Church Government #3
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
|
APPENDIX Continued |
All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise
stated.
Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic
of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to
arguments not addressed in the body of this work.
HIERARCHY IN THE MILLENNIUM
Some may argue that God's government in the age to come (the
millennium) will be hierarchical - Christ over everyone, David over
Israel, the 12 apostles under David, each ruling a tribe of
Israel - Ezek.37; Jer.30; Mat.l9), so the NT church and its
physical ministry should follow that example.
This idea is faulty and weak with a number of flaws.
1) It fails to see that the persons mentioned (Christ, David, the
12 apostles) in the context of the millennium, are ALL in the God
Family - the very God-head, at that time. And as we have before
proved, the Godhead has always been hierarchical in government.
In this age of the church we are dealing with physical flesh and
blood people, whether elders or deacons or saints, they are not
perfect, holy, sinless spirit beings.
2) The argument fails to ask the question: What instructions has
the Lord given in the NT scriptures as to HOW the NT church is to
be governed, regardless as to how God did things BEFORE, or as to
how He may do things in the FUTURE, in the age to come?
As we have proved, the Lord does do things differently as He
chooses from time to time, or age to age.
3) Leading from above, it fails to see that God CHANGES His
dealings and approach to some things at times, as He works out
His UN-changing purpose and plan. His holy righteous character
and purpose never changes, it remains the same, but His
administrative dealings with people may, if He so desires. As we
have stated before in the millennium a physical temple, with a
physical priesthood, with physical animal sacrifices, will again
be part of God's administration and economy as He deals with
physical people during that age. Such is NOT part of His
administration today under the present age.
THE CHOOSING OF ELDERS AND GOVERNING
THE CHURCH
We have covered this somewhat in the body of this study, but
a little more space is need here also.
One writer (GCN - Sept/Oct 95, p.5,6) can see (from such
passages as Luke 6:12-13; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9;
Eph.4:11-13; and let me add Acts 1; 13:1-3; 14:19-23) that the
clear example ALL through the word of God, is that called and
chosen Elders of the church and work of the Lord, are chosen in
TWO ways:
1) By God Himself - i.e. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel,
John the Baptist, Paul.
2) By other Elders - Acts 14:19-23; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus
1:5-9 etc.
There is NO instruction nor ANY example in the NT to show
that any "church boards" or "church committees" of saints, EVER
chose or voted men into the office of ordained/appointed elder.
Never, in the NT can you find any group of saints/members of
a church LAYING HANDS on a man to appoint him to the eldership
ministry.
There is no instruction or example in the NT where LAY
persons (as a whole or as a board/committee) gave orders or told
the elders of a church HOW to RUN and GOVERN/GUIDE the church.
The clear teaching of the NT is that the Elders guide and govern
the church, as I have before proved in the body of this work (even
more specific proof is presented in part two and three of this
book).
Yet, the elders ruling the Church of God is not as little
vain dictators in some military army. This I have also proved
before, and will so show again later.
Does the lay person have ANY responsibility then? Yes
indeed! Very much so. They are not to be so "broad minded" that
their brains fall out! They are not to leave their minds at the
door when entering the church.
The examples and instructions for all of God's children are
MANY, i.e. Mat.24:4,5; Acts 20:17-30; 17:10-12; 2 Tim.2:15;
3:15-17; Titus 1:9,10; 3:9-11; 2 Pet.2; 1 John 2:18-29; 4:1-6; 2
John 4-11; 3 John 9-11; Jude.
As before shown ALL in the church have a duty to follow
Mat.18 in relation to problems within the membership of the
church, regardless of office and function. Then if a serious
problem arises with a minister, two or three or more can take
their case to other ministers for justice (1 Tim.5:19-21).
The saints member must always remember Acts 20; 2 Pet.2.
Some Elders MAY go off into apostasy and heresy. After all the
above actions are taken, the congregational
member must reject those elders who will not repent, and leave to
find ministers who are faithful to God's word.
PAUL IN AUTHORITY OVER TITUS?
Now I must answer in depth the argument put forth that Paul
had some "authority" and as one stated it "especially in
administrative matters" OVER Titus.
Some use a Bible translation that renders Titus 1:5 this
way: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in
order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every
city AS I COMMANDED YOU...."
Now to the English reader the words "I commanded you" or "as I
command you" will trigger a certain mind set - DICTATORIAL
AUTHORITY power, a "thou shalt" as if God was speaking.
It is interesting to look up this word in STRONG'S
concordance. It is number 1299 from 1223 and 5021 "to arrange
thoroughly, i.e. (spec)INSTITUTE, PRESCRIBE, etc.:- appoint,
command, give (set in) order, ordain."
If we have Paul as saying to Titus: "you should set in
order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every
city as I thoroughly arranged with you...." our English
mind takes a different view, that Paul was not acting as some
overbearing dictator funnelling out commands to those beneath his
superior rank. It is more conciliatory, kind, and affectionate
towards Titus.
Yes, there is a sense of spiritual INSTRUCTION and
leadership with Paul over Titus in these words and letter. So
also as Paul wrote to Timothy and instructed him on how to govern
the church.
Does this contradict what I have written and expounded in
the body of this work? No! Not at all. The very words and life of
Paul PROVE he taught no such doctrine as a "ministerial authority
rank" within the NT Church of God.
Turn to the book of Philippians. The letter is from both
Paul and Timothy and it is to ALL three levels of the ministry -
SAINTS, DEACONS, BISHOPS (elders) - verse 1. Please keep that
clearly in mind.
Chapter 2 verses 3,4 are POWERFUL in relation to this
subject of Church Government. "Let NOTHING be done through
selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind LET EACH
ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN HIMSELF. Let each of you
look out not only for his own interests, but also for the INTERESTS
OF OTHERS."
Paul instructs - under INSPIRATION - that everyone in the
body of Christ, all in the church at Philippi (elders, deacons,
saints) - have HUMILITY to look upon others better than
themselves.
WOW!! What teaching from Paul.
How then do you think he treated Timothy and Titus? What
attitude of mind do you think he had towards them or anyone in
the Church of God? What was Paul's spiritual relationship with
Timothy and Titus? How did HE HIMSELF explain it? As a
hierarchical rank relationship? As a, "I'm over you in authority
and don't you forget it" attitude?
He himself tells us about his relationship with these
younger ministers.
"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you
shortly........you know his proven character, that AS A SON WITH
HIS FATHER he SERVED WITH me in the gospel" (verses 19,22).
