanity. So what right do they have to speak about "authority" over other ministers when one of the greatest inspired elders of God never spoke about his "authority"' over other true ministers of God. Yet those who knew and worked with him would have given him deep respect and honor because of how God was using him. But he never used an "authority line" with any minister. He did not believe James, Peter, or John had authority over him (Gal.2), nor did he teach that he had authority over them. God used them all, HOW, WHEN, and WHERE as He decided and willed. Paul instructing Titus to "ordain elders in every city" is FAR MORE than purely "administrative." Being an elder in the church is far more than deciding which photo copying machine to buy, or what hall to rent for Sabbath services, or what PA system to purchase. Prayer and fasting are part of ordaining men to the eldership (Acts 14: 23). No small undertaking, nothing to be taken lightly at all. Certain standards and qualifications are to be met by those who "desire the office of overseers" (1 Tim.3:1-7). Paul was TALKING ABOUT DOCTRINE in regards to this matter of ordaining men in each city, not physical administration! When even in purely church administrative matters (not even doctrine) Paul and Barnabas had a huge serious DIFFERENCE that could not be reconciled at the time, and they parted company to do separate works for the Lord, there was no "authority" line by either man pulled from the holster and fired off (Acts 15:36-41), or brought before some "higher in authority" minister. So even in administrative matters ministers must learn to CO-OPERATE together as TEAM WORKERS - giving and taking, or they must go their different ways to work the work of God as Paul and Barnabas chose to do. We have seen Paul's attitude of mind and way of life towards Timothy and Titus (notice the words in Titus 1:4), two younger ministers who worked WITH him in the gospel. Then note also his disposition towards EPAPHRODITUS in Phil.2:24-30. Again only, love, affection, and humility, telling others to hold such in "reputation." Turn to Romans 16:1-15 and see how Paul addressed many of them. Once more appreciation, praise, thankfulness, honor, love, and humility is shown. Some were FELLOW WORKERS/CO-WORKERS as the Greek is for "helpers" in the KJV. Note Paul's humility and respect and affection for the two WOMEN of verses 1-5. And this is Paul whom some claim "put down" women or hated them or was a racist towards them. What utter garbage! What utter falsehood and perversion of the scriptures that God inspired him to write. One final word on this section. When Paul was writing to instruct Timothy and Titus, he was writing INFALLIBLE INSPIRED SCRIPTURE - GOD BREATHED WORDS DIRECTLY FROM THE MIND OF THE LORD - A "THUS SAYS THE LORD." I guess he did have the right to use some "authority" with it, for it was really God speaking, and God does have some authority you know. No man's writing since the book of Revelation carries that authority. Nothing I have written (and there is much) over the last 17 years is God breathed. I hope there is lots of truth to be found in it all, yet there may be error that needs correcting. Nothing that HWA wrote can be said to be God breathed. There was much truth in much of his writings, but there was also error and incorrect understanding of verses of scripture at times, that need to be corrected. This I can prove is the plain truth for those who may believe otherwise. Nobody since the days of the apostle John has been used to write inspired infallible scripture, let's get that clearly set in our minds. No minister today can speak to another minister as Paul spoke to Timothy and Titus, for no minister today is writing God breathed scripture as Paul was doing when he was instructing those two younger elders. ONE MAN AT A TIME IDEA The next argument that needs to be answered is: "It should also be very clear that the Living Christ has ALWAYS directed major areas of His Work primarily through one man at a time" (GCN Sept/Oct.95, p.6). The writer gives the example of Moses, Joshua, Samuel etc. Well okay - under the OC I can agree with that. Under the NC? The example of Peter and Paul over the circumcised and uncircumcised (Gal.2:7-9) is given. Oh, I can agree that God did primarily use as PILLARS the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul for those large areas of His work. BUT those two men LIVED at the SAME time, and were part of the SAME church, attended the SAME ministerial conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15), visiting each other at times (Gal.l), attending the SAME local congregation at times (Gal.2), and acknowledging they were writing scripture (2 Pet.3:15-16). Who decided who would do what work in these large areas of God's work? Was it the ministers themselves getting together to decide? Was it a "board" of ministers? Or a committee of congregational persons giving out orders? No! It was God who decided (i.e. Acts 9; 10; 13). The responsibilities and FUNCTION of elders had really nothing to do with "huge differences and antagonism between the Gentiles and the Jewish people of the day, and also because of geographical considerations and the fact that there was no instant communication as we have in our time now" (GCN -Sept/Oct 1995, p.6). The reasoning of man to try to hold on to false concepts of the idea of "one man at a time" under the NC age is wondrous to behold. God had no trouble with geographical distance and instant communication on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Nor in scattering the church to preach the word in Acts 8. He had no trouble with geography in sending Philip to Samaria and later Peter and John (Acts 8). God had little problem in getting Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch when necessary (Acts 8:26). He was also able to take him away with little effort (verses 39,40). The church at Corinth had little trouble in communicating with all their different languages. God just gave them the gift of tongues (1 Cor.14). On and on I could go. The gospel was spread quite nicely and quickly thank you, until the world was turned up-side down, and that without the aid of TV, radio, or the computer Internet. As for the huge difference and antagonism between Jews and Gentiles, I'm sure Paul could have managed very well with BOTH, if it had been the will of God, after all Paul was a Jew and a one time Pharisee. He also had good vibes with the Gentiles, and FOR A TIME he DID work on BOTH fronts of the line. It was God who eventually decided to use Paul mainly in the Gentile camp. The fact is ONE man like Paul could have worked in both camps of Jews and Gentiles IF the Lord had willed so. It had nothing to do with geography or instant communication, but SOLELY with the WILL and DECISION of God as to WHO would do WHAT ,and WHERE, and WHEN, they would do it. And so it is to this very day! All this argument is to lead to one final belief. "ONE" UNDER ONE INSPIRED LEADER "Today, such a division is NOT necessary since we have almost instant communication around the world through telephones, computers, fax machines, etc. These modern means of communication enabled the vast majority of God's people to be 'one' under the inspired leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong. Christ guided and BLESSED His Work in that way for over 50 years!" (GCN - Sept/Oct. 1995, p.6). Ah, reading between the lines, I see where this is leading, to the false teaching that God is STILL leading the "vast majority" of His people to be "one" under another organization with another single man as leader, who will be BLESSED above all others. It is a clever psychological "come on" based upon a quick-sand foundation in order to get people to belong to the "one" and really true extension of the - work built by HWA - the Global Church of God. Later known as the LIVING Church of God. What men will do to get a following or to build their "empire." If God has used in the NC age "one man at a time" to direct major areas of His work, and for 50 years or more that ONE man was HWA, then tell me WHO was the one man directing the major area of God's work BEFORE HWA? Where was the "major" area of God's work being done, WHO was the one man over it, what happened to him and how did HWA get to take over his mantle? Then if you can answer that, tell me the name of the one man over God's work before the man who was before HWA? Further still, how does all of that fit in with the present state of things among the different branches and splits that have come out of the WCG founded by HWA? Who is the "one man at a time" NOW? If is it governed by literal numbers then at present it must go to the "one man" (whoever he is) of the UNITED Church of God, as they seem to be on top in number of members. That was before their SPLIT! Again, if they should fall behind in membership to say the GLOBAL [LIVING] Church of God, will the "one man at a time" change to the one man of the LIVING CG? What if the CGI (Church of God, International) should in the next 5 or 10 years surpass in number of members all other branches, will their one man (if they have one) become the "one man at a time" director over God's major area of work? And to yet add more fuel to the fire, what if the CGI only held the record of membership for a year or two, and the ministers of the present WCG all repented of their apostasy - returned to full truth and became the largest branch in membership etc. Would God transfer the "one man at a time" to the WCG's one man? I speak with tongue in cheek. Pretty silly isn't it? Not just silly - it is DUMB!! What illogical ideas the heart of man ponders. AN "INSPIRED" LEADER? I did not bring this up, I was not going to even mention it, talk about it, or discuss it, in this study, but here it is again in the quote previously given, "........God's people to be 'one' under the INSPIRED leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong......" I didn't bring this up, yet it has been brought up within the subject of Church Government. So it would be shirking my duty as a minister and servant of the Eternal God to let this go unanswered. Those who put men on pedestals had better have large enough shoulders to carry the burden. Now I earlier used the word "inspire" for Paul and John the apostles. I called them inspired - they truly were! For any man to use that word in regards to another human being since the death of John is danger, d a n g e r , DANGEROUS! There is sometimes a very loose way in which we use the word "inspire" today in the twentieth century, but I have personally experienced some in the church using this word for HWA not in the loose sense at all. Their mind and heart and emotions making it very plain to me as to how they were using the word. The Jehovah Witnesses have their "inspired" man - William Russell. The Mormons have their "inspired" leader - Joseph Smith together with the book of Mormon. The Christian Science people have their "inspired" teacher - Mary Baker Eddy. The Seventh Day Adventist church have their "inspired" prophet - Ellen G. White. I have talked with, had Bible studies with, over the years, members from the above churches. I know their basic beliefs, I have read and studied their books and literature. I have personally been witness to the results of the mental attitude in the above groups and MANY of their members, in relation to their "inspired" one. They eventually take their eyes off Jesus Christ, they look away from the word of the Lord to the words of their human "inspired" one. Eventually it becomes a mill-stone around their necks, it blinds them to the truth that would set them free as Jesus said. Their faith and trust is in a physical person. They loose the ability to see error and mistakes in the "inspired" one. They loose the ability to be corrected and shown error in their lives and doctrine of belief from the word of God. They enter complacency, thinking they have it all, and have no need for anything. They enter the never never land of the self-righteous Laodicean attitude of Revelation 3. They eventually stop thinking and growing in grace and knowledge of Christ and the word of God because their "inspired" one did it all for them and there is nothing new to learn. They develop a mind set that precludes them from seeing any new light, for that would mean to them their "inspired" one did not have all the light. They especially get up-set, irritable, and often plain out and out ANGRY when shown that their "inspired" one wrote things or taught things that the word of God clearly shows is error or the antithesis to the truth. Again I will say, I have personally had members of the aforementioned groups, as well as members of the WCG (those who believed HWA was inspired to the point of infallibility) who got red hot with anger and stormed out of my presence, because I showed them from the word of God, errors in the writings of their inspired one. Some have put so much faith in the inspiration of their churches "inspired" prophet, that upon being shown they were not so inspired as they believed, they WALKED AWAY from God. Yet it was not the fault of God, but false teachers and they themselves for not heeding the word of God about such matters. Only God's word is truth, only He does not lie, or misunderstand, or misinterpret, or fall prey to human carnality and sin. I hope you dear reader have not put a man on a pedestal where he should never have been put, for if you have the day will come when you will discover your error and then as your "inspired" one falls to eye level, you had better be strong enough to take the fall and not fall yourself where "all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty TOGETHER AGAIN." I could take the time, but here is not the place, to fully e x p o u n d to you the errors, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, false ideas, false teachings, wrong decisions, carnal works of the flesh, and yes, at times, some wrong doctrines, of Herbert Armstrong. HWA was far from being "inspired" at times, then at other times he was, if we use the word loosely, as we often do, inspired in his writings and study of God's word. Using the word "loosely" I can say I hope many of God's people are inspired as they write articles on Christian faith, but nobody from the second century A.D. on, has been inspired in the way Paul was inspired. That is why he wrote for you and me today "PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD." HWA was not inspired like the apostle Paul was inspired. And to give the man credit, HWA never said he ever was. Nobody today is inspired in the way Paul was inspired. Maybe the two witnesses of God in the book of Revelation, when they preach, we will see again the inspiration that filled the apostle Paul. Make sure you do not err by thinking I am against HWA. I love him as I love all God's people. I acknowledge he was a minister of God that was used to do a mighty work for God, and preached much truth to many people. Christ did use HWA and the WCG for many years. To state it was for over 50 years is VERY DEBATABLE indeed, a debate I will not enter into here. 1 TIMOTHY 5:17 There is need to comment on what Paul said to Timothy in the above verse about an elder being "counted worthy of DOUBLE honor." It is argued that Paul is speaking about an elder receiving double WAGES. At fist glance it would appear from verse 18 that there is some truth to that idea. Then on closer look, even if we allow the above argument to stand, we note that Paul says "be counted worthy of double honor" and NOT that he must as a command from him absolutely, at all times, be paid double wages or re-numeration. The elder may, if he does his work well within the church, be worthy to be paid double what he is paid, but that does not mean there are the funds to literally do so. And even if there was, there is still another problem to solve. Paul gives no instruction on a "yard stick" line as to HOW MUCH IS THE FIRST WAGE in the first place that some say should be doubled. What may have been a good livable wage in Paul's time, could be starvation and a homeless situation today in the Western World. Who would determine if the first bottom of the line wage before being doubled, for the minister or elder, would be the upper average wage of the middle class, the average lower wage of the lower class, or the poverty wage line, of the country the elder lives in? There are FAR TOO MANY FACTORS to consider if we believe Paul is here giving an absolute command and law that churches are to pay their elders (who are full time in the ministry) DOUBLE wages. I believe a better understanding of these verses is that Paul is emphasizing having a very HIGH esteem of mind towards those elders who really work hard and govern the church well, while not ruling out a proper physical renumeration. The Greek word used for "honor" in verse 17 would bear out the interpretation I give above. The number in Strong's Concordance is 5092 - teemay - is the English way to pronounce the word. Strong's will show it could refer to literal valuables, i.e. money, it also refers to the mental attitude and value of words like - esteem, dignity, precious, honor. We must look further to get more light on this word and how we should understand it in the context of 1 Tim.5:17. The Englishman's Greek Concordance will serve us well. Page 732 lists every scripture where this word is used in the NT. It is used in 42 verses. In 8 of those uses the word is translated as "price" in the KJV. In 6 cases it is referring undoubtedly to the price of money. The other two cases it is referring to the price of the death of Christ to buy us back from sin. In one case it is translated by the word "sum" and again refers to money - Abraham bought a piece of land for a sum of money. In all other instances it is rendered as "honor" except once when it is rendered as "precious." Note verses like John 4:44 "has no honor in his own country." Rom.2:7 "seek for glory and honor." Rom.12:10 "in honor preferring one another.'' Rom.13:7 "honor to whom honor." 1 Tim.6:1 "their own masters worthy of all honor." 1 Pet.3:7 "giving honor unto the wife." It is used many times as giving honor to God the Father, as well as to Christ. By a margin of at least 3 to 1 the word is used in the NT to denote a MENTAL ATTITUDE of esteem, dignity, praise, appreciation, honor. I believe Paul was FIRST telling Timothy and hence all of us, that the elders who really work hard and well in governing the church should be mentally counted very high in esteem, appreciation and honor. We may put it as "he is greatly honored" in a figure of speech, Paul said "double honor'' as his figure of speech. He was first emphasizing this attitude of mind but was also not ignoring a physical pay for their labor in the word and doctrine. The physical pay would have to be governed by the number of full time elders in the church, the amount of money coming into the church funds, and the cost of living as found in the area or country the elders live in. BARNE'S NOTES ON THE NT has some fine comments: 17." Let the elders that rule well......The word used - elder or presbyter - properly refers to age, and then it is used to denote the officers of the church......The word rendered rule...... is from a verb meaning to be over, to preside over, to have the care of......That rule well. Presiding well, or well managing the spiritual interests of the church......Be counted worthy of double honor. Of double respect; that is, of a high degree of respect. Comp.1 Thes.5:12,13. From the quotation which is made in ver.18, in relation to this subject, it would seem probable that the apostle had some reference also to their support, or to what was necessary for their maintenance...... corresponding to the amount of time which their office required them to devote to the service of the church......Especially they who labor in word and doctrine. In preaching and instructing the people. From this it is clear that, while there were 'elders' who labored 'in the word and doctrine' that is, in preaching, there were also those who did not labor in 'the word and doctrine' but were nevertheless appointed to rule in the church......part of them were engaged in preaching.......a part may have been employed in managing other concerns of the church, and yet all were regarded as the......'elders presiding over the church.' .........Those who among them 'labored in the word and doctrine,' and who gave up all their time to the business of their office, would be worthy of special respect, and a higher compensation." End quote. IS THIS THE END It is, but who knows for how long. With all that is taking place in the various branches of the Church of God coming out of the WCG, I may yet have to answer more arguments from more study papers yet to be written on this subject. The appendix was first written in November 1995, with revisions in 1996. .................... Indeed, it was not long before it was necessary for me to have to write more on this subject. Two widely distributed papers came out which contained much truth BUT also some SERIOUS errors. Those errors I answer in the second half on this book on Church Government.             6. Church Government               What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed APPENDIX Second continuation All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. APPENDIX ADDITIONS ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE by HERBERT LOCKYER pp. 246-247 1. Internal Management Each church was left to manage its own business, and deal with its own offenders.........No directions are given about taking matters to a higher court. Each church was an independent organization. There is no warrant in Scripture for the ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, and also for the ascending series of courts which may review a case of disorder arising in a local church. Each church or assembly was reckoned competent to perform every faction necessary without reference to any other source. The inclusion, exclusion and restoration of members were effected by each church. 2. External Authority As the churches were not to be dominated by any external authority, so they were not to be interfered with, in their church life, by civil government. This at once proves the untenable position of the so-called State Church. It is only where the life of the church touches the civic life of the community that the civil authorities have any right to interfere....... 3. Fraternal Relationship While each local church, according to the New Testament is independent of every other in the sense that no other has jurisdiction over it, yet co-operative relations were entered into, as can be proven by the witness of such passages as Rom.15:1-27; 2 Cor.8:9; Gal.2:10; 3 John 8........Churches may properly co-operate in matters of disciple, by seeking and giving counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In the great paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the nations, they may co-operate in a multitude of ways. There is no sphere of general Christian activity in which they may not voluntarily and freely co-operate for the betterment of the world, the salvation of humanity. 4. Exclusions The early Christian society would not suffer the presence of those immoral persons referred to in 1 Cor.5:11, nor of the heretics mentioned frequently in the epistles, e.g., Titus 3:10......." End quote. WORD MEANINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Ralph Earl PHILIPPIANS Bishops (1:1) The Greek word for "bishop" is episcopos (cf. episcopal). It occurs five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers." In 1 Pet. 2:25 it refers to Christ, "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." It is found twice in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) and is correctly translated "bishop." ("Office of a bishop" in 1 Tim. 3:1 is another word, episcope.) Critics have sometimes insisted that the technical use of episcopos for "bishop" in the Pastoral Epistles reflects a later development in church organization and so demands a second-century date for these letters. But the same usage here in Philippians (written about A.D. 61) undercuts that argument. The word episcopos comes from scopos, "a watcher." So it means "a superintendent, guardian, overseer"(A-S). Thayer notes that it has this same comprehensive sense in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and in classical Greek writers from that time on (p. 243). The large Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940) gives as the first meaning of episcopos "one who watches over," and lists numerous examples of this use (p. 657). "This was the name given in Athens to the men sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs" (Cremer, p. 527). The word was used 14 times in the Septuagint in the sense of "overseer," or "inspector." Deissmann notes that in Rhodes, episcopos was "a technical term for the holder of a religious office" (in the temple of Apollo), as well an being used in the plural for "communal officials" (BS, pp. 230-31). Lightfoot mentions its use at Athens, and adds: "The title however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designation for instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report to the Indian kings......; of the commissioner appointed by Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus.......; of magistrates who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans.......; and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown" (p. 95). Beyer writes: "In Greek episcopos is first used....... with a free understanding of the 'onlooker' as 'watcher,' 'protector,' 'patron.' " Then it came to be used "as a title to denote various offices" (TDNT, 2:609). He notes that protective care is "the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610). This is its classical usage. By the end of the second century we read of diocesan bishops. Early in the second century Ignatius indicates that in each church there was one bishop, a group of presbyters, and a group of deacons. But in Paul's Epistles (here and in the Pastorals) "bishop" and "presbyter" seem to be used synonymously. Lightfoot observes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by the theologians of all shade of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95). In TDNT, Coenen thinks it "probable that the terms presbyteros and episcopos (bishop) are interchangeable" (1:199). Bishop, l TIMOTHY 3:1 The first seven verses of chapter 3 are devoted to outlining the qualifications of a bishop. As a leader in the church he must be a man of exemplary character. "The office of a bishop" is all one word in Greek, episcope. Elsewhere in the NT it is used in this sense only in Acts 1:20, in a quotation from the Septuagint. In verse 2 "bishop" is episcopos, from which comes "episcopal." It occurs only five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers" and applied to the Ephesian elders by Paul. He also refers to the "bishops and deacons" at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). In Titus 1:7 and following, we again find what is required of a "bishop." Finally, in 1 Pet. 2:25, Christ is called "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." The word episcopos is made up of epi, "upon" or "over," and scopes, "watcher." So it literally means "one who watches over." Thayer defines it thus: "An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent.... specifically, the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church " ( p. 243). It will be seen that the basic meaning of episcopos is "overseer." The ancient Greeks thought of their gods as episcopoi. This usage is found in Homer's Iliad and many later writings. Then it came to be used of men in various functions. Beyer says: "Protective care, however, is still the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610). Homer applies the term to ships' captains and merchants, who must be "overseers" of goods. In the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ episcopos was used at Athens as a title for state officials. The same thing was true at Ephesus and in Egypt. But more common was the use of episcopal (plural) for local officials and officers of societies. This brings us closer to the Christian eplscopos. In the Septuagint episcopos is used both for God, who oversees all things, and for men as supervisors in various fields of activity. The latter usage is found in the earlier, well as the later, books of the OT. Turning to the NT, we discover one fact immediately: there is no mention of any diocesan bishop. In the one church at Philippi there were episcopoi, "bishops" (Phil 1:1). The apostles are never given this title. The bishop was a local official, and there were several of these in each congregation. Furthermore, the "elders" (presbyteroi) and "bishops" (episcopoi) were the same. This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17 it says that Paul called for the "elders" (presbyteroi) of the church at Ephesus. In verse 28 he refers to them as episcopoi - "overseers" (KJV), "guardians" (RSV). The same people are designated by both titles. We shall find this same phenomenon clearly indicated in the Epistle to Titus. In the NT Church each local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops and a group of deacons. It seems likely that the former had oversight of the spiritual concerns of the congregation and the latter of its material business. When we come to Ignatius early in the second century (about A.D. 115) there is one bishop over each local church, together with several elders and several deacons. The bishop is supreme in authority. One of the keynotes of Ignatius' seven letters is, "Obey your bishop." To the Trallians he wrote: "For when you are in subjection to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is clear to me that you are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ.... Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ.... And they also who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must be in every way pleasing to all men" (The Apostolic Fathers, "Loeb Classical Library," 1:213-15). Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But "in the beginning it was not so." Bishop = Elder, Titus 1:5-7 In verses 5 and 6 we find the qualifications of elder in the church; verse 7 says, "For a bishop must be blameless." This seems to indicate rather clearly that the same church officials were called bishops (episcopoi) and elders (presbyteroi). The name "elders" emphasizes the fact that the leaders of the church were to be older men, as was the case with the elders of Israel. The word episcopos (bishop) literally means "overseer." So it refers to the function and office of an overseer of the church, That "bishop" and "elder" are used for the same person is even asserted by Bishop Lightfoot of the Church of England. In his commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Philippians he writes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95). He goes on to show that not only was episcopos used in classical Greek for various officials, but it is common in the Septuagint. There it signifies "inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters" (e.g., 2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chron. 34:12, 17; Isa. 60:17). He comments: "Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which lies at the root of the word 'bishop,' its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also: (1) Responsibility to a superior power; (2) The introduction of a new order of things" (p. 96). Lightfoot gives six evidences that bishop and elder are the same: (1) In Phil. 1:1, Paul salutes the bishops and deacons. He could not have omitted mention of the elders unless they were included in the "bishops." (2) In Acts 20:17, Paul summoned to Miletus the elders of the church at Ephesus. But then he calls them "overseers" (episcopoi) of the flock. (3) Peter does a similar thing (1 Pet. 5:1-2). (4) In 1 Timothy, Paul describes the qualifications of bishops (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13). The fact that he omits elders here would argue that they were the same as bishops. (5) Titus 1:5-7). (6) Clement of Rome's First Epistle (ca. A.D. 95) clearly uses "bishops" and "elders" interchangeably. It is not without significance that Jerome, writing near the end of the fourth century, recognizes this identity of the two. He says: "Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age." Again he writes: "The Apostle plainly shows that presbyters are the same as bishops." In a third passage he says: "If any one thinks the opinion that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be not the view of the Scriptures, but my own, let him study the words of the apostle to the Philippians." Other Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, asserted the same thing. Lightfoot goes so far as to say: "Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed" (p. 99). 1 Corinthians, Apostles (12:28) In this verse Paul mentions eight types of ministry in the church. The first is that of apostles. Who were the apostles in the Early Church? Are there still apostles in the church of today? Neither of these questions is easy to answer. The Greek noun apostolos comes from the verb apostello, which means "send with a commission, or on service." So apostolos is "a messenger, one sent on a mission." Abbott-Smith continues his definition by saying: "In NT, an apostle of Christ (a) with special reference to the Twelve......... equality with whom is claimed by St. Paul.......(b) in a wider sense of prominent Christian teachers, as Barnabas, Acts 14:14, apparently also Silvanus and Timothy, 1 Thess. 2:6, and perhaps Andronicus and Junias (Junia?), Rom. 16:7....... of false teachers, claiming apostleship" (p. 55). It is evident that the word has a variety of applications in the NT. In his long article on apostolos in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Rengstorf shows that in classical and early Hellenistic Creek there is no parallel to the NT use of this word. This is true even of the Septuagint, Josephus, and Philo (1:408). The word is found 79 times in the NT. Paul and Luke (his close companion) each use it 34 times (68 out of the 79). It occurs three times in Revelation, twice in 2 Peter. and once each in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews,, I Peter and Jude. Paul has it at the beginning of 9 of his 13 Epistles.. Apostolos is used for messenger, "one sent" in John 13:16. In 2 Cor. 8:23 Paul applies this term to the commissioned representatives of local church congregations. "Finally, apostoloi is a comprehensive term for 'bearers of the NT message' " (TDNT, 1:422). It is used primarily for the 12 apostles chosen and commissioned by Christ. This is the dominant usage in Luke's Gospel and Acts. Then we also find the wider spread suggested by Abbott-Smith. Paul and Barnabas were first of all apostles of the church at Antioch. But Paul calls himself at the beginning of his epistles, "an apostle-of Jesus Christ." Luke does not hesitate to speak of Paul and Barnabas as apostles (Acts 14:4, 14). The first apostle was Jesus himself (Heb.