NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT #4

 Church Government #4

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

Part Two

 by

    Keith Hunt

     

     At the end of part one in this study I questioned if it

would be the last word that I would have to say concerning the

subject at hand. It was not very long after that comment that I

received two more study papers on this topic. For the individuals

who have only recently come out of the church organization known

as the Worldwide Church of God, this topic of Church Government

is very high on the study list.

     It seems thousands are just now beginning to come to the

light,  (their one time church organization had for many decades

departed from the plain truth of the New Testament) as to the

pattern of church government that Jesus and the early apostolic

church taught and practiced.

     The two new papers that have come across my desk in the last

six months (I am writing in the late summer of 1996) are by Norman

Edwards and John Difley.

     The paper by Norman Edwards is called "How Does the Eternal

Govern Through Humans?"  And the paper by John Difley is named

"By What Authority?"

     The former was written in June 1995 (first edition, which I

answer later) while the latter was published in 1996.

     Both of the above study papers (Mr.Edwards now has a new

edition to his paper, which at present, Jan.1999 I have not yet

read, due to lack of time).

     Mr.Edwards and Mr.Difley have come to see many truths

contained in the New Testament (NT forthwith). 

     I fully agree with much of what they have to say, BUT

POLITELY DISAGREE WITH THEM ON CERTAIN POINTS 

THEY RAISE.

     Below you will find their full words on certain points of

thought, and my reply to their argument.

     I do appreciate their study and work. In the main we have

much in common, and I am hoping that no one will construe that 

my rebuttal of some of their thoughts or beliefs is an attack on

their integrity of character.

     I will start my replies to various points with the paper by

John Difley (J.D.) called “By What Authority?”

     J.D.

     No "Ordination Ceremonies" in the Bible

     ........Ordination, in the religious sense, comes strictly

from pagan origins and customs and is not biblical in

foundation......No place does the Bible command, espouse, or

suggest a service (ceremony) of ordination. Quite to the contrary

the biblical example is for the local congregation or fellowship

to collectively lay hands upon an individual that they have

jointly chosen and together commend that individual to God for

the appointed position......

     MY  ANSWER:

     First, let us look at the word "ordination" or more

specifically - "ordain."  Here in part is what the Reader's

Digest Family Word Finder has to say:

     "....1......confer holy orders upon, name,

invest....consecrate; appoint, commission,

delegate, deputize, elect.  2.....decree, rule,

pronounce....instruct....order,

command....legislate."

     I want you to keep in mind that this word "ordain" can also,

in our English usage, mean in certain contexts - consecrate,

appoint, delegate, commission, and elect.

     Now the World Book Dictionary in part says this about the

word "ordain."

     "....1. to establish as a law; order; fix; decide;

appoint......2. to appoint or consecrate officially as a

clergyman. 3. to appoint (a person, etc.) to a charge, duty, or

office.....Old French ordener, learned, borrowing from the Latin

ordinare, arrange (in Medieval Latin, consecrate; take holy

orders)....."

     Notice point number 3 again!  This word not only means

appoint to a duty or charge, it not only means learned, BUT IT

CAN ALSO MEAN - CONSECRATE!  I am not sure what runs 

through the mind of Mr.Difley when he hears the English word 

"ordain" but I suspect it may not be the same as how I understand 

the word.

     For the word "consecrate" the above mentioned Dictionary

says: "....1. to set apart as sacred; make sacred or

holy......2......3. to devote (to a purpose): A doctor's

life is consecrated to curing sick people.....Syn.v.t. 1.

sanctify. 3. dedicate. See devote."

     AAAHHH! Now we have the word sanctify used in conjunction

with "consecrate."

Again, here is what the World Book Dictionary has to say about

the word sanctify:

     "......1. to make....holy......2. to set apart as sacred;

observe as holy; consecrate: And God blessed the seventh day, and

sanctified it (Genesis 2:3). 3. to make (a person) free from sin.

4. to make right......."

     Do you feel we are going in CIRCLES?   Yes, we are to a

large extent!  Can you see how the words ordain, consecrate, and

sanctify may all be chosen to say the same thing and convey the

same idea and thought to the English speaking mind?  If used in

the context of physical men under the banner of God's truth and

service, then the thought of mind is to certain people who are

called, appointed, set apart, devoted to a purpose.  And

consecrated in learned ability to be a teacher of others in word

and deed to the WAY of the Eternal God.     

     With what we see above about this word "ordain" I just

cannot fathom from a "religious sense" that it has any direct

origin with the pagans. Oh, they also may have had the custom of

electing men and setting them apart to serve in their false

worship of false gods. Does that mean God has not the right to

elect, ordain, consecrate, set apart, men to serve Him and His

children, either by calling them direct (as He did with the

apostle Paul) or through other humans (as we saw in the first part

of this study)?

     The pagans had a special one day a week to worship their

gods on (Sunday).

     Does that mean God has no right to establish the 7th day as

ordained, sanctified, set apart time, to worship Him?

     The pagans had their seasonal festivals. Does that mean God

cannot have seasonal festivals?

     The heathen had their yearly calendar. By so having, did

that mean God could not establish His yearly calendar?

     The pagans had a religious priesthood, therefore was it not

permissable for the Eternal God to have one?

     The pagans established an animal sacrificial system. Was it

wrong for the Lordto also establish such a system with ancient

Israel?

     My answer to the above is of course a resounding - NO!

     

     What the pagans DID or did NOT do, has really no bearing on

what the perfect, holy, righteous God did do,  does do,  will do,

or will not do.

     What in the "religious sense" does the word Ordination

convey to your mind? Is it something "pagan"? Does it convey to

you something "evil" or "dirty" or "false."? Well, I guess if you

think about all the false "wolves in sheeps clothing" clergy in

the world, then it may to you be an offensive word. But if you

put it in the context of those truly called and chosen,

consecrated, set apart, appointed, elected by God. Men who serve

the spiritual needs of the sons and daughters of the

Lord........then I think the word Ordination will take on a

wonderful and inspiring meaning. A meaning that lifts the heart

to praise and thank the Eternal for having His ordained Elders to

lead and guide His called out ones - His ordained children, who

collectively constitute His ordained Church.

     Mr.Difley says Ordination is "not biblical in foundation."