Notice, Timothy served WITH Paul, not under Paul, and that
in Paul's own words. He followed his own inspired writings of
verses 3,4.
It was a spiritual father/son relationship that Paul had
with Timothy and Titus. A loving, warm, honorable, and mutually
respectful relationship.
There is not one word from Paul to Timothy or Titus about
any RANK authority he held over them. nothing about him reminding
them of his superior position in the ministerial "pecking order"
of church hierarchy. Nothing even about church administrational
authority so they had better obey.
There is plenty of INSTRUCTIONAL TEACHING, WISE ADVICE,
SOUND INSIGHTS, HELPFUL POINTS, REMINDER OF THINGS,
ENCOURAGEMENT, REQUESTS, and all done in a spiritual father/son
relationship.
Here were two younger men in age and length of service in
the ministry, and here was Paul older in both areas, who had
spent time helping, guiding, teaching Timothy and Titus the "ins
and outs" of being an effective Elder. They had worked WITH -
along side - Paul in the work of the gospel. There had grown a
mutually loving BOND between them, as a father to son, and son to
father. No "authority" statement was needed on the part of
anyone.
Here we find a perfect example of Peter's inspired words of
his first letter chapter five, verses one to six. The younger
elders were to submit and respect the older elders, and ALL were
to submit/respect each other in clothes of humility.
Paul and Peter spoke the same language, the same truths, the
same doctrines, and they followed and obeyed what God inspired
them to write, as I have before shown.
Paul's humility is profoundly evidenced - 1 Cor. 15:9. What a
contrast with Paul and some dominating "authority" ego ministers
that have risen in this 20th century, within the very Church of
God.
This father/son - brother/sister/mother - relationship was
very important in the mind of Paul (hence God's mind, as he
inspired Paul) as he instructed ministers on how to function in
their office within the church, how to relate to the brethren of
the church. Note carefully what the Lord wrote through him in 1
Timothy 5:1-2.
"Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father,
younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women
as sisters, with all purity."
This has been God's instruction all along for the elders, it
has been in the word for nearly 2,000 years, yet many ministers
in the Church of God have fragrantly rejected or conducted
themselves in complete antithesis to these words of the Lord, in
this 20th century. Many elders have brought dishonor upon the
name of the Church of God by the way they talked to, corrected,
instructed, guided, and just plainly conducted themselves towards
the children of the Highest, for whom Christ died. I pray that
those who acted less than what these verses instruct will deeply
repent and seek the forgiveness of the Lord, and turn about to
get in harmony with God on how to conduct their relationship with
the brethren of the church.
Now consider all this with one more light added - a HUGE
flood-light indeed!
Who was this man Paul and what did God do through him?
He was converted on the road to Damascus by Christ
PERSONALLY appearing and talking to him (Acts 9).
Who since Paul has had that experience?
Paul's calling and commission by God was revealed to another
man and recorded (Acts 9).
Who since Paul can claim that revelation?
He was personally TAUGHT by Christ (Gal.1).
Who since Paul (and maybe John - with the book of Revelation)
has been given that honor? Find such a person who claims it and
you have found a conceited liar.
Paul was given visions and revelations WAY BEYOND most
others (2 Cor. 12; Acts 16).
Who in this 20th century can claim such phenomenon?
He was given the gift of TONGUES and HEALINGS (1 Cor. 14;
Acts 19:11-12).
Who in this 20th century was given such gifts for the work
of the Lord?
Paul physically suffered unbelievable hardships, pain,
troubles, and persecutions for the gospel (Acts 9:16; read the
rest of Acts; ~ Cor. 11: 16-28).
Who in this century can boast of such things in the flesh?
He was finally put to death as a Christian martyr
(2 Tim.4:6).
Who in the Church of God in this century can claim such a
death?
Finally, Paul was used by the Lord to write DIVINE
INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE - God breathed scripture - 14 books
of the NT that are directly INSPIRED of God (2 Pet.3:15-17).
Who since the apostle John and the book of Revelation can
claim that accomplishment? Find such a person and you have found
a pompous fool.
Now with all that under Paul's belt, do you not suppose he
had just a little tiny bit of '"authority" to instruct others in
how to "behave yourself in the house of God" (1 Tim.3:15)?
You bet your bottom dollar he did!
Yet Paul said his relationship with Timothy (and so Titus
also) was not built upon an authority rank system, but one of a
father with a son, and that Timothy served WITH him in the work
of the gospel.
Now if that was Paul's attitude, example and way of life, as
it was, a man so mightily used and inspired of God, then can ANY
other man to follow him in the ministry be any different?
Not if they are following Paul as he followed Christ
(1 Cor.11:1).
Nobody in this century or before has come CLOSE TO BEING A
Paul, anyone thinking or claiming so has never clearly read the
NT, but has been blinded by their own vanity.
So what right do they have to speak about "authority" over
other ministers when one of the greatest inspired elders of God
never spoke about his "authority"' over other true ministers of
God. Yet those who knew and worked with him would have given
him deep respect and honor because of how God was using him.
But he never used an "authority line" with any minister. He did not
believe James, Peter, or John had authority over him (Gal.2), nor
did he teach that he had authority over them. God used them all,
HOW, WHEN, and WHERE as He decided and willed.
Paul instructing Titus to "ordain elders in every city" is
FAR MORE than purely "administrative." Being an elder in the
church is far more than deciding which photo copying machine to
buy, or what hall to rent for Sabbath services, or what PA system
to purchase.
Prayer and fasting are part of ordaining men to the
eldership (Acts 14: 23). No small undertaking, nothing to be
taken lightly at all. Certain standards and qualifications
are to be met by those who "desire the office of overseers"
(1 Tim.3:1-7).
Paul was TALKING ABOUT DOCTRINE in regards to this
matter of ordaining men in each city, not physical administration!
When even in purely church administrative matters (not even
doctrine) Paul and Barnabas had a huge serious DIFFERENCE that
could not be reconciled at the time, and they parted company to
do separate works for the Lord, there was no "authority" line by
either man pulled from the holster and fired off (Acts 15:36-41),
or brought before some "higher in authority" minister.
So even in administrative matters ministers must learn to
CO-OPERATE together as TEAM WORKERS - giving and taking,
or they must go their different ways to work the work of God as Paul
and Barnabas chose to do.
We have seen Paul's attitude of mind and way of life towards
Timothy and Titus (notice the words in Titus 1:4), two younger
ministers who worked WITH him in the gospel. Then note also his
disposition towards EPAPHRODITUS in Phil.2:24-30. Again only,
love, affection, and humility, telling others to hold such in
"reputation."