- 3:1), sent from God. Rengstorf comments: "Here the only possible meaning of apostolos is that in Jesus there has taken place the definitive revelation of God by God himself(1:2)" (TDNT, 1:423). All other apostles are direct representatives of Jesus. Are there apostles today in the Church? In a general, unofficial, nontechnical sense, yes. But it may well be questioned whether apostolic authority as found in the first-century Church has carried over to subsequent centuries. Acts 1::31-29 indicates that an apostle was to be one who had been in close contact with Christ during His earthly ministry and who could be a witness of His resurrection. Paul fulfilled the latter requirement ( 1 Cor. 15:8), but not the former one. However, he was careful to state that he had "received" the necessary information (1 Cor. 15:3). Charles H. Spurgeon was perhaps a bit severe when he characterized apostolic succession as laying empty hands on empty heads. But many of those who claim apostolic succession today hardly show themselves to be true representatives of the Christ of the NT. Prophets (12:28) The Greek prophetes comes from the verb prophemi, which means "speak forth." So it signifies "one who acts as an interpreter or forth-teller of the Divine will" (A-S, p. 390). Contrary to popular usage today, the biblical meaning of "prophecy" is not foretelling, but forth-telling. Put in simplest terms, the prophet is one who speaks for God. In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Friedrich has a lengthy article on prophetes and its cognate terms in the New Testament. He notes some differences between OT and NT prophets. He says that "prophecy is not restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity. According to Acts 2:4; 4:31, all are filled with the prophetic Spirit and, according to Acts 2:16ff., it is a specific mark of the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of individuals but that all members of the eschatological community without distinction are called to prophesy" (6:849) But our present passage, as well as Eph.4:11, shows that there was a special gift of prophecy in the Early Church. It is ranked first, as the best gift after "apostles," in our present passage as well as 14:1. Has the gift of prophecy continued? In the second century the Montanists went to unfortunate extremes in their claims for this gift. Friedrich writes: "With the repudiation of Montanism prophecy came to an end in the Church" (6:860). On the other hand many Bible scholars believe that the NT prophets were essentially preachers, and so this gift of the Spirit is present today. Helps (12:28) The Greek word antilempsis (only here in NT) is used in the Septuagint and papyri in the sense of "help." Abbott-Smith thinks that here it is used for the "ministrations of deacons" (p. 41). Cremer says that the word is "taken by the Greek expositors uniformly as answering to deacons (implying the duties towards the poor and sick)" (p. 386). Governments (12:28) Kybernesis is likewise found only here in the NT. It comes from the verb meaning to guide or steer. In classical Greek it referred to the piloting of a boat. Then it was used metaphorically for "government." Beyer writes that in view of its literal meaning and attested usage, "The reference can only be to the specific gifts which qualify a Christian to be a helmsman to his congregation, i.e., a true director to its order and therewith of its life" (3:10:36). The word may be translated "gifts of administration" (NIV). Evangelists (4:1 1 ) - Ephesians The word, which is a transliteration of the Greek euangelistes, is found only two other places in the NT. In Acts 21:8 Philip is referred to as "the evangelist." In 2 Tim.4:5 the young Timothy is admonished to "do the work of an evangelist." The term comes from the verb euangelizo ("evengelize"), which means "proclaim glad tidings." An evengelist, then, is one who preaches the "gospel" (Greek euangelos), the good news that Christ has died to save men. The evangelists in the Early Church were probably itinerant preachers. Pastors and Teachers (4:11) "Pastor" is the Latin term for "shepherd." The Greek word poimen also means "shepherd." It is used of Christ (John 10:11, 14, 16; Heb.13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). Here it is used of Christian pastors. Homer, in his Lliad, refers to "pastors of the people" (poimena laon). The pastor is to be the shepherd of the flock. Apparently the pastors and teachers were the same. Vincent comments: "The omission of the article from teachers seems to indicate that pastors and teachers are included under one class" (3:390). The end of quotes from Ralph Earle THE WORD "ELDER" AS USED IN THE NT The Analytical Greek Lexicon(1978 edition) says: "presbuteros..........elder, senior: older, more advanced in years, Lu.15:25; Jno.8:9; Ac.2:17; an elder in respect of age, person advanced in years, 1 Tim.5:1,2; pl. spc. ancients, ancestors, fathers, Mat.15:2; He.11:2; as an appellation of dignity, an elder, local dignitary, Lu.7:3; an elder, member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Mat.16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57, 59; an elder or presbyter of the Christian church, Ac.11:30; 14:23, et al.freq. presbuterion.........a body of older men, an assembly of elders; the Jewish Sanhedrin, Lu.22:66; Ac.22:5; a body of elders in the Christian church, a presbytery, 1 Tim.4:14. presbutes.........  an old man,  aged person, Lu.1:18; Tit.2:2; Phile.9 presbutis........an aged woman, Tit.2:3. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, page 195 A. Adjectives 1. presbuteros......... an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, "an old man, an elder," is used (a) of age, whether of the "elder" of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9, "the eldest"; or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts 2:17; in Heb.11:2, the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt.15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim.5:2, not in respect of positions but in seniority of age; (b) of rank or position of responsibility, (1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept.of Gen.50:7; Num.22:7; (2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num.11:16; Deut.27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt.16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3; (3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the term "bishops," episkopoi, or "overseers," is applied (see Acts 20, v.17 with v.28, and Titus 1:5 and 7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil.1:1; 1Tim.5:17; Titus 1:5. The duty of "elders" is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the divine qualifications, Titus 1:6 to 9; cf. 1 Tim.3:1-7 and 1 Pet.5:2; ........... 2. sumpresbuteros........"a fellow-elder (sun, "with"), is used in 1 Pet.5:1. 3. meizon......translated "elder" in Rom.9:12, with reference to Esau and Jacob. B. Noun presbuterion........."an assembly of aged men," denotes (a) the Council or Senate among the Jews, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; (b) the "elders" or bishops in a local church, 1 Tim.4:14, "the presbytery." TODAY'S ARGUMENT Some in the Church of God of recent date are teaching that ALL older people (men only, but some will no doubt eventually include women) can be Elders in the church. They teach people can take turns in being "elders" for a festival time, or for a month, or a year etc. They teach a local church can "pick and choose" or "vote in or vote out" who will serve as Elders and for how long. They say the word "elder" under the OT just meant any older person. Sure indeed within some contexts it did mean just that, but upon an in-depth study of the word, as done above, it was often used in a more limited sense and as a "leadership" function and responsibility, not shared with just every older man in the nation or community. The use of the word "elder" in the NT also clearly shows a much w i d e r and BROADER use as the two works above explained and demonstrated. It is used for older men and older women in any congregation of the church of God. But it is not exclusively to be understood as meaning that in EVERY passage where it is used. The context of the passage is most important as to how we are to understand the use of the word. Clearly, this Greek word is an umbrella word. Something similar to our English word today of "minister." That word is an umbrella word. For we use it not only when talking about those men who are pastors of churches, but it is used of various functions and duties of the nations Government. We today have a "minister of Finance" or a "minister of Defence" or a "minister of Health" - "minister of Public Affairs" - "minister of Agriculture" etc. etc. It should be clear from all we have studied in the previous pages, that the NT does use the term "elder" in a specific limited context, of men who were appointed by meeting certain qualifications, to function in duty as overseers, shepherds, leaders, guides, pastors, teachers, of the flock. Such men had to meet specific qualifications. They could not be new to the faith (no matter how old in age they were) when chosen to be an overseer. Many other points did Paul lay down in 1 Tim.3 as to who could qualify for eldership. It should be pretty plain to the honest searcher for truth, that not ALL older men would have all the qualifications required to be appointed as church pastors/overseers/elders. Not all older men in the nation are qualified to be part of the local officials that are to guide and direct the affairs of local towns and cities. Not all older carpenters, plumbers, fire-fighter, policemen, have the gifts to be leaders, and guides, and overseers, of a crew of persons in their chosen profession. That is just the way it is in this natural life. It does not mean the leader/guide, of a group of fie-fighters, is any better man in character or worth. He may very well not be as good in some areas as a man under his guidance. It just means that he has proved he has the qualities needed to oversee that trade well on the whole. He has proved he is rounded and balanced enough, has the overall gifts, needed to take care, watch out for, instruct correctly, guide, help, and serve, those he is overlooking and overseeing. That's all it means! It does not mean he is "special." It means he has been given certain gifts to meet certain qualifications that are needed to function correctly in the appointment of overseeing and leading others. Then depending on how well he does in that function, staying basically within those qualifications from then on out, will determine how long he keeps that function. If he falls too many times from those qualifications, especially if it brings shame and disgrace upon his company, then his reward is accordingly, even to the point of loosing his function and being then a part of the team under other overseers and leaders. If we teach that EVERYONE can be or have turns in being "elders" in the church, there are LARGE problems to answer! If being an elder is just being an "older person" then we have to determine at what age is older? Do we become an elder of the church at age 50? Is that "older"? Or is it at the age of 55? Maybe we become an elder in the church at age 60! Or is it 65 when we retire? That's the age our nations call us seniors, unless you live in Florida. There certain stores (to receive discounts) and certain movie theatres, call you senior at the age of 55. Should the age be 70 when you become a church elder? Some would think 40 years old is old enough. Or how about 30, that's when Jesus started to teach and lead and guide. Then, what if someone comes into the church at age 60. Do they become an elder right away because of their older age? If not, then how long do they have to wait, how many months or years, before they are counted as an elder of the church? Who sets all the answers to the above questions? Where do they get the authority and Bible answers to answer those questions? I can see a whole list of problems arising from this teaching of "everyone can be elders, who are older." What if someone does not want to be considered an "elder" when he is older? What does the church do to "unfrock" him? How long does an elder remain an elder in his old age, and who sets the time, by what authority, and by what set of scriptures? We have not yet touched on the problem of older women. They too are "elder" as part of elder means older. Paul said in Christ there is no male or female, Gentile or Jew, so should not older women also be "elders of the church"? If not why not? And so we are back to the beginning of the circle. What is the NT definition of a church "elder"? From all that I have presented to you so far in this study, from all the NT scriptures we can "put together" on the subject, we should by now KNOW THE ANSWER! If you do not, then better read over the last dozen or so pages once more - S L O W L Y! ............ Appendix Additions updated in January 1997           To be continued              7. Church Government              What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed Part Two by Keith Hunt At the end of part one in this study I questioned if it would be the last word that I would have to say concerning the subject at hand. It was not very long after that comment that I received two more study papers on this topic. For the individuals who have only recently come out of the church organization known as the Worldwide Church of God, this topic of Church Government is very high on the study list. It seems thousands are just now beginning to come to the light, (their one time church organization had for many decades departed from the plain truth of the New Testament) as to the pattern of church government that Jesus and the early apostolic church taught and practiced. The two new papers that have come across my desk in the last six months (I am writing in the late summer of 1996) are by Norman Edwards and John Difley. The paper by Norman Edwards is called "How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?" And the paper by John Difley is named "By What Authority?" The former was written in June 1995 (first edition, which I answer later) while the latter was published in 1996. Both of the above study papers (Mr.Edwards now has a new edition to his paper, which at present, Jan.1999 I have not yet read, due to lack of time) can be obtained free of charge by writing to: Servant's News, PO Box 220, Charlotte, Michigan 48813-0220 Phone: 517-543-5544 Fax: 517-543-8899 E-Mail.75260.1603@Compuserve.com    Mr. Edwards and Mr.Difley have come to see many truths contained in the New Testament(NT forthwith). I fully agree with much of what they have to say, BUT POLITELY DISAGREE WITH THEM ON CERTAIN POINTS THEY RAISE. Below you will find their full words on certain points of thought, and my reply to their argument. I do appreciate their study and work. In the main we have much in common, and I am hoping that no one will construe that my rebuttal of some of their thoughts or beliefs is an attack on their integrity of character. I will start my replies to various points with the paper by John Difley (J.D.) called By What Authority? J.D. No "Ordination Ceremonies" in the Bible ........Ordination, in the religious sense, comes strictly from pagan origins and customs and is not biblical in foundation......No place does the Bible command, espouse, or suggest a service (ceremony) of ordination. Quite to the contrary the biblical example is for the local congregation or fellowship to collectively lay hands upon an individual that they have jointly chosen and together commend that individual to God for the appointed position...... MY ANSWER: First, let us look at the word "ordination" or more specifically - "ordain." Here in part is what the Reader's Digest Family Word Finder has to say: "....1......confer holy orders upon, name, invest....consecrate; appoint, commission, delegate, deputize, elect. 2.....decree, rule, pronounce....instruct....order, command....legislate." I want you to keep in mind that this word "ordain" can also, in our English usage, mean in certain contexts - consecrate, appoint, delegate, commission, and elect. Now the World Book Dictionary in part says this about the word "ordain." "....1. to establish as a law; order; fix; decide; appoint......2. to appoint or consecrate officially as a clergyman. 3. to appoint (a person, etc.) to a charge, duty, or office.....Old French ordener, learned, borrowing from the Latin ordinare, arrange (in Medieval Latin, consecrate; take holy orders)....." Notice point number 3 again! This word not only means appoint to a duty or charge, it not only means learned, BUT IT CAN ALSO MEAN - CONSECRATE! I am not sure what runs through the mind of Mr.Difley when he hears the English word "ordain" but I suspect it may not be the same as how I understand the word. For the word "consecrate" the above mentioned Dictionary says: "....1. to set apart as sacred; make sacred or holy......2......3. to devote (to a purpose): A doctor's life is consecrated to curing sick people.....Syn.v.t. 1. sanctify. 3. dedicate. See devote." AAAHHH! Now we have the word sanctify used in conjunction with "consecrate." Again, here is what the World Book Dictionary has to say about the word sanctify: "......1. to make....holy......2. to set apart as sacred; observe as holy; consecrate: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it (Genesis 2:3). 3. to make (a person) free from sin. 4. to make right......." Do you feel we are going in CIRCLES? Yes, we are to a large extent! Can you see how the words ordain, consecrate, and sanctify may all be chosen to say the same thing and convey the same idea and thought to the English speaking mind? If used in the context of physical men under the banner of God's truth and service, then the thought of mind is to certain people who are called, appointed, set apart, devoted to a purpose. And consecrated in learned ability to be a teacher of others in word and deed to the WAY of the Eternal God. With what we see above about this word "ordain" I just cannot fathom from a "religious sense" that it has any direct origin with the pagans. Oh, they also may have had the custom of electing men and setting them apart to serve in their false worship of false gods. Does that mean God has not the right to elect, ordain, consecrate, set apart, men to serve Him and His children, either by calling them direct (as He did with the apostle Paul) or through other humans (as we saw in the first part of this study)? The pagans had a special one day a week to worship their gods on (Sun-day). Does that mean God has no right to establish the 7th day as ordained, sanctified, set apart time, to worship Him? The pagans had their seasonal festivals. Does that mean God cannot have seasonal festivals? The heathen had their yearly calendar. By so having, did that mean God could not establish His yearly calendar? The pagans had a religious priesthood, therefore was it not permissable for the Eternal God to have one? The pagans established an animal sacrificial system. Was it wrong for the Lord to also establish such a system with ancient Israel? My answer to the above is of course a resounding - NO! What the pagans DID or did NOT do, has really no bearing on what the perfect, holy, righteous God did do, does do, will do, or will not do. What in the "religious sense" does the word Ordination convey to your mind? Is it something "pagan"? Does it convey to you something "evil" or "dirty" or "false."? Well, I guess if you think about all the false "wolves in sheeps clothing" clergy in the world, then it may to you be an offensive word. But if you put it in the context of those truly called and chosen, consecrated, set apart, appointed, elected by God. Men who serve the spiritual needs of the sons and daughters of the Lord........then I think the word Ordination will take on a wonderful and inspiring meaning. A meaning that lifts the heart to praise and thank the Eternal for having His ordained Elders to lead and guide His called out ones - His ordained children, who collectively constitute His ordained Church. Mr. Difley says Ordination is "not biblical in foundation." Well, I will now show you where God HIMSELF commanded that there would be a "consecration ceremony," a "setting apart" ceremony, an "appointment to religious duty" service, an Ordination service if you will! It has been in your Bible for centuries. It is in the Old Testament, but the things of old are written for our admonition, for our edification, for our salvation (1Cor.10:11-12; 2 Tim.3:15-17). Listening to Moses and the prophets (Old Testament) is more important than any literal physical miracle (Luke 16:31). With that said, let's turn to Leviticus chapter eight. We shall start to read from verse one. "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ' Take Aaron and his sons with him....the anointing oil....and gather all the congregation together at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.' So Moses did as the Lord commanded him.....And Moses said to the congregation, 'This is what the LORD COMMANDED TO BE DONE' " (verses 1-5). Notice verse 9, more commands from God, as with verse 13, 17, 21, 29, 35, 36. The WHOLE ELABORATE process described in this chapter was commanded by the Lord! Look at verse 12, "And he poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him, to CONSECRATE him" (NKJV throughout unless otherwise stated). The KJV of 1611 does not use the word consecrate but the word "sanctify." Verse 30 in the old KJV is: "And Moses took of the anointing oil....and sprinkled it upon Aaron....and upon his sons....and SANCTIFIED Aaron....and his sons....with him." The NKJV does not use the word sanctified but the word "consecrated." But the intent to the English mind is the same - these men were SET APART, ELECTED, APPOINTED, to the duty of religious service in a special way among the people of Israel, who formed the "church in the wilderness"(Acts 7:38). All of this specific occurrence took place as the "congregation" looked on. Read again verses two through to verse five. This was in a PUBLIC setting! Now, let me ask you: What would you call this special event? Would you call it a "church prayer meeting"? Would you call it a "church Bible study"? Maybe a "church picnic" - I speak in jest. What words come to your English mind (I am writing as an Englishman) that convey to your understanding about what was taking place in this chapter of Leviticus? Do you think of the words "church service," well some may? It was a "service" of a type, as we think and use that English word concerning a religious congregation. Does the words "sanctification service" or "consecration service" pop into your mind as you read this chapter? I am sure with many it does. Yet MANY English readers will think of the words "dedication service" and/or "Ordination service." And WHY NOT? For the whole context of this chapter, all the basic underlying themes of this command from the Lord, is what the English mind thinks of as an ORDINATION SERVICE of men to an elected, called, appointed function of service in the work of the Eternal, toward humanity and especially toward the people of the Church of God. I do not care what the pagans did or did not do in public toward their elected priests of their religions. We are here looking at what GOD COMMANDED! I feel quite "at home" in calling this public setting apart of elected men to serving in a religious function, as an "Ordination service." To be frank. I am somewhat puzzled and even a little disturbed at what presently seems like a "disdain" by some persons (such as Mr Difley and Mr. Edwards) for the words "ordination" or "ordination service" or "ordination of men." They seem to want to put forth the teaching that this word is not to be used in commending men, or that it is connected somehow with evil or sin. John the Baptist conducted his ministry in the wilderness of Judea. It was a public ministry. He baptized people out in the open, crowds came to hear him and hundreds went under the water in baptism by him (Matthew 3:1-12). Jesus, already a servant of the Most High, already a spiritual elder in Israel, already learned and performing the work of God toward the people of God. This Jesus comes to John for baptism, not because He needed to repent of sin and be forgiven of sins, but "to fulfil all righteousness"(verses 13-15). Now look what happens when Jesus comes out of the water. The Spirit of God descends upon Him, a voice from heaven says, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"(verses 16,17). Did Jesus not have the Spirit of God at this time in His life? No! It is written He had the Spirit without measure from His conception. Was Jesus only now "well pleasing" to the Father? Of course not! He had been well pleasing to the Father from the beginning - for He was sinless. The truth is, this was now a SPECIAL TIME in the life of Jesus. He was now to embark very shortly into the most important three and one half years of His physical life. He was now too really "zero in" on serving and dedicating His elected calling to the children of God. What could be more fitting at this juncture than the Father openly and publicly performing a "consecration" - "setting apart" - public acknowledgment of service in the past and that to come, by His Son? If Aaron was given a public sanctification service of religious duty and function, he being only a sinful man, surely the sinless Son of the Eternal God would have no less an ordination service? And He did not! Turn to Acts chapter six. This is the well-known chapter for the first choosing of men who would "serve tables." Read verses one to seven. I shall come back later to look at this in detail when I answer another argument, but for now we see men who met certain requirements as laid down by the apostles. They, the "multitude of disciples"(verse 2) brought these men before the apostles, who "when they had prayed, laid their hands on them"(verse 6). This was a public ceremony, where many were witnesses to this event. Not only the apostles (ministers, elders, spiritual overseers) but also a "multitude of disciples." What if using English words would you call this ceremony? Some would say it was a "church service" and I guess it would come under that generic phrase. But most religious English born persons would narrow it down to more specific words than just a church service, for the context of the verses convey to the mind a certain type of ceremony here described. Many would instantly say this was a "sanctification service" or a "consecration ceremony" or an "ordination service to deaconship." There is nothing to the average English mind that smacks at "evil" or "pagan" in the words ordination service to deaconship. Most church goers read the first six verses of Acts chapter six, and understand them as certain men being publicly set apart, sanctified, consecrated, ordained, appointed, elected, to serve and function in the duty of physical things within the church - deacons or servers. These men did have to meet certain requirements, they were elected, they had to be willing to answer that calling, and they did go through a public ceremony where certain literal things were performed. The most important, as the ones recorded for us - prayer and the laying on of hands. We in the English language have given that whole process a name, which immediately conveys to our mind certain specifics that the generic phrase "church service" cannot. We have named the process of Acts 6:1-6 as an ORDINATION SERVICE! And WHY ON EARTH NOT! CONCERNING ORDINATION TO THE ELDERSHIP We have seen in part one of this study that God has chosen two ways to call a man to serve in His spiritual eldership ministry - 1. He Himself with signs, miracles, visions, angels, or personal appearance to the man being called. There is no record that the 12 apostles or the apostle Paul went through some kind of ordination service by physical men. They were personally chosen and called by the Lord Himself, and what better or greater ordination could there be than that! 2. God uses other men to publicly acknowledge certain individuals have been called by the Lord to spiritual leadership and overseeing of His children. Does the service of public consecration or ordination somehow "throw the switch" and magically "presto" - make that man into a "minister" from a lay person? Now that would indeed be a miracle if it did.Of course such a literal ceremony cannot make a man into a true minister of God. Nor can it guarantee to the end of his life that he will not go astray or become a false minister if he started out as a true one (see again Acts 20). The ceremony of baptism by physical persons in a public setting (most baptisms are usually performed with others around as witnesses, though it is not a command) does not magically turn the person being baptized into a true Christian IF the heart and mind of the individual is not right with God. He can see the heart, whereas men can be fooled and deceived by the outward signs and actings and words of others. A person going through baptism with a true heart and mind has already been living to the best of his/her ability and knowledge the life of a Christian. The ceremony of baptism is an outward physical sign that an inward change of the heart and mind HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. Which has already led the person to think, to speak, to act, to conduct themselves in a way that is pleasing to God. So similarly is an ordination service of men to the spiritual eldership in the church. It is a physical act usually in a public setting (by that I mean members of the congregation present) to ACKNOWLEDGE that this man or men, have already been functioning in their lives as spiritual leaders, guides and overseers, within the body of Christ. The ceremony itself will not make that man into a spiritual leader if he has not already become one. An ordination service will not make that man into a true minister of God if he is not already one in heart and mind. And as the word of the Lord clearly shows, that "setting apart" service will not, from that moment on, guarantee that man will remain as a true spiritual elder of God until his death. Do we stop baptizing people because some "pull the wool over our eyes" and fool us into thinking they have the right godly heart and mind when they do not, or because some later leave the faith and make shipwreck their Christian walk? No, of course we do not! Should we then stop performing ordination services because some men have deceived us into thinking they are true spiritual elders and overseers when they are not, or because some will turn themselves into false minister and start "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them"(Acts 20:30)? No, of course not! I am trying to see, probably looking through a glass darkly, as to why Mr. Difley/Edwards, have such a "horror" for the word ordination, or throw out such "end of argument" phrases as: You cannot find the words "ordination service" in the Bible. Big deal. I cannot find the words "baptism service" used in the Bible either, yet that does not mean people were not baptized in an open public baptism ceremony, where certain things would have been said and done in a chosen manner by those participating. The exact specific pattern of physical action and words spoken (what is said to the one being baptized by the person doing the baptizing, how is the one being baptized put under the water, backwards, frontwards, sideways, squatting, etc.) is not given to us, only the example and teaching that believers are to be baptized in water and have the laying on of hands. The NT writers conveyed to our minds that people were baptized with certain words, it got the message across to us, which is the important thing. So they used other words and not the words "baptism service" or "baptismal ceremony." That combination of words cannot be found in the Bible, so what I say. Does that prove anything one way or the other? Not really. Language does change over a period of time, how we use words, the phrases we use, the combination of words we use to express the same image on the part of the brain that functions to understand correctly the truth being promulgated, may change over time, but the truth never changes. How we use words to express that truth may change, but the truth itself never does. The words "second coming" are not to be found in the Bible. Most fundamental Christians instantly know the truth of what those words are meant to convey to the mind. They know that those words in a nut shell, give the truth of the scriptures that Jesus will literally, in power and glory, bodily return again to this earth. The NT writers did not use that combination of words to express this truth. Jesus is recorded to have said, "I will come again." We find such phrases as "the coming of the Lord" and others in the NT, but nowhere can you find the phrase "second coming." Now is it wrong for us today to use such a phrase among ourselves as Christians to proclaim the truth of scripture that Christ will come back to live on this earth again as He once did before? No, indeed not! It is just a form of English to express among ourselves a certain biblical truth. Our English words ordination service or ordination ceremony are a combination of words that speak to our mind in a certain way, as we have come to customarily use and expect them to be used within a certain context. The average religious English -speaking person would immediately associate those words with the consecration service of Aaron to Israel's high-priesthood, and the 6 men of Acts chapter six to that of "table servers" or as commonly called today in most churches - deacons. The truth that words convey to the mind is the important thing, not the sounding of the words, not the language of the words, not the spelling of the words, not the combination of the words used, but the truth the words tell you! A CONTRADICTION Mr. Difley says that nowhere does the Bible command or suggest a service (ceremony) of ordination. This we have already shown to be incorrect. But he goes on to say: "Quite to the contrary the biblical example is for the local congregation or fellowship to collectively lay their hands upon an individual that they have jointly chosen and together commend that individual to God for the appointed position." Now how does a group of say 100 or more persons in a congregation lay hands on an individual "collectively" - all simultaneously, and "together commend" him to God? How can a group of 100 all say the same words at the same time? Maybe I am not understanding Mr. Difley's words correctly. But surely even in this setting that he puts forth, any size congregation would have to delegate this laying on of hands and "commending" to a basic few. It would just not be literally physically possible to do this any other way within a large congregation.. So Mr. Difley IS SAYING that a congregation brings forth an individual, he stands before them, hands are laid upon him, and he is commended to the Lord some how and in some way. Let us suppose we are one of the members of that congregation. We want to tell others what has taken place. What are we going to CALL, what actual WORDS, are we going to name this process? Are we going to call it a "chosen one procedure" or "elected for service program" or "called out ceremony"? We are going to have to give it a name, sooner or later, just from the way things work as we speak a language to each other in communicating. It will be given a name that will become the norm, so everyone will immediately understand what our church did to certain individuals. If this is not a "service of ordination" or putting it the other way, if this is not an ordination service. If the Bible does not even suggest a service or ceremony of ordination THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING BRINGING ANYONE FORWARD IN A CONGREGATIONAL SETTING TO LAY HANDS UPON THEM AND COMMEND THEM TO THE LORD? Are we just playing with words here? We cannot have an ordination service because the Bible supposedly does not uphold it (which is not true) yet can have some kind of ceremony, service, which brings individuals forth to have hands laid upon them for service. It still leaves us having to come up with words to describe our new "ordination service" if we cannot call it by