Well, I will now show you where God HIMSELF commanded that 

there would be a "consecration ceremony," a "setting apart" ceremony,

an "appointment to religious duty" service, an Ordination service

if you will!  It has been in your Bible for centuries.  It is in the 

Old Testament, but the things of old are written for our admonition, 

for our edification, for our salvation

(1Cor.10:11-12; 2 Tim.3:15-17).

     Listening to Moses and the prophets (Old Testament) is more

important than any literal physical miracle (Luke 16:31).

     With that said, let's turn to Leviticus chapter eight.  We

shall start to read from verse one.                          

                     "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ' Take

Aaron and his sons with him....the anointing oil....and gather

all the congregation together at the door of the tabernacle of

meeting.' So Moses did as the Lord commanded him.....And Moses

said to the congregation, ' This is what the LORD COMMANDED 

TO BE DONE' " (verses 1-5).

     Notice verse 9, more commands from God, as with verse 13,

17, 21, 29, 35, 36. The WHOLE ELABORATE process described 

in this chapter was commanded by the Lord!

     Look at verse 12, "And he poured some of the anointing oil

on Aaron's head and anointed him, to CONSECRATE him" (NKJV

throughout unless otherwise stated).  The KJV of 1611 does not

use the word consecrate but the word "sanctify."

     Verse 30 in the old KJV is: "And Moses took of the anointing

oil....and sprinkled it upon Aaron....and upon his sons....and

SANCTIFIED Aaron....and his sons....with him."

     The NKJV does not use the word sanctified but the word

"consecrated."

     But the intent to the English mind is the same - these men

were SET APART, ELECTED, APPOINTED, to the duty of religious

service in a special way among the people of Israel, who formed

the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38).

          All of this specific occurrence took place as the

"congregation" looked on. Read again verses two through to verse

five.  This was in a PUBLIC setting!

     Now, let me ask you: What would you call this special event?

Would you call it a "church prayer meeting"? Would you call it a

"church Bible study"?  Maybe a "church picnic" - I speak in jest.

What words come to your English mind (I am writing as an

Englishman) that convey to your understanding about what was

taking place in this chapter of Leviticus?  Do you think of the

words "church service,"  well some may? It was a "service" of a

type, as we think and use that English word concerning a

religious congregation.  Does the words "sanctification service"

or "consecration service" pop into your mind as you read this

chapter?  I am sure with many they do.

     Yet MANY English readers will think of the words "dedication

service" and/or "Ordination service."  And WHY NOT?  For the

whole context of this chapter, all the basic underlying themes of

this command from the Lord, is what the English mind thinks of as

an ORDINATION SERVICE of men to an elected, called, appointed

function of service in the work of the Eternal, toward humanity

and especially toward the people of the Church of God.

     I do not care what the pagans did or did not do in public

toward their elected priests of their religions. We are here

looking at what GOD COMMANDED!  I feel quite "at home" in 

calling this public setting apart of elected men to serving in a

religious function, as an "Ordination service."

     To be frank. I am somewhat puzzled and even a little

disturbed at what presently seems like a "disdain" by some

persons (such as Mr.Difley and Mr.Edwards) for the words

"ordination" or "ordination service" or "ordination of men." 

They seem to want to put forth the teaching that this word is not

to be used in commending men, or that it is connected somehow

with evil or sin.

     John the Baptist conducted his ministry in the wilderness of

Judea. It was a public ministry. He baptized people out in the

open, crowds came to hear him and hundreds went under the water

in baptism by him (Matthew 3:1-12).

     Jesus, already a servant of the Most High, already a

spiritual elder in Israel, already learned and performing the

work of God toward the people of God. This Jesus comes to John

for baptism, not because He needed to repent of sin and be

forgiven of sins, but "to fulfil all righteousness" (verses 13-15).

     Now look what happens when Jesus comes out of the water. The

Spirit of God descends upon Him, a voice from heaven says, "This

is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (verses 16,17).

     Did Jesus not have the Spirit of God at this time in His

life?  No!  It is written He had the Spirit without measure from

His conception.  Was Jesus only now "well pleasing" to the

Father?  Of course not!  He had been well pleasing to the Father

from the beginning - for He was sinless.

     The truth is, this was now a SPECIAL TIME in the life of

Jesus. He was now to embark very shortly into the most important

three and one half years of His physical life. He was now too

really "zero in" on serving and dedicating His elected calling to

the children of God. What could be more fitting at this juncture

than the Father openly and publicly performing a "consecration" -

"setting apart" - public acknowledgment of service in the past

and that to come, by His Son?  

     If Aaron was given a public sanctification service of

religious duty and function, he being only a sinful man, surely

the sinless Son of the Eternal God would have no less an

ordination service?  And He did not!

     Turn to Acts chapter six. This is the well-known chapter for

the first choosing of men who would "serve tables."

     Read verses one to seven. I shall come back later to look at

this in detail when I answer another argument, but for now we see

men who met certain requirements as laid down by the apostles.

They, the "multitude of disciples"(verse 2) brought these men

before the apostles, who "when they had prayed, laid their hands

on them"(verse 6).

     This was a public ceremony, where many were witnesses to this

event. Not only the apostles(ministers, elders, spiritual

overseers) but also a "multitude of disciples."

     What if using English words would you call this ceremony? 

Some would say it was a "church service" and I guess it would

come under that  generic phrase. But most religious English born

persons would narrow it down to more specific words than just a

church service, for the context of the verses convey to the mind

a certain type of ceremony here  described.

     Many would instantly say this was a "sanctification service"

or a "consecration ceremony" or an "ordination service to

deaconship."

     There is nothing to the average English mind that smacks at

"evil" or "pagan" in the words ordination service to deaconship.

Most church goers read the first six verses of Acts chapter six,

and understand them as certain men being publicly set apart,

sanctified, consecrated, ordained, appointed, elected, to serve

and function in the duty of physical things within the church -

deacons or servers.

     These men did have to meet certain requirements, they were

elected, they had to be willing to answer that calling, and they

did go through a public ceremony where certain literal things

were performed. The most important, as the ones recorded for

us - prayer and the laying on of hands.

     We in the English language have given that whole process a

name, which immediately conveys to our mind certain specifics

that the generic phrase "church service" cannot. We have named

the process of Acts 6:1-6 as an ORDINATION SERVICE!

     And WHY ON EARTH NOT!  