Turn to Romans 16:1-15 and see how Paul addressed many of
them. Once more appreciation, praise, thankfulness, honor, love,
and humility is shown. Some were FELLOW WORKERS and
CO-WORKERS as the Greek is for "helpers" in the KJV. Note Paul's
humility and respect and affection for the two WOMEN of verses 1-5.
And this is Paul whom some claim "put down" women or hated them
or was a racist towards them. What utter garbage! What utter falsehood
and perversion of the scriptures that God inspired him to write.
One final word on this section. When Paul was writing to
instruct Timothy and Titus, he was writing INFALLIBLE INSPIRED
SCRIPTURE - GOD BREATHED WORDS DIRECTLY FROM
THE MIND OF THE LORD - A "THUS SAYS THE LORD."
I guess he did have the right to use some "authority" with it, for it
was really God speaking, and God does have some authority you know.
No man's writing since the book of Revelation carries that
authority. Nothing I have written (and there is much) over the
last 17 years is God breathed. I hope there is lots of truth to
be found in it all, yet there may be error that needs correcting.
Nothing that HWA wrote can be said to be God breathed. There was
much truth in much of his writings, but there was also error and
incorrect understanding of verses of scripture at times, that
need to be corrected. This I can prove is the plain truth for
those who may believe otherwise.
Nobody since the days of the apostle John has been used to
write inspired infallible scripture, let's get that clearly set
in our minds. No minister today can speak to another minister as
Paul spoke to Timothy and Titus, for no minister today is writing
God breathed scripture as Paul was doing when he was instructing
those two younger elders.
ONE MAN AT A TIME IDEA
The next argument that needs to be answered is: "It should
also be very clear that the Living Christ has ALWAYS directed
major areas of His Work primarily through one man at a time" (GCN
Sept/Oct.95, p.6).
The writer gives the example of Moses, Joshua, Samuel etc.
Well okay - under the OC I can agree with that. Under the
NC?
The example of Peter and Paul over the circumcised and
uncircumcised (Gal.2:7-9) is given.
Oh, I can agree that God did primarily use as PILLARS the
apostle Peter and the apostle Paul for those large areas of His
work. BUT those two men LIVED at the SAME time, and were part
of the SAME church, attended the SAME ministerial conference in
Jerusalem (Acts 15), visiting each other at times (Gal.l),
attending the SAME local congregation at times (Gal.2), and
acknowledging they were writing scripture (2 Pet.3:15-16).
Who decided who would do what work in these large areas of
God's work? Was it the ministers themselves getting together to
decide? Was it a "board" of ministers? Or a committee of
congregational persons giving out orders?
No! It was God who decided (i.e. Acts 9; 10; 13).
The responsibilities and FUNCTION of elders had really
nothing to do with "huge differences and antagonism between the
Gentiles and the Jewish people of the day, and also because of
geographical considerations and the fact that there was no
instant communication as we have in our time now" (GCN -
Sept/Oct 1995, p.6).
The reasoning of man to try to hold on to false concepts of
the idea of "one man at a time" under the NC age is wondrous to
behold.
God had no trouble with geographical distance and instant
communication on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Nor in
scattering the church to preach the word in Acts 8. He had no
trouble with geography in sending Philip to Samaria and later
Peter and John (Acts 8).
God had little problem in getting Philip to the Ethiopian
eunuch when necessary (Acts 8:26). He was also able to take him
away with little effort (verses 39,40).
The church at Corinth had little trouble in communicating
with all their different languages. God just gave them the gift
of tongues (1 Cor.14).
On and on I could go.
The gospel was spread quite nicely and quickly thank you,
until the world was turned up-side down, and that without the aid
of TV, radio, or the computer Internet.
As for the huge difference and antagonism between Jews and
Gentiles, I'm sure Paul could have managed very well with BOTH,
if it had been the will of God, after all Paul was a Jew and a
one time Pharisee. He also had good vibes with the Gentiles, and
FOR A TIME he DID work on BOTH fronts of the line.
It was God who eventually decided to use Paul mainly in the
Gentile camp.
The fact is ONE man like Paul could have worked in both
camps of Jews and Gentiles IF the Lord had willed so. It had
nothing to do with geography or instant communication, but
SOLELY with the WILL and DECISION of God as to WHO
would do WHAT, and WHERE, and WHEN ,they would do it.
And so it is to this very day!
All this argument is to lead to one final belief.
"ONE" UNDER ONE INSPIRED LEADER
"Today, such a division is NOT necessary since we have
almost instant communication around the world through telephones,
computers, fax machines, etc. These modern means of communication
enabled the vast majority of God's people to be 'one' under the
inspired leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong.
Christ guided and BLESSED His Work in that way for over 50
years!" (GCN - Sept/Oct. 1995, p.6).
Ah, reading between the lines, I see where this is leading,
to the false teaching that God is STILL leading the "vast
majority" of His people to be "one" under another organization
with another single man as leader, who will be BLESSED above
all others.
It is a clever psychological "come on" based upon a
quick-sand foundation in order to get people to belong to the
"one" and really true extension of the - work built by HWA
- the Global Church of God.
What men will do to get a following or to build their
"empire."
If God has used in the NC age "one man at a time" to direct
major areas of His work, and for 50 years or more that ONE man
was HWA, then tell me WHO was the one man directing the major
area of God's work BEFORE HWA?
Where was the "major" area of God's work being done, WHO was
the one man over it, what happened to him and how did HWA get to
take over his mantle?
Then if you can answer that, tell me the name of the one man
over God's work before the man who was before HWA?
Further still, how does all of that fit in with the present
state of things among the different branches and splits that have
come out of the WCG founded by HWA? Who is the "one man at a
time" NOW?
If is it governed by literal numbers then at present it must
go to the "one man" (whoever he is) of the UNITED Church of God,
as they seem to be on top in number of members.
Again, if they should fall behind in membership to say the
GLOBAL Church of God, will the "one man at a time" change to the
one man of Global?
What if the CGI (Church of God, International) should in the
next 5 or 10 years surpass in number of members all other
branches, will their one man (if they have one) become the "one
man at a time" director over God's major area of work?
And to yet add more fuel to the fire, what if the CGI only
held the record of membership for a year or two, and the
ministers of the present WCG all repented of their apostasy -
returned to full truth and became the largest branch in
membership etc. Would God transfer the "one man at a time"
to the WCG's one man?