that name. Or is this whole matter really to do with some who have experienced being in an organization that not only had totally wrong "church government" and were even "cultic" in their ministerial power over the rank and file membership? Elders of their church dictatorial in words and manner, ruling with an iron hand, having SS men reporting to them about ones who were "rebelling" against headquarters, or "asking too many questions." Is this whole thing about persons who have seen the total ABUSE and PERVERSION of the eldership ministry, who have experienced the false doctrine of a "pecking order" authoritarian "do as we say or we will disfellowship you" cult teaching? Is it that these people in wanting to be free from such evil bondage, having seen how men were elected to eldership by other powerful, power-hungry, loyal no matter what, to the dictates of the organization run by one human man, having seen how elders were chosen and turned into clones of existing elders. Now seeing this to be wrong and evil, have walked away to the other extreme in rejecting even the words ordination service, and espouse the other way that seems right unto men, but hidden within it lies as much sorrow, pain, and deception, as the one they left - namely, that it is the membership of the congregation that only and finally decides who will be its spiritual elders. Many in so freeing themselves from one tyranny have not seen the devil coming as an angel of light to catch them in another net of falsehood and deception, so will end up in being a part of and fulfilment of the prophetic words of Paul when he said to Timothy: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Tim. 4:3,4). There can be as much danger (with carnality, politics, personalities, etc.) in a whole congregation believing and thinking they have the last word on who is to serve them in the spiritual eldership, as the existing eldership believing they have all dictatorial authority over everything without any participation or consideration from the membership. Both are extremes. Both will lead to the camp of Satan in the long run, just give it enough time. As Jesus said, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat." The devil and the demons have cut many paths and highways for many different types of people to ride upon, all leading to the net of captivity and death. Jesus told us, "Straight and narrow is the path to eternal life and few therebe that find it." The key is the plumb line down the middle (Amos 7:7,8). Get too far to the right and you are off the mark, get too far to the left and you are just as far off the mark. The pendulum down the centre is where it's at - straight and narrow is the path to life. J.D. The laying on of hands to commend one to God is very common throughout the Old and New Testaments. Can this accurately be called ordination? Certainly not!.......The purpose of laying on of hands was always the same no matter what the cause, to commend one to God. The intent was always that God would bless. Never was the intent that man, through ceremony, could somehow make binding decisions for God, or commit God to work through an individual chosen by man...... MY ANSWER: In the main I agree with what is stated above. Yet I believe you could make a case that the laying on of hands for anything is an ordination if you understand the context and the meaning of the word WITHIN that context. We have seen that the words consecrate, sanctify, ordain, can be used as synonyms within certain contexts. Was a father's blessing on a particular child with the laying on of hands a sanctifying, a setting apart, a consecration, an ordination for a particular purpose? Well yes it was. To set that person apart, to appoint that individual, to elect that person to receive that blessing given by the father. Are the sick who receive anointing and laying on of hands being consecrated, set apart, sanctified, ordained, to a special purpose? Why, yes they are. They are being set apart, appointed, to receive the gift of healing from the Lord. So again, it's how you want to think of the word ordain and the context it's used in. It is I grant mainly used today in the context of "church ministry." Certainly the purpose of the laying on of hands was to commend one to God. Please note the last sentence of J.D's. in the above comments. Reading between the lines I feel he is hinting at a wrong teaching proclaimed by his former church. I am very familiar with the teachings of the Worldwide Church of God, being a member from 1961 to 1972 and keeping a close watch on them since. Through various sources I could follow their progressive "cultic" mind set from 1979 to 1986 when their founder Herbert Armstrong died. The members were taught that HWA was God's ONLY apostle on earth, directly under Christ Himself in authority. He was certainly the final authority in the WCG organization - what he said everyone else was to obey. The membership was taught that God was fully in charge through the ministry, all the elders were divinely appointed by the Lord, no errors no mistakes. The people were to obey them with no questions asked, in fact if you started to ask questions, doubted the authority and inspiration of the eldership, questioned the doctrines of the church, you were discarded, thrown out like a piece of trash, and told you were cut off from the one true church and Holy Spirit. The membership were told what to think, when to think, how to think. The people were ruled with a rod of iron. Those ordained were to be looked upon with trembling awe, as if infallible. There was to be implicit - even blind - faith, trust, and obedience to the ministry. HWA was for many the Elijah to come. He would take them to a place of safety to escape the Great Tribulation, and live to the return of Christ. Being ordained in the WCG during those years would practically put you on the same level as the Eternal God Himself. Yes, that is how fanatically wild and outrageously "cultic" THAT ORGANIZATION BECAME for a while.! It is then, understandable I guess, that some who have come through those traumatic years would possibly "cringe" and "shudder" at the very words ordination service. To them it only means human men were given by other human men the power to "make binding decisions for God, or commit God to work through an individual chosen by man." In other words, telling God what to do, having the Lord jump to man's tune, and teaching the rest of the lay membership that it was so. Such ordination services are indeed a "sham" and false doctrine. They turn any group of persons into a fanatical cult. Now I ponder, that if Mr.Difley and Mr.Edwards had never experienced such radical, extremism and bizarre teaching about being ordained to the eldership, and on the other hand experienced only the ordained ministry of such church organizations as the Church of God, Seventh Day - the Seventh Day Adventist - and even some of the large Protestant churches, then their outlook and attitude concerning ordination would I believe be quite different than it seems to be at present. Millions of people from the above churches have no problem with ordaining individuals to the ministry or deaconship. They may some of them, have personal difficulties with ceratin elders and deacons at times, as they do with other members of their congregation, but they work through those troubles in the main and do not believe that ordinations should be cast away. And when it comes down to it, to the bottom line, I do not think John Difley is against "setting apart" - "consecration" - ordination services, for he clearly talks about persons having hands laid upon them by a congregation and being commended to God for the appointed position. J.D. .....Please turn to Acts 13:1-4.........In this passage there are several very important points. First, note that God had already appointed all those named as either prophets or teachers......Second, for this special calling in the work, the Holy Spirit actually made a very direct additional appointment to service. This was most uncommon!.......The third thing to note is that even though the Holy Spirit did the actual calling, the local church still had the responsibility for the necessary spiritual and physical conduct. The church sought after God's special commendation for Saul and Barnabas through prayer, fasting, and the laying on of hands...... MY ANSWER: I have no real problems with J.D's comments till we come to his "The third thing to note." He says the "local church still had the responsibility......" and "The church sought after ......" But the word does NOT SAY that! Please read again - carefully - verse one. When we use the word "church" our English way of thinking about that word is the whole membership - everyone - elders, deacons, and lay persons - all the saints. Now, verse one says: "....there were IN the church.....certain prophets and teachers as....." and the subject of thought goes to naming those prophets and teachers, at least the ones who are named, for there could have been others also. The point is, the subject is the prophets and teachers who were IN the church, not THE WHOLE CHURCH itself. The Greek word for "in" is EN. Please refer to the Analytical Greek Lexicon or another work for its many uses. It means besides other things "among" - "before" - "in the presence of" - "in the sight, estimation of" - "in the case of" - "in respect of." Once more let me say, the subject of the thought of the paragraph is NOT the church as a whole but the prophets and teachers who were IN - PART OF - WITHIN - AMONG - the church! Verse two says, "As THEY ministered to the Lord...." Who are "the they"? Why the persons whose names were just given to us above in verse one. That is the logical structure of the sentence and thought. It was not the whole church that was ministering and fasting to the Lord, but the prophets and teachers just mentioned. So while they were thus doing the Holy Spirit talked to them, in what exact way is not revealed. It was to the prophets and teachers named that the Spirit gave instructions to "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Verse three: "And when THEY had fasted and prayed and laid hands on them...." The subject has not changed, the thought from verse one and two continues, the THEY is still the individuals named beforehand - the prophets and teachers. It should be clear, there were several leaders IN the church at Antioch who were giving themselves "continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word"(Acts 6:4) as well as fasting in this case. And the Spirit revealed to THEM the work that Barnabas and Paul (Saul) had been called to undertake. Those men further fasted and prayed, laid hands upon the two chosen men and sent them away. There is no indication or teaching here that the prophets and teachers concerned HAD TO GO TO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION FOR THE OKAY OR APPROVAL to send these men out on this work. They made the decision as a group of prophets and teachers, being led by the Holy Spirit. They had the freedom and the liberty in Christ to so do! We need to get it straight. The freedom and liberty to do the work of the Lord, as the Spirit of God leads, is VERY WIDE and BROAD to all the people of the Lord, whoever you are in the body, when it comes to spreading and teaching the word of truth. Stephen, a man ordained to "serving tables" did not think twice about doing great wonders and miracles among the people, and preaching the truths of God so powerfully to others including the Jewish priests, that it cost him his life (Acts 6,7). He did not have to obtain permission to do this from the apostles! When persecution arose against the church at Jerusalem and all had to flee save but for the apostles, those who were scattered abroad (elders, deacons, and all the saints) thought nothing about going everywhere "preaching the word"(Acts 8:1-4). This was personal Christian work, and no authorization was needed from the apostles. This was everyones liberty in the Lord. Philip, a man called and elected to "serve tables," went to Samaria and "preached Christ unto them." He also did miracles and baptized those who believed (Acts 8:5-13). Yes, Peter and John were sent to give a helping hand, but Philip did not have to get the "starting orders" from Jerusalem or the apostles. The Spirit led him to do a work and he just got out there and did it - true liberty in the Lord. I have covered this fully already in part one of this study. I refer you back there for the details of this particular truth. So the liberty for doing the work of the Lord and spreading the gospel message extends to all the children of God in the body of Christ, it extends to the so called "lay person" but it also extends to the eldership of the church. The prophets and teachers at Antioch did not have to obtain permission from the whole membership to send Paul and Barnabas out to the work the Holy Spirit had called them to do. And no one got upset at what they did. Everyone knew this was their liberty. J.D. Men Choose By Inspiration of the Holy Spirit .......it is time to look at the positions in the church that God expects to be filled by the choice of men.....The first such appointments recorded for the early church are in Acts 6:1- 7....... Importantly we must note that nowhere in this passage are the seven referred to as deacons or ministers (diakonos), but the function to which they were chosen certainly is of the definition of one who ministers or is a deacon. Of even more importance is the fact that the very apostles seem not to have had the necessary authority to do the choosing of the seven, since they said to the entire congregation, "Select from among you....." Can we not assume that if anyone had authority to unilaterally choose another to serve in the ministry it would have been the apostles? Yet the apostles told the entire congregation to do the choosing........ MY ANSWER: I have difficulties with the comments in the last paragraph. It is true that these seven men chosen to "serve tables" were not called deacons or given any official title by the apostles or the congregation of disciples. At least the record does not tell us any official name was given to them, yet we can not be dogmatic about that because all the details of what transpired in everyday language after the event, among the elders and saints is not revealed to us. I shall assume the seven were not given the title of deacon for the sake of argument. The English words I have circled above "serving" and "serve" is the translation from the Greek that we render as deacon. The basic spelling of the Greek is diakonos and as Vine's Expository Dictionary says it "primarily denotes a 'servant' ...." The word servant can and does have a BROAD meaning both in Greek and English languages, and must be understood how it is being used within each context. There are a number of clear points we can derive from this section of scripture. One is, these men were elected, chosen, appointed to do something. Another clear point is that they were to meet certain standards or have specific qualifications. Then it is also plain to see they were to serve in a physical work - serving tables - serving the widows. Lastly, the context brings forth that these men were presented before the elders and a ceremony, service, or whatever you want to call it, was performed of praying and laying on of hands. These men were "set apart" to function as SERVERS, or as in the Greek - deacons. We do not know if they were called "servers" or "table servers" or "servers of widows" or "deacons." We do not know if they were given at that time or after that time ANY OFFICIAL name, but one thing is certain, they were elected to function in a particular duty and work. Now I ask you this question: Is it wrong to give a newly created job and those working in that duty, a name? No, it is not! Why the business world does it all the time, the manufacturing companies do it, when offices expand and new duties are created the department and those in it are usually given a name. It is just good orderly practice to do so. The early NT church (its elders and saints) saw a need to create a new department, to staff it with persons who had ceratin qualification, to outline the duties (serving tables, serving widows) and to set them apart with prayer and the laying on of hands. They were to serve in a defined function. Is it wrong for us today to call that same type of function and person - a server or DEACON? Let me show you something very interesting that I believe will answer our question. Turn to the gospel of Mark and chapter three. Please note verse 13 and 14. Jesus calls many to Him into a mountain region, then He elects, appoints, ordains a special circle of twelve. Now go over to the gospel of Luke and find a little more detail revealed to us about this event. Chapter six and read verses twelve through to sixteen. Ah, ah, do you see it? Jesus chose, elected, twelve, and there it is in verse 13, after His choosing of the twelve HE NAMED THEM APOSTLES! The word apostle means "one sent forth" - not any big deal in the word itself, many people can be sent forth in many different contexts and circumstances. Yet Jesus saw fit to give these men who would function as spiritual elders in His church a particular name or title. They were like all the other disciples of Christ (see verse 13 again) up to this point - just one of MANY. Then Jesus saw the need to create a new function of duty with twelve disciples, and give it (or them) a name - apostles. Within the true believers of the true Church of God that Jesus had around Him at that time, there was no use of the word "apostles." No one was calling anyone by that name. Jesus introduced to the church that He was head of, a new function and a new name for that function. Nobody said: You can not do that because we have never had it before, Moses never gave it to us. Do you see what I am getting at? The Church of the Living God has always to some extent been adapting within the law and liberty of the working of the Lord. Jesus did not think twice about establishing a new function and giving those called to that function a NAME. And this was all done about 1,500 years after the "church in the wilderness" was established by God through Moses. The apostles together with the multitude of disciples did not think it strange to establish a new function of duty within the church, for qualified and elected persons who were set apart with a ceremony of prayer and laying on of hands. Perhaps they at that time did not give a name to that new function of men, BUT WE TODAY(actually within about 100 years of Acts 6) FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS (given above) CALL THEM SERVANTS OR DEACONS! It is NOT WRONG for the Church of God to have persons whose duty it is to function in an appointed and elected capacity regarding the "serving of tables" - physical things, and to officially name them deacons! Now back to Acts 6 and other important insights. There was trouble brewing in the early NT church, some widows from a certain ethnic group were being neglected during the daily physical necessities of life, that would have needed to have been administrated at that time, for, "the number of the disciples was multiplied"(verse one). One thing in strikingly obvious from the first words of verse two. During the murmuring among the membership as a whole, the members did not gather themselves together apart from the elders/apostles and say: Well we have some big time trouble here, let's form some committees among ourselves, figure out what needs to be done, and then go tell the apostles what we have decided to do about this problem. Please remember Acts 6 and what we are looking at, was a LARGE serious problem. We are not talking about "How many seats shall we set up for this day's church service." On the other hand we need to remember also that we are not talking about the doctrines of God, or spiritual matters, or moral/immoral matters. We are looking at a large, important administrational problem that would have included the correct Christian distribution of physical goods that the widows needed for daily living. Under those circumstances, the membership did not get together and tell the apostles/elders what to do. They had enough proper respect for the elders to let their feelings be known, to let the elders know there was an important and large problem brewing, and wait on the thoughts of the elders. Verse two shows us that up to this time in the history of the NT church, it would seem the apostles were trying to do everything in the administration of the spiritual and physical duties that would be involved in a relatively new organization, that was increasing by leaps and bounds. When the problem was before them, the apostles did listen, they were approachable, they did come up with a solution. But look, this passage plainly shows that under those serious circumstances, it was the eldership that had the responsibility to solve the difficulty in the church. Again, remember, we are talking about the physical. The problem was of a physical nature. The apostles knew their calling and main function of duty in life was on the spiritual not on doing a whole bunch of physical cares and activities in the church, though they were important and needed to be taken seriously also. Yet, they could see the first priority in the lives of the eldership was prayer and the word of God(verses 2, 4). Concerning this physical problem, the apostles had enough respect for the membership (knowing the Spirit of God was in them also) to delegate to them the responsibility of enacting the plan that the apostles had decided upon, which would defuse the murmuring and administer the physical goods of the church in an appropriate way for all concerned. It is a true rule and law that every good leader knows the necessity to delegate responsibilities to trusted and faithful persons, for the betterment and smooth operation of the whole. You will notice from verse 3, it was also the apostles/elders who handed down the standard of qualifications that the seven men whom they - the membership - were delegated to find and elect. The membership did not come up with these qualifications and tell the elders "this is how it will be." It was the elders being led by the Spirit of God as spiritual overseers of the flock, who put down the basic qualifying requirements that the men had to have for this new function within the NT church. Even in physical matters the elders are to lead the way. And surely this should be so. Why have called, elected, elders in the church (as the apostles were), that others are to respect and look up to for an example in word and deed of true Christianity, if they are not leading in both the spiritual and the physical. Anything less just makes the Church of God a laughing stock to the unconverted world. Oh, when I say the elders should lead in the physical also, I do not mean in wealth and possessions. The apostles were not as wealthy as some who came into the church, that is clear from the Gospels and early chapters of Acts. The whole multitude was pleased with the attitude of the apostles, there was some team work going on here. No high handed vanity and pomposity going on here with anyone. The congregation did what the apostles delegated them to do. Then did the congregation run off when they had chosen the qualified men, to some secret or private location and there by themselves, without the elders, pray and lay hands upon these men? No! The word of God says: "WHOM THEY SET BEFORE THE APOSTLES"(verse 6). And further we need to ask the question: In all of this who had the final say about these chosen men? Was it the congregation that had final authority in saying if this or that man was to be elected to serve in this function? Or was the "last word" or final authority still held by the apostles? Many have missed what is written in the word. You will find it in verse 3. It is written, the apostles speaking: "......whom WE MAY APPOINT OVER THIS BUSINESS." That is why after the selection had been made by the congregation of men meeting the qualifications as laid down by the apostles, for this physical duty, they brought and set them before the apostles. The "last word" on the matter was still in the hands and under the authority of the apostles. They could have discounted any one or more of those men if evidence warranted it. And WHY NOT! Up to this time in the history of the NT church, the apostles had been trying to do BOTH the spiritual and the physical duties (see Acts 4:32-37; 5:1-5). They were now going to hand over the physical aspects of the church to other persons. As ones called to be overseers (Acts 20) of the flock of the Lord, they had the right to lay down the qualifications those individuals should have, delegate the election to others, AND ALSO TO HAVE THE LAST WORD. Concerning the argument from verse six as to who laid hands upon whom, was it the apostles laying hands on them, or was it the congregation that did the honours. My answer to that is: The subject of the sentence is the apostles, the logical thought and sequence is concerning the apostles, bringing them to the apostles for a reason, the reason being as verse three has stated, ".....that we may appoint over this business." The final approval was done by the apostles, backed up with prayer and the laying on of hands from them. If this was not the case, but final authority was in the hands of the congregation, then there would have been no need to have brought these men before the apostles. Someone from the congregation could have at some other time, merely told the apostles whom they had chosen and whom they (the multitude of disciples) had laid hands on and prayed over. TO BE CONTINUED   8. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed Part Two CONTINUED J.D. In the New Testament the selection of elders does have some commentry. Let's read Acts 14:23....... At first reading this seems to be very clearly stated. It appears that Barnabas and Paul simply appointed some of the mature men to be elders. But hold your horses! Don't gallop off so fast! Is that what it really says?.......the Greek word translated "appointed" is the one we isolated earlier as "cheirotoneo" .......Literally it means "to stretch forth the hands." ....... In the light of our previously reviewed scriptures, who do you suppose made the actual selection? Who do you think might have done the voting? MY ANSWER: Yes indeed, at first reading it does seem to be very clear! Okay, we will hold our horses, and not gallop but walk slowly. First, as I have said so many times before, the Bible is basically written in a simple format. Oh, you must find and put together ALL scriptures on any topic, to ascertain the truth of the matter, but you do not need a degree in theology from some Bible institution to understand all the fundamental doctrines of the Lord. As Jesus said: "Thank you Father that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes." You must become as little children in belief and faith to enter the Kingdom, so it is taught by Christ. The Bible was not written in so-called classical Greek. It was handed to us written in simple everyday common Greek. Today we would say it was written in everyday common English, no big high sounding words, certainly not even close to the language of lawyers. Yet, although common day to day Greek is the language of the NT it still employed the use of the basic rules of grammar just as good common English does. One very important rule of grammar and also correct biblical understanding of any single verse, is to look at and read the whole context the verse is within. Did the scholars and translators of the King James Version in 1611 make a fundamental grammar mistake here in Acts 14:23 ? The context will tell us. Let us start way back in chapter thirteen and verse four. WHO is the subject of verse four? Verse two tells us - Barnabas and Saul(Paul). Those two men are the "they" mentioned in verse four. Who is the subject of verse five? It is Barnabas and Paul - the "they." Look at verse six! Again, who is the subject? Why it is Paul and Barnabas - the "they." Read all the way to verse forty three. The context does single out Paul saying certain words, yet it is still "them"(verse 8) and "they" in verses 14. It is "them" in verse 15, and "Paul and Barnabas" in verse 43. Who is the subject of verses 44 through to 52? It is Paul and Barnabas - the "they" of verse 51. Carry on into chapter fourteen. The persons the context singles out as the who of the subject is "they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews" - Paul and Barnabas! Who is the subject of verse six and seven? It is "they" - Barnabas and Paul. See verses 11, 12, 14, 18. WHO IS THE SUBJECT? It is the "apostles" - the "they" - the "them" - Barnabas and Paul! Move on to verses 19 and 20. The persons who are the subject are Paul and Barnabas. Verses 21,22 it is "they" who are the subject - Paul and Barnabas. Notice verse 24. Who is the subject? Why the two apostles, the same two as in the above verses. What about verses 26 through to 28? Who is the subject? It is "they" - Paul and Barnabas! Could ANYTHING BE PLAINER? The context from chapter 13 to the end of chapter 14 shows who is the subject of the thought and the deeds of the whole. And that was Paul and Barnabas! It is so simple, common day to day Greek or English, a young child could understand, that the persons who are the subject of the discord are the two apostles - Barnabas and Paul. And so using words such as "they" and "them" is quite within correct grammar. The verse under question - verse 23 - is WITHIN THE WHOLE CONTEXT - within the "who is the subject" of the context. The WHO (what persons as the main subject) NEVER CHANGES! The who remains as Paul and Barnabas! From the before and after of the context of verse twenty-three, it is only logical to continue to use the simple English grammar rule of "subject" and add the "they" in that verse. The "they" being still the two apostles - namely Paul and Barnabas. We know from the Greek NT itself that Luke (the author of Acts) did have at his disposal words in the Greek for assembly or church or congregation or group of persons. If he wanted us to have no questions as to the fact that it was the whole church congregation that had final authority and that elected and ordained these men to be elders, then he could have and should have (according to common rules of grammar) changed the subject in verse 23. He could have easily written: "And the churches appointed themselves elders, and after prayer and fasting they commended them to the Lord." Luke would have thus instructed us that the subject had changed from Paul and Barnabas to the church or congregation or assembly of believers in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. He could have said: "The assembly of disciples ordained them elders in every church...." etc. Then in verse 24 used the names "Paul" and "Barnabas" to bring the who of the subject back to them for the rest of the chapter. But he did not! Because of one simple factor, he never intended us to believe the persons of the subject of the context HAD CHANGED from the two apostles to the collective membership of the churches in Anitoch, Iconium, and Lystra! The two apostles - Paul and Barnabas - are the subject (the "they" and "them") of the context. Luke never changes it from chapter 13:4 to the end of chapter 14, in fact even into the first number of verses in chapter 15. The rules of grammar leave us with no alternative but to render verse 23 of chapter 14 as found in the KJV. The scholars of 1611 were quite correct! The unescapable contextual evidence is that it was indeed Paul and Barnabas, two apostles, and two elders, overseers, that prayed and fasted, and ordained/appointed elders in every church in the three towns mentioned. They had the last word as to who those elders would be. I did not say that the congregations may not have had some impute on the final decisions made by Paul and Barnabas as to who should be ordained as elders. Surely Paul and Barnabas would have had to do some inquiring, looking carefully, asking questions, ascertaining who was meeting the qualifications to be elders within those churches. But as in Acts 6, it was "they" - Barnabas and Paul - who would finally have the last word, and "whom we may appoint over this business." NOW TO THE WORD "APPOINT" - cheirotoneo. Some today are wanting to stress this Greek word "cheirotoneo." Telling you that "...in classical Greek, is primarily used to denote voting in the Athenian legislative assembly." This particular Greek word is used by itself (and I have a very good reason to say by itself, that we shall come to later) ONLY TWICE in the entire NT. Here in Acts 14:23 and also in 2 Corinthians 8:19. Here is what Strong's Concordance has to say about this word: ".....to be a hand-reacher or voter (by raising the hand), i.e.(ge.) to select or appoint:- choose, ordain." The Analytical Greek Lexicon page 436 says: "....to stretch out the hand; to constitute by voting; to appoint, constitute, Ac.14:23; 2 Co.8:19." In part Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT has this to say: ".....extending the hand....a. prop. to vote by stretching out the hand.......b. to create or appoint by vote......c. with the loss of the notion of extending the hand to elect, appoint, create......" Now I give you the full explanation of this word as given in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985 copyright, page 34. See if you can find one section that is very revealing and interesting. ".....primarily used of voting in the Athenian legislative assembly and meaning 'to stretch forth the hands' (cheir, 'the hand,' teino, 'to stretch'), is not to be taken in its literal sense; it could not be so taken in its compound procheirotoneo, 'to choose before,' since it is said of God, Acts 10:41. Cheirotoneo is said of 'the appointment' of elders by apostolic missionaries in the various churches which they revisited, Acts 14:23, RV, 'had appointed,' i.e., by the recognition of those who had been manifesting themselves as gifted of God to discharge the function of elders(see No.2). It is also said of those who were 'appointed' (not by voting, but with general approbation) by the churches in Greece to accompany the apostle in conveying their gifts to the poor saints in Judea, 2 Cor.8:19. See CHOOSE, ORDAIN." The NT I repeat was not written in classical Greek, but the common every day Greek of the average citizen of the Roman Empire, who did not speak classical Greek. We need to be very careful when trying to understand certain Greek words. Many of them can have various meanings and uses. The common Greek of the NT was not unlike our common English, many words had more than one use and not always the original stem meaning. So it was also in the Hebrew language. I hope the following will clearly show you the truth of what I am stating. The Church of God Seventh Day in their July-August 1996 edition of The Bible Advocate, under the question and answer section, had this to say concerning "Is a cross a stake or a tree?" ".......In the English language, a stake or a cross in not a tree. But we are dealing with basic Hebrew and Greek words translated into modern English, which, by the way, has changed tremendously since the King James Version was published. Let's deal with the Hebrew word for tree first. The basic word transliterated ets is a general word for anything made of wood. It may be a literal tree, a stick of wood, a shepherd's staff, a stake, or gallows. Read the book of Esther, particularly the story of Haman. The gallows he arranged to be built was called an ets. So to say that a cross or stake is not a tree is incorrect. The Hebrew word may mean those objects as well. From the Greek word for tree (xulon) we derive our word xylophone, which means 'wood sound.' The bars are made of wood and create a pleasing sound when the right person plays them. This word helps us see that the word for tree in Greek is a general word for something made of wood. So when the author of Acts uses xulon, he may not be talking of a literal tree. In fact, Paul and Silas were put in 'trees' in the prison at Philippi. The usual translation there is 'stocks.' Again, the Greek word is xulon. Interestingly, Luke, who also wrote Acts, uses the word generally translated 'cross' when telling what Christ was killed on. In Acts, Luke always uses the general word meaning 'tree' or 'wood.' The Greek word translated 'cross,' as best we can translate it, originally meant 'stake.' The history of crucifixion usually says the earliest crucifixions were done on a tree or on a stake. But the Romans had started using a cross before the time of Christ. Again, no one seems to know for certain the exact type used for the crucifixion of Jesus. The common forms were the Tau, 'T' shaped, one called the St.Anthony, 'X' shaped, and the Latin cross traditionally shown in paintings. One writer of the nineteenth century also listed one called the 'tree,' shaped like 'Y.' I have not been able to verify this elsewhere. But the exact shape of the cross doesn't matter. It was something made of wood, thus fulfilling both the Hebrew and Greek words used for that instrument of death........" (Paul E. Heavilin). Ah, words can have an original basic root meaning but can also in the process of time be used in a way that does not carry its original literal root meaning. Let me further illustrate with the word "Rock." From Vine's Expository Dic. of Old and New Test.Words, page 208, we read: "ROCK sur...,'rock; rocky wall; cliff; rocky hill; mountain; rocky surface; boulder.' .....Other than in names of places and persons, the word appears 70 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods. First, sur means 'rocky wall' or 'cliff.' This is probably what Moses struck in Exod.17:6.....Thus God hid Moses in a cleft of the 'rocky cliff' (Exod.33:21-22). Second, the word frequently means 'rocky hill' or 'mountain.' This emphasis clearly emerges in Isa.2:10,19.....