NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT #2

                                         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

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 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