I speak with tongue in cheek. Pretty silly isn't it? Not
just silly - it is DUMB!! What illogical ideas the heart of man
ponders.
AN "INSPIRED" LEADER?
I did not bring this up, I was not going to even mention it,
talk about it, or discuss it, in this study, but here it is again
in the quote previously given, "........God's people to be 'one'
under the INSPIRED leadership of God's servant, Herbert W.
Armstrong......"
I didn't bring this up, yet it has been brought up within
the subject of Church Government. So it would be shirking my
duty as a minister and servant of the Eternal God to let this go
unanswered. Those who put men on pedestals had better have
large enough shoulders to carry the burden.
Now I earlier used the word "inspire" for Paul and John the
apostles. I called them inspired - they truly were!
For any man to use that word in regards to another human being
since the death of John is danger, d a n g e r , DANGEROUS!
There is sometimes a very loose way in which we use the word
"inspire" today in the twentieth century, but I have personally
experienced some in the church using this word for HWA not in the
loose sense at all. Their mind and heart and emotions making
it very plain to me as to how they were using the word.
The Jehovah Witnesses have their "inspired" man - William
Russell.
The Mormons have their "inspired" leader - Joseph Smith
together with the book of Mormon.
The Christian Science people have their "inspired" teacher -
Mary Baker Eddy.
The Seventh Day Adventist church have their "inspired"
prophet - Ellen G. White.
I have talked with, had Bible studies with, over the years,
members from the above churches. I know their basic beliefs,
I have read and studied their books and literature. I have
personally been witness to the results of the mental attitude in
the above groups and MANY of their members, in relation to
their "inspired" one.
They eventually take their eyes off Jesus Christ, they look
away from the word of the Lord to the words of their human
"inspired" one. Eventually it becomes a mill-stone around their
necks, it blinds them to the truth that would set them free as
Jesus said. Their faith and trust is in a physical person. They
loose the ability to see error and mistakes in the "inspired"
one. They loose the ability to be corrected and shown error in
their lives and doctrine of belief from the word of God. They
enter complacency, thinking they have it all, and have no need
for anything.
They enter the never never land of the self-righteous
Laodicean attitude of Revelation 3. They eventually stop thinking
and growing in grace and knowledge of Christ and the word of God
because their "inspired" one did it all for them and there is
nothing new to learn. They develop a mind set that precludes them
from seeing any new light, for that would mean to them their
"inspired" one did not have all the light.
They especially get up-set, irritable, and often plain out
and out ANGRY when shown that their "inspired" one wrote things
or taught things that the word of God clearly shows is error or
the antithesis to the truth.
Again I will say, I have personally had members of the
aforementioned groups, as well as members of the WCG (those who
believed HWA was inspired to the point of infallibility) who got
red hot with anger and stormed out of my presence, because I
showed them from the word of God, errors in the writings of their
inspired one.
Some have put so much faith in the inspiration of their
churches "inspired" prophet, that upon being shown they were not
so inspired as they believed, they WALKED AWAY from God. Yet it
was not the fault of God, but false teachers and they themselves
for not heeding the word of God about such matters. Only God's
word is truth, only He does not lie, or misunderstand, or
misinterpret, or fall prey to human carnality and sin.
I hope you dear reader have not put a man on a pedestal
where he should never have been put, for if you have the day
will come when you will discover your error and then as your
"inspired" one falls to eye level, you had better be strong
enough to take the fall and not fall yourself where "all the
kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty
TOGETHER AGAIN."
I could take the time, but here is not the place, to fully
e x p o u n d to you the errors, misunderstanding,
misinterpretation, false ideas, false teachings, wrong decisions,
carnal works of the flesh, and yes, at times, some wrong
doctrines, of Herbert Armstrong.
HWA was far from being "inspired" at times, then at other
times he was, if we use the word loosely, as we often do,
inspired in his writings and study of God's word.
Using the word "loosely" I can say I hope many of God's
people are inspired as they write articles on Christian faith,
but nobody from the second century A.D. on, has been inspired in
the way Paul was inspired. That is why he wrote for you and me
today "PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH
IS GOOD."
HWA was not inspired like the apostle Paul was inspired. And
to give the man credit, HWA never said he ever was.
Nobody today is inspired in the way Paul was inspired. Maybe
the two witnesses of God in the book of Revelation, when they
preach, we will see again the inspiration that filled the apostle
Paul.
Make sure you do not err by thinking I am against HWA. I
love him as I love all God's people. I acknowledge he was a
minister of God that was used to do a mighty work for God, and
preached much truth to many people.
Christ did use HWA and the WCG for many years. To state it
was for over 50 years is VERY DEBATABLE indeed, a debate I will
not enter into here.
1 TIMOTHY 5:17
There is need to comment on what Paul said to Timothy in the
above verse about an elder being "counted worthy of DOUBLE
honor."
It is argued that Paul is speaking about an elder receiving
double WAGES. At fist glance it would appear from verse 18 that
there is some truth to that idea.
Then on closer look, even if we allow the above argument to
stand, we note that Paul says "be counted worthy of double honor"
and NOT that he must as a command from him absolutely, at all
times, be paid double wages or re-numeration.
The elder may, if he does his work well within the church,
be worthy to be paid double what he is paid, but that does not
mean there are the funds to literally do so. And even if there
was, there is still another problem to solve. Paul gives no
instruction on a "yard stick" line as to HOW MUCH IS THE FIRST
WAGE in the first place that some say should be doubled. What may
have been a good livable wage in Paul's time, could be starvation
and a homeless situation today in the Western World.
Who would determine if the first bottom of the line wage
before being doubled, for the minister or elder, would be the
upper average wage of the middle class, the average lower wage
of the lower class, or the poverty wage line, of the country the
elder lives in?
There are FAR TOO MANY FACTORS to consider if we believe
Paul is here giving an absolute command and law that churches are
to pay their elders (who are full time in the ministry) DOUBLE
wages.
I believe a better understanding of these verses is that
Paul is emphasizing having a very HIGH esteem of mind towards
those elders who really work hard and govern the church well,
while not ruling out a proper physical renumeration.
The Greek word used for "honor" in verse 17 would bear out
the interpretation I give above.
The number in Strong's Concordance is 5092 - teemay - is the
English way to pronounce the word. Strong's will show it could
refer to literal valuables, i.e. money, it also refers to the
mental attitude and value of words like - esteem, dignity,
precious, honor.