(Num.23:9)......(Deut.32:13)......)Ps.61:2)...... (Job 14:18......(Job 19:24). Third, sur can mean 'rocky ground' or perhaps a large flat 'rock.'......(2 Sam.21:10; cf. Prov.30:19). Fourth, in some passages the word means 'boulder,' in the sense of a rock large enough to serve as an altar......(Judg.6:21). 'Rock' is frequently used to picture God's support and defense of His people (Deut.32:15). In some cases this noun is an epithet, or meaningful name, of God (Deut.32:4), or of heathen gods:'For their rock(god) is not as our Rock(God).....' (Deut.32:31). Finally, Abraham is the source (rock) from which Israel was hewn (Isa.51:1)." Ah, ah, do you see? The Hebrew word sur has the basic root meaning of literal rock, but was also used in a NONE LITERAL SENSE! In a way that kept the underlying strength of the word, its intrinsic quality, but not to be taken in its first literal meaning. God's support and defense of His people is a "rock." Used also as a meaningful name of God. Another example is the Greek word gennaoo. See what Vine's Dic. says on this word, page 57. It is used as "to beget." It is used of conception. The word is used as "to be born." Used for literal conception and literal birth. That is the basic root meaning, yet as Vine's Dic. points out, the word is used allegorically and metaphorically. In those instances(some given in Vine's) it would be ridiculous to take the word in its original literal root meaning. Now back to the word cheirotoneo. Did you note in Vine's Dic. quoted above, the part I said was of important interest? I have never seen this quoted by anyone who wants to hit you between the eyes with its root meaning in classical Greek. Quote from Vine's: "....to stretch forth the hand.....is not to be taken in its literal sense; it could not be so taken in its compound procheirotoneo, "to choose before, since it is said of God, Acts 10:41...." Now please turn to Acts the tenth chapter and verse forty-one. I told you that the word cheirotoneo is only used TWICE in the NT. Used on its own that is true. But it is used for a THIRD time in the above verse of Acts ten. Not on its own but with the prefix "pro" - before. Hence the statement by Vine's aforementioned. Acts ten and verse forty tells us that God - the Father - raised Jesus from the dead and showed Him openly....."Not to all the people, but unto witnesses CHOSEN BEFORE of God...." It was the Father in heaven who had already ELECTED and pre-determined WHO the individuals would be to see Jesus after His resurrection! The Father had pro-cheirotoneo. Now ask yourself this question: Did the Father stretch forth or raise His hand - literally - as He chose or elected these persons? I think not! He certainly had no need to do so, for who is greater in authority in the universe? Did He vote with Himself? Such thoughts are ridiculous! Maybe He voted with Jesus before His death or right after His resurrection on the matter? Yet, that does not hold up in the light of John 10:30 and other scriptures that show Christ and the Father have complete agreement at all times. There is never any voting among themselves. Then if you want to argue they did vote, how can two vote on anything and have a majority that wins the day? Oh, I guess if you are not a part of the Church of God ( and Protestant or Roman Catholic) you could say the person of the Holy Spirit would cast the vote to decide the issue. Those of us in the Church of God do not have that answer! So the Father would not vote with Himself, He would not vote with Christ. Perhaps the Father voted with the holy angels or the twenty four elders in heaven. Maybe the "stretching forth the hand" and voting on who would see Jesus after His resurrection was done in heaven by the heavenly host. I guess it could have been possible, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing, and want to believe this word cheirotoneo must be taken in its literal original classical Greek meaning at all times. Let us suppose this voting and literal raising of the hand did take place in heaven above with the Father and angelic beings. My next question to you is: WHO would have the final authority on the issue? There can be no other answer but the Father would! So voting would be redundant and a waste of time in this case. True, God is the author of the proverb: "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety"(Prov.11:14). But seeking input and counsel on something is not the same by any means as taking a democratic vote to let the majority rule. God the Father is always the majority! The simple logical answer to Acts 10:41 is that the Father elected, chose, who would see the risen Christ, without any stretching forth the hand in a vote by anyone. The word cheirotoneo as used in the common Greek of the NT should then be understood as meaning simply, appointed, chosen, elected, just as the scholars of 1611 translated it, without any bearing on literally stretching forth the hand in a vote. Some, wanting to hold to their position, will not agree, but will continue to insist voting was carried on in 2 Cor.8:19 and Acts 14:23. Back we go, first to 2 Cor. 8:19. The "chosen" one here had to do with somebody helping carry the "gift" of material help to those less fortunate. It had NOTHING to do with appointing, electing, or choosing a spiritual elder/overseer in any church, or electing a person to "serve tables," deacon - as in Acts 6. Please see such Bible Commentaries as Barnes' Notes on the NT. True, the choosing of this person had to be done in some way. Yet the way it was accomplished is not given to us. This is clearly a "none essential" matter of church administration of physical things. And in such cases how it is done and decided is left to us, it is our liberty within the law of God as we have discussed in part one of this study. But as I have shown above the word itself does not mean we are to dogmatically take it in any literal sense of voting by the stretching forth of the hand. Acts 14:23. I have before proved that the contextual "they" of this verse are the two apostles - Paul and Barnabas. For those who unrelentingly cling to a voting here taking place, I have no difficulty in "going along." Because the context plainly shows it was Paul and Barnabas who would be voting or agreeing (with a stretching forth of the hand - a hand shake, as we would do it today) with the final authority vested in them(as we have seen also in Acts 6) as to who would be appointed elders in the churches under discussion. Let me try to make this plain with my own example. I had been trained under the Worldwide Church of God (their programs) back in the 60's, for the ministry/eldership. I was one of the right hand men to two local ministers during that time. I left that organization in 1972. By 1979 I was spiritual leader of two congregation, one near Toronto, and the other situated in Rochester, NY state. In 1981 I was contacted by Fred Coulter who had left the WCG in 1979 and founded the Biblical Church of God in California. He made(in 1982) an early summer visit to Ontario and the two churches mentioned above, staying with my wife and I. He apparently went to both congregations (unknown by me) stating to them he felt I should be ordained to the eldership. I was told later, both congregations agreed. Then he came to me, telling me what I've just related to you, and asking if I would accept being ordained to the spiritual overseership in the body of Christ. I said I would. He made it quite clear to me that he would have to go back to the elders (about 10 at the time) in the BCG organization, and obtain their consent and final approval. If they all agreed (put forth the hand - shook hands on it) then I would be ordained at the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall of 1982. If they did not agree, I would not be ordained to the ministry. They did agree and I was officially appointed/ordained by Fred and another elder in St. Louis. The proverb "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety" was applied. The two local congregations were taken into confidence by Fred concerning my ordination, yet the final and last word on the matter came from the elders - plural. I believe that if Mr. Difley and Mr. Edwards had only ever experienced true scriptural "church government" in a local autonomous congregation with a number of spiritual overseers/elders present, all having equal authority in essential matters, and where the brethren were all respected as having different gifts from the Holy Spirit, they would have no problem with what I have stated above. I personally have seen this scriptural truth being practiced in some Jamaican Church of God, Seventh Day congregations in south Florida, with wonderful results. Ah, I did "hold your horses" and I did not gallop off into the sunset. J.D. In Titus 1:5 we read.......The Greek word here used for appoint is the verb "kathistemi" and literally means "to stand down." ....... Some translations of the word include: "(to) place," "set down," "set in order," "set over," "constitute," "make," and even "the significance of bringing to (a certain place)." We can see that it is not as definite in meaning as simply "ordain" or "appoint" in the English language, and does not imply how it should be done........ "appointed." The Greek word is "diatasso" ....... It does not necessarily mean that the one sent to do the appointing does the actual work, but rather that the one sent makes sure the work is done....... It now becomes clear in Titus 1:5, and we can justly say, that Paul was telling Titus that he should make certain that elders were selected, not that Titus was necessarily to make the selections unilaterally. Do you suppose that we may also assume that the congregations did the actual appointing even as other scriptures indicate? ....... MY ANSWER: Concerning this Greek word "kathistemi." How you understand "to place" - "set down" - "set in order" - "set over" etc. with the English words ordain or appoint is really a matter of semantics. I have no trouble thinking "set over" is the same as "appoint." Yes, true "setting someone over" or "appointing them over" can be done officially in different ways. As shown before, there is no concrete "formula" in baptizing someone. Certain things are mentioned in the word, but very few. So it is with "setting over" or "appointing" elders. The word itself does not as Mr. Difley correctly says, "imply how it should be done." Clearly it was something Paul instructed Titus to do. We have as we have seen, a few examples that prayer, fasting, laying on of hands and some kind of commending to the Lord was done in appointing persons to such a duty in the church. The exact formula of "setting down" these men is obviously left up to every congregation to "set in order." A pun on words was intended. This is the liberty in Christ all elders and local congregations have been given. I am not sure what J.D. is driving at concerning the word "diatasso" for it seems irrelevant to our main topic. You may like to read what Vine's Expository Dictionary has to say about it, page 34. It is a strong word, and one thing is certain, Titus was being told by Paul to fulfil this directive that is found in verse five. The argument that Titus did not do the work, was not involved in selecting the elders or had the congregations appoint the elders, is weak and hard to justify in the light of contextual study, not only in this chapter of Titus but also the entire NT. If by saying "not that Titus was necessarily to make the selections unilaterally" we mean, to act as some little pompous vain, all knowing, self-sufficient, arrogant dictatorial demagogic elder, then as the reader should well understand from this study, I completely agree! But if by using the word "unilaterally" we are trying to say Titus did not have the final authority and last word on who would be elders, if we are saying the final authority lay in the hands of the congregations, then I could not disagree more! My disagreement to this notion comes from the following points:   1. The internal evidence of verse five itself. Crete is a small island in the Mediterranean, churches had obviously been established but no spiritual elders had been officially appointed. If that had been the case, Paul would not have left Titus there to undertake the task. He could have easily asked the existing elders to ordain other elders. Paul also felt it necessary to inform Titus about the basic qualifications that elders were to have in order to be appointed as elders, also showing this was a new undertaking and the churches on Crete did not as yet have any elders.   2. Paul gives the qualifications for eldership to Titus. Not one word is said to him about passing this information on to the membership of the churches, because it would be them and not him, who would do the electing and have the final authority on the matter. I just cannot see something as important as appointing spiritual overseers/elders in the churches, being completely ignored by Paul in every letter (especially those of Timothy and Titus - letters to other elders) of his, IF SUCH AN APPOINTMENT AND FINAL AUTHORITY WAS TO COME FROM THE MEMBERSHIP. Surely such a serious election of duty would be given some space, somewhere in the NT, with careful instructions to the church membership as to "what to look for" in choosing elders, if it was they and not the existing elders who were to have the last word. Paul gave detailed instructions on this matter to TWO individual persons - Timothy and Titus, yet never to a congregation. Even when instructing Timothy and Titus on the subject, he never as much as even hints to them that they must pass this teaching on to the membership, as it would be they, the congregation, who would have "authority" over the ordaining of elders. Let me remind you if Acts 6 rushes back into your thoughts, and you have forgotten what I've shown on that section before. Acts 6 was the choosing or appointing of men to "serve tables" - physical duties only in the church. Even then the apostles/elders had the last word for it is written, "that we may appoint over this business." Acts 6 had nothing to do with electing spiritual elders.   3. If it was the churches/congregations of Crete that were to do the "actual appointing" and not Titus, Paul could have easily written: "For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are left undone, and tell the churches to appoint elders in every city, as I have instructed you." Or "......have the assemblies ordain elders in each church....." Or ".....when the churches come together, instruct them to elect elders for each city...." Paul had all these Greek words at his disposal, but he did not use them! The internal evidence both from Titus 1:5 and its context, the letters to Timothy and the whole NT, shows clearly that the final authority, having the last word, on who will be appointed as spiritual overseers and even deacons, lies in the hands of the existing elders (perfectly elders - plural, but in the unusual case of Crete, elder - Titus, as there were no other elders in the churches on Crete at the time Paul was instructing him). What do you think of the duty of Elder, someone who is a spiritual overseer in a church or churches? Is it "no big deal" to you? Is it "well anyone can do it"? How do you read the NT my friend? If having elders in the church is really "nothing to get excited about" to you, then why do they have to meet such high qualifications as taught by Paul in his letters to Timothy and Titus? Why then does James tell us. "My brethren, be not MANY TEACHERS, knowing that we shall receive the greater judgment"(James 3:1)? The word of God powerfully proclaims that MOST should not set themselves up in any type of official spiritual leadership over others, for it is an awesome responsibility to do so, and such persons will come under greater judgment from the Lord. For me to think that Titus would walk into a church on Crete, say to the congregation, "Well now, you must elect spiritual elders, I'm having nothing to do with it. I'm off to another church, and will look forward to seeing your elders when I come back" JUST BLOWS MY MIND! To imagine Titus going to all the churches in every city on Crete and saying the same thing......well I just cannot think that a dedicated understudy to Paul, would do anything remotely as irresponsible as that! Titus was the ONLY ELDER on Crete, and to contemplate the idea that he would not have been personally involved with the electing of spiritual elders - the very first elders in the churches - is not worthy of consideration. Further, if it was the congregations who actually did the appointing, THEN WHY DID PAUL NEED TO LEAVE TITUS IN CRETE? He wanted Titus to be with him - see chapter 3:12,13. Paul could have said: "Titus come to me. I will write a letter for all the churches on Crete, telling them to ordain elders, and giving them the guidelines for the needed qualifications to such a duty." Or, "Titus tell the congregations to appoint elders, that's their responsibility, but you come to me." Paul never said any such thing to Titus or any other elder. Nothing remotely close to this can be found anywhere in the NT. Do you FEAR AND TREMBLE before the word of God? Do you cry out like David did to the Lord that you might know your errors, wrong ways, and false ideas? I appreciate the truths J.Difley and N.Edwards have come to see. I understand very well the many spiritual darknesses they were held captive to while in the WCG. Yet I fear that with their new found freedom, they may if not very careful, jump from one frying pan into another frying pan with as many misconceptions as the first one. Titus 1:5 is NO EVIDENCE (without reading into it, and taking liberties with it) to support the idea that the churches of Crete appointed their own elders APART FROM and INDEPENDENTLY of, the authority of Titus, the only elder on the island, and the one Paul had left there to "set in order the things left undone(mrg.reading) and ordain elders in every city." As to Mr. Difley's statement "even as other scriptures indicate" my reply is: WHAT OTHER SCRIPTURES? Please show me just ONE NT scripture that clearly, plainly, and simply, gives the teaching or example, that a local church congregation has the final authority and last word, on appointing spiritual elders, over and above any existing elders. If it was the elders of Acts 6 that had the last word and final authority as to who would "serve tables" - who would be official servers/deacons - serve in physical matters in the church, then surely it would be the elders who would have the final say and authority in appointing men to the higher spiritual duty of church overseer. Those are the major difficulties I have with John Difley's paper called "BY WHAT AUTHORITY?" For the most part I am in full agreement with the rest of his article. It has taken me much longer and a lot more space to answer the above arguments than I first thought it would. But as this topic seems to be at present, upper-most in the minds of many who have recently left the WCG, I felt a complete and detailed answer was justified. I have decided to answer some arguments as put forth by Norman Edwards in his paper called "How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?" in a yet THIRD section to this work on "CHURCH GOVERNMENT." ............................................. This second part written August 1996 (all scripture quotations from the KJV and NKJV) All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published, e-mailed, and distributed, as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts nothing will be changed without his consent.   9. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed Part Three by Keith Hunt Mr.Norman Edwards has written an interesting and edifying paper entitled "How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?" For the most part, as much as 90% I would estimate, I have no problem, and would agree with what he states. I do take issue with some of his comments. If in any way I am not understanding correctly what he is saying, I apologize.Yet I am hoping my answers will still be of benefit to those studying this important topic. From this point on Norman Edwards will sometimes be referred to as N.E. for short. N.E. The Major King James Translation Errors "Ordination" Doctrine Forced into Bible. Most people understand an "ordination" to be a decision made by the Eternal that is marked here on Earth by a ceremony, or by "the laying on of hands" or possibly just witnessed by believers. You cannot find this in an original-language Bible. What is the Greek word for ordain? There is no word! There are 13 different Greek words that are occasionally translated "ordain" in the King James Version. Every one of these Greek words is usually translated as some other English word. For example, the KJV Mark 3:14 says: "He ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach." The Greek poieo is translated "ordain" here but it is a very general word used over 500 times, usually translated "do" or "make." The Greek cannot mean a ceremony or laying on or hands. "He made twelve" - that is all. Some of the other words translated "ordain" do have a meaning closer to "mark out publicly" or "to arrange," but none of them have a meaning anywhere close to the Greek hagiazo which means "to set apart for a holy purpose." You can easily verify these facts with a Strong's or Young's concordance. The invention of the "ordination" doctrine is also evident in the Old Testament where 11 different Hebrew words are occasionally translated "ordain." Many "church government" ideas crumble when you realize that the concept of an "ordained ministry" is simply not in the Bible. MY ANSWER True, in a "religious" context, most people do understand the word ordination to mean a ceremony of some kind and type. But to say that ceremony is a "decision made by the Eternal that is marked here on Earth" is another question all together. Because men may claim such a thing does not make it so. Jesus said many would claim Him as "Lord, Lord" - they would claim they were Christians, yet would not do what He taught. And on the day of reckoning Christ will say to them, "depart from me, you that work lawlessness." Many things are done "in the name of God" - yet the truth of the matter is, God is NOT IN THEM AT ALL! As I showed in part two of this study, an ordination service/ceremony of and by itself does not make a man a true minister/elder/overseer of the Eternal. Yes, if you are looking for some special Greek word that signifies "ordination ceremony" as we English think of the words in a religious context, you will not find it anywhere in the Bible! The Greek words sometimes translated as ordain in the KJV, DO NOT WITHIN THEMSELVES, intrinsically carry any meaning of "ceremony." Now, by itself, what does that prove? Does it prove ANYTHING? The question is not really the inherent meaning of these Greek words, for several Greek words used in connection with "ceremony" do not carry ceremony within them, but the question is: Can we show from the Bible that the Eternal approves or dis-approves of His church having ceremonial consecration, "setting apart" - ordination services for men called and chosen to His spiritual ministry? Let us look at a few other Greek words that we use and think of as connected with ceremony, yet in truth have nothing to do with ceremony per se. We covered one of these words in part two. The word being BAPTIZE. In the Greek baptisma as a noun, and baptizoo as a verb. Both are derived from bapto - meaning to dip. I refer you to such works as Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words for a complete understanding and use of the above. What we need to note here is that NOWHERE inherent within the above words is there ANYTHING to do with "ceremony" - a "baptismal ceremony" or public service (small or large in numbers of attendants) of any kind! Is it therefore evil, pagan, sin, or even wrong, for the Christian Church of God to establish as a basic tradition, the practice of public baptismal services or ceremonies? I believe most would answer: Of course not! Why is it not wrong? Because we have Biblical EXAMPLES of public (large and small gatherings) baptismal services! John the Baptist in what is recorded for us, did all his baptizing in the river Jordan, out in public view, with possibly hundreds of people watching from all walks of life. Jesus was baptized by John in the river Jordan. With again possibly hundreds looking on. Three thousand were baptized by the apostles/disciples on the Day of Pentecost after Peter's sermon. Surely these baptisms were a public affair. There must have been something said and done during those baptisms. We certainly know something was done, the person being baptized was put under the water by the person doing the baptizing. In the examples above where many were being baptized over a period of hours, there would have been order and a logical format established. There would have been what we think and understand in English, as a baptismal service or ceremony taking place. A ceremony where things were being said and done in an organized and orderly manner, with others looking on. The Christian church has from these and other examples correctly taught that from a religious theological church doctrine stance, there is nothing wrong with, and there is authority from God, to establish a tradition and custom of public ceremony baptisms, without the need for the word baptism/baptize to intrinsically mean "ceremony." One more word example - the Greek word for marriage. The noun is gamos, and the verbs are from gameoo etc. See Vine's Dictionary. The noun is usually found with words such as "feast" or "garment." So we have in the NT "marriage feast." and "wedding garment." There is nothing inherent, inborn, innate, in the word itself to do with "ceremony." You may want to take a few minutes or hours and peruse some of the Bible Dictionaries or Hand Books on the development of marriage ceremonies. You will be amazed at what you will discover. Obviously the first marriage ceremony was the simplest in terms of other humans in attendance, as there were none - only Adam and Eve. But it did not stay that way, in the process of time many different cultures developed many different customs of "marriage ceremonies" and "wedding feasts." Nothing in the word "marriage" itself establishes such customs and ceremonies. Not even any direct command from the Eternal to bring this man and woman together "in the prescribed ceremonial pattern I give you to follow." It "just isn't there folks." You cannot find it in the word "marriage" nor in any command of instructions from the Eternal. Nothing about "ceremony" for marriage. Yet, does that mean it is pagan, or sin, or wrong, for the Christian church to establish a tradition of performing a marriage ceremony/service for those called together to be husband and wife? No! Of course not! And why does the Christian church believe it is not wrong to have marriage ceremonies or services? Well, one very good reason indeed. Jesus (God in the flesh) gave His approval to man made marriage/wedding feasts and ceremonies, when He attended one in Cana of Galilee and turned many gallons of water into the very best of wine, so the attending people could rejoice. Take a few minutes and investigate the traditional Jewish marriage feast, it is quite revealing. There is nothing in the word of God to command us to observe a marriage in the way the Jews did or do observe it. Nothing in the word to tell us to do it this or that way either. Nothing in the word marriage itself to instruct us concerning ceremony. But it is clear from the examples in the Bible (i.e. marriage feast or supper of the Lamb Rev.19) that God has approved of His people establishing public marriage ceremonies, feasts, services, or whatever you want to call such organized proclamations of sanctifications to holy consecration. So it is with men called, and selected to serve in the body of Christ. Called to serve in a certain specific function - either as spiritual overseers/elders or as physical servers/deacons (and as concerning the physical, women as deaconesses). We have before shown and proved that Acts 6 was some kind of physical service/ceremony, done in an open public church setting to some degree (several elders and disciples involved), with certain physical things performed. And all this was done to men who were to be set apart officially for the church, in the performing of physical duties - to serve tables! If such an example of ceremony is given concerning the consecration, appointment, ordination, of men to physical duty within the congregation, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU SUPPOSE THE CEREMONY OF CONSECRATION TO SPIRITUAL OVERSEERSHIP SHOULD BE FOR MEN CALLED AND PROVED? The Christian church as a whole has seen that from the example of the consecration service/ceremony of Aaron in the Old Testament (covered in part two) and that recorded in Acts chapter six for deacons, God has given His approval for His NT church to establish as a traditional custom, an ordination ceremony/service for those called to be elders or deacons. God most certainly does have an appointed, called, elected, chosen, proved, ordained ministry in the church, the body of Christ! God certainly does have an appointed/ordained ministry in the true Church of God. Those ministers have been recognized and publicly consecrated by other existing elders and disciples. Ones to come will also be so openly shown to the people and the world. The appointed/ordained ceremony of an individual to the spiritual overseership or deaconship, does not automatically transform them into a true elder or deacon in the body of Christ, IF they have not already been living in word and deed as an elder or deacon. Just as a person receiving their doctor diploma at an official ceremony, is not a true doctor, if they have not been living in theory and deed, the qualifications and standards that are required for being a doctor. Doctors are put through the test, in mental theory (study etc.) and practical work usually as interns before any public recognition is granted them. This is not done overnight, nor should it be, because of the grave responsibility put on the shoulders of those entering the medical profession. Similarly, for those who would desire the function of elder/overseer in the church (which desire is not necessarily wrong - 1 Tim.3:1), there should be a long time testing and proving - many years in fact. Paul said the church servers/deacons should be proved (1 Tim.3:10). If proving was necessary for them who would serve in physical things, then how much more do you suppose, is proving necessary for spiritual elders? I tell you that to meet the required qualifications given by Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for church overseer in 1 Timothy 3, takes MANY years. The very word elder carries with it the meaning of older. The reader may want to request my in-depth article called "Qualifications For The Ministry" if they would like to study this more Those who have been ordained to the church eldership and were not qualified, or did not have the true heart and mind, or were ordained because of church politics, only prove one thing: The devil can appear as an angel of light, or can come as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Men may have been fooled, BUT GOD CANNOT BE! And the fruits of such a man's ministry will eventually be revealed, for Jesus said that by their fruits we shall know them. The true child of God who has his/her nose in the Bible, who lives and thinks true Christianity, will know who are the true faithful elders of the Lord. Because the homosexual community conducts marriage ceremonies and ordination to the ministry services for its followers, does this mean the true body of Christ cannot do likewise? I guess not! The word of the Eternal, not by any specific word with some special inherent meaning, BUT BY CLEAR EXAMPLE (Lev.8; Mark 3:13-14; Luke 612,13; Acts 6:1-7; 14:23; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim.5:22) teaches us that it is appropriate, fitting, relevant, and correct, for the Church of God to practice the public acknowledgment that men have been appointed/ordained to serve as elders in the body of Christ. N.E. Ministers and Deacons Not Different.   They are both servants.  