     

           CONCERNING ORDINATION TO THE ELDERSHIP

     We have seen in part one of this study that God has chosen

two ways to call a man to serve in His spiritual eldership

ministry - 1. He Himself with signs, miracles, visions, angels,

or personal appearance to the man being called. There is no

record that the 12 apostles or the apostle Paul went through some

kind of ordination service by physical men. They were personally

chosen and called by the Lord Himself, and what better or greater

ordination could there be than that!  2. God uses other men to

publicly acknowledge certain individuals have been called by the

Lord to spiritual leadership and overseeing of His children. Does

the service of public consecration or ordination somehow "throw

the switch" and magically "presto" - make that man into a

"minister" from a lay person? Now that would indeed be a miracle

if it did.Of course such a literal ceremony cannot make a man

into a true minister of God. Nor can it guarantee to the end of

his life that he will not go astray or become a false minister if

he started out as a true one (see again Acts 20). 

     The ceremony of baptism by physical persons in a public

setting (most baptisms are usually performed with others around as

witnesses, though it is not a command) does not magically turn

the person being baptized into a true Christian IF the heart and

mind of the individual is not right with God. He can see the

heart, whereas men can be fooled and deceived by the outward

signs and actings and words of others. A person going through

baptism with a true heart and mind has already been living to the

best of his/her ability and knowledge the life of a Christian.

The ceremony of baptism is an outward physical sign that an

inward change of the heart and mind HAS ALREADY TAKEN 

PLACE. Which has already led the person to think, to speak, to act, 

to conduct themselves in a way that is pleasing to God.

     So similarly is an ordination service of men to the

spiritual eldership in the church. It is a physical act usually

in a public setting (by that I mean members of the congregation

present) to ACKNOWLEDGE that this man or men, have already 

been functioning in their lives as spiritual leaders, guides and

overseers, within the body of Christ.

     The ceremony itself will not make that man into a spiritual

leader if he has not already become one. An ordination service

will not make that man into a true minister of God if he is not

already one in heart and mind.  And as the word of the Lord

clearly shows, that "setting apart" service will not, from that

moment on, guarantee that man will remain as a true spiritual

elder of God until his death. Do we stop baptizing people

because some "pull the wool over our eyes" and fool us into

thinking they have the right godly heart and mind when they do

not, or because some later leave the faith and make shipwreck

their Christian walk?  No, of course we do not!  

     Should we then stop performing ordination services because

some men have deceived us into thinking they are true spiritual

elders and overseers when they are not, or because some will turn

themselves into false minister and start "speaking perverse

things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30)?  No, of

course not!

     I am trying to see, probably looking through a glass darkly,

as to why Mr.Difley/Edwards, have such a "horror" for the word

ordination, or throw out such "end of argument" phrases as: You

cannot find the words "ordination service" in the Bible.

     Big deal. I cannot find the words "baptism service" used in

the Bible either, yet that does not mean people were not baptized

in an open public baptism ceremony, where certain things would

have been said and done in a chosen manner by those

participating. The exact specific pattern of physical action and

words spoken (what is said to the one being baptized by the

person doing the baptizing, how is the one being baptized put

under the water, backwards, frontwards, sideways, squatting,

etc.)  is not given to us, only the example and teaching that

believers are to be baptized in water and have the laying on of

hands. 

     The NT writers conveyed to our minds that people were

baptized with certain words, it got the message across to us,

which is the important thing. So they used other words and not

the words "baptism service" or "baptismal ceremony."  That

combination of words cannot be found in the Bible, so what I say.

Does that prove anything one way or the other? Not really.

Language does change over a period of time, how we use words,

the phrases we use, the combination of words we use to express

the same image on the part of the brain that functions to

understand correctly the truth being promulgated, may change over

time, but the truth never changes. How we use words to express

that truth may change, but the truth itself never does.

     The words "second coming" are not to be found in the Bible.

Most fundamental Christians instantly know the truth of what

those words are meant to convey to the mind. They know that those

words in a nut shell, give the truth of the scriptures that Jesus

will literally, in power and glory, bodily return again to this

earth.

     The NT writers did not use that combination of words to

express this truth. Jesus is recorded to have said, "I will come

again."  We find such phrases as "the coming of the Lord" and

others in the NT, but nowhere can you find the phrase "second

coming." 

     Now is it wrong for us today to use such a phrase among

ourselves as Christians to proclaim the truth of scripture that

Christ will come back to live on this earth again as He once did

before?  No, indeed not!

     It is just a form of English to express among ourselves a

certain biblical truth.

     Our English words ordination service or ordination ceremony 

are a combination of words that speak to our mind in a certain

way, as we have come to customarily use and expect them to be

used within a certain context. The average religious English

-speaking person would immediately associate those words with the

consecration service of Aaron to Israel's high-priesthood, and

the 6 men of Acts chapter six to that of "table

servers" or as commonly called today in most churches - deacons.

     The truth that words convey to the mind is the important

thing, not the sounding of the words, not the language of the

words, not the spelling of the words, not the combination of the

words used, but the truth the words tell you!

                       A CONTRADICTION

     

     Mr.Difley says that nowhere does the Bible command or

suggest a service (ceremony) of ordination. This we have already

shown to be incorrect. But he goes on to say: "Quite to the

contrary the biblical example is for the local congregation

or fellowship to collectively lay their hands upon an individual

that they have jointly chosen and together commend that

individual to God for the appointed position."

     Now how does a group of say 100 or more persons in a

congregation lay hands on an individual "collectively" - all

simultaneously, and "together commend" him to God? How can a

group of 100 all say the same words at the same time?  Maybe I am

not understanding Mr.Difley's words correctly. But surely even in

this setting that he puts forth, any size congregation would have

to delegate this laying on of hands and "commending" to a basic

few. It would just not be literally physically possible to do

this any other way within a large congregation..

     So Mr.Difley IS SAYING that a congregation brings forth an

individual, he stands before them, hands are laid upon him, and

he is commended to the Lord some how and in some way.

     Let us suppose we are one of the members of that

congregation. We want to tell others what has taken place. What

are we going to CALL, what actual WORDS, are we going to name

this process?  Are we going to call it a "chosen one procedure"

or "elected for service program" or "called out ceremony"?  We

are going to have to give it a name, sooner or later, just from

the way things work as we speak a language to each other in

communicating. It will be given a name that will become the norm,

so everyone will immediately understand what our church did to

certain individuals.