We must look further to get more light on this word and how
we should understand it in the context of 1 Tim.5:17. The
Englishman's Greek Concordance will serve us well. Page 732
lists every scripture where this word is used in the NT. It is used
in 42 verses. In 8 of those uses the word is translated as "price"
in the KJV. In 6 cases it is referring undoubtedly to the price
of money. The other two cases it is referring to the price of the
death of Christ to buy us back from sin. In one case it is
translated by the word "sum" and again refers to money - Abraham
bought a piece of land for a sum of money.
In all other instances it is rendered as "honor" except once when
it is rendered as "precious."
Note verses like John 4:44 "has no honor in his own
country." Rom.2:7 "seek for glory and honor." Rom.12:10 "in
honor preferring one another.'' Rom.13:7 "honor to whom honor."
1 Tim.6:1 "their own masters worthy of all honor." 1 Pet.3:7
"giving honor unto the wife."
It is used many times as giving honor to God the Father, as
well as to Christ.
By a margin of at least 3 to 1 the word is used in the NT to
denote a MENTAL ATTITUDE of esteem, dignity, praise,
appreciation, honor.
I believe Paul was FIRST telling Timothy and hence all of
us, that the elders who really work hard and well in governing
the church should be mentally counted very high in esteem,
appreciation and honor. We may put it as "he is greatly honored"
in a figure of speech, Paul said "double honor'' as his figure of
speech. He was first emphasizing this attitude of mind but was
also not ignoring a physical pay for their labor in the word and
doctrine.
The physical pay would have to be governed by the number of
full time elders in the church, the amount of money coming into
the church funds, and the cost of living as found in the area or
country the elders live in.
BARNE'S NOTES ON THE NT has some fine comments:
17." Let the elders that rule well......The word used -
elder or presbyter - properly refers to age, and then it is used
to denote the officers of the church......The word rendered
rule...... is from a verb meaning to be over, to preside over, to
have the care of......That rule well. Presiding well, or well
managing the spiritual interests of the church......Be counted
worthy of double honor. Of double respect; that is, of a high
degree of respect. Comp.1 Thes.5:12,13. From the quotation
which is made in ver.18, in relation to this subject, it would seem
probable that the apostle had some reference also to their
support, or to what was necessary for their maintenance......
corresponding to the amount of time which their office required
them to devote to the service of the church......Especially they
who labor in word and doctrine. In preaching and instructing
the people. From this it is clear that, while there were 'elders'
who labored 'in the word and doctrine' that is, in preaching,
there were also those who did not labor in 'the word and
doctrine' but were nevertheless appointed to rule in the
church......part of them were engaged in preaching.......a part
may have been employed in managing other concerns of the
church, and yet all were regarded as the......'elders presiding over
the church.'
.........Those who among them 'labored in the word and doctrine,'
and who gave up all their time to the business of their office,
would be worthy of special respect, and a higher compensation."
End quote.
IS THIS THE END
It is, but who knows for how long. With all that is taking place
in the various branches of the Church of God coming out of the
WCG, I may yet have to answer more arguments from more study
papers yet to be written on this subject.
The appendix was first written in November 1995, with revisions
in 1996.
....................
Indeed, it was not long before it was necessary for me to have to
write more on this subject. Two widely distributed papers came
out which contained much truth BUT also some SERIOUS errors.
Those errors I answer in the second half on this book on Church
Government.
Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
APPENDIX
Second continuation
All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise
stated.
Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic
of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to
arguments not addressed in the body of this work.
APPENDIX ADDITIONS
ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE
by Herbert Lokyer
pp. 246-247
1. Internal Management
Each church was left to manage its own business, and deal with
its own offenders.........No directions are given about taking
matters to a higher court. Each church was an independent
organization. There is no warrant in Scripture for the
ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, and also
for the ascending series of courts which may review a case of
disorder arising in a local church. Each church or assembly was
reckoned competent to perform every faction necessary without
reference to any other source. The inclusion, exclusion and
restoration of members were effected by each church.
2. External Authority
As the churches were not to be dominated by any external
authority, so they were not to be interfered with, in their
church life, by civil government. This at once proves the
untenable position of the so-called State Church. It is only
where the life of the church touches the civic life of the
community that the civil authorities have any right to
interfere.......
3. Fraternal Relationship
While each local church, according to the New Testament is
independent of every other in the sense that no other has
jurisdiction over it, yet co-operative relations were entered
into, as can be proven by the witness of such passages as
Rom.15:1-27; 2 Cor.8:9; Gal.2:10; 3 John 8........Churches may
properly co-operate in matters of disciple, by seeking and giving
counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In
the great paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the
nations, they may co-operate in a multitude of ways. There is no
sphere of general Christian activity in which they may not
voluntarily and freely co-operate for the betterment of the
world, the salvation of humanity.
4. Exclusions
The early Christian society would not suffer the presence of
those immoral persons referred to in 1 Cor.5:11, nor of the
heretics mentioned frequently in the epistles, e.g., Titus
3:10......."
End quote.
WORD MEANINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Ralph Earl
PHILIPPIANS
Bishops (1:1)
The Greek word for "bishop" is episcopos (cf. episcopal). It
occurs five times in the NT.
In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers." In 1 Pet. 2:25 it
refers to Christ, "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." It is
found twice in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) and is
correctly translated "bishop." ("Office of a bishop" in 1 Tim.
3:1 is another word, episcope.) Critics have sometimes insisted
that the technical use of episcopos for "bishop" in the Pastoral
Epistles reflects a later development in church organization and
so demands a second-century date for these letters. But the same
usage here in Philippians (written about A.D. 61) undercuts that
argument.
The word episcopos comes from scopos, "a watcher." So it means
"a superintendent, guardian, overseer"(A-S). Thayer notes that it
has this same comprehensive sense in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey
and in classical Greek writers from that time on (p. 243). The
large Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940) gives as the first
meaning of episcopos "one who watches over," and lists numerous
examples of this use (p. 657). "This was the name given in Athens
to the men sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs"
(Cremer, p. 527). The word was used 14 times in the Septuagint in
the sense of "overseer," or "inspector." Deissmann notes that in
Rhodes, episcopos was "a technical term for the holder of a
religious office" (in the temple of Apollo), as well an being
used in the plural for "communal officials" (BS, pp. 230-31).
Lightfoot mentions its use at Athens, and adds: "The title
however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designation for
instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report
to the Indian kings......; of the commissioner appointed by
Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus.......; of magistrates
who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans.......;
and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown"
(p. 95).