Most KJV uses of the word "minister" are translated from the Greek diaakonos (noun) or the diakoneo (verb meaning "to minister"). All occurrences of deacon and deaconess are translated from these same words - the New Testament writers could not possibly have had two "offices" in mind and then used an identical word for both of them! How could you "raise someone in rank" from a diakonos to a diakonos? King James 1 needed to justify his church offices from the Bible so his translators supplied him what he needed. Furthermore, diakonos, does not imply any kind of elevated or ecclesiastical position, but means a real working servant and is so translated many times: "but the servant who had drawn the water knew [that it was created by a miracle]" (John 2:9). Diakonos could not mean a "teacher" in the congregation because it is used to describe women which were forbidden to teach (1 Tim 2:12). Martha "served" the Messiah (John l2:2) and Phebe was a "servant of the Church''(Rom 16:1). The Scriptures do not support the traditionally taught two classes of people: the "ministry" and the "lay members." (The latter term is not found even in the KJV.) Had the Greek diakonos always been translated "servant," people would have understood the Messiah's organization much better. MY ANSWER Ministers and Deacons are not different...... well, in one way. Yet they are different! But then again they are not different. Seems like I am contradicting myself doesn't it? All a little confusing to you? Hang on, hold your horses, don't gallop away into the sun-set. l will fully explain, and I hope make it quite clear. Many will no doubt think this Greek word diakonos/diakoneo is used dozens of times, all over the place, in the NT. That is not the case! They are used quite a number of times, about 65 times altogether. Then the Greek words doulos/doulia/douluo/doulon/douloo also translated serve/servant, are used even more times in the NT. See the Englishman's Greek Concordance pages 145, 163, 164. Here is what the Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary has to say concerning the word "deacon" on page 147. "diakonos.........primarily denotes a 'servant,' whether as doing servile work, or as an attendant rendering free service, without particular reference to its character. The word is probably connected with the verb diookoo, 'to hasten after, pursue' (perhaps originally said of a runner). It occurs in the NT of domestic servants, John 2:5,9; the civil ruler, Rom.13:4; Christ, Rom.15:8; Gal.2: 17; the followers of Christ in relation to their Lord, John 12:26; Eph.6:21; Col.1:7; 4:7; the followers of Christ in relation to one another, Matt.20:26; 23:1; Mark 9:35; 1 0:43; the servants of Christ in the work of preaching and teaching, 1 Cor.3:5; 2 Cor.3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph.3:7; Col.1:23,25; 1 Thes.3:2; 1 Tim.4:6; those who serve in the churches, Rom.16:1 (used of a woman here only in the NT); Phil.1: 1; 1 Tim.3: 8,12; false prophets, servants of Satan, 2 Cor.11: 15. Once diakonos is used where, apparently, angels are intended, Matt.22:13; in v.3 where men are intended, doulos is used. Diakonos is, generally speaking, to be distinguished from doulos, 'a bondservant, slave'; diakonos views a servant in relationship to his work; doulos views him in relationship to his master. See, e.g., Matt.22:2-4; those who bring in the guests (vv.34,6,8,10) are douloi; those who carry out the king's sentence (v.13) are diakonoi. Note: As to synonymous terms, leitourgos denotes 'one who performs public duties'; misthios and misthotos, 'a hired servant'; olketes, 'a household servant'; huperetes, 'a subordinate official waiting on his superior' (originally an under-rower in a war-galley); therapon, 'one whose service is that of freedom and dignity.' See MINISTER, SERVANT. The so-called 'seven deacons' in Acts 6 are not there mentioned by that name, though the kind of service in which they were engaged was of the character of that committed to such." End quote from Vine. I gave you the full quotation from Vine's. The word diakonos (the verb is diakoneo) is, I will call it, an UMBRELLA word, under which several persons shelter, a tent type of umbrella. The following diagram I believe will illustrate the truth of what Vine's Dictionary brought out. D I A K O N O S _____________________________________________________________ Domestic/Civil Ruler/Disciples/Christ/Teachers/Servers/Angels The umbrella word diakonos......C O V E R S.....all of the above people and spirit beings, BUT all of the above persons though the same diakonos in the meaning of servers, are DIFFERENT from each other in function and even in authority. It is something like saying: All Californians are Americans, but not all Americans are Californians. A civil ruler, gudge, police officer, etc. is a diakonos but his function and authority is quite DIFFERENT from the domestic servant diakonos. They are both diakonos - both the same in one sense, yet both different in function and responsibilities. The angelic beings are diakonos - servers, yet their function and authority is NOT the same, it is different from the function and authority of civil rulers. Jesus Christ is a diakonos. He serves also (one function is as our High Priest, interceding for us). His function and authority is not to be compared to the function and authority of domestic servants. Satan the devil also has diakonos members in his band of followers, they appear as the diakonos of righteousness, but in fact are the diakonos of evil - the Devil himself (2 Cor.11:13-15). In no way is the function and authority of Satan's diakonos to be compared to the function and authority of the disciples/diakonos of Jesus Christ. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIAKONOS! All are "diakonos" but not all function the same, not all even have the same authority! Jesus is a diakonos (servant), but His function and authority is higher than any other except the heavenly Father. The civil ruler diakonos has in his particular functions certain authority over the diakonos of the followers of Christ. Try saying he does not if you are hauled before the courts because you broke the speed limit law, and see how far it gets you. The diakonos of Jesus have more authority over spiritual matters than the un-converted domestic diakonos of the world. So it is in the Church, the body of Christ. All in that body are diakonos - servants in one way or another, but not all diakonos have the same function, nor even the same authority. The seven men chosen to "serve tables" and to see that ceratin "widows" were taken care of in physical necessities, spoken about in Acts chapter six, were given a particular function and with that function, a certain authority. It was given to them by the apostles/elders and the church. They had the authority to literally hand out, as they deemed proper, physical goods to members of the church. Someone else from who knows where, walking into the store house of the church and deciding to take what he wanted to give to whom he wanted, could be stopped and prevented from doing so by any one of the seven. For it was THEY who had authority over such matters, and functioned in that administrative duty, and not just "blow Joe" from Tim-buck-too. Paul went into some detail concerning all the diakonos functions in the body of Christ with the church at Corinth. It is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 12. The eye has a certain function within the body, even a certain amount of authority over its function. The foot has function with authority over its duty. The foot cannot function as an eye, it was not designed to do so, nor was it given the abilities or gifts to function as an eye. The foot cannot authorize itself to see. The eyes cannot function as feet, or claim authority to move down to the ankles and become feet. All the members of the body are "parts" - all serve - all are in that sense diakonos, but not all are the SAME, there are DIFFERENCES, otherwise all would be an eye, or all would be a foot, or all would be a hand. And if all were a foot or ear or hand, WHERE WOULD THE BODY BE? The Church of God is ONE body - we are ALL servants/servers - we are all diakonos, but we have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS and with those functions goes varying differences of authority. If it was not so, then as Paul points out, we would be one part not many parts, and if we were only one part then there would be no body. Yet, thankfully as he showed, there are many members (parts/functions/responsibilities) which make up that one body. As we have previously expounded, there is an eldership ministry - an eldership/overseeing diakonos in the body of Christ. And there is also a specific chosen class of individuals called and appointed, to the function of administrating physical duties. They are the diakonos of "tables." Both classes of elected persons, for basic functions of the duties they are called and appointed/ordained to do, are servants - diakonos. Yet, in saying that I still need to emphasis that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME in function or authority. Even within the eldership not all function in the same way. There is differences in the eldership ministry. God inspired Paul to break it down into various "parts" of that bodily function. Some were to function as apostles, some as prophets, some as teachers, and so on (1 Cor.12:28). Apparently by using the words "first" - "secondarily" - "thirdly" God shows that He gives a higher function to certain sections of the eldership part of the body of Christ. I have before proved we are here talking about function not dictatorial "rank" authority. Nevertheless. we can see that there are DIFFERENCES even in the overseership of the church. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELDERS AND DEACONS Surely after all that I have presented in this study so far of over one hundred pages, the reader can clearly see that the NT church does have a body of men who have been called by God to be OVERSEERS, GUIDES, SHEPHERDS. SPIRITUAL ELDERS AND LEADERS over the rest of the membership in the body of Christ. Surely a simple reading of the NT will give the truth of the matter on that understanding. If some still want to argue to the contrary, all I can say is that if they are correct, then words of the NT do not mean what they say and do not say what they mean. So nothing in the NT is reliable. But that is not the case. The NT is quite clear, there is an eldership ministry function within the Church of God. We see from the first chapters of the book of Acts, HOW that ministry did function. Up to the beginning of chapter six the apostles - the appointed elders - LED the way, guided the way, taught the way. From the last part of chapter four and the beginning of chapter five, also what the apostles said to the disciples in the first few verses of chapter six, it is clear that the elders functioned BOTH in the overseership of the spiritual and the physical. They had jurisdiction and authority over both aspects of the church - the spiritual religious and the physical administrative. When the trouble erupted between the disciples over the neglect of certain widows (chapter six) and the apostles made the decision as what to do about it, namely, others were to "take over" and be responsible for this physical duty, they were in effect handing over, delegating part of their overseership to others. As Jesus once said concerning the Father and Himself, "the one sent is not greater than he who sent him." And on another occasion "The Father is greater than I." The elders, in delegating other individuals to the function of official servers of physical concerns in the church, did not in so doing, make those persons greater in function and authority than themselves. In fact the ones sent to function cannot be as great in function and authority as the senders, especially as this was a function to physical duties only. Was there a DIFFERENCE still existing between the diakonos of the apostles/elders and the diakonos of those who were to "serve tables"? Oh, you bet there was! The diakonos of the seven were to meet many of the same qualifications that Paul later laid down for the men who would be overseers in the church (1 Tim.3). And why not! The apostles were handing over HALF THE DUTY THEY HAD BEEN DOING! It would have been quite irresponsible for the apostles, not to have done it the way they did. A high and important administration duty falling under the total functioning of the elders work, demands a highly qualified person. Yet, you will notice in Acts chapter six and also in 1 Timothy 3 that those individuals chosen for physical duties DID NOT HAVE TO TEACH OR TAKE CARE OF THE CHURCH IN ANY SPIRITUAL OFFICIAL WAY, AS DID THE "EPISKOPOS" - OVERSEER, OF 1 TIM.3:1. Paul makes a deliberate Greek word DIFFERENCE in 1 Timothy 3. He gives the specific qualifications for those who will be "episkopos" in the church, who will as this study has before shown, be overseers, elders, spiritual guides and leaders, those who will shepherd the flock. Then in verse eight he gives the qualifications for servers - diakonos - deacons. The context must show a difference between the two or Paul is needlessly repeating himself. And there are differences, namely the two most important ones I have given before - teaching and care of the church (verses 2, 5). The context of 1 Timothy 3 leaves us in no doubt that Paul was specifically talking about TWO very important, nay, about the two MOST important functions in the working church, that of spiritual elder and that of physical administrator (or deacon as most churches call them). Any other explanation falls under the weight of NT evidence, for if Paul was addressing ALL saints, all Christians, throughout the church, he could have used words such as "saint" or "church" or "brethren." Again if he was addressing all the saints to encourage all of them to attain these qualifications and goals, then the whole body would be an eye or a nose or a foot, and where would the body be then? The apostles had decided the physical affairs that they had been administrating as part of their complete shepherding of the church, should be handled by qualified persons. Individuals who would be called and elected and whom the elders would "appoint over this business" (as we saw in part two of this study). They were chosen to "serve tables" only - serve in physical matters. They did not have to as an official function preach, teach, or do any spiritual caring or guiding of the church, for that the apostles/elders would retain as their number one concern and responsibility. THAT MY FRIEND IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE APPOINTED TO THE SPIRITUAL ELDERSHIP AND THOSE APPOINTED TO PHYSICAL SERVINGSHIP/DEACONSHIP. There is a difference between ministers and deacons (as the words are customarily used in today's popular church language). So there will not be any misunderstanding, I refer you back to my earlier pages in the first section and main body of this work. On a personal basis, everyone in the body of Christ is free to spread the gospel in letters, written articles, speech, and whatever the Spirit of God leads one to do, large or small, near or far. This is what Stephen and Philip (two of the seven appointed to serve tables) did. Many today call it "personal evangelism." And that is precisely what it is. But they were not called to officially function as elders to "take care of the church of God." Paul said in the context of deaconship to Timothy, "they that have diakonos well, purchase to themselves a good degree...."(1 Tim.3:13). The Greek for "good degree" means actually "a step" such as in a stair case. Certainly such individuals will go on to perfection as all Christians should strive for, but also will earn respectability from fellow humanity. It will also be a step, if the Lord calls and appoints a man, to the eldership. Many a fine elder has come to that appointment through first learning to be faithful in the physical things, growing in grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus, and after being proved and tested, given the responsibility to spiritually "take care of the church of God." Ministers and Deacons are not different, then again Ministers and Deacons are different. No it is not a contradiction. Now I hope you know and understand that both are correct. Mr. Edwards writes: "The Scriptures do not support the traditionally taught two classes of people: the 'ministry' and the 'lay members.' " That is indeed very true! What the NT does teach and support is one body of diakonos persons divided into FOUR classes. The first class is really a class by itself apart from the other three classes, which are joined into one diakonos to and under the first diakonos. Really got you wondering now haven't I. Christ Jesus is the first diakonos - servant - perfect, sin-less, chief Shepherd of the church. He was the first human to be raised to eternal life by the Father. He is in a class all by Himself. Everyone else comes under Him, yet He is willing to have them joined to Him, willing to call them His brothers and sisters. And those brothers and sisters with all their differing gifts and talents distributed by the Holy Spirit, make up the varying parts of the "body of Christ" (1 Cor.12). Those parts all come together as ONE under THREE classes of diakonos - servants. This clear proof in given throughout the NT by putting scripture with scripture. Then thankfully this proof is given very plainly to us in one verse! It's been there all along friend, I did not put it in your Bible during the night. Will you believe it? Will you let it teach you the plain truth? The true Church of God is made up of THREE classes of people! Turn to it, and mark it! Philippians chapter one and verse one! This is how the Greek reads: "Paul and Timotheus, bondmen (doulos) of Jesus Christ, to all the saints (agiois) in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, WITH the overseers (episkopois) AND those who serve (diakonois)." CAN THERE BE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING? Paul addresses the church at Philippi - addresses them as having THREE CLASSES, three basic divisions of functioning people. There are the saints, there are the overseers, and there are the servers. Obviously he contrasts the saints from the servers, and contrasts them from the overseers. We have seen that all in the body of Christ come under the umbrella word of diakonos, all in the body are servants to Christ and to each other. Paul here is not thinking about that aspect of Christian unity or local church unity. He is thinking about the basic THREE functioning classes of people that are within and make up not only the local church but also the general church. There is no other way to understand Paul here, any other way interprets Paul as repeating himself needlessly, and using language that would contradict "synonym" use. In Paul's mind the church at Philippi consisted of THREE classes of people that functioned in three ways. There were the saints in general, who were not functioning as overseers/elders or deacons. There were overseers/elders who were not functioning as deacons. And there were servers/deacons who were not functioning as overseers. Here Paul sets the saints in general apart from the diakonos, showing that there was a class of persons in the church who functioned in an official appointed way as servers. Why not, for that official function had been establish by the apostles in Acts chapter six. Besides that class of persons was also the official functioning class of elders or overseers, who were appointed/ordained to "teach" and to "take care of the church of God." Oh, I better SAY THIS LOUD AND CLEAR, for I know some will, even after reading all I have written in the first section of this study, run off - gallop away - and claim I am promoting the teaching of "authoritarian ranks" within the church. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! The THREE classes of persons Paul mentions are not ranks, they are functions! God gives the gifts of those functions to whom He will. Not everyone gets the same gifts, and no matter what gift is yours, you are not "greater" than your brother or sister. The fruits of the Spirit ALL CAN HAVE, but the gifts of the Spirit ARE DIFFERENT from one member to another. There are differences, not in rank, but in function and responsibility. Salvation and the fruits of the Spirit are EQUAL for all. Every member in the body of Christ is on equal footing and the same playing field, when it comes to those two things. Salvation and conversion is very personal for everyone. There is no physical man between you and God, it is that personal. Entering the Kingdom is not dependent on any flesh and blood person, it is you, Christ and the Father. Your REWARD will be given based upon what you do with what you have been given. Some little old saint that has never functioned as a deacon, or as an overseer, may very well be given a higher reward in the Kingdom because they really increased what they were given, and some overseer or deacon did not, and so will not receive as high a reward. God is completely fair and righteous, all will receive a reward according to what they have done with what they were given. Some just do not have the gifts to be an overseer in the church, or even function as a deacon, but WOW! They are a dynamo of a Christian saint, using every gift given them to the fullest. Another man may have the qualities and gifts to be an elder, yet never use those gifts to full potential, or go to sleep on them. He could end up with a lower reward in the Kingdom than the dynamo saint. All of that being the truth of the matter, which it is, does not negate the truth that God does still have THREE basic functioning classes of people in His church - overseers, deacons, and saints. Not necessarily in that order, as Paul displayed to the church at Philippi. Also remember as we have covered in-depth already, when it comes to personal evangelism, the door is wide open for any Christian to walk through and "have at it" using his/her natural abilities together with God's gifts of the Spirit. TO BE CONTINUED ..................................................   10. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed SECOND CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER OFFICIAL FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A MINISTER/ELDER AND DEACON/SERVANT We have before proved in part one, that the elders of the church are also the same as the overseers, bishops, shepherds, and teachers. An appointed elders can be called by the preceding names. The word "elder" or as we commonly today would say "minister"(used in the religious community) is an overall umbrella name, under which lies the names mentioned above (overseer etc.). The word commonly given to official church servants - deacon - by most Christian churches, is not an umbrella name, in the same way "elder" can be. A deacon/servant of the church in the way Acts 6 appointed is just that - a servant or deacon, no other names specifically given in the NT. Their one official function is that of "serving tables" - physical matters within the church. The eldership ministry in contrast, is broken down into what we might call sub-functions under the one name of eldership. The following will I hope clarify what I have said in simple diagram form. ELDERSHIP MINISTRY SUB-NAMES overseer, bishop, shepherd, pastor, teacher (as used in the KJV). MAIN FUNCTIONS to "give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word"(Acts 6:2,4). SUB-FUNCTIONS 1. Apostles 2. Prophets 3. Evangelists 4. Pastors/Teachers (Eph.4: 1 ) DEACON MINISTRY SUB-NAMES serve/servant MAIN FUNCTIONS to "serve tables" - physical matter (Acts 6:2). SUB-FUNCTIONS None As before shown, the Elders/Apostles at first in the NT church had the responsibility of BOTH the spiritual and physical duties. When this became too much work to handle, they answered by delegating the physical work of the church to qualified persons. As the elders were delegating half of their responsibilities to others, it was naturally logical that such persons chosen should have nearly all of the same basic abilities and qualifications that the elders had. This we shall clearly see as we look at the following outline of basic requirements and qualities Paul was inspired to lay down, for the appointment of Overseers/elders and Deacons/servants, in his letters to Timothy and Titus. The reason as to why, should I believe, be plain to those who have carefully studied all that has been written by me thus far. Acts the sixth chapter tells us that the apostles believed their number one function in life was "prayer and to the ministry of the word." Paul here to Timothy breaks it down further still into two categories - "able to teach" (or as the Greek reads - "skilful in teaching") AND in taking "care of the church of God." The time involved for a man to qualify in these two skills alone would require some considerable length of days. That is why Paul went on to say such a person could not be a "novice" or as it is in the Greek - "newly planted." They would have to have had a pretty good duration of time living as a Christian and walking with God and His word, together with "church community" experience. These two functions as well as prayer, are the MAIN heart and core of the work of the spiritual eldership ministry. As we have seen earlier, an elder may also function for a long or short time as an apostle, or prophet, or evangelist, maybe a combination of the functions mentioned in Ephesians 4:11. Nevertheless, an overseer/elder has always to officially be "on duty" shall we say, as a "skilful teacher" and as someone who "takes care of the church of God." Those two duties "go with the territory" and are "part of the job" - they "come with the job" as some say. But those same two duties DO NOT OFFICIALLY BELONG TO THE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY OF DEACONS! Persons chosen as official church servers or deacons for physical duties DO NOT have to be official church "teachers" or official "taking care of the church" servants in the spiritual sense. Elders must "feed my sheep" spiritually, as Jesus told Peter. They must "teach" in official church gatherings the word of God. They must "teach" in ways that are other than private personal evangelism. I am teaching in writing these study articles, or bringing a sermon, or conducting a church "bible study." I am officially obligated by God and the church to teach in these ways, though not necessarily all of them. A deacon while functioning in that appointment IS NEVER UNDER ANY OFFICIAL CHURCH DUTY TO EVER "TEACH" IN THE WAY I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED ABOVE. If a deacon is invited or requested to preach a sermon, conduct a church "bible study" or write a spiritual article, he is not under ANY obligation to accept. He can politely refuse. His deaconship should never come into question because he refuses to lead out in official spiritual church functions. He was called and chosen to serve in physical matters in the church and that is where his duty starts and ends. He should be wonderful at fulfilling those physical duties because he has the qualifications and the abilities from God to so function. I have known and talked to some deacons who had been faithfully carrying out their duties in the church for decades, and who had NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to be an overseer/elder or have any official function in spiritual duties within the congregation. They had no desire to preach, to teach groups of people, or write any spiritual articles for the churches publications. They knew their calling, they knew where God had placed them in the body of Christ, they were honest enough to "examine themselves." They knew God had not called them to be elders. They knew God had not given them the gifts and abilities needed to be spiritual overseers in the church. And they were perfectly happy and contented Christians! They sure knew, had no bones about it, were quite candid in admitting, often the first to admit, that THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A DEACON. An Elder must take care of the church of God. He is required to do so, he is obligated to so work. This may call for private member counselling on many personal problems and troubles in life, that the individual member requests guidance on, from child rearing, to marriage difficulties, to sex questions, to financial matters, to employment decisions, and whatever else the church member wants to confide in the minister/s. After all the elders are to be as spiritual fathers (not to be called "father" as a title) to the members of the congregation. And I have noted that churches who do have the correct form of NT government, live as a family, where the elders are highly respected and taken into great confidence, as the people do want to be cared for in many ways. Sometimes that "taking care of the church" may mean the elder/s are humble enough to see the personal problems of some are so large and complicated, that the advice given is for the member to seek counsel from someone who specifically deals with and is a certified expert in such matters. The duty of a deacon covers no such territory. He is under no obligation to so counsel with congregation members. If someone from the church comes to them wanting to pour out all their nitty-gritty private problems and seeking advice, he can kindly refuse to hear and send them to the elders. Again I have talked to many deacons who have been wise enough (one of their qualities is wisdom - Acts 6) to realize they were not called to function as elders, and just did not have the gifts from the Lord to "take care of the church of God" in this spiritual way. And believe me it does take special gifts to care for the church in this manner. The mental stress of having people confidently share with you their many trials, tests, and troubles, hoping you will be able to help them, can put you in the hospital with a nervous break down. I have seen a few good ministers end up this way. Certainly men who have not been called, given the gifts, and met the qualifications to be overseers in the church, should ever try to be one, for it is a most demanding occupation! Please believe me, as one who speaks from personal experience. It is one reason why James was inspired to write: "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1). A minister's life can be very difficult at times, in many ways, sometimes physically, sometimes spiritually, sometimes both at the same time. Read again 2 Corinthians chapter eleven and verses sixteen to twenty-eight. Note verse 28, "Besides those things that are without, that which comes upon me daily, the care of all the churches." OH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERS AND DEACONS ! Then let me say, in the event that some would misunderstand all I have stated above. If some deacons are gifted, or find themselves to be gifted in spiritual matters, after being appointed to function in official physical matters, it will come out, it will be noticed believe me. Such things can not be hidden from the elders or from the congregation. If such deacons are invited to lead in spiritual church matters such as "Bible studies" etc. they can accept the invitation. It is hoped they will accept, for in so doing God may be calling them to move into the eldership ministry. They will need to be trained and proved to find if this is so and the will of God. I have seen this in action also over the years. Some men have been called from the official deaconship duty into the official eldership duty in the process of time and experience. Then on the other hand, I have seen it work this way. A man is appointed as a deacon, he has met all the requirements to function in that duty. After a while, the elders as well as the general membership note that he has some spiritual leadership abilities. God may be calling him to the eldership. The man himself is pleased to be given official spiritual church opportunities, so he and others can see if the eldership ministry is his ultimate destiny. As time goes by he serves in spiritual church programs like Bible studies, youth evangelism gatherings, and visits to the homes of the brethren with an elder or elders. He clearly discovers within himself that although he may have some "talking" ability and a pretty good understanding of the word of God, the ELDERSHIP MINISTRY is just not for him! He finds through getting his feet wet, he just cannot cut it, just cannot handle the daily stress and responsibilities of "caring for the church" as elders must do. He is then quite content and happy to let everyone know, and once more function in the duties of a deacon only. I have seen this very thing take place among some churches of God. That is fine, sometimes it takes a little maneuvering within the body of Christ before we find exactly which part of the body we are to function as. God places us in the body as it pleases Him, and in accordance with the gifts and abilities we have through the Holy Spirit. I should also make it plain that a man chosen for the eldership ministry does not have to be a deacon first. The 12 apostles, Paul, and others in the NT were not deacons (as we think of deacons today in the church) first, and then later elders. Many officially appointed elders have never served as officially appointed deacons, for their qualifications as noted above COVERS that for deacons, and goes beyond to that of the overseership. MORE NECESSARY DUTIES FOR MINISTERS/ELDERS Before we look at them, somewhat in detail, I think this is a good place to answer an argument that goes like this: "Timothy is not called an elder, he may not have been one." True, we may not be able to find the words "elder Timothy" or in any of Paul's letters something like: "Unto Timothy, my son in the faith and elder in the church of God." Yet despite this, I believe the overwhelming internal evidences of the letters to Timothy, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Timothy was an officially appointed/ordained elder in the church. The following are the main points to support this conclusion. 1. 1 Tim.2:9-15. He (Timothy) had obviously from the very wording by Paul, some authority and enough respect to not only teach the women this directive of Paul's (inspired by God), but to make sure it was followed. Surely only an officially appointed elder could carry this much respected guidance and teaching for all the women in the church to obey. 2. Chapter 3:1-13. The fact that Timothy is given the instructions as to what the basic qualifications are for the overseership and deaconship of the church, naturally implies he will teach other elders/deacons this truth, and has enough respect from every quarter of the church to see that it became established true doctrine. Anything less than Timothy being an officially appointed elder of the church for such an undertaking, would to me, be naive to contemplate, especially in the light of the fact that Paul himself had many who opposed him as his other letters show. 3. Chapter 3:15. Paul wrote these letters to Timothy "...so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God........." Not exactly the same words as he earlier gave to Timothy concerning one of the requirements for overseership - namely, an elder is to "take care of the church of God"(verse 5). But close enough to make this another way of saying the same thing. Surely an honest mind will see by reading carefully these two letters, that Paul is instructing Timothy in some rather fine detail at times, how indeed to "take care of the church." Instructions that Paul (not having much longer to live - 2 Tim.4:6-8) thought important for his "son in the faith" to have, and to be able to pass on to other elders and the church as a whole. 4. Note verses 6, 11, 13, 16, of chapter four. Timothy was in the function of teaching the brethren, and in no uncertain manner at times: "These things command and teach"(verse 11). As before shown, one of the qualities needed to be an overseer/elder is that of being a "skilful teacher." From this section alone (never mind many other passages in these two letters showing the same) we have proof Timothy was an official elder within the church. 5. Chapter 4:14. The word "presbytery" in the KJV is the Greek word presbuterion. It is the same Greek word as in Titus 1:5 except for the ending. In Titus it is presbuteros. See the Englishman's Greek Concordance page 652, for all their places of use. The Greek Interlinear by Berry, translates presbuterion of 1 Tim.4:14 as "elderhood" while presbuteros in Titus 1:5 is rendered as "elders." I guess we could argue from now until the cows come home, as to WHEN and for WHAT REASON specifically did the elderhood lay hands upon Timothy. Was it at his baptism, at his official appointment to the eldership ministry, or for some special undertaking (as with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3)? From the use of where Paul puts this sentence - the context it is enclosed within - having to do with instructing, teaching, even commanding, the brethren concerning the things so far stated by Paul, I believe the best understanding would be to take this "laying on of the hands of the elderhood" at Timothy's official appointment to eldership. 