     If this is not a "service of ordination" or putting it the

other way, if this is not an ordination service. If the Bible

does not even suggest a service or ceremony of ordination

THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING BRINGING ANYONE FORWARD 

IN A CONGREGATIONAL SETTING TO LAY HANDS UPON 

THEM AND COMMEND THEM TO THE LORD?

     Are we just playing with words here? We cannot have an

ordination service because the Bible supposedly does not uphold

it(which is not true) yet can have some kind of ceremony,

service, which brings individuals forth to have hands laid upon

them for service.  It still leave us having to come up with words

to describe our new "ordination service" if we cannot call it by

that name.

     Or is this whole matter really to do with some who have

experienced being in an organization that not only had totally

wrong "church government" and were even "cultic" in their

ministerial power over the rank and file membership? Elders of

their church dictatorial in words and manner, ruling with an iron

hand, having SS men reporting to them about ones who were

"rebelling" against headquarters, or "asking too many questions."

Is this whole thing about persons who have seen the total ABUSE 

and  PERVERSION  of the eldership ministry, who have experienced

the false doctrine of a "pecking order" authoritarian "do as we

say or we will disfellowship you"  cult teaching?

     Is it that these people in wanting to be free from such evil

bondage, having seen how men were elected to eldership by other

powerful, power-hungry, loyal no matter what, to the dictates of

the organization run by one human man, having seen how elders

were chosen and turned into clones of existing elders. Now seeing

this to be wrong and evil, have walked away to the other extreme

in rejecting even the words ordination service, and espouse the

other way that seems right unto men, but hidden within it lies

as much sorrow, pain, and deception, as the one they left -

namely, that it is the membership of the congregation that only

and finally decides who will be its spiritual elders.

     Many in so freeing themselves from one tyranny have not seen

the devil coming as an angel of light to catch them in another

net of falsehood and deception, so will end up in being a part of

and fulfilment of the prophetic words of Paul when he said to

Timothy: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound

doctrine; but according to their own desires, because they have

itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they

will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to

fables" (2 Tim. 4:3,4).

     There can be as much danger (with carnality, politics,

personalities, etc.) in a whole congregation believing and

thinking they have the last word on who is to serve them in

the spiritual eldership, as the existing eldership believing they

have all dictatorial authority over everything without any

participation or consideration from the membership. Both are

extremes.  Both will lead to the camp of Satan in the long run,

just give it enough time. As Jesus said, "Wide is the gate that

leads to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat."  The

devil and the demons have cut many paths and highways for many

different types of people to ride upon, all leading to the net of

captivity and death.  Jesus told us, "Straight and narrow is the

path to eternal life and few therebe that find it."

     The key is the plumb line down the middle (Amos 7:7,8).  

Get too far to the right and you are off the mark, get too far to the

left and you are just as far off the mark. The pendulum down the

centre is where it's at - straight and narrow is the path to

life.

     J.D.

     The laying on of hands to commend one to God is very common

throughout the Old and New Testaments. Can this accurately be

called ordination? Certainly not!.......The purpose of laying on

of hands was always the same no matter what the cause, to commend

one to God. The intent was always that God would bless. Never was

the intent that man, through ceremony, could somehow make binding

decisions for God, or commit God to work through an individual

chosen by man......

     MY ANSWER:

     In the main I agree with what is stated above. Yet I believe

you could make a case that the laying on of hands for anything is

an ordination if you understand the context and the meaning of

the word WITHIN that context. We have seen that the words

consecrate, sanctify, ordain, can be used as synonyms within

certain contexts. Was a father's blessing on a particular child

with the laying on of hands a sanctifying, a setting apart, a

consecration, an ordination  for a particular purpose? Well yes

it was. To set that person apart, to appoint that individual, to

elect that person to receive that blessing given by the

father.

     Are the sick who receive anointing and laying on of hands

being consecrated, set apart, sanctified, ordained, to a special

purpose? Why, yes they are. They are being set apart, appointed,

to receive the gift of healing from the Lord.

     So again, it's how you want to think of the word ordain and

the context it's used in. It is I grant mainly used today in the

context of "church ministry." 

     Certainly the purpose of the laying on of hands was to

commend one to God.

     Please note the last sentence of J.D's. in the above

comments. Reading between the lines I feel he is hinting at a

wrong teaching proclaimed by his former church.

     I am very familiar with the teachings of the Worldwide

Church of God, being a member from 1961 to 1972 and keeping a

close watch on them since. Through various sources I could follow

their progressive "cultic" mind set from 1979 to 1986 when their

founder Herbert Armstrong died. The members were taught that HWA

was God's ONLY apostle on earth, directly under Christ Himself in

authority. He was certainly the final authority in the WCG

organization - what he said everyone else was to obey. The

membership was taught that God was fully in charge through the

ministry, all the elders were divinely appointed by the Lord, no

errors no mistakes. The people were to obey them with no

questions asked, in fact if you started to ask questions, doubted

the authority and inspiration of the eldership, questioned the

doctrines of the church, you were discarded, thrown out like a

piece of trash, and told you were cut off from the one true

church and Holy Spirit.

     The membership were told what to think, when to think, how

to think. The people were ruled with a rod of iron. Those

ordained were to be looked upon with trembling awe, as if

infallible. There was to be implicit - even blind - faith, trust,

and obedience to the ministry. HWA was for many the Elijah to

come. He would take them to a place of safety to escape the Great

Tribulation, and live to the return of Christ.

     Being ordained in the WCG during those years would

practically put you on the same level as the Eternal God Himself.

Yes, that is how fanatically wild and outrageously "cultic" THAT

ORGANIZATION BECAME!

     It is then, understandable I guess, that some who have come

through those traumatic years would possibly "cringe" and

"shudder" at the very words ordination service. To them it only

means human men were given by other human men the power

to "make binding decisions for God, or commit God to work through

an individual chosen by man." In other words, telling God what to

do, having the Lord jump to man's tune, and teaching the rest of

the lay membership that it was so.

     Such ordination services are indeed a "sham" and false

doctrine. They turn any group of persons into a fanatical cult.