Beyer writes: "In Greek episcopos is first used....... with a
free understanding of the 'onlooker' as 'watcher,' 'protector,'
'patron.' " Then it came to be used "as a title to denote
various offices" (TDNT, 2:609). He notes that protective care is
"the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT,
2:610). This is its classical usage.
By the end of the second century we read of diocesan bishops.
Early in the second century Ignatius indicates that in each
church there was one bishop, a group of presbyters, and a group
of deacons. But in Paul's Epistles (here and in the Pastorals)
"bishop" and "presbyter" seem to be used synonymously. Lightfoot
observes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by the
theologians of all shade of opinion, that in the language
of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called
indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter'
(presbyteros)" (p. 95). In TDNT, Coenen thinks it "probable that
the terms presbyteros and episcopos (bishop) are interchangeable"
(1:199).
Bishop, l TIMOTHY 3:1
The first seven verses of chapter 3 are devoted to outlining the
qualifications of a bishop. As a leader in the church he must be
a man of exemplary character.
"The office of a bishop" is all one word in Greek, episcope.
Elsewhere in the NT it is used in this sense only in Acts 1:20,
in a quotation from the Septuagint.
In verse 2 "bishop" is episcopos, from which comes "episcopal."
It occurs only five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is
translated "overseers" and applied to the Ephesian elders
by Paul. He also refers to the "bishops and deacons" at Philippi
(Phil. 1:1). In Titus 1:7 and following, we again find what is
required of a "bishop." Finally, in 1 Pet. 2:25, Christ
is called "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."
The word episcopos is made up of epi, "upon" or "over," and
scopes, "watcher." So it literally means "one who watches over."
Thayer defines it thus: "An overseer, a man charged with the duty
of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any
curator, guardian, or superintendent.... specifically, the
superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church "
(p. 243).
It will be seen that the basic meaning of episcopos is
"overseer." The ancient Greeks thought of their gods as
episcopoi. This usage is found in Homer's Iliad and many later
writings.
Then it came to be used of men in various functions. Beyer says:
"Protective care, however, is still the heart of the activity
which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610).
Homer applies the term to ships' captains and merchants, who must
be "overseers" of goods.
In the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ episcopos was
used at Athens as a title for state officials. The same thing was
true at Ephesus and in Egypt. But more common was the use of
episcopal (plural) for local officials and officers of societies.
This brings us closer to the Christian eplscopos.
In the Septuagint episcopos is used both for God, who oversees
all things, and for men as supervisors in various fields of
activity. The latter usage is found in the earlier, well as
the later, books of the OT.
Turning to the NT, we discover one fact immediately:
there is no mention of any diocesan bishop. In the one church at
Philippi there were episcopoi, "bishops" (Phil 1:1). The apostles
are never given this title. The bishop was a local official, and
there were several of these in each congregation.
Furthermore, the "elders" (presbyteroi) and "bishops" (episcopoi)
were the same. This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17 it
says that Paul called for the "elders" (presbyteroi) of the
church at Ephesus. In verse 28 he refers to them as episcopoi -
"overseers" (KJV), "guardians" (RSV). The same people are
designated by both titles. We shall find this same phenomenon
clearly indicated in the Epistle to Titus. In the NT Church each
local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops
and a group of deacons.
It seems likely that the former had oversight of the spiritual
concerns of the congregation and the latter of its material
business.
When we come to Ignatius early in the second century (about A.D.
115) there is one bishop over each local church, together with
several elders and several deacons. The bishop is supreme in
authority. One of the keynotes of Ignatius' seven letters is,
"Obey your bishop." To the Trallians he wrote: "For when you are
in subjection to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is clear to me
that you are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ....
Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should
do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the
presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ....
And they also who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ
must be in every way pleasing to all men" (The Apostolic Fathers,
"Loeb Classical Library," 1:213-15). Here we see the beginnings
of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second
century.
But "in the beginning it was not so."
Bishop = Elder, Titus 1:5-7
In verses 5 and 6 we find the qualifications of elder in the
church; verse 7 says, "For a bishop must be blameless." This
seems to indicate rather clearly that the same church officials
were called bishops (episcopoi) and elders (presbyteroi). The
name "elders" emphasizes the fact that the leaders of the church
were to be older men, as was the case with the elders of Israel.
The word episcopos (bishop) literally means "overseer." So it
refers to the function and office of an overseer of the church,
That "bishop" and "elder" are used for the same person is even
asserted by Bishop Lightfoot of the Church of England. In his
commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Philippians he
writes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of
all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament
the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop'
(episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95).
He goes on to show that not only was episcopos used in classical
Greek for various officials, but it is common in the Septuagint.
There it signifies "inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters"
(e.g., 2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chron. 34:12, 17; Isa. 60:17). He
comments: "Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which
lies at the root of the word 'bishop,' its usage suggests two
subsidiary notions also: (1) Responsibility to a superior power;
(2) The introduction of a new order of things" (p. 96).
Lightfoot gives six evidences that bishop and elder are the same:
(1) In Phil. 1:1, Paul salutes the bishops and deacons. He could
not have omitted mention of the elders unless they were included
in the "bishops." (2) In Acts 20:17, Paul summoned to Miletus the
elders of the church at Ephesus. But then he calls them
"overseers" (episcopoi) of the flock. (3) Peter does a similar
thing (1 Pet. 5:1-2). (4) In 1 Timothy, Paul describes the
qualifications of bishops (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13). The fact
that he omits elders here would argue that they were the same as
bishops. (5) Titus 1:5-7). (6) Clement of Rome's First Epistle
(ca. A.D. 95) clearly uses "bishops" and "elders"
interchangeably.
It is not without significance that Jerome, writing near the end
of the fourth century, recognizes this identity of the two. He
says: "Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same,
for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age." Again he
writes: "The Apostle plainly shows that presbyters are the same
as bishops." In a third passage he says: "If any one thinks the
opinion that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be
not the view of the Scriptures, but my own, let him study the
words of the apostle to the Philippians." Other Church Fathers,
such as Chrysostom, asserted the same thing. Lightfoot goes so
far as to say: "Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on
the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or
Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is
affirmed" (p. 99).
1 Corinthians, Apostles (12:28)
In this verse Paul mentions eight types of ministry in the
church. The first is that of apostles.
Who were the apostles in the Early Church? Are there still
apostles in the church of today? Neither of these questions is
easy to answer.
The Greek noun apostolos comes from the verb apostello, which
means "send with a commission, or on service." So apostolos is "a
messenger, one sent on a mission." Abbott-Smith continues his
definition by saying: "In NT, an apostle of Christ (a) with
special reference to the Twelve......... equality with whom is
claimed by St. Paul.......(b) in a wider sense of prominent
Christian teachers, as Barnabas, Acts 14:14, apparently
also Silvanus and Timothy, 1 Thess. 2:6, and perhaps Andronicus
and .Junias (Junia?), Rom. 16:7....... of false teachers,
claiming apostleship" (p. 55). It is evident that the word
has a variety of applications in the NT.
In his long article on apostolos in Kittel's Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, Rengstorf shows that in
classical and early Hellenistic Creek there is no parallel to the
NT use of this word. This is true even of the Septuagint,
Josephus, and Philo (1:408).
The word is found 79 times in the NT. Paul and Luke (his close
companion) each use it 34 times ((68 out of the 79). It occurs
three times in Revelation, twice in 2 Peter. and once each in
Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews,, I Peter. and Jude. Paul has it at
the beginning of 9 of his 13 Epistles..
Apostolos is used for messenger, "one sent" in John 13:16. In 2
Cor. 8:23 Paul applies this term to the commissioned
representatives of local church congregations. "Finally,
apostoloi is a comprehensive term for 'bearers of the NT message'
" (TDNT, 1:422). It is used primarily for the 12 apostles chosen
and commissioned by Christ. This is the dominant usage in Luke's
Gospel and Acts.
Then we also find the wider spread suggested by Abbott-Smith.
Paul and Barnabas were first of all apostles of the church at
Antioch. But Paul calls himself at the beginning of his epistles,
"an apostle-of Jesus Christ." Luke does not hesitate to speak of
Paul and Barnabas as apostles (Acts 14:4, 14).
The first apostle was Jesus himself (Heb.- 3:1), sent from God.
Rengstorf comments: "Here the only possible meaning of apostolos
is that in Jesus there has taken place the definitive revelation
of God by God himself(1:2)" (TDNT, 1:423). All other apostles are
direct representatives of Jesus.
Are there apostles today in the Church? In a general, unofficial,
nontechnical sense, yes. But it may well be questioned whether
apostolic authority as found in the first-century Church has
carried over to subsequent centuries. Acts 1::31-29 indicates
that an apostle was to be one who had been in close contact with
Christ during His earthly ministry and who could be a witness of
His resurrection. Paul fulfilled the latter requirement ( 1 Cor.
15:8), but not the former one. However, he was careful to state
that he had "received" the necessary information (1 Cor. 15:3).
Charles H. Spurgeon was perhaps a bit severe when he
characterized apostolic succession as laying empty hands on empty
heads. But many of those who claim apostolic succession today
hardly show themselves to be true representatives of the
Christ of the NT.
Prophets (12:28)
The Greek prophetes comes from the verb prophemi, which means
"speak forth." So it signifies "one who acts as an interpreter or
forth-teller of the Divine will" (A-S, p. 390). Contrary to
popular usage today, the biblical meaning of "prophecy" is not
foretelling, but forth-telling. Put in simplest terms, the
prophet is one who speaks for God.
In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Friedrich has a lengthy article on prophetes and its cognate
terms in the New Testament. He notes some differences
between OT and NT prophets. He says that "prophecy is not
restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity.
According to Acts 2:4; 4:31, all are filled with the prophetic
Spirit and, according to Acts 2:16ff., it is a specific mark of
the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of
individuals but that all members of the eschatological
community without distinction are called to prophesy" (6:849)
But our present passage, as well as Eph.4:11, shows that there
was a special gift of prophecy in the Early Church. It is ranked
first, as the best gift after "apostles," in our present passage
as well as 14:1.
Has the gift of prophecy continued? In the second century the
Montanists went to unfortunate extremes in their claims for this
gift. Friedrich writes: "With the repudiation of Montanism
prophecy came to an end in the Church" (6:860). On the other
hand. many Bible scholars believe that the NT prophets were
essentially preachers, and so this gift of the Spirit is present
today.
Helps (12:28)
The Greek word antilempsis (only here in NT) is used in the
Septuagint and papyri in the sense of "help." Abbott-Smith thinks
that here it is used for the "ministrations of deacons"
(p. 41). Cremer says that the word is "taken by the Greek
expositors uniformly as answering to deacons (implying the duties
towards the poor and sick)" (p. 386).
Governments (12:28)
Kybernesis is likewise found only here in the NT. It comes from
the verb meaning to guide or steer. In classical Greek it
referred to the piloting of a boat. Then it was used
metaphorically for "government." Beyer writes that. in view of
its literal meaning and attested usage, "The reference can only
be to the specific gifts which qualify a Christian to be a
helmsman to his congregation, i.e., a true director to its order
and therewith of its life" (3:10:36). The word may be translated
"gifts of administration" (NIV).
Evangelists (4:1 1 ) - Ephesians
The word, which is a transliteration of the (Greek euangelistes),
is found only two other places in the NT. In Acts 21:8 Philip is
referred to as "the evangelist." In 2 Tim.4:5 the young Timothy
is admonished to "do the work of an evangelist."
The term comes from the verb euangelizo ("evengelize"), which
means "proclaim glad tidings." An evengelist, then, is one who
preaches the "gospel" (Greek euangelos), the good news that
Christ has died to save men. The evangelists in the Early Church
were probably itinerant preachers.
Pastors and Teachers (4:11)
"Pastor" is the Latin term for "shepherd." The Greek word poimen
also means "shepherd." It is used of Christ(John 10:11, 14, 16;
Heb.13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). Here it is used of Christian pastors.
Homer, in his Lliad, refers to "pastors of the people" (poimena
laon). The pastor is to be the shepherd of the flock.
Apparently the pastors and teachers were the same. Vincent
comments: "The omission of the article from teachers seems to
indicate that pastors and teachers are included under one class"
(3:390).