6. Chapter 5: 17-18. This is obviously concerning spiritual elders - appointed elders - of the church, who are guiding and leading in an official way. It is hard to imagine Timothy having any influence over this matter unless he himself was a recognized appointed elder. 7. 5:19-21. Here Timothy is instructed to act as "arbitrator" between church saints and an elder. If the elder is in a sin (obviously a major one and unrepentant) he is given the authority to "rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Again, to think under these conditions, that Timothy was anything less than an elder himself, to me is absurd. 8. Verse 22. The context is spiritual elders of the church. Timothy is instructed to be very careful and slow in laying hands on men to the appointment of elders. There is a certain amount of blame to be carried by the one or ones doing the appointing, if the one appointed turns out practicing sins that need rebuking before all (above verses). Once more showing Timothy was an elder with authority to lay hands on and appoint other men to the eldership ministry. 9. Timothy was to "teach and exhort"(chapter 6:2). The whole context of this first letter to him is in the form of "teaching" in an official church format and frame. Elders are to function as teachers in the church. 10. 2 Tim.4:1-5. Paul urges Timothy to "Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.........do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of your ministry." Words from Paul that I cannot reconcile being given to anyone but an elder in the church. Surely no one believes this is instructions for personal evangelism that all church members can undertake to do? No, it is for Timothy and those in his like function today. For those who are obligated because of the church appointed duty as elder, to officially teach and preach to the brethren and to the unconverted world. With all the weight of the above ten points it should be plain to see I believe, for the honest seeker of truth, that Timothy was indeed an officially appointed Overseer or Elder in the Church of God. STILL MORE DUTIES FOR THE ELDERSHIP MINISTRY THAT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DEACONSHIP MINISTRY, IS FOUND IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS. LET US LOOK AT THEM! Qualifications and Requirements of Elders(E) Deacons(D) 1 TIMOTHY 3 Verse 2 Blameless = E Blameless (v.10)= D One wife = E One wife (v.12)= D Vigilant ( 1 Pet. 5: 8)= E None = D Sober (1 Pet.5:8)= E None = D Good behaviour = E None = D Hospitable = E None = D Able to teach = E None = D Verse 3 Not given to much wine = E Not given to wine (v.8)= D No striker = E None = D Not greedy for money = E Not greedy for money (v.8)= D Patient = E None = D No brawler = E None = D Not covetous = E None = D Verse 4 Rules well house = E Rules well house (v.12)= D Verse 5 Take care of church = E None = D Verse 6 Not novice = E Be proved first, Acts 6 (v.10)= D Verse 7 Good report (character) = E Honest, Spirit, Wisdom (Acts 6)= D Note the differences! Now please take note of the following: Tim.1:18; 2:1,8,9-14; 3:1-15; 4:6,11,13,14,16; 5:1-22; 6;1-2, 17-20. Here we find clear and obvious directives and instructions to a person that must have had the official backing and sanction of the church, to teach, establish, and some authority to carry out, or see they were carried forth in practice. Only overseers or elders would have the respect and authority to so guide and "care for the church." The SERVANTS (diakonos - deacons) appointed to "serve tables" in Acts 6 were never given this kind of directive or instructions to serve the brethren, as we find in the verses above. Let's move to 2 Timothy: Verse two of chapter two shows Timothy was to train other men to be "teachers." A deacon is under no obligation to so do, it is not within their function of serving in physical matters for the church. Verse 24. Paul tells Timothy he is a servant of the Lord. He uses not the word "diakonos" here but the Greek word doulon - bond slave. He reminds Timothy of some of the qualities and qualifications for the eldership - skilful in teaching is one of them. As we have seen those in the deaconship are under no duty or obligation to be official teachers in the church, as was Timothy. Chapter 4. The very instructions given in verses two through five were never given to those who would serve the church in physical matters only. Official church servers/deacons are under no obligation to fulfil the directives here given to Timothy by Paul. As we look carefully at the letter to Titus we shall see many more functional requirements pertaining to the elders of the church, which are NOT specifically amplified upon, for those who will function as deacons. Verse six mentions children not accused of riot or unruly. Verse seven, an "overseer" is to be "blameless as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not soon angry. Verse eight - a lover of good things (marg.reading), just, holy, temperate. Verse nine - holding fast the word, exhort by sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers. Verse eleven tells the overseer that he must at times (mentally, verbally, and in written form) stop the mouth of those who teach deception in the name of God. Chapter two starts out with powerful instructions from Paul about more automatic duty functions for the men like Titus. The overall quality of being "apt to teach" is broken down into some specifics on teaching older men, older women, younger men, servants to masters. Note verse seven and eight. Incorruptible in doctrine, serious, sincerity, and sound speech that brings shame upon those who oppose. Verse 15 is mighty strong, no punches pulled. I did not say it friend, Paul did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise you." The Greek word used here for "authority" is epitage (number 2003 in Strong's Con.). Here is what Vine's Dictionary says: "epitage.......an injunction (from epi, 'upon,' lasso, 'to order'), is once rendered 'authority,' Titus 2:15 (RV marg., 'commandment'). See COMMANDMENT. Note: The corresponding verb is epitassoo, 'to command.' See COMMAND." Need I say any more on this word? The reader can explore it more under the words commandment and command in Vine's or some other lexicon. There is POWER and there is AUTHORITY in the sound speech, doctrines, and word of the Lord. It is the duty of elders to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing (handling correctly, cutting straight, being faithfully honest with) the word of truth" (2 tim.2: 15). The Greek word used for "study" means to "be diligent, zealous." It is let me again EMPHASIS, an awesome responsibility for a man to take on the function of being a spiritual elder and teacher in the church. When James was inspired to write the words he did in chapter three, verse one, of his letter, he was not talking about one on one personal evangelism (which usually only cover the simple basic truths of sin, repentance, salvation, etc.). He was talking about men desiring the function of overseer, elder (1 Tim.3:1). While that desire is not wrong as Paul told Timothy, there are important qualifications to attain, and James said, "My brethren, be not many teachers...." He had very good reasons to say it! Paul finishes his letter to Titus with still more instructions for the duties of functioning elders. He mentions more things to teach in verses one and two. Certain things a minister is to avoid in verse nine. And even people (heretics) to reject in verse ten. It would not be correct for me to leave this without commenting on still one more important section of NT scripture that pertains to the function of Elders and not deacons. It is the instructions of the apostle and elder Peter, found in his first letter, chapter five, verses one to eleven. Elders NOT deacons are to "feed the flock of God....taking the oversight (overseership/shepherding).......willingly......." They are to do it without money being an issue. They are to oversee not as pompous dictatorial masters, but by example mainly. Yet we have also seen they do have some authority (the word of God is authority) in the truth of God they are to teach, preach, and proclaim. The younger (in age and length of time as elders) are to submit to the older (in age and length of service) elders. Yet, ALL elders are to submit to each other and be clothed with humility. Yes, sure.......it is true, the basic principles of the above can be taken and used by ALL THE SAINTS, including those in the deaconship. But that still does not negate the truth of the matter that all of the instructions we have covered, were first given to officially appointed Elders in the church, in order to elucidate more fully upon their functioning duty. THERE IS A LARGE FUNCTIONING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERS AND DEACONS! As this work and study of mine has now evolved over the years from a relatively lengthy paper (the first section written in 1983) into a full size book (at the close of this third section), I will not move on to another argument in the study by Norman Edwards, without quoting in some length, from the book MAN and WOMAN in Biblical Perspective by James B. Hurley. The pertinent section of his book to our present study is found in chapter 8, page 224, beginning with the sub-heading Church office in the New Testament. Quote: ".......The book of Acts gives indications of an emerging structure, but does not give sufficient detail to gain a full picture. The letters provide more insight.......The elders are to nurture, guard, teach, build up, and be examples to the flock. Deacons minister to it. Responsibility to foster growth and to ensure faithful teaching necessarily entails authority. Authority can be abused. We have already noted Jesus' concern to prevent abuse of authority (Lk.22:24-26). His concern is reflected by Peter (1 Pet.5:1-2). I hope that the concentration on authority in the study which follows will not mislead any into thinking that I am suggesting that the eldership should be conceived of primarily in terms of authority and the right to command. The eldership should be seen primarily in terms of shepherding. In Acts we see apostles and 'elders' (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18) and the appointment of 'deacons' (diakonoi, men who serve needs) to ensure fair treatment of Hebrew and Hellenistic widows (Acts 6).......Acts witnesses the appointment of 'elders' (presbytery in cities such as Ephesus.......We get some indication of their function when Paul charges them, 'guard....all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopoi, 'bishops'). Be shepherds of the church of God....' (Acts 20:28). The elders (or bishops or presbyters; the terms are used interchangeably in the New Testament) were charged with the welfare of the congregations. Their shepherding responsibilities involved guarding their people against false teaching (20:29) and teaching them by word and example to live as Christians (1 Pet.5:1-3; Eph.4:1, 12). Acts knows other roles in the church such as prophet and evangelist..... The New Testament letters, especially those of Timothy, Titus and the Philippians, witness to the establishment of the categories of elder and deacon in a formal way. Paul and Timothy are teachers of the apostolic message and Timothy is charged to entrust that message to qualified men who will in turn teach others (2 Tim.2:2). These men are not just congregational members, but have formal responsibility for passing on correct teaching, which teaching is to be lived out in the lives of the Christian (2 Tim.1:13-14; 3:10-12). Such men are elders who direct the life and work of the church. Paul commands that 'the elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour (possibly 'honorarium', i.e. wage), especially those whose work is preaching and teaching' (1 Tim.5:17). The author of the letter to the Hebrews comments on such men from a slightly different perspective. He calls upon his readers to be mindful of those who rule over them (13:7) and to 'obey those who rule over you and submit yourselves to them, for they watch over your souls, and they must give account' (13:17). Paul charged the elders/shepherds to watch over the sheep which God had placed in their charge. The author to the Hebrews charged the sheep to obey and noted that the shepherds are accountable for them. These texts from the letters to Timothy and Hebrews supplement what we have seen in Acts and provide a picture of the elders as men who are involved in the direction of the congregations and who are charged particularly with teaching, ensuring that the message is faithfully taught and directing the outworking of the message in the life of the church. These tasks involve distinctive leadership and authority, extending to formal actions to rid the flock of the 'savage wolves' whom the apostle warned would rise up within the flock (Acts 20:29; cf. 1 Cor.5). We need not pursue the work of elders here at length. Sufficient has been said to show that his task of instruction, shepherding and discipline falls easily within the area of 'teaching and exercising authority over men' which Paul reserved to men in 1 Timothy 2. These basic considerations will be of importance when we look at 1 Timothy 3. The role of deacons is more difficult to define precisely from Scripture....... We shall first consider the biblical data. The term diakonos means 'one who serves', 'servant' or 'minister'. It can be used to describe the activity of 'one who serves' the needs of another (Mk.9:35; 10:43). It can also describe one who represents or acts on behalf of another as his servant or minister (Acts 6; Eph.3:7). In this sense it takes on a slightly more formal meaning. The formal, representative aspect and the idea of serving others can come together, as with the deacons of Acts 6 who ministered to the needs of the widows as representatives of the church. The term 'deacon' points both to their representative role and to their actual function in serving. It is clear that the deacons of Acts 6 possessed a certain amount of authority in their distribution of food...... The biblical data are not the only data to be considered when using the terms 'elder', 'bishop', 'minister', and 'deacon' today.The terms are used differently in different forms of church government. Virtually all are agreed that the role of the bishop, elder or presbyter is one which involves responsibility to direct the life of the flock, teaching with authority, and the exercise of disciplinary authority to guard the faith. The term 'minister' is most frequently used of a man who preaches regularly and supervises the pastoral care of the congregation. His function is that of elder. The term 'minister' can, however, be used in a less technical way to describe someone who meets the needs of others(ministers to their needs). In this sense it has little to do with church office as such. It is important to be careful to grasp which sense is intended in a given context........ The 'deacons' of Acts 6 were men who were well respected in the congregation and would not be suspected of favouring either Jews or Greeks. Their task was not in directing the flock, but in distributing resources. The apostles, on the other hand, continued in prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4). The basic division is not identified as corresponding to that of elder and deacon in the letters to Timothy, but is very suggestive, especially when coupled with those passages in the letters to Timothy which call for the committing of apostolic messages to men who will faithfully teach and for special respect for elders who direct the church by teaching and preaching (1 Tim.5:17; 2 Tim.2:2). The impression is strengthened by the coupling of apostles and elders in the authoritative decrees of the Council held at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Those elders were certainly carrying out functions parallel to those of the apostles. If the elders preach and teach and shepherd, what did the deacons do? 1 Timothy 3 isolates elders and deacons as special classes of persons, with special qualifications, and also clearly distinguishes them from one another. In Acts 20 Paul met with the elders, but not with the deacons of Ephesus, addressing them as the shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28). The deacons of Acts 6 did not teach and rule but served physical needs. Could it be that the deacons of 1 Timothy 3 are to be distinguished from the bishops by similar division of labour? I think so. The discussion which follows will presume that both deacons and elders are congregational representatives and are distinguished by their tasks. The elder's calling is to foster the spiritual growth of the congregation, and the deacons lead in ministering to its physical needs and showing the love of Christ to outsiders through meeting their physical needs. Elders teach with formal authority and exercise disciplinary authority to protect the flock, deacons do not share this task. As described, the task of a deacon does not involve the sort of teaching and exercising of authority which 1 Timothy 2:11-12 reserves for men. With this understanding of the office of deacon, therefore, there is no violation of biblical restrictions on authority if women serve as deacons. This fact does not authorize the appointment of women deacons, but it does remove a problem which many face when they think of women deacons......." For those interested in an in-depth study on the subject of the role of men and women in the church, I do recommend James Hurley's book "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective" published by Zondervan. TO BE CONTINUED ..............................   11. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed THIRD CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER N.E. Self-Appointed "Minister" (Servant). "...ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted (appointed) themselves to the ministry (service) of the saints" (l Cor. 16:15, KJV) The Greek lasso everywhere else in the Now Testament is fixated as "appointed," "determined" or some other decision-making word that fits its Greek meaning. The KJV translators and others after them have used a varied of words in this verse that hide the true meaning; of "appointed". They could not accept the Biblical fact that Stephanas appointed himself to the ministry or service of the saints. That would go against their doctrine of central appointment of all "ministers." In reality, there is nothing wrong with a person deciding they will serve (not be a "boss" over) the brethren. Apollos made himself a teacher and was accepted (Acts 18:24-28, I Cor 3:6). MY ANSWER Did the KJV translators really have some clandestine, undercover, secret cloak and dagger, plan to get all the English speaking population of the world, to believe in a ONE MAN AUTHORITARIAN HEAD APOSTLE/ARCH-BISHOP CHURCH GOVERNMENT TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY? All I can say is that if what Mr.Edwards wants you to believe about King James and his scholars, is correct, then overall they DID A PRETTY LOUSY AND INCONSISTENT JOB of their translating of the Greek, to enslave the world with their idea of correct "church government." I was raised and educated in England, went to a "Church of England" school all my life till I was seventeen. I faithfully attended "Sunday school" and entered many Bible exams. I read the word of the Lord. I was taught it in school. Listened to many Church of England priests. Never from my personal reading of the King James Version, or from the ministers of the Church of England, did I ever get the notion, or have implanted in my mind, the idea or teaching that the church that Jesus built (which the Church of England claims to be part of) was ever to be a dictatorial rank pyramid eldership organization. It was not until AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH AND BEING A MEMBER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS in the Worldwide Church of God, under the "only apostle" of God on earth - Herbert Armstrong (as he eventually claimed), that I was subjugated to believe, that the NT taught a hierarchial ministerial rank system of church government akin to the Roman Catholic church. I certainly did not have that interpretation encased in my mind from reading THE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATED BY THE KING JAMES SCHOLARS!! So if those scholars translated with that object in their minds, under the directions from King James, then they needed to go back to theology school, for they did a dismal inconsistent job. Why I could have done better myself, not being a Greek scholar! If the King James translators took WILD LlBERTY (which they did) with planting the word EASTER (where the Greek is Pascher - Passover) in Acts 12:4, for their translation, they sure missed the train in taking wild liberties to establish King James' secret plan, to get everyone believing in a dictatorial rank ministry for the church. I speak with some tongue in cheek, but seriously now. The word "Easter" was a fragrant wild liberty, not even a transliteration from the Greek. They could have taken just as much liberty in trying to teach a pyramid structure for the NT church. Let me give you some examples as to what I mean. Come back with me to the latter half, to near the end of the first century A.D. The apostles Peter and Paul have been executed. Most if not all of the other early elders of the church have died in one way or another. The original 12 apostles have either moved far away from Palestine or have died, only the apostle JOHN is in the confines of Judea. He is old but somewhat famous because he was one of the specific 12 chosen by Jesus. The King James translators of 1611 knew the above facts. John wrote a letter to "the elect lady" and to "the well-beloved Gaius" (2 JN. 3 JN.). WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY THEY HAD! If they were conspiring with King James to slant the scriptures so as to hood-wink the common person (who hardly had a Bible let alone the NT Greek manuscripts) into believing the NT church was built upon a pyramid ministerial rank system like that of the Roman Catholic church, they could have easily INSERTED the word "bishop" in John's letters to then read: "The BISHOP unto the elect lady" and "The BISHOP unto the well-beloved Gaius." They paid no attention to the Greek in Acts 12:4 when they inserted the word EASTER, so they could have ignored the Greek for "elder" in John's letters. if they were really up to some sneaky, surreptitious, secretive, underhanded and veiled plan with King James to foster the doctrine of hierarchal church government on the people. They could have done the same thing in Acts 14:23 - inserted the word BISHOPS instead of "elders." It would have fit in nicely, because they were appointing men in different churches not just one church. If the English mind thinks of "bishop" as some higher head minister over lower in authority ministers, and if the translators of 1611 wanted to teach the people that their "Church of England" system was taught in the Bible, they sure had an excellent opportunity in this verse in Acts. Look they could have done this kind of clandestine move with other verses also. They could have done it with 1 Peter 5:1 "The bishops which are among you I exhort, who am also a bishop..." Wow, this was Peter, surely many were already believing Peter to be in dictatorial authority over other less ranked "ministers." Putting "bishop" here would have really added some weight for King James' church government teaching. The word bishop could have been used in 1 Tim.5:17, 19, and in Titus 1:5. They did use it in Titus 1:7. Doing all that and leaving the word "elders" in passages such as Acts 20:17 and James 5:14 (where you could not have many"bishops" in a single congregation, if we take the word bishop to mean a minister in authority over other less ranked ministers) WOULD REALLY HELP NAIL IT HOME, that is King James' plan to teach hierarchal government in the church. So yes, the translators of 1611 could have done so IF ignoring the Greek as they did in Acts 12:4, and if working on a devious false teaching that King James wanted, nay, was demanding, to be promoted by the NT. Ignoring the Greek, I could have done a better job for King James' clandestine theology than his many scholars (who had many minds to work his devious seductions) he hired. GIVE ME A BREAK NORMAN EDWARDS! It was not King James and his scholars who were out "to teach the world" about hierarchal church government from the NT scriptures.   It was organizations and individuals who were bent on promulgating this   false heretical doctrine, taken right out of the theology book of the Roman Catholic church. How did they do it. Not from the NT, but by harping on           from OT passages of a top dog in ancient Israel and saying God is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (which I  covered the real truth of earlier).   As I've said, I was reading the NT long before, for years before, I ever heard of the teaching of hierarchal church government, not when you read all the scriptures on the subject from all the NT. Many scriptures the scholars of 1611 translated correctly and well, and which would contradict any planned, premeditated, conspiracy on their part to promulgate a doctrine of Rome. Why they and King James were AGAINST the church of Rome and its "king-pin, above all others" minister - the Pope. They and other English scholars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries OPENLY named the Roman Catholic church as the WHORE of the book of Revelation - Babylon the great, the mother of harlots. Let me comment on the specific verse quoted by N.E. - 1 Cor.16:15. In all my years of reading this verse BEFORE and AFTER being a member in the Worldwide Church of God, I never came close to the same thought as Mr. Edwards - that this was part of the conspiracy plan undertaken by the translation scholars of 1611. E.N. is quite correct concerning the Greek word lasso, yet I do not understand the big deal he is making about it. To me the KJV translators used an English word that is even more POWERFUL than the English word "appoint" or "determined." The word "addicted" to my mind is akin to the word "drugged" which carries a mighty strong, super strong connotation. Being "addicted" to wine or heroin is stronger than being appointed to the duty of carrying out the trash for the office staff. Also note, if the 1611 translators were trying to promote a doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" they were once more inconsistent right within the verse itself. For they translated the Greek word for "service" (diakonian) as the English word ministry! And that word to my English mind, within the context of religion and the church, carries the connotation of teaching and working in the eldership function with the saints. So I could possibly take this verse not as something the 1611 translators were trying to cover up but just the opposite, teaching that certain ones appointed or addicted themselves to working in the "ministry"(eldership) of the saints. Ah, for the semantics of words and how we understand them one from another within any given sentence. Interesting to say the least, and possibly confusing to others. Now to the nitty-gritty! Mr. Edwards says it was "Stephanas appointed himself" to the ministry or service of the saints. But look at that verse AGAIN, look at it carefully! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL! Read it, it say: ".......you know the HOUSE of Stephanas.......and that THEY(more than one) have addicted THEMSELVES to the ministry of the saints." This was not one single man or person that had appointed himself to the ministry, BUT A WHOLE HOUSEHOLD OF PERSONS! We are not told HOW MANY, what their AGES were, nor what SEX they may have been - male/female. It could have been persons of BOTH sexes that had appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints. And if I was to take the word "ministry" (as given by the KJV scholars) as meaning eldership or as we today often think and use the word in religious circles, I could come up with the idea (from the KJV) that whole families - male and female - can put themselves into the official function of church elders. Gets kind of wild doesn't it. Under this light, I could interpret this verse not as something the 1611 scholars were trying to conceal because they wanted to teach a doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" but actually the very opposite. That whole families of male AND female could addict (be drugged on) themselves to serving in the "ministry"(spiritual eldership) of the church. We clearly know from this verse that it was the "house of Stephanas" the "themselves" and not just the man Stephanas who was addicted to serving the saints. What is also just as clear is that we are NOT TOLD the service they were doing for the saints. We are not told if it was washing the chariots for members of the church, cutting the grass, delivering groceries for the elderly saints, grooming their horses or donkeys, painting their stone fences, reading the Bible to the blind, or a hundred and one other things a household of persons can get enthusiastic about in serving others. We are just told the basic essentials, that here was a FAMILY who had become drugged with setting themselves to minister - serve (and I think we all really know that the word "ministry" was used by the 1611 translators to mean NOT eldership but service, just as they used it many times this way in other verses of the NT - (see the Englishman's Greek Concordance) in some way or ways to the brethren of the church. AND THAT'S IT! To speculate any further on the service given would be futile. Paul was pleased with their service to the brethren, and in verse 16 he tells his readers to respect and even to be subject to them, but does not go on to amplify his comments. We take from that, that they knew what he meant by his remarks and also that given in verse 18. What's wrong with what this household did in verse 16? Why NOTHING AT ALL! This was just an acknowledgment on Paul's part that such families should be held is high regards for the ministry of work they had addicted themselves to perform for the saints. Nothing more and nothing less. The KJV translators employed by the King in the 17th century were NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING in their rendering of this verse from the Greek into English, nor were they trying to teach from this verse the doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers." This verse says NOTHING ABOUT MAKING ONESELF A TEACHER OF OTHERS. But the verse in James 3:1 SURE DOES! And quite frankly there are many going about today trying to be "teachers" WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND NEED TO BE LISTENING AND LEARNING. Many who were "kept under" - shackled to only "pray and pay" - taught to "not think" - finding themselves free from that straight-jacket, have become themselves "blind leaders of the blind." Apollos did what every saint is at liberty to do - go to the churches in the towns and speak the truths of God if they so desire and are so led of the Spirit to do. His example is as one going forth to the deceived and those in various degrees of spiritual darkness. After he was trained even more in the truths of God, he was accepted by the brethren to teach them and to preach to the unconverted world. He was given an opportunity to "be proved" and to see if he did "desire the office of bishop"(1 Tim.3). Obviously from what is stated about Apollos in the first chapters of 1 Corinthians, and the fact that he like Paul was called an "apostle" it is clear that he was by GOD, and by OTHER elders and brethren called and appointed to the overseership/eldership within the NT Church of God. N.E. Selective Translations Bolsters "Bishop." The various jobs listed in the Bible were usually described by plain, everyday words in Greek. The KJV translators should have used plain everyday English words to translate them. As we found with diakonos, the translators used the "plain, everyday" words in some places, but put in "church terminology" ("minister" or "deacon") when it suited their purposes.. This practice leaves the English reader to believe that the Scriptures actually support exalted "church offices" rather than jobs for the converted people to do. The Greek episkopos is translated "bishop" in four places where it apparently applies to only a few men - matching the authoritarian church concept of a boss over many congregations. It is translated "overseer" (its true meaning) in Acts 20:28 because Paul was addressing all the elders of Ephesus (vs. 17-18). King James would not have allowed the "high office" of "Bishop" to be mentioned in a way that made it seem nearly equal to the "common elder" so the translators obscured it. (The American Standard Version, produced much later, is at least consistent and contains "bishop" here) "Overseer" would be a much better translation for episkopos if we understand it as `"someone that looks out for the welfare of others," not "someone that bosses others." A similar problem occurs with the closely related word episkope (meaning "inspection" or "overseeing"). It is translated "visitation" in Luke 19:44 rued I Peter 2:12 where it refers to an individual's "inspection" or "judgment", but "bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 and even "office of bishop" in l Timothy 3:1 where it is made to look like a "church office." During the first century, "overseers" were selected from elders (older men) of the congregation to take care of the administrative needs of a congregation."  