Church Government #2
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
Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
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 Sunday 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 GCG, 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