The end of quotes from Ralph Earle
THE WORD "ELDER" AS USED IN THE NT
The Analytical Greek Lexicon(1978 edition) says:
"presbuteros..........elder, senior: older, more advanced in
years, Lu.15:25; John.8:9; Ac.2:17; an elder in respect of age,
person advanced in years, 1 Tim.5:1,2; pl. spc. ancients,
ancestors, fathers, Mat.15:2; He.11:2; as an appellation of
dignity, an elder, local dignitary, Lu.7:3; an elder, member of
the Jewish Sanhedrin, Mat.16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57, 59; an
elder or presbyter of the Christian church, Ac.11:30; 14:23, et
al.freq.
presbuterion.........a body of older men, an assembly of elders;
the Jewish Sanhedrin, Lu.22:66; Ac.22:5; a body of elders in the
Christian church, a presbytery, 1 Tim.4:14.
presbutes.........an old man, aged person, Lu.1:18; Tit.2:2;
Phile.9
presbutis........an aged woman, Tit.2:3.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words, page 195
A. Adjectives
1. presbuteros......... an adjective, the comparative degree
of presbus, "an old man, an elder," is used (a) of age, whether
of the "elder" of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9,
"the eldest"; or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts
2:17; in Heb.11:2, the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so
in Matt.15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used
of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim.5:2, not in respect of
positions but in seniority of age; (b) of rank or position of
responsibility, (1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept.of Gen.50:7;
Num.22:7; (2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the
heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy
who assisted Moses, Num.11:16; Deut.27:1, and those assembled by
Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the
chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law,
e.g., Matt.16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public
affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3; (3) in the Christian
churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the
work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual
care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these
the term "bishops," episkopoi, or "overseers," is applied (see
Acts 20, v.17 with v.28, and Titus 1:5 and 7), the latter term
indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity
of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen throughout
the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each
church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil.1:1; 1Tim.5:17; Titus 1:5. The
duty of "elders" is described by the verb episkopeo. They were
appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the
divine qualifications, Titus 1:6 to 9; cf. 1 Tim.3:1-7 and 1
Pet.5:2; ...........
2. sumpresbuteros........"a fellow-elder (sun, "with"), is
used in 1 Pet.5:1.
3. meizon......translated "elder" in Rom.9:12, with
reference to Esau and Jacob.
B. Noun
presbuterion........."an assembly of aged men," denotes (a) the
Council or Senate among the Jews, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; (b) the
"elders" or bishops in a local church, 1 Tim.4:14, "the
presbytery."
TODAY'S ARGUMENT
Some in the Church of God of recent date are teaching that ALL
older people(men only, but some will no doubt eventually include
women) can be Elders in the church. They teach people can take
turns in being "elders" for a festival time, or for a month, or a
year etc. They teach a local church can "pick and choose" or
"vote in or vote out" who will serve as Elders and for how long.
They say the word "elder" under the OT just meant any older
person. Sure indeed within some contexts it did mean just that,
but upon an in-depth study of the word, as done above, it was
often used in a more limited sense and as a "leadership" function
and responsibility, not shared with just every older man in the
nation or community.
The use of the word "elder" in the NT also clearly shows a much
w i d e r and BROADER use as the two works above explained and
demonstrated. It is used for older men and older women in any
congregation of the church of God. But it is not exclusively to
be understood as meaning that in EVERY passage where it is used.
The context of the passage is most important as to how we are to
understand the use of the word.
Clearly, this Greek word is an umbrella word. Something similar
to our English word today of "minister." That word is an
umbrella word. For we use it not only when talking about those
men who are pastors of churches, but it is used of various
functions and duties of the nations Government. We today have a
"minister of Finance" or a "minister of Defence" or a "minister
of Health" - "minister of Public Affairs" - "minister of
Agriculture" etc. etc.
It should be clear from all we have studied in the previous
pages, that the NT does use the term "elder" in a specific
limited context, of men who were appointed by meeting certain
qualifications, to function in duty as overseers, shepherds,
leaders, guides, pastors, teachers, of the flock.
Such men had to meet specific qualifications. They could not be
new to the faith (no matter how old in age they were) when chosen
to be an overseer. Many other points did Paul lay down in 1 Tim.3
as to who could qualify for eldership. It should be pretty plain
to the honest searcher for truth, that not ALL older men would
have all the qualifications required to be appointed as church
pastors/overseers/elders.
Not all older men in the nation are qualified to be part of the
local officials that are to guide and direct the affairs of local
towns and cities. Not all older carpenters, plumbers,
fire-fighter, policemen, have the gifts to be leaders, and
guides, and overseers, of a crew of persons in their chosen
profession. That is just the way it is in this natural life. It
does not mean the leader/guide, of a group of fie-fighters, is
any better man in character or worth. He may very well not be as
good in some areas as a man under his guidance.
It just means that he has proved he has the qualities needed to
oversee that trade well on the whole. He has proved he is
rounded and balanced enough, has the overall gifts, needed to
take care, watch out for, instruct correctly, guide, help, and
serve, those he is overlooking and overseeing. That's all it
means! It does not mean he is "special."
It means he has been given certain gifts to meet certain
qualifications that are needed to function correctly in the
appointment of overseeing and leading others.
Then depending on how well he does in that function, staying
basically within those qualifications from then on out, will
determine how long he keeps that function. If he falls too many
times from those qualifications, especially if it brings shame
and disgrace upon his company, then his reward is accordingly,
even to the point of loosing his function and being then a part
of the team under other overseers and leaders.
If we teach that EVERYONE can be or have turns in being "elders"
in the church, there are LARGE problems to answer!
If being an elder is just being an "older person" then we have to
determine at what age is older? Do we become an elder of the
church at age 50? Is that "older"? Or is it at the age of 55?
Maybe we become an elder in the church at age 60! Or is it 65
when we retire? That's the age our nations call us seniors,
unless you live in Florida. There certain stores(to receive
discounts) and certain movie theatres, call you senior at the age
of 55.
Should the age be 70 when you become a church elder? Some would
think 40 years old is old enough. Or how about 30, that's when
Jesus started to teach and lead and guide.
Then, what if someone comes into the church at age 60. Do they
become an elder right away because of their older age? If not,
then how long do they have to wait, how many months or years,
before they are counted as an elder of the church?
Who sets all the answers to the above questions? Where do they
get the authority and Bible answers to answer those questions?
I can see a whole list of problems arising from this teaching of
"everyone can be elders, who are older." What if someone does
not want to be considered an "elder" when he is older? What does
the church do to "unfrock" him? How long does an elder remain
an elder in his old age, and who sets the time, by what
authority, and by what set of scriptures?
We have not yet touched on the problem of older women. They too
are "elder" as part of elder means older. Paul said in Christ
there is no male or female, Gentile or Jew, so should not older
women also be "elders of the church"? If not why not?
And so we are back to the beginning of the circle. What is the NT
definition of a church "elder"?
From all that I have presented to you so far in this study, from
all the NT Scriptures we can "put together" on the subject, we
should by now KNOW THE ANSWER! If you do not, then better
read over the last dozen or so pages once more - S L O W L Y!
............
Appendix Additions updated in January 1997
No comments:
Post a Comment