MY ANSWER Are there "church offices" in the church? Well again we are back to the semantics of words. Let's go to the human body example that Paul used. If you want to take the function of what the "head" does in relation to the rest of the body and call it a "body office" then you should be free to do so. If you want to call what the "blood" does in relation to the rest of the body a "body office" then you have the liberty within a language to do so. If you want to call what the "skin" does in the way of function to the rest of the human a "body office" you have freedom to do so. Language is a means of communication, to put a certain mind thought or scene into that part of the brain dealing with concepts. To call the "head" a "bodily office" does not of itself mean it is inheritably superior or exalted above the rest of the body. Certainly the body can not live or function without the head, but then again, the body can not function or live without the blood, or without the skin, or without the internal organs and so on. One office of the body is not superior to another. All offices must be there to make a whole, and for it to be nourished and to grow to maturity and perfection. And that is exactly how Paul likened the church. All functions are "offices" in that sense of how we are using the word. All in the church are supposed to be converted, yet we do not all function in the same role within the church. We have different duties to perform. We are then in different "offices" of the church. We have seen the NT does indeed break down the body of Christ into THREE OVERALL basic "offices" or functions - the SAINTS, the DEACONS, and the OVERSEERS/ELDERS. No one in any of those offices are to feel "greater" or "more important" than anyone else. The NT is full of verses that proclaim that truth. I believe Mr. Edwards is making a "mountain out of a mole hill" in attributing some secret scheme to the 1611 translators. Even if by some wild endeavour on their part they were trying to make the NT teach a Roman Catholic type of church government (which is hard to believe considering England had rejected Rome and the "supremacy of Peter" doctrine), it would NOT BE POSSIBLE by the way God had preserved His word in the Greek language (unless the Greek itself was cast aside, and so called "religious" men came up with a so called "word of God" that was purely from their own minds and not the mind of the Lord). God's word is written in such a way that anyone trying to form a false doctrine of complete harmony throughout, would sooner or later have to reject the original inspired Hebrew and Greek, and insert their own ideas. No one has ever proved that the King James translators were NOT working from the inspired languages of the Biblical text. Let's take episkopos as used in Titus 1:7. If the 1611 scholars were trying to teach from the NT that a "bishop" was a man - a clergyman - in the church who was in rank above the other ministers, priests, elders, and that he had authority over them to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, then they should have been consistent with verse 5. If that was their aim, their teaching plan, then they should have put the word "bishop" in verse five also. They would have had to reject the different Greek word used there (presbuteros), but so what, they rejected the Greek word for Passover in Acts 12:4 did they not, yes they did! They did not reject presbuteros but rendered it "elders" as they should have. Which immediately, for even those knowing NO GREEK but only English, tells you that an Elder is also a Bishop - one and the same individual in the church. Look at Philippians 1:1. If the scholars employed by King James to do his dirty work in teaching a pyramid structure of government in the church, wanted the people to believe a "bishop" in the church was someone who was the "top dog" in ecclesiastical authority over lower pries/elders, or someone over a group of churches and ministers, they sure messed up here. Paul was writing to ONE TOWN! Would they have "bishops" plural - a number of them, in one town? I do not think so, and the Church of England as they use the word "bishop" today, do not have a number of them in just one town! To avoid people questioning their "bishop" teaching from this verse, if they had some secret agenda, it would have been easy to have put the English word overseers in this verse, as they did in Acts 20:28. The word "bishop" can have a number of meanings in English. Look it up in a good Dictionary. Or talk to someone from the Mormon church and ask them how they use the word in their organization. The King James translators were probably not using the word bishop in the way it is used today in the Church of England, nor the way Mr. Edwards wants you to believe. It wasn't the Church of England that deceived Norman Edwards for many years into believing this false doctrine of the "supremacy of Peter" and hierarchal church government. IT WAS MEN teaching IT from the Old Testament mainly, and later from twisting a few NT verses as the RC church does. Reading the NT in its entirety, putting scripture with scripture FROM THE KJV translation, you will never come up with the apostolic Church of God being a pyramid or one man hierarchal structured. N.E. Other Religious "Offices" Enhanced. The Greek poimen is translated "shepherd" all other 16 times, but "Pastor" in Ephesians 4:11 where there is a list of various functions of the members of His body. Finally, the Greek euaggelion is everywhere translated "gospel.'' The very similar word euaggelistes should be translated "gospel-preacher" - clearly connecting the relationship between the two words. Instead, we have three references to "evangelist," assumed by many to be an ecclesiastic rank or title, not a function." MY ANSWER From the World Book Dictionary concerning the word pastor we read: ".......3. Archaic. a herdsman or shepherd. (< Anglo-French pastour, Old French Pasteur, < Latin pastor shepherd < pascere to feed) ." So the translators of the KJV were influenced by some Anglo-French-Latin to render the Greek as pastor in Eph.4: 11. Any big deal? No I do not think so, and I'll tell you why soon. Poimen in the Greek means ".......'a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks' (not merely one who feeds them)......." Vine's Dictionary. This is what we learn about the word evangel from whence we derive the word evangelist, the World Book Dictionary: ".......(< Late Latin evangelism < Greek evangelion good tidings, ultimately < eu- good + angellein announce < angelos messenger). So the 1611 scholars took the Greek word and transliterated it into the Anglo-Saxon English. Again, really NO BIG DEAL, unless you are bent on reading something very sinister going on in the minds of those hired to translate the Bible by King James - a secret plot of trying to make people believe in a Roman Catholic church government structure. And that coming from the minds of those who had rejected Rome is very doubtful. The words pastor and evangelist do not carry ANY meaning within them from the Greek, French, Latin, or Anglo, that implies or teaches an "ecclesiastical rank." It is just NOT THERE, period! Tens of thousands of people back in 1611 as today in the English speaking world, who attend churches of various faiths, do not acquaint any "dictatorial rank" or "authoritarian title" - boss you about power - to the words pastor or evangelist. Just go and ask any average church attender what thoughts come into his or her mind when they think of the word "pastor" or "evangelist." Most will say for pastor, a minister who serves and shepherds the flock of God in spiritual matters. They do not think of a minister who has dictatorial authority over other ministers that he orders around. When those same people think of the word "evangelist" they do not understand it as someone with some special official "rank" in the church that has authority over "pastor" ministers. They think of it as a minister who mainly preaches the word of God to the outside unconverted persons in the world. To my knowledge, the Church of England in its ecclesiastical structure, has never used a minister rank system that carried the names APOSTLE, PROPHET, EVANGELIST. I do not believe they even used pastor or teacher, yet I could be wrong on that. Well to get it from the horses mouth, I have just called the ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, who are, they inform me, the same as the Church of England. I asked about their official structure and names used. It is: THREE TIERED - bottom rung is deacon - second rung is priest - third rung is bishop. These are separate ordinations - official appointments. They have never used as official ordination rank (which the previous three are in their government) with TITLES of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor. They do use the words pastor and evangelist, but in an un-official way, such as assigning a "lay member" the task to do an evangelistic meeting or promotion to the public. So the Church of England under King James and his translators were NOT trying to teach from Ephesians 4:11 or by using the word "evangelist" three times, the ecclesiastic rank of church government. The truth is that from the very Greek words in the sentence of Ephesians 4:11 and the word euaggelistes, or the English words used in the KJV, NO DOCTRINE OF "RANK MINISTERS" CAN BE FOUND WITHOUT SOME WILD INTERPRETATION FROM THE MIND OF MAN! IT IS JUST NOT CORRECT TO BLAME THE TRANSlATORS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE WITH TRYING TO "enhance religious offices" from their use of the words pastor and evangelist. Trying to do so is, to put it bluntly (not meaning to offend Mr. Edwards) - not good theology! There is NOTHING WRONG with the verse under discussion, nor with the words evangelist and pastor. What is wrong, is the false man made interpretation of that verse and of those words, as Norman Edwards experienced under the ministry of the Worldwide Church of God. It was MEN who adopt a Roman Catholic type hierarchy.   In so doing had to twist and a few scriptures of the NT that would then fit in with the mind set on the subject, while rejecting many other verses and passages that would sound the death bell on his "one man supremacy of Peter" doctrine. It is time Mr. Edwards to put the blame of you believing such heretical nonsense for so many years, where it belongs. Not on the heads of the translators of King James, but on the head of men for their purpose. Ranks of church ministers can not be found in the New Testament.                Moving up in rank and authority positions over other minsters is not in the NT.  N.E. Matthew 16:18 Mistranslated. This one translation error known to many. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [petros - small stone], and upon this rock [petra - large massive rock] will I build my church." The Greek shows His assembly or "church" is not built on Peter but on the Messiah. The English, with no distinction between the size of rocks, leads us to believe that the Congregation was built upon Peter and (by deduction) his successors. (Most top "church leaders" in big organizations claim to be successors of Peter in some way.) MY ANSWER           From the Bible  Commentary by Albert Barnes Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been  thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock,  this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.”  Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to  avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter  himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome  has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation  would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm,  and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it.  Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.”  This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:0,  where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had  thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain  meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics  say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was only  one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15:0, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter,  was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be  blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that  Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible,  that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of  the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument  of known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher  in building my church.”          In Greek, "Petros" (Πέτρος) means "stone" or "rock". It's the masculine form of the word "petra" (πέτρα),          which also means  "stone" or "rock". The name Petros is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic name Cephas,          which Jesus gave to Simon Bar-Jonah, later known as the Apostle Peter.  To be continued .............................................   12. Church Government   What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed FOURTH CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER N.E. Hebrews 13:17 Does Not Create Hierarchy. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account...." (Heb. 13:17 KJV). The Greek peitho ("obey") is usually translated "persuade" or "trust" - it contains the idea of becoming friends, cooperating. The Greek pietharcheo, used for obeying the Eternal or kings (Acts 5:29; Tit 3:1) was not used here. The Greek hegemoai ("rule") is more often translated "count" or "think" and here means "leaders" or "those that must give account." The Greek hupotasso, ("submit") is the same word used for "people submitting to civil authority" and members "submitting to each other" (Rom. 13:1-5, l Cor 16:16, Eph 5:21, 1 Pet. 5:5). If hupotasso meant "under absolute authority," how could the believers be "under absolute authority" to each other? While this verse does give a strong message about cooperation with the leaders of his congregation, it does not set up the ecclesiastical monarchy that King James 1 wanted. Our leaders should tell us what Paul did: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (l Cor. 11:1) We find the same Greek word for "rule" peitho used in Hebrews 13:7: "Remember those who rule over you, who love spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct." Again, we are to consider the outcome or fruits of a leader and follow his faith, not his every word. If leaders stop imitating the Messiah and His Word, we stop imitating them! " MY ANSWER I have no big argument here with Norman Edwards, I fully agree with what he states. But I do take exception to his statement "...it does not set up the ecclesiastical monarchy that King James 1 wanted." Again poor old King James is blamed for what Mr. Edwards finds objectional words used by his translators. These kinds of words are read routinely in many churches as they study through the NT. There are more verses in the NT to do with the same basic teaching than just the verse in Hebrew 13. The churches that do not teach and do not practice an iron hand, dogmatic authoritarian, "jump to my tune," ministerial system (which is really the teaching and working of a "cult") HAVE LITTLE TROUBLE WITH SUCH VERSES! For they do not read into them a "blind faith" or "stop thinking and let the elders tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it" mentality. It is organizations and leaders of such that turn their followers into "cult members" who give their minds over to them, sometimes done so slowly and cunningly, they do not realize what has happened until they are so blinded that they cannot see the trees for the forest. Then leaders can put a false interpretation upon words as found in Hebrews 13:17 to perpetuate the cycle of full blind faith dominance, upon their brain-washed followers. Let's stay for a moment with the English words obey, rule, and submit. How we understand them is a matter of semantics, and the overall context will also determine our view of them. Let me give you an example. A father writes a letter to his child who is away on a camping holiday with the Boy Scout troop he belongs to. He writes to him as part of his letter: "Son, I want you to obey the Scout Master and those who have rule over you, and I want you to be submissive to them, for they watch for your wellbeing, as they must give account to all the parents of the children in their care." The child/children and all the parents are quite familiar with the Scout Troop operation, they know how it is run, what the teachings and overall objectives of the organization are. They know the relationship the leaders have with the boys in the Troop, and vice versa. The child receiving such a letter from his father using the words obey, rule, and submit/submissive in it, posess no threat or trepidation to the boy. For he is in full understanding as to what his father means by those words WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the organization he belongs to and is at ease with. He automatically realizes his father is not talking about "blindly following" like some mindless robot, the Scout Master or those ruling him, if it should endanger his life. He knows his father is not meaning to say that if the Scout leader should tell him to jump from a fifty foot cliff into an eight foot pool of water, and he is not happy about doing it, that he must, unquestionably obey the leader. So likewise it was with Paul and his readers. First of all, the context was the true Church of God, not some authoritarian mindless cult they were part of. Secondly, the context was also talking about true faithful leaders (elders) of the Lord, not some pompous dictatorial power hungry little Hitlers. Thirdly, within that context everybody was living and acing as real Christians who knew the truths of how Christ wanted His people to interact with one another. The context of Paul's writing to them was as the context of the father we talked about above, writing to his child in the camp out with the Boy Scouts. Nothing intimidating meant and no intimidation taken. Under such a context there is no fear in the words obey, rule, and submit! Paul was writing as a loving spiritual parent and it is written: "Perfect love casts out fear." It is only when these verses in Hebrews and else-where, have been TWISTED and MISUSED by vain egotistical "do as I say, even to what I tell you to eat for breakfast" mind abusing cultic leaders, that people start to fear the words obey, rule, and submit. For those within the true church of Jesus Christ who are all trying to function with love, in the various tasks they have been given to do in the three overall classes of saint, deacon, and overseer, there is no apprehension or trembling before those three words under discussion. The King James translators did not have some sinister, stick a knife in your back, hold you at gun point, make you quake and shake in your boots, mental mind set, when they chose the English words, obey, rule and submit. I am sorry that N.E. had to experience for so many years the mental abuse that the Worldwide Church of God employed with its members through a dictatorial hierarchical church government structure, but let's put the blame where it truly belongs - on the abuse of men with a false semantic use of words. We need to free ourselves not only from the captivity of that tyranny, but also from the captivity of seeing "an evil goblin" behind words used in the translation of the scholars employed by King James. The translators of 1611 did not do a perfect job by any means, and they did a few times, fragrantly forget the Greek like in Acts 12:4 before mentioned (which is a much more serious mistranslation than anything Mr. Edwards talks about in his paper), but even then in that, I do not believe they had any evil clandestine plan in mind. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, all will come to light in the judgment day. By and large I praise and give thanks to the Lord for the King James English translation of the Bible. It has and is still leading tens of thousands of people to the light of the world and truths of God. It is the perverseness of religious mind controllers and their organizations who twist the scriptures and pollute even the meaning of English words, that we need to watch out for and avoid, not the words of the King James Version, imperfect as it may be. I could go into a long discourse about the Greek words that N.E. brings out in the above quote, but it is not necessary here. You can study them, all the places where they are used etc. in works such as Stronq's Concordance of the Bible. Yet I do need to touch on the truth of verses like Hebrews 13:17. Within the family of God which is the church of God, there is obey/obedience, rule/guiding/overseeing. and submit/yielding. God is the lawgiver, He lives and governs by law. He guides and rules us in the way we should conduct our lives by law. He expects us to yield and submit to Him and His righteousness. The church is composed of those who have been begotten by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their minds - the very nature of God. The church is the flock of the Lord, and over that flock as caring shepherds to feed and lead into green pastures, persons called overseers or elders. It is they who are responsible to teach in word and conduct, the way, the laws, the righteousness, of the Eternal, to the flock. Sometimes, as we have seen in the letters to Timothy and Titus, that leading and teaching must be with power, strength, and correction, in season and out of season. The NT, nay the whole Bible, shows very clearly that the leading and teaching of the shepherds has to do with righteousness and sin, NOT WITH GOVERNING THE SHEEP IN TRIVIAL DAY TO DAY MATTERS, such as what car to buy, what dress to wear for church services, what job to work at etc. unless of course for some reason the matter does cross over into the clear issue of sin and righteousness. The pastors of the Lord do have the responsibility to govern with law, the law of God. And within those clear areas of the Eternal's laws and righteousness, they do have the right to expect the sheep of the flock to obey! They should expect the sheep who want to serve the Lord, who desire to grow in grace and knowledge, to submit when it is plainly a matter of that which is the commandment and law and righteousness of God. Examples are often the best way to teach a point of truth. I will give you some. A few from the NT itself, and one from my own personal ministry. First example: Turn to 2 Thessalonians chapter three and we shall begin reading from verse ten: "For even when we were with you, this WE (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, chap. 1:1 - elders and overseers in the church) COMMANDED you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we COMMAND and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread"(verses 10-12). Just no way around this, pretty strong stuff from those three overseers. Paul hit the nail on the head, laid the cards on the table, and just told them the law of the Lord on this matter. Oh, you want to look up the Greek word here used for command/ed to see if there is a way out. Please do! You will find it is the word parangelloo. Here is what Vine's Dictionary says, ".......'to announce beside' (pare, 'beside,' angelloo, 'to announce'), 'to pass on an announcement,' hence denotes 'to give the word, order, give a charge, command', e.g., Mark 6:8; Luke 8:29; 9:21; Acts 5:28; 2 Thes.3:4, 6, 10, 12. See CHARGE, B. No.8." Ah, it is used also in verses 4 and 6 of 2 Thessalonians chapter three. Please look them up also. Then turn to Mark 6:8, where this same Greek word is used in connection with Jesus. Please read verse seven to twelve. Christ did not "suggest" or "request" or "if you so choose" - to do, He charged them, commanded them, to do and not to do certain things. They went out and obeyed! This Greek word is no weakling - it is STRONG! Look at Luke 8:29 if you still want further proof. Now back to 2 Thes.3:10-12. Is Paul here talking about what colour of shoes to buy, or what donkey to purchase for your travels? No, not at all! He is talking about certain problems in the church that PERTAIN TO RIGHT AND WRONG, TO SIN AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, TO THE LAW OF THE LORD! Persons in the church going about willfully not working and being disorderly busybodies while living off the food of others, WAS CONTRARY TO THE PERFECT LAW OF GOD! And with the very authority of Jesus Christ the three men mentioned in chapter one verse one, were charging/commanding them what to do about this unlawful and sinful situation. Of course as in any breaking of any concrete law no man can FORCE any other person to comply, unless you have a gun to their heads. Then that would be acting as an authoritarian dictator, and God's church is not to be governed by such commanded actions, although some have tried to do so. Not literally maybe, but spiritually. If some did not want to obey this directive from these three elders, then they gave more commands to the saints as to what to do in verses 4 and 6. The same Greek word! Again let's remember, Paul is here talking about deadly serious matters, not "on which side of the river do we stroll down on a Sunday afternoon" decision at all, but spiritual life and death matters for certain ones in the church. Second example: Stay in 2 Thessalonians and chapter three. Keep reading from verse 12, "But you brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man OBEY not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (verses 13-15). Here the Greek word for "obey" is NOT peitho as in Hebrews 13:17, it is a DIFFERENT word altogether - hupakouo. Here again is what Vine's Dictionary has to say: ".......'to listen, attend' (as in Acts 12:13), and so, 'to submit, to obey,' is used of 'obedience' (a) to God, Heb.5:9; 11 :8; (b) to Christ, by natural elements, Matt.8:27; Mark 1 :27; 4:41; Luke 8:25; (c) to disciples of Christ, Luke 17:6; (d) to the faith, Acts 6:7; the gospel, Rom.10:16; 2 Thess.1 :8; Christian doctrine, Rom.6: 17 (as to a form or mould of teaching); (e) to apostolic injunctions, Phil.2:12; 2 Thes.3:14; (f) to Abraham by Sarah, 1 Pet.3:6; (g) to parents by children, Eph.6:1; Col.3:20; (h) to masters by servants, Eph.6:5; Col.3:22; (i) to sin, Rom.6:12; (j) in general, Rom.6:16." The Englishman's Greek Concordance, page 772 lists every place it is used in the NT. This Greek word is not the same as hupotasso mentioned by Mr. Edwards in his above quote. You can find that word and all places it is used on page 780 of the aforementioned concordance. This Greek word of 2 Thess.3:14 is again a "hit you between the eyes" STRONG word, no punches pulled. You will see how strong it can be in the verses of: Mat.8:27; MarK 1:27; 4:41; Acts 6:7; Rom.6:16; Heb.5:9; 11:8. What is the context? Having to decide what colour to paint the house, and other trivial matters? NO! It is church matters so LARGE and important that if people would not submit and obey, the rest should note and sanction by having no company with them and admonishing them not as an enemy but as a brother. If such persons still will not repent after such reproof then the full force of Matthew 18:15-20 must be put into effect. And that is another subject which I have covered in detail in my study called "Disfellowshipping - What the Bible Really Teaches"(please request it if you do not already have it). Yes indeed there is some strong authority at times (the correct righteous times) invested in the overseers of the church, as to how they are to shepherd the flock, within the LAW of the Lord. Not man made laws, not the ideas and wishes of men who pervert the scriptures or claim some "apostolic" inspiration as "God's apostle on earth" or "only apostle of the Lord" mentality. That appointed function of leading and teaching for the elders does carry with it the necessity for the saints who are truly the children of God to obey, not with blind faith, but with respectful trusting faith, because such elders do watch for the welfare of their spiritual souls, and must give account to the Eternal one day for the job entrusted to them. There is an aspect, a very real one, of obeying in no "wishy-washy" term, the overseers of the church, when they are teaching the written in stone spiritual laws and commandments of the Eternal God. It is a great responsibility to take on the duty and function of being a guide and helper to others in their spiritual Christians lives. Quite frankly, many should back off and think twice before undertaking such an awesome task, that is why James was inspired to write what he did in verse one, chapter three of his letter. And it is no light thing, and should not be taken lightly, for a saint to ASK FOR HELP AND COUNSEL on an issue of importance, from one or more of the overseers of the church. The Lord has recorded for us the importance He places on the subject of those coming to His chosen and appointed guides/elders/overseers of His flock. Turn to Deuteronomy the seventeenth chapter. Please read from verse eight to verse thirteen. Wow!!! Pretty heavy stuff don't you think? Now friend, I did not write it. This is not "and Keith Hunt said" theology. This is from THE ETERNAL GOD of heaven! Again, we are not dealing here with coming to the ministers for counsel on what sheep to slay for the evening meal, or which model of computer to buy for your home. Many "cultic" organizations try to dictate their followers lives this way, right down to small unimportant daily liberties. Such is not the way of the Lord. This passage is talking about a "matter too hard for thee in judgment." Serious matters! Notice verse eleven - the priest (under the NT, the elders/overseers) is to teach "according to THE SENTENCE OF THE LAW." Not something out of his own head or "opinion" but out "of the law" - that which has some teeth and grip to it. If you just want some other persons "opinion" on what breed of dog to buy for your child's birthday, you do not have to run off to the ministers to answer that question. If you do I hope they will tell you not to bother them with such none essential matters, as their time is more valuable than deciding for you what dog to buy. Most of them will probably be as expert on dogs as they are on the "man in the moon." It is serious matters the priests/ministers of the Lord are to help you in, not things you can decide for yourself or with the help of friends or other experts in other fields and skills. It is in matters that pertain to the spiritual law in your life, and where it is too hard for you, and you need the service of God's chosen experts on this skilled trade - theology. God instructs that under those conditions, you are to arise and get thee up to His ministers for counsel. They are to render judgment according to the "sentence of the law which they shall teach you." Showing you clearly from the law the answer to your hard matter. Then if you WILL NOT DO IT, IF YOU WILL NOT OBEY the Eternal pulls no punches, He hammers the nail home friend. You can again read it for yourself. Under the Old Covenant such persons refusing to obey WOULD DIE! For such evil was to be put away from Israel. I think you will fully see what this is all about, if you still have any doubts lingering in your mind, as I give you my last example from my personal ministry. Third example: I was pastering a small congregation near Toronto in the early 80's. A Few young men came into our fellowship. They were zealous for the word of the Lord, wanting to learn and obey the way of God. Through the process of time, Bible studies, and personal counselling with me, all seemed to be proper and correct for them to be baptized. I did all I could to ascertain they were ready to fully serve the Lord in their lives. They were baptized. All went just fine for about one year. Then my wife and I both noticed a few things about one of the young men, nothing really major, but a certain gravitation to particular parts of the Bible, and certain articles laying around our home when he came to visit. We just "wondered" but did not think too deeply on the matter. He did have a few male friends he introduced us to that were in some ways a little "strange," yet we did not dwell on....... our wondering. Then one time he came to me privately and wanted to know about "homosexuality" from the Biblical point of view. I showed him in a general way what the word said, and we talked about it in a general way, no more was said. Sometime later his best friend who had been baptized at the same time came to me quite upset. The young man in question had finally confided to him that he was homosexual, and was keeping company with homosexuals. He thought his friend would understand and commiserate, but he did not, it just left him in total shock. He did not come to church for a while, then slowly asked to counsel with me, which I did. I thought he was trying to see what God's word said about such a life style. I talked with him for many hours. I think it was the third counselling period I had with him that things got down to the nitty-gritty. He told me he was thinking about moving into the city of Toronto to live. He wanted to know what to do about overcoming homosexuality. I told him he would have to be willing to obey me on two specific points, namely: 1. As Toronto is the second largest city in North America with a homosexual community(second behind San Francisco), he should not go to live there. 2. He must give up going around with homosexual men. I told him that not to follow my directives on those two points would sound the death bell for him spiritually. He did not listen to me. He did not obey. He went to live in Toronto, and never came back to church again. I have never seen or heard from him to this day. This was no "small fry" - just shoot the breeze matter. This was a HARD MATTER - seriously IMPORTANT matter, one that was clearly plain in the word of God. Practicing homosexuality is SIN! It is an abomination to the Lord. Under the Old Covenant it was punishable by the death penalty! The young man came to me for counsel and advice. I instructed him according to the sentence of the law of the Lord, and gave him directives to follow, charged him to follow, I could say "commanded" him to obey(but I did not use such words), if he was going to stand any chance with the power of God to overcome this sin. I could not make him obey, I could not force him to follow my instructions. He and we all are free moral agents. He went his way and chose to do his own thing, leaving behind his fellow Christians that loved him so much. We all shed some tears over the whole occurrence. There is an interesting point of slight difference between verse seven and verse seventeen of Hebrews chapter 13. The Greek word for "remember" in verse seven is totally different from the Greek word for "obey" in verse seventeen. In verse 7 the word is mneemonuo and means to mentally keep in the mind something. It is found on page 503 in the Englishman's Greek Concordance. It is used in such verses as: John 15:20; Gal.2: 10; Rev.2:5; 18:5. Paul is telling his readers to keep in their mind the leaders/guides/overseers that have taught them the word, and to follow their conduct of character as it is in Jesus Christ. The emphasis here is more on the conduct of life than on the words they speak. But in verse 17 the emphasis changes somewhat to the words that come forth from those leaders, the teaching they give forth, as I've covered above in the three examples given. The word "obey" in Greek is as N.E. says, the Greek word peitho, pepoitha. And although it may not carry the connotation of obeying as under the authority of a dictator, such as those obeying Hitler during the second World War. Although it is an obedience from a trusting belief persuasion connotation, it nevertheless is still meaning the end result is OBEYING! The cake of obedience is still being cut, but with a certain knife slicing it from a different angle than some other knife (word) in the Greek language. This word peitho and every place it is used in the NT can be found in the Englishman's Greek Con. on pages 609 and 610. It is translated FIVE times as "obey" - in Gal.3:1; 5:7; Jam.3:3; Rom.2:8; and here in Heb.13:17. You would do well to look up the verses in Galatians, James, and Romans. It is used by King Agrippa in Acts 26:28 when he said to Paul, "Almost you persuade me to be a Christian." To be a true Christian is to obey Christ. King Agrippa was close to wanting to live as an obeying follower of Jesus Christ. Talking about Christ in Heb.2:13, He says: "....I will put my trust in Him (the Father)...." Jesus' trust or belief or persuasion in the Father was manifest in obeying Him! The word peitho carries WlTHIN itself to obey, which ever way you want to slice the cake! The King James translators were quite correct in rendering peitho as obey in Hebrews 13:17. For that is exactly what Paul was meaning to say to those reading his letter. From the whole NT they would understand (and from what Paul and others had personally taught in teaching and preaching) this was not a "blind" obedience to every whim of a minister, but obeying as "in the Lord" just like a wife to her husband, and servants to their masters(Eph.5:22; 6:5). Obeying that which is within the holy law of God, that does not conflict with it, and only those things that are important issues of spiritual life and death. You do not have to obey a minister who orders you to wash his car and the like. If any so called minister does that, my advice to you is run from him as fast as you can and stay away from him until he repents and asks your forgiveness. Such a man is not in the true attitude of a humble shepherd of the Lord. Of course you could try correcting him in love, but with that mind set he has, it will probably be like water on a ducks back. Such men with such attitudes of mannerisms have become a cult unto themselves. All of the above does not contradict the truth of the matter plainly taught in the NT, that every child of God is responsible for studying the scriptures for themselves, in order to do as Paul said: "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good." The example of the Bereans is given to us not to fill space in the book of Acts, but to teach us a very important truth of the Lord. They heard things, they were preached at, they had been taught (teaching) by two apostles and overseers (Paul and Silas) the word (the scriptures of God, not the ideas of men). The Bereans were willing to listen, they had no prejudice, but they were not gullible either. They were not going to have "blind faith" and swallow everything coming out of the mouths of these two men who claimed they were ministers of God. What was said to them, they would make very sure was according to the scriptures. They "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:10-1). Because of this correct action on their part it is written: "Therefore MANY believed"(verse 12). You need to also mark with bright yellow and never forget the verse found in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." You need to remember that the NT (and the old also) teaches very clearly that some elders/overseers WILL NOT REMAIN FAITHFUL AND TRUE TO THE WORD AND DOCTRINES OF THE ETERNAL GOD!! THEY WOULD FALL AWAY INTO FALSE AND HERETICAL DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS, IN ORDER TO PLEASE MEN AND/OR GAIN A FOLLOWING AFTER THEMSELVES (Acts 20:17-31; 2 Tim.4:1-5; 2 Pet.2:1). You personally are to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." You will not enter the Kingdom on the shirt tails of the eldership, nor will Jesus entertain the excuse "well the overseers said I could do it" or "the elders told me I didn't have to do it." The eldership is put there by God to teach/lead/guide and set you the correct example in the truth and the way that leads to life. Your responsibility is to make sure from the word that they are on the straight and narrow path of righteousness, in what they teach and how they live. If leaders do stop imitating in word and conduct, the Messiah, then certainly we need to do as Mr.Edwards says - "stop imitating them!" The reader may want to request my article "When does a Minister become Disqualified from the Ministry?" It is also the plain truth of the NT that God does have in His church, men whom He has called and chosen and appointed to be spiritual leaders and overseers of His people. They have been there from the start of the NT church on the day of Pentecost. They have been there from that time forward and are there today! Somewhere, in some places, on this "good green earth" are men who have not been corrupted by Satan, the world, the flesh, or human organizations. They are standing tall for the word of truth, teaching and living it faithfully and pleasing to God. It is also the responsibility not only for the shepherds to seek the sheep who may be scattered, but for the sheep to seek, look for, and recognize WHO THE TRUE SHEPHERDS ARE, for make no mistake, the Lord has them out there ready to lead, serve, and guide to green pastures besides the still waters. THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH IN NORMAN EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. THERE ARE SOME OTHER SECTIONS I FEEL I DO NEED TO SAY A FEW WORDS ON HERE AND THERE IN HIS STUDY. COMMENTS ON OTHER POINTS Voting References Suppressed (pages 5,6). This is to do with that Greek word cheirotoneo. I have covered that quite thoroughly in section or part two of this work. There is no need to say any more here except N.E.'s reference to the Weymouth NT translation and Adam Clarke and other commentaries to back his assertion, really proves nothing. I can find many more NT translations and Bible Commentaries in support of the opposite. Ekklesia Translated "Church" Instead of "Congregation" or "Assembly"(page 6). It is true that the Greek word ekklesia would have been better translated as assembly, then again that is not correct either. Ekklesia is from ek, "out of," and kleesis,"a calling" (kaleoo, "to call"). So if we want to get real technical about things, the best translation from the Greek ekklesia in the NT would have been - "the called out of ones." The English word "church" can be from the Old English circe, but not necessarily. The World Book Dictionary gives: "(Old English circe < Vulgar Latin cyriaca < Greek kyriakon (dogma) the Lord's (house) < kyrios master < kyros power)." As the above dictionary brings out the English word "church" can be understood in DIFFERENT ways. So we are again back to "good ol" semantics of words. How YOU may interpret in your mind the meaning of the word. I grew up with the word "church" not only from the KJV but from all the years (starting at the age of seven) I attended a religious school and local church, the "Congregational Church" with the word to me NEVER containing the dark sinister meaning it seems to convey to Mr.Edwards. I never saw any plot by King James, his translators of 1611, nor the Church of England, to make people attend THEIR church, or support them with money. To read that into the word "church" takes from my view point, a HUGE imagination, flamed by a paranoia that must come from having the unfortunate experience of being a member of an "abusive church" (there is a book by the name of "Churches that Abuse" I recommend you read, the author is R.M.Enroth) using the name of Church of God. You want to use the words "congregation" or "assembly" or "called out ones" that is fine with me, I have no problem, but please allow me to use the word "church" for I also have no problem with that word. And please keep to yourself your sinister notions about some clandestine plot on the part of King James and his hired scholars. For the plain truth is the King James Version of the Bible has done LESS damage to the minds of people over nearly 400 years, than what many false and cultic churches have done. No sinister plot here either on the part of the KJV scholars, unless you are grasping at every straw to try to build your case. Most people from the WCG do not understand this verse of Luke 17:21 within its context. Nor do they understand, for they have not been taught the Biblical truth about the TWO aspects or fulfilments of the Kingdom of God - a present reality aspect AND a future literal aspect. The reader can request my article "Is the Kingdom of God 'Within' You?" and find the whole answer from the scriptures. What is the "Government of God?"(page 6). From this heading to page 12, I have very little trouble in agreeing with what Mr Edwards has written. There are a few thoughts and sentences I may not fully see eye to eye on. I have either covered them in previous pages or they are not of sufficient importance to elucidate upon here. What are the Qualifications of an Apostle? (pages 12, 13). Mr. Edwards is not the first to write on the so called "qualifications" of an apostle, and will not be the last. Some misunderstanding and a few hand-stands, and cart-wheels have been done with the scriptures in regards to this subject of "apostles." First, let's look at what Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words has to say in full: " 1. apostolos is, lit., 'one sent forth' (apo, 'from,' stello, 'to send'). The word is used of the Lord Jesus Christ to describe His relation to God, Heb.3:1; see John 17:3. The twelve disciples chosen by the Lord for special training were so called, Luke 6:13; 9:10. Paul, though he had seen the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor.9:1; 15:8, had not 'companied with' the Twelve 'all the time' of His earthly ministry, and hence was not eligible for a place among them, according to Peter's description of the necessary qualifications, Acts 1:22. Paul was commissioned directly, by the Lord Himself, after His Ascension, to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. The word has also a wider reference. In Acts 14:4, 14, it is used of Barnabas as well as of Paul; in Rom.16:7 of Andronicus and Junias. In 2 Cor.8:23 (RV, margin) two unnamed brethren are called 'apostles of the churches'; in Phil.2:25 (RV, margin). Epaphroditus is referred to as 'your apostle.' It is used in 1 Thess.2:6 of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, to define their relation to Christ. 2. apostolee 'a sending, a mission,' signifies an apostleship, Acts 1:25; Rom.1:5; 1 Cor.9:2; Gal.2:8.' Note: Pseudapostoloi, 'false apostles,' occurs in 2 Cor.11:13." We note from the above the NT gives us TWENTY ONE men who were named as apostles, men who were sent forth! Really quite simple. You are functioning as an apostle for God if the Lord personally Himself appoints you to go forth(as He did with the 12 apostles, Paul and Barnabas. A "?" must be placed on the other men concerning direct sending by God, for we are not told, or if He uses the Church(as a whole) or a church(single congregation) to send a person forth. The going forth and some examples are by that of Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas - journeying here and there to churches near and far, preaching and teaching. Sometimes also doing Evangelistic work IF the Lord had given you that gift of ministerial function. As we saw earlier in section one, an elder could have more than one function of ministry, or change functions as directed by the Lord. It would seem from the NT there were 21 men at least who functioned primarily as apostolic elders in the church as a whole. Did those men who were NOT OF THE TWELVE first apostles, have to meet the qualifications that Peter gave in Acts 1:21,22? NO, THEY DID NOT! And I will explain Acts chapter one and the choosing of Matthias is a moment. The point here is that IF God directly or indirectly through the church (inspiring the elders and others) called you to go forth to the churches near and far, you were functioning in the eldership of the church as an apostle. It was and is just that simple, no big theologically complicated doctrine, for the word apostle means "to go forth" or "one sent forth." The trouble for many begins when they smoke-screen this simple truth of the NT with Acts 1: 15-26. They try to do cart-wheels with the word in order to fit Paul(and some others) into this context, WHEN THEY SHOULD DO NO SUCH THING! Paul. Barnabas, Timothy etc. were NEVER a part of the twelve, but they were just as much apostles as any of the twelve were, no more and no less. The TWELVE were a class of apostles quite unique from all other apostles to come. No other apostles after them were or ever will be a part of that distinct group of 12. They were unique as a group of twelve apostles. But unique in what ways? Did they have more dictatorial authority over other apostles and elders in the church? No, they did not, as we have before proved in the first part of this book. They had no more authority over each other than any other elder in the church. Paul, we have seen, certainly did not think any of them had authority over himself. He respected them, said some seemed to be pillars in the church, but he made it very clear he was not "under" them in authority. As a unique group of twelve, did they have more talents and abilities in theology than the other elders? Oh, not at all, far from it! Paul in theology training could have run rings around many of them I am sure. Even Peter found some things written by Paul "hard to understand" so he stated(2 Pet.3:16). But not impossible note. Were they blessed with more of the gifts of the Spirit than any other apostles or elders? No, they were not! Peter was able to perform great miracles at the onset of the NT church, but we are not told that the others of the twelve were able to do the same. Then on the other hand Stephen and Philip, who were not apostles did great miracles also. And Paul sure had as many gifts of the Spirit as anyone. So if it was not these things that made the 12 apostles unique, then what indeed was it? Three basic areas made them a special group of apostles that will never be duplicated in the same way again. 1. They were personally picked by Jesus Christ while He was in the flesh on this earth during His last three and one half years of life and ministry (Luke 6:12-16), and called apostles because He would send them forth. 2. They would be given a special commission of going forth to a certain race of people - the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Mat.10:1-6). This they did do. William Steuart McBirnie,Ph.D. has written a fascinating book called "The Search For The Twelve Apostles," published by Tyndale House, that verifies the facts of history to prove they did what Jesus sent them forth to do, after His resurrection. 3. The twelve apostles were the only persons recorded for us of all the children of God, that were in advance told specifically what their reward would be in the Kingdom age to come (Mat.19:28). These three basic areas combined together make the original twelve apostles unique among all apostles, elders, and saints. The truth of Acts chapter one should now start to become clear. A man HAD TO FILL the position of the dead Judas Iscariot. To be as the other eleven, the man had to be qualified as the others were, namely part of the disciples that were the large overall group of persons that followed and toured Palestine with Jesus during His ministry and witnessed His resurrection. There is no need to try and do hand-stands with God's word to fit Paul and Barnabas and other later apostles into these requirements, for those requirements were not necessary to become a member of the 12. Only the twelve were the twelve, no more no less. It was important that another be found from the group of men who followed Jesus from the baptism of John to the day Christ was taken up into heaven. The twelve had to stay as twelve! And be of the same basic bottom line qualifications - all had to have the qualifications Peter laid down. All of them did, so the one to replace Judas also had to have the same. Because he would be one of the official 12 apostles given a main basic commission to go forth to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." Paul and Barnabas and other apostles were never a part of that specific duty in the way the twelve were, so the qualifications of Acts 1:21,22, did not have to apply to them, in order for them to be also called apostles, with just as much a right to the word as the twelve had. For being an apostle is a FUNCTION of the eldership ministry, not some position of "rank." As we have before proved (see the appendix to part one) an apostle is also an elder/overseer (Peter called himself an apostle and also an elder in the same letter - 1 Peter 1: 1; 5: 1). We have also before proved that an elder is an overseer who is a bishop who is a shepherd of the flock (so a pastor and teacher). All apostles are also elders, just as all Californians are Americans. But not all elders are apostles, just as not all Americans are Californians. Then there is the question to be answered: WHY did they need to have a twelfth apostle now that Judas was dead? Why not just leave it the way it was with eleven? Could not eleven still go to the house of Israel, would it not be enough? Probably to cover that specific duty Christ sent them forth to do, it would have been enough. Yet there is one more very important reason why a man had to be chosen to take Judas' place. Have you figured it out yet? I have really given you the answer already. There had to be twelve and NOT eleven for the start of the NT church, and to begin at least the commission Christ had for them B E C A U S E EACH OF THE TWELVE was given the reward in the Kingdom of ruling over one of the TWELVE tribes of Israel! There were TWELVE tribes, not ELEVEN. Those specific rewards had already been given out by Christ to 12 apostles. So there had to be twelve not eleven original apostles of Christ. Paul and Barnabas could not have applied for the position, as they had not yet been baptized as Christians, let alone as appointed elders in the church. Then we must not forget perhaps an even greater reason why someone had to be chosen to take Judas' place as one of the twelve. IT WAS PROPHESIED, IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE PSALMS IT WOULD BE SO! Peter knew it must be for the prophecy would have to be filled and come to pass (Acts 1:20). Were there apostles after the first century ended and the death of the apostle John? Are there apostles today in the church of God? Did that apostolic function end with the death of the NT apostles? Not at all, not by any means! Ephesians 4:11-16 is for the church through all ages, until the church has grown up in all things, fully mature, completely perfect. And that my friends will not reach its pinnacle until the day of Christ's return and the resurrection of the saints into glory and perfection. Are there apostles in every age and generation of the church? Well, I did not say that! The word does not say there will be any guarantee of that. But for sure God has had some apostles down through the last two thousand years, who were sent forth here and there, near and yonder, to teach and preach to the churches of God. Who they were and if they ever had such a functional title laid upon them by the congregations of God may not be history. And what does it really matter, if they were functioning as an apostle then God surely knew, and that is all that matters. Better to have no official eldership title and do what the Lord has called you to do and given you the means to do it, than have some official title from men, and be sleeping at the wheel whereby you end up in the ditch. For the word of the Lord makes it very clear that no matter WHO you are, WHAT you are given to do, HOW many natural abilities and God given gifts you posses, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO FALL AWAY AND BECOME A BLIND LEADER OF THE BLIND! The great apostle Paul talked about Pseudapostoloi - false apostles, and the church at Ephesus was commended for trying those who said they were apostles and were not, but were liars (2 Cor. 11: 13; Rev.2:2). Timothy an official apostle = elder. Before I leave this section, it is very significant for our proof and evidence that Timothy was an officially appointed elder/overseer of the church, to point out 2 Thess.2:6. The "we" that Paul talks about in this verse is Silas, Himself, and Timothy - verse one chapter one. Paul clearly tells them and us today, that THEY, the three of them (from the beginning of his letter) WERE APOSTLES! Paul sure knew he was, he had seen Christ, was taught by Him - Galatians chapter two - absolutely no doubt in Paul's mind that he himself was an apostle of Christ. He elsewhere said he believed he had the mind of Christ, was inspired to say and write the things he did. He knew God was with him, guiding him, and inspiring him. If ANYONE should have known who the true elders and apostles of God were in the church of God, it would have been Paul! He plainly said Timothy(and Silas) was an apostle. As far as Christ was concerned He had put Timothy in the function of being an apostle. We are never told specifically HOW, whether in a direct personal manner or through the eldership of the church (as with Paul and Barnabas on one occasion - Acts 13). It does not matter to our point, the fact remains Paul tells us that both Silas and Timothy were apostles, just as he was. Being an apostle is ONE function WITHIN the eldership/overseership of the church.The word elder being an umbrella word under which lies the words and functions of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and shepherd(pastor)/teacher. Timothy was an official elder of the church, recognized as such by other elders including the great elder and apostle Paul. He was also an apostle and at times was admonished and encouraged by Paul to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim.4:5). To be continued ..............................................   13. Church Government            What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed THIS IS THE FINAL PART IN ANSWERING NORM EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT Prophets - In the New Testament? (pages 13-15). I have no disagreement here with what Mr. Edwards has written. The "prophetic role" in the Church has often been overlooked and misunderstood. Many even claim it does not exists any more since the days of the first apostles. Nothing could be further from the truth! The study of the function of "prophet" is a most fascinating one. You may like to spend some time with a Bible Concordance like Strong's under the word "prophet." It is not the purpose of this work to elaborate on this function of the ministerial eldership. I will recommend to the reader a book that does do that (elaborates in detail on the function of the prophet). The book is entitled "HE GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN - A Biblical Perspective of Apostles, Prophets, and Pastors" by Kenneth E. Hagin. While I do not agree with every sentence in this book, overall it is a work that the progressive Christian who believes in the "gifts of the Spirit" still being given today, should read. The wealth of information, wisdom, and experience related by Hagin in this book, is profound and edifying. Other Congregational Functions(p.15-19). Administrator, Leader, Shepherd, or Pastor No problem with what Norman Edwards says here. I have before shown that at the beginning of the NT Church, the apostles/leaders/overseers, were responsible for both the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. This can be clearly seen from chapter one to five in the book of Acts. When the Church was so large that physical cares were too great for the apostles, they were inspired to delegate the physical responsibilities to other persons, who had to meet certain qualifications as directed by the spiritual leaders (the apostles in this case). This was done in order that the shepherds could mainly continue in "prayer and the word." Certainly if the situation arose in some very small congregation, it would not be wrong for the Pastor/overseer to function in BOTH the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. But such a situation in my mind would be extremely rare today. The principle and example given to us in Acts 6 and elsewhere, is that persons are chosen from the congregation who meet the qualifications to look after the physical matters of the Church, and in so doing allowing the elders to concentrate on "prayer and the word." Apostle Covered above in some detail. Discerner of Spirits No disagreement with N.E. Some do have the gift of seeing deep into the attitude and motivation of people. Can be of great benefit to some churches who need that gift among them. Evangelist or Gospel Preacher No problem with what Mr. Edwards states. Exhorter Faith-filled person Giver Healer Help Knowledgeable person Love I am in full agreement Minister or Helps (service to others, physical or spiritual) I agree with some things stated by not with all. The third section of this book (also the first and second) gets to the "nitty-gritty" of where I disagree. Miracle worker Merciful person Teacher or speaker Tongues speaker and Interpretation Wise person I have no problem with what is stated. The Role of Elder (p.19,20). Most of what N.E. has said under this section I have no difficulty with. Where I may differ has been covered already in this work. It is interesting to note that he does allow for Titus to have selected the men who were to be appointed, who were to be "elders" in every city. He goes on to say that these men had to meet qualifications, but thinks Titus "not knowing everyone in every city, would certainly have asked the congregation which men were qualified, as in Acts 6." I have little trouble with a congregation being part of the process, as I have previously stated earlier, under certain situations and circumstances. I told you about Fred Coulter, the Biblical Church of God, the two congregations I was leading at the time, and how my appointment or ordination as an official Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ was determined. Yet to think that Titus, or to say that Titus did not know everyone in every city......well that is reading into, or adding something to the word that is just NOT THERE! We have no facts at all to say how much Titus had worked with Paul in that area before Paul gave those instructions to him. He may well have known every congregation and all the leading men in each, for all we are told about the situation. We are just not told, pure and simple, and to guess otherwise is mere personal speculation at best, and doctrinal dogmatism at worst. Acts 6 may have been applied, but we just do not know, we are not told. Yet, if Acts was taken as a principle to be used in other situations, as I have before proved, the last word on the matter was still with the overseer/apostles/elders of the Church. And in the case of appointing elders in the churches on Crete, that would have been Titus, for he was by the authority of Paul (one of the great men used by the Lord and inspired in a special way) given that responsibility. I am in full agreement when Mr. Edwards says: "Elders are responsible for shepherding the flock of the Eternal and to serve as overseers. They are to be examples, not 'lords' over the others. They are to anoint and pray for those in need of help. They are to lay hands on others for spacial tasks. Those that do a good job of overseeing or teaching should be paid for their work. If leaders do sin, they should be corrected in front of the entire congregation....." Today, some who would follow E.N's paper as a "sacred cow" doctrine, are scared of the NT fact that men were employed full time in the work of the Lord and lived off the people they served, because that would make them a "special class" of persons, different from the rest of the congregation, in their eyes, and they would not want that. These people say "all are or can be elders in the church (not sure if they think women can also be) so why should some be paid and others not?" And with such a theology, I can see that would indeed create problems over "paid ministers." For who would decide which men would be full time and/or part time, with pay? For how long? I'm sure many men, if having secular work problems, out of work, not liking their work etc., would love to be employed by the Church. Having the doctrine that all men can be elders or ministers in the Church, could easily cause "politics" of carnality to abound, especially as "clicks" of personality do tend to evolve in any congregation of any size. I can see personality pulls and lobbying tactics going on behind closed doors, to influence the "vote" in WHO is, and for HOW LONG, the ones to be full/part time "paid" elders. I would love to observe say for 10 years, a 100 member plus congregation that teaches every man can be and is an elder, and can help lead the congregation when his turn arrives. I would love to watch them as they vote in and out their overseers. I can imagine the lobbying and politics in the corners, and the house parties to win votes. I would be surprised if any church congregation could survive that kind of free for all and still be doing any kind of work for God in ten years. Mr. Edwards goes through a number of OT examples and scriptures concerning "lots." Interesting, but besides the point when we come down to the question of the NT Church Government. For to bring "lots" over into the NT Church we would have to find NT examples and plain NT scriptures teaching us that we should, as congregations, "vote" on who our overseers/pastors/shepherds should be at times. And such teaching in the NT cannot be found! But, you say, what about Acts chapter one! Well, let's look at it and ask a few questions as we go. Did Jesus tell the disciples to wait for the promise they heard from Him? Yes, He did. What was the promise? It was the Holy Spirit (verses 1-5). Did the disciples continue together waiting? Yes, indeed (verses 12-14). Was Peter inspired to think about the prophecy concerning Judas and its fulfilment? He was (verses 15-20). Was there a basic qualification required to take the position held by Judas? There was (verses 21-22). How many were appointed? Who did the appointing? Two men were appointed. It was "they" - all the disciples who appointed. How it was done is not revealed. Then what did they do? They prayed (verses 24,25). After they prayed what did they do? God was to give the answer to them via "casting lots." Why did someone have to take Judas' place? The answer can be found earlier in part three of this study. This is an important question. Were they filled with the Holy Spirit yet? NO THEY WERE NOT! The majority had not yet received it. A few may have received a token of it when Jesus breathed on them and said, "receive you the Spirit" at an earlier date. The Spirit had not yet come as it would come on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). What are some of the attributes of having the Spirit? You may think about the "fruits of the Spirit." You may remember the verses that say it is the "power" of God, the "divine nature" of God, the "sound mind" of the Lord, the "love of God" shed abroad in our hearts, and other attributes. Jesus said that both the Father and He would come and live within the believer (John 14:23). It would be through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that they would do this. The Spirit would also GUIDE the believer into all truth (John 16:13). Now, put it all together! The disciples, when having to choose another to take the place of Judas, DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! They did not have the nature, the power, the sound mind, the in-dwelling of the Father and Christ in them. They did not have the Spirit that would lead into all truth. They, in their natural state, could not decide which of the two men God wanted to fill the position and place held by Judas. They acted in this situation as others had acted over the centuries under the Old Covenant. They resorted to casting "lots" and praying to God to give the answer by this method. They were without the Spirit and so without the mind of Christ. They were very much still carnal humans without the nature of God in them. The Eternal did honor this use of an OT system, BUT IT WAS FROM THE OLD COVENANT! After the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit, when the very mind and nature of God was implanted within the leaders of the Church and all the saints, WE NEVER READ OF OR HEAR ABOUT, WE ARE NEVER INSTRUCTED IN THE USE OF THIS "CASTING OF LOTS" AGAIN TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD, FOR ANY MATTER OR DECISION WITHIN ANY CHURCH CONGREGATION! Under the New Covenant, the Spirit of the Lord should be quite sufficient, along with prayer and fasting, as NT examples show us (i.e. Acts 14:23; 13:1-3). I cannot see ANY need to ever have a congregation "vote" on anything except the issue of having to "disfellowship" a person from the church's fellowship. That subject I have covered in-depth with a separate study. I am here talking about the spiritual affairs of the Church, not the color of the carpet etc., which possibly may need a general vote on. With the Elders overseeing the spiritual matters in the Church, and certainly the doctrines and truths of the Lord are not "up for vote" but MAJOR issues being solved as in Acts 15. With official servers or deacons taking care of the physical matters, and all the saints with differing gifts of the Spirit being used for all the needs and benefits of the Church and community. With the Spirit of the Lord in every baptized member, WHY would VOTING ever have to be resorted to? It was used, and worked well under the OC, but the vast majority in Israel did NOT HAVE the Holy Spirit united with their minds. Today, under the NC, every begotten child of God in the Church, has both the Father and the Son living within them. Surely the Spirit of the Lord is able to guide the different people in different functions within the body of Christ to administer their duties wisely and correctly, especially when the "checks and balances" are in place, so no abuse can take hold (as much of this study has been about abuse and false doctrines). Then couple all that with "prayer and fasting"..........and I see that voting to know the will of God is old and passed away. It was physical and carnal for a physical and carnal people, but today God is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23,24). Bible Teaches Attitude not Form (p.22-23). I have no large disagreements with what Norm Edwards says under this heading. If Everyone is Free to Disagree, Can Anything be Accomplished? (p.23-25). I agree fully with the basic understanding and teaching that E.N. puts forth here. What Happens when Serious Disagreement Arises? (p.25-26). No problem here, I agree with that is stated. When Should a Person be "Put Out'? (p.26-28). I am in agreement. Conclusion: How should the Congregation be Governed (p.28-30). I agree with the overall teaching of attitude, but as this book of mine shows, I would disagree with some specifics in actual functioning of government within the Church of God. Is it "Rebellion" Not to Follow an Established "Church Leader"? (p.30-31). Fully agree. Was not "the Government of God" the First of the 18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong? (p.31-32). I again agree with most of what Mr. Edwards says here. I have personally never seen the list of these so-called 18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong. If Church Government was supposed to be the first on the list, then all I can say is the list starts off with a HUGE error! HWA did not restore the truth on NT church government, he CORRUPTED and PERVERTED it from the truth he once knew and wrote about! E.N. talks about the last 20 years of the life of HWA as if it was OTHER men who were to blame for the corruptions in the WCG, and not HWA also. I guess when you stay with an organization until well after the death of HWA you will blind yourself to the reality of the man heading that organization. To the idea that HWA did not know what was going on, I say, nonsense, absurdity, tomfoolery, fiddle-faddle, balderdash, and big files of garbage. Don't kid yourself for one minute! HWA knew exactly what he was doing once he had Stanley Rader off his back, out of the way, and unable to blackmail him any more. He knew exactly what he was doing after his wife died in 1967 and on into the 70's. From 1966 to 1986 HWA allowed a few new truths, some little "growing in grace and knowledge" of our Lord and Savior to continue in the WCG, but all that was FAR OUT WEIGHED BY THE MANY FALSE TEACHINGS, PERVERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE, CORRUPTIONS, AND CULTIC ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES, THAT WERE EXHIBITED BY HIMSELF PERSONALLY AND THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE. Other Misunderstood Scriptures (p.32-34). I fully agree with what is written by Mr. Edwards in this section. So ends my critique of Norman Edwards' paper. ..................................... Written 1996