     Now I ponder, that if Mr.Difley and Mr.Edwards had never

experienced such radical, extremism and bizarre teaching about

being ordained to the eldership, and on the other hand

experienced only the ordained ministry of such church

organizations as the Church of God, Seventh Day - the Seventh Day

Adventist - and even some of the large Protestant churches, then

their outlook and attitude concerning ordination would I believe

be quite different than it seems to be at present.

     Millions of people from the above churches have no problem

with ordaining individuals to the ministry or deaconship. They

may some of them, have personal difficulties with certain elders

and deacons at times, as they do with other members of their

congregation, but they work through those troubles in the main

and do not believe that ordinations should be cast away.

     And when it comes down to it, to the bottom line, I do not

think John Difley is against "setting apart" - "consecration" -

ordination services, for he clearly talks about persons having

hands laid upon them by a congregation and being commended 

to God for the appointed position.

     J.D.

     .....Please turn to Acts 13:1-4.........In this passage

there are several very important points. First, note that God had

already appointed all those named as either prophets or

teachers......Second, for this special calling in the work, the

Holy Spirit actually made a very direct additional appointment to

service. This was most uncommon!.......The third thing to note is

that even though the Holy Spirit did the actual calling, the

local church still had the responsibility for the necessary

spiritual and physical conduct. The church sought after God's

special commendation for Saul and Barnabas through prayer,

fasting, and the laying on of hands......

     MY ANSWER:

     I have no real problems with J.D's comments till we come to

his "The third thing to note." He says the "local church still

had the responsibility......" and "The church sought after

......"

     But the word does NOT SAY that! Please read again -

carefully - verse one. When we use the word "church" our English

way of thinking about that word is the whole membership -

everyone - elders, deacons, and lay persons - all the saints.

Now, verse one says: "....there were IN the church.....certain

prophets and teachers as....." and the subject of thought goes to

naming those prophets and teachers, at least the ones who are

named, for there could have been others also. The point is, the

subject is the prophets and teachers who were IN the church, not

THE WHOLE CHURCH itself.

     The Greek word for "in" is EN. Please refer to the

Analytical Greek Lexicon or another work for its many uses. It

means besides other things "among" - "before" - "in the presence

of" - "in the sight, estimation of" - "in the case of" - "in

respect of." 

     Once more let me say, the subject of the thought of the

paragraph is NOT the church as a whole but the prophets and

teachers who were IN - PART OF - WITHIN - AMONG - the church!

Verse two says, "As THEY ministered to the Lord...." Who are "the

they"? Why the persons whose names were just given to us above in

verse one. That is the logical structure of the sentence and

thought. It was not the whole church that was ministering and

fasting to the Lord, but the prophets and teachers just

mentioned. So while they were thus doing the Holy Spirit talked

to them, in what exact way is not revealed. It was to the

prophets and teachers named that the Spirit gave instructions to

"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have

called them."

     Verse three: "And when THEY had fasted and prayed and laid

hands on them...." The subject has not changed, the thought from

verse one and two continues, the THEY is still the individuals

named beforehand - the prophets and teachers. 

     It should be clear, there were several leaders IN the church

at Antioch who were giving themselves "continually to prayer and

to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4) as well as fasting in this

case. And the Spirit revealed to THEM the work that Barnabas and

Paul(Saul) had been called to undertake. Those men further fasted

and prayed, laid hands upon the two chosen men and sent them

away.

     There is no indication or teaching here that the prophets

and teachers concerned HAD TO GO TO THE WHOLE 

CONGREGATION FOR THE OKAY OR APPROVAL to send these 

men out on this work. They made the decision as a group of prophets 

and teachers, being led by the Holy Spirit. They had the freedom and 

the liberty in Christ to so do!

     We need to get it straight. The freedom and liberty to do

the work of the Lord, as the Spirit of God leads, is VERY WIDE

and BROAD to all the people of the Lord, whoever you are in the

body, when it comes to spreading and teaching the word of truth.

     Stephen, a man ordained to "serving tables" did not think

twice about doing great wonders and miracles among the people,

and preaching the truths of God so powerfully to others including

the Jewish priests, that it cost him his life (Acts 6,7). He did

not have to obtain permission to do this from the apostles!

     When persecution arose against the church at Jerusalem and

all had to flee save but for the apostles, those who were

scattered abroad (elders, deacons, and all the saints) thought

nothing about going everywhere "preaching the word" (Acts 8:1-4).

This was personal Christian work, and no authorization was needed

from the apostles. This was everyones liberty in the Lord.

     Philip, a man called and elected to "serve tables," went to

Samaria and "preached Christ unto them." He also did miracles and

baptized those who believed (Acts 8:5-13). Yes, Peter and John

were sent to give a helping hand, but Philip did not have to get

the "starting orders" from Jerusalem or the apostles. The Spirit

led him to do a work and he just got out there and did it - true

liberty in the Lord.

     I have covered this fully already in part one of this study.

I refer you back there for the details of this particular truth.

     So the liberty for doing the work of the Lord and spreading

the gospel message extends to all the children of God in the body

of Christ, it extends to the so called "lay person" but it also

extends to the eldership of the church. 

     The prophets and teachers at Antioch did not have to obtain

permission from the whole membership to send Paul and Barnabas

out to the work the Holy Spirit had called them to do. And no one

got upset at what they did. Everyone knew this was their liberty.

     J.D.

     Men Choose By Inspiration of the Holy Spirit

     .......it is time to look at the positions in the church

that God expects to be filled by the choice of men.....The first

such appointments recorded for the early church are in Acts 6:1-

7.......

     Importantly we must note that nowhere in this passage are

the seven referred to as deacons or ministers (diakonos), but the

function to which they were chosen certainly is of the definition

of one who ministers or is a deacon. Of even more importance is

the fact that the very apostles seem not to have had the

necessary authority to do the choosing of the seven, since they

said to the entire congregation, "Select from among you....." 

Can we not assume that if anyone had authority to unilaterally

choose another to serve in the ministry it would have been the

apostles? Yet the apostles told the entire congregation to do the

choosing........

     MY ANSWER:

     I have difficulties with the comments in the last paragraph.

It is true that these seven men chosen to "serve tables" were not

called deacons or given any official title by the apostles or the

congregation of disciples. At least the record does not tell us

any official name was given to them, yet we can not be dogmatic

about that because all the details of what transpired in everyday

language after the event, among the elders and saints is not

revealed to us.

     I shall assume the seven were not given the title of deacon

for the sake of argument. 

     The English words I have circled above "serving" and "serve"

is the translation from the Greek that we render as deacon. The

basic spelling of the Greek is diakonos and as Vine's Expository

Dictionary says it "primarily denotes a 'servant' ...."  The word

servant can and does have a BROAD meaning both in Greek and

English languages, and must be understood how it is being used

within each context.

     There are a number of clear points we can derive from this

section of scripture. One is, these men were elected, chosen,

appointed to do something. Another clear point is that they were

to meet certain standards or have specific qualifications. Then

it is also plain to see they were to serve in a physical work -

serving tables - serving the widows. Lastly, the context brings

forth that these men were presented before the elders and a

ceremony, service, or whatever you want to call it, was performed

of praying and laying on of hands.

     These men were "set apart" to function as SERVERS, or as in

the Greek - deacons.

     We do not know if they were called "servers" or "table

servers" or "servers of widows" or "deacons." We do not know if

they were given at that time or after that time ANY OFFICIAL

name, but one thing is certain, they were elected to function in

a particular duty and work. Now I ask you this question: Is it

wrong to give a newly created job and those working in that duty,

a name?

     No, it is not!  Why the business world does it all the time,

the manufacturing companies do it, when offices expand and new

duties are created the department and those in it are usually

given a name. It is just good orderly practice to do so.

     The early NT church (its elders and saints) saw a need to

create a new department, to staff it with persons who had certain

qualification, to outline the duties (serving tables, serving

widows) and to set them apart with prayer and the laying on of

hands. They were to serve in a defined function.

     Is it wrong for us today to call that same type of function

and person - a server or DEACON?

     Let me show you something very interesting that I believe

will answer our question. Turn to the gospel of Mark and chapter

three. Please note verse 13 and 14. Jesus calls many to Him into

a mountain region, then He elects, appoints, ordains  a special

circle of twelve.

     Now go over to the gospel of Luke and find a little more

detail revealed to us about this event. Chapter six and read

verses twelve through to sixteen. Ah, ah, do you see it? 

Jesus chose, elected, twelve, and there it is in verse 13, after

His choosing of the twelve HE NAMED THEM APOSTLES!

     The word apostle means "one sent forth" - not any big deal

in the word itself, many people can be sent forth in many

different contexts and circumstances. Yet Jesus saw fit to give

these men who would function as spiritual elders in His church a

particular name or title. They were like all the other disciples

of Christ (see verse 13 again) up to this point - just one of

MANY. Then Jesus saw the need to create a new function of duty

with twelve disciples, and give it (or them) a name - apostles.

     Within the true believers of the true Church of God that

Jesus had around Him at that time, there was no use of the word

"apostles." No one was calling anyone by that name. Jesus

introduced to the church that He was head of, a new function and

a new name for that function. Nobody said: You can not do that

because we have never had it before, Moses never gave it to us.

     Do you see what I am getting at? The Church of the Living

God has always to some extent been adapting within the law and

liberty of the working of the Lord. Jesus did not think twice

about establishing a new function and giving those called to that

function a NAME. And this was all done about 1,500 years after

the "church in the wilderness" was established by God through

Moses.

     The apostles together with the multitude of disciples did

not think it strange to establish a new function of duty within

the church, for qualified and elected persons who were set apart

with a ceremony of prayer and laying on of hands. Perhaps they at

that time did not give a name to that new function of men, BUT WE

TODAY(actually within about 100 years of Acts 6) FOLLOWING 

THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS (given above) CALL THEM SERVANTS 

OR DEACONS!

     It is NOT WRONG for the Church of God to have persons whose

duty it is to function in an appointed and elected capacity

regarding the "serving of tables" - physical things, and to

officially name them deacons!

     Now back to Acts 6 and other important insights.

     There was trouble brewing in the early NT church, some

widows from a certain ethnic group were being neglected during

the daily physical necessities of life, that would have needed to

have been administrated at that time, for, "the number of the

disciples was multiplied" (verse one).

     One thing in strikingly obvious from the first words of

verse two. During the murmuring among the membership as a whole,

the members did not gather themselves together apart from the

elders/apostles and say: Well we have some big time trouble

here, let's form some committees among ourselves, figure out what

needs to be done, and then go tell the apostles what we have

decided to do about this problem.

     Please remember Acts 6 and what we are looking at, was a

LARGE serious problem. We are not talking about "How many seats

shall we set up for this day's church service." 

     On the other hand we need to remember also that we are not

talking about the doctrines of God, or spiritual matters, or

moral/immoral matters.

     We are looking at a large, important administrational

problem that would have included the correct Christian

distribution of physical goods that the widows needed for

daily living.

     Under those circumstances, the membership did not get

together and tell the apostles/elders what to do. They had enough

proper respect for the elders to let their feelings be known, to

let the elders know there was an important and large problem

brewing, and wait on the thoughts of the elders.

     Verse two shows us that up to this time in the history of

the NT church, it would seem the apostles were trying to do

everything in the administration of the spiritual and physical

duties that would be involved in a relatively new organization,

that was increasing by leaps and bounds.

     When the problem was before them, the apostles did listen,

they were approachable, they did come up with a solution. But

look, this passage plainly shows that under those serious

circumstances, it was the eldership that had the responsibility

to solve the difficulty in the church. Again, remember, we are

talking about the physical.

     The problem was of a physical nature. The apostles knew

their calling and main function of duty in life was on the

spiritual  not on doing a whole bunch of physical cares

and activities in the church, though they were important and

needed to be taken seriously also. Yet, they could see the first

priority in the lives of the eldership was prayer and the

word of God (verses 2, 4).

     Concerning this physical problem, the apostles had enough

respect for the membership (knowing the Spirit of God was in them

also) to delegate to them the responsibility of enacting the plan

that the apostles had decided upon, which would defuse the

murmuring and administer the physical goods of the church in an

appropriate way for all concerned.

     It is a true rule and law that every good leader knows the

necessity to delegate responsibilities to trusted and faithful

persons, for the betterment and smooth operation of the whole.

     You will notice from verse 3, it was also the

apostles/elders who handed down the standard of qualifications 

that the seven men whom they - the membership - were delegated to

find and elect. The membership did not come up with these

qualifications and tell the elders "this is how it will be." It

was the elders being led by the Spirit of God as spiritual

overseers of the flock, who put down the basic qualifying

requirements that the men had to have for this new function

within the NT church.

     Even in physical matters the elders are to lead the way. And

surely this should be so. Why have called, elected, elders in the

church (as the apostles were), that others are to respect  and 

look up to for an example in word and deed of true Christianity,

if they are not leading in both the spiritual and the physical.

Anything less just makes the Church of God a laughing stock to

the unconverted world. Oh, when I say the elders should lead

in the physical also, I do not mean in wealth and possessions.

The apostles were not as wealthy as some who came into the

church, that is clear from the Gospels and early chapters of

Acts.

     The whole multitude was pleased with the attitude of the

apostles, there was some team work going on here. No high handed

vanity and pomposity going on here with anyone. The congregation

did what the apostles delegated  them to do. Then did the

congregation run off when they had chosen the qualified men, to

some secret or private location and there by themselves, without

the elders, pray and lay hands upon these men? No! The word of

God says: "WHOM THEY SET BEFORE THE APOSTLES"(verse 6).

     And further we need to ask the question: In all of this who

had the final say about these chosen men?

     Was it the congregation that had final authority in saying

if this or that man was to be elected to serve in this function?

Or was the "last word" or final authority still held by the

apostles?

     Many have missed what is written in the word. You will find

it in verse 3. It is written, the apostles speaking: "......whom

WE MAY APPOINT OVER THIS BUSINESS."

     That is why after the selection had been made by the

congregation of men meeting the qualifications as laid down by

the apostles, for this physical duty, they brought and set them

before the apostles. The "last word" on the matter was still in

the hands and under the authority of the apostles. They could

have discounted any one or more of those men if evidence

warranted it.

     And WHY NOT!  Up to this time in the history of the NT

church, the apostles had been trying to do BOTH the spiritual and

the physical duties (see Acts 4:32-37; 5:1-5). They were now going

to hand over the physical aspects of the church to other persons.

As ones called to be overseers (Acts 20) of the flock of the

Lord, they had the right to lay down the qualifications those

individuals should have, delegate the election to others,

AND ALSO TO HAVE THE LAST WORD.

     Concerning the argument from verse six as to who laid hands

upon whom, was it the apostles laying hands on them, or was it

the congregation that did the honours. My answer to that is: The

subject of the sentence is the apostles, the logical thought and

sequence is concerning the apostles, bringing them to the

apostles for a reason, the reason being as verse three has

stated, ".....that we may appoint over this business." 

The final approval was done by the apostles, backed up with

prayer and the laying on of hands from them.

     If this was not the case, but final authority was in the

hands of the congregation, then there would have been no need to

have brought these men before the apostles. Someone from the

congregation could have at some other time, merely told the

apostles whom they had chosen and whom they(the multitude of

disciples) had laid hands on and prayed over.

     

TO BE CONTINUED

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

 Part Two

  CONTINUED     

     J.D.

 In the New Testament the selection of elders does have some

commentry. Let's read Acts 14:23.......

     At first reading this seems to be very clearly stated. It

appears that Barnabas and Paul simply appointed some of the

mature men to be elders. But hold your horses! Don't gallop off

so fast! Is that what it really says?.......the Greek word

translated "appointed" is the one we isolated earlier as

"cheirotoneo" .......Literally it means "to stretch forth the

hands." .......

     In the light of our previously reviewed scriptures, who do

you suppose made the actual selection? Who do you think might

have done the voting?

     MY ANSWER:

     Yes indeed, at first reading it does seem to be very clear! 

Okay, we will hold our horses, and not gallop but walk slowly.

     First, as I have said so many times before, the Bible is

basically written in a simple format. Oh, you must find and put

together ALL scriptures on any topic, to ascertain the truth of

the matter, but you do not need a degree in theology from some

Bible institution to understand all the fundamental doctrines of

the Lord. As Jesus said: "Thank you Father that you have hidden

these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them

unto babes."

     You must become as little children in belief and faith to

enter the Kingdom, so it is taught by Christ.

     The Bible was not written in so-called classical Greek. It

was handed to us written in simple everyday common Greek. 

Today we would say it was written in everyday common English, 

no big high sounding words, certainly not even close to the language

of lawyers. 

     Yet, although common day to day Greek is the language of the

NT it still employed the use of the basic rules of grammar just

as good common English does.

     One very important rule of grammar and also correct biblical

understanding of any single verse, is to look at and read the

whole context the verse is within.

     Did the scholars and translators of the King James Version

in 1611 make a fundamental grammar mistake here in Acts 14:23 ? 

The context will tell us.

     Let us start way back in chapter thirteen and verse four.

     WHO is the subject of  verse four?  Verse two tells us -

Barnabas and Saul (Paul). Those two men are the "they" mentioned

in verse four.

     Who is the subject of verse five? It is Barnabas and Paul -

the "they."  Look at verse six! Again, who is the subject? Why it

is Paul and Barnabas - the "they."

     Read all the way to verse forty three. The context does

single out Paul saying certain words, yet it is still

"them" (verse 8) and "they" in verses 14. It is "them" in verse

15, and "Paul and Barnabas" in verse 43.

     Who is the subject of verses 44 through to 52?  It is Paul

and Barnabas - the "they" of verse 51.

     Carry on into chapter fourteen. The persons the context

singles out as the who of the subject is "they went both together

into the synagogue of the Jews" - Paul and Barnabas!  Who is the

subject of verse six and seven?  It is "they" - Barnabas and

Paul.

     See verses 11, 12, 14, 18.  WHO IS THE SUBJECT?  It is the

"apostles" - the "they" - the "them" - Barnabas and Paul!

     Move on to verses 19 and 20. The persons who are the subject

are Paul and Barnabas.

     Verses 21,22 it is "they" who are the subject - Paul and

Barnabas.  Notice verse 24. Who is the subject? Why the two

apostles, the same two as in the above verses. What about verses

26 through to 28?  Who is the subject?  It is "they" - Paul and

Barnabas!

     Could ANYTHING BE PLAINER?  The context from chapter 13 

to the end of chapter 14 shows who is the subject of the thought and

the deeds of the whole. And that was Paul and Barnabas!  It is so

simple, common day to day Greek or English, a young child could

understand, that the persons who are the subject of the discord

are the two apostles - Barnabas and Paul. And so using words such

as "they" and "them" is quite within correct grammar.

     The verse under question - verse 23 - is WITHIN THE WHOLE

CONTEXT - within the "who is the subject" of the context. The WHO

(what persons as the main subject) NEVER CHANGES!  The who

remains as Paul and Barnabas!

     From the before and after of the context of verse

twenty-three, it is only logical to continue to use the simple

English grammar rule of "subject" and add the "they" in that

verse. The "they" being still the two apostles - namely Paul and

Barnabas.

     

     We know from the Greek NT itself that Luke (the author of

Acts) did have at his disposal words in the Greek for assembly or

church or congregation or group of persons. If he wanted us to

have no questions as to the fact that it was the whole church

congregation that had final authority and that elected and

ordained these men to be elders, then he could have and should

have (according to common rules of grammar) changed the subject

in verse 23. He could have easily written: "And the churches

appointed themselves elders, and after prayer and fasting they

commended them to the Lord."  Luke would have thus instructed us

that the subject had changed from Paul and Barnabas to the church

or congregation or assembly of believers in Lystra, Iconium, and

Antioch. He could have said: "The assembly of disciples ordained

them elders in every church...." etc. Then in verse 24 used the

names "Paul" and "Barnabas" to bring the who of the subject back

to them for the rest of the chapter. But he did not!  Because of

one simple factor, he never intended us to believe the persons of

the subject of the context HAD CHANGED from the two apostles to

the collective membership of the churches in Anitoch, Iconium,

and Lystra!

     The two apostles - Paul and Barnabas - are the subject (the

"they" and "them") of the context. Luke never changes it from

chapter 13:4 to the end of chapter 14, in fact even into the

first number of verses in chapter 15.

     The rules of grammar leave us with no alternative but to

render verse 23 of chapter 14 as found in the KJV. The scholars

of 1611 were quite correct!

     The unescapable contextual evidence is that it was indeed

Paul and Barnabas, two apostles, and two elders, overseers, that

prayed and fasted, and ordained/appointed elders in every church

in the three towns mentioned. They had the last word as to who

those elders would be.

     

     I did not say that the congregations may not have had some

impute on the final decisions made by Paul and Barnabas as to who

should be ordained as elders. Surely Paul and Barnabas would have

had to do some inquiring, looking carefully, asking questions,

ascertaining who was meeting the qualifications to be elders

within those churches. But as in Acts 6, it was "they" - Barnabas

and Paul - who would finally have the last word, and "whom we may

appoint over this business."

     NOW TO THE WORD "APPOINT" - cheirotoneo.

     Some today are wanting to stress this Greek word

"cheirotoneo."  Telling you that "...in classical Greek, is

primarily used to denote voting in the Athenian legislative

assembly."

     This particular Greek word is used by itself (and I have a

very good reason to say by itself, that we shall come to later)

ONLY TWICE in the entire NT. Here in Acts 14:23 and also in 2

Corinthians 8:19.

      Here is what Strong's Concordance has to say about this

word:  ".....to be a hand-reacher or voter (by raising the hand),

i.e.(ge.) to select or appoint:- choose, ordain."

     The Analytical Greek Lexicon page 436 says:  "....to stretch

out the hand; to constitute by voting; to appoint, constitute,

Ac.14:23; 2 Co.8:19."

     In part Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT has this to

say:  ".....extending the hand....a. prop. to vote by stretching

out the hand.......b. to create or appoint by vote......c. with

the loss of the notion of extending the hand (emphasis mine, KH),

to elect, appoint, create......"

     Now I give you the full explanation of this word as given in

Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 

1985 copyright, page 34. See if you can find one section that is 

very revealing and interesting.

     ".....primarily used of voting in the Athenian legislative

assembly and meaning 'to stretch forth the hands' (cheir, 'the

hand,' teino, 'to stretch'), is not to be taken in its literal

sense; it could not be so taken in its compound procheirotoneo,

'to choose before,' since it is said of God, Acts 10:41.

Cheirotoneo is said of 'the appointment' of elders by

apostolic missionaries in the various churches which they

revisited, Acts 14:23, RV, 'had appointed,' i.e., by the

recognition of those who had been manifesting themselves as

gifted of God to discharge the function of elders (see No.2). It

is also said of those who were 'appointed' (not by voting, but

with general approbation) by the churches in Greece to accompany

the apostle in conveying their gifts to the poor saints in Judea,

2 Cor.8:19. See CHOOSE, ORDAIN."

     The NT I repeat was not written in classical Greek, but the

common every day Greek of the average citizen of the Roman

Empire, who did not speak classical Greek.

     We need to be very careful when trying to understand certain

Greek words. Many of them can have various meanings and uses. The

common Greek of the NT was not unlike our common English, many

words had more than one use and not always the original stem

meaning. So it was also in the Hebrew language.

     I hope the following will clearly show you the truth of what

I am stating.  The Church of God Seventh Day in their July-August

1996 edition of The Bible Advocate, under the question and answer

section, had this to say concerning "Is a cross a stake or

a tree?"

     ".......In the English language, a stake or a cross in not a

tree. But we are dealing with basic Hebrew and Greek words

translated into modern English, which, by the way, has changed

tremendously since the King James Version was published. Let's

deal with the Hebrew word for tree first.

     The basic word transliterated ets is a general word for

anything made of wood. It may be a literal tree, a stick of wood,

a shepherd's staff, a stake, or gallows. Read the book of Esther,

particularly the story of Haman. The gallows he arranged to be

built was called an ets.

     So to say that a cross or stake is not a tree is incorrect.

The Hebrew word may mean those objects as well.

     From the Greek word for tree (xulon) we derive our word

xylophone, which means 'wood sound.' The bars are made of wood

and create a pleasing sound when the right person plays them.

This word helps us see that the word for tree in Greek is a

general word for something made of wood. So when the author of

Acts uses xulon, he may not be talking of a literal tree. 

     In fact, Paul and Silas were put in 'trees' in the prison at

Philippi. The usual translation there is 'stocks.' Again, the

Greek word is xulon.

     Interestingly, Luke, who also wrote Acts, uses the word

generally translated 'cross' when telling what Christ was killed

on. In Acts, Luke always uses the general word meaning 'tree' or

'wood.'

     The Greek word translated 'cross,' as best we can translate

it, originally meant 'stake.'  The history of crucifixion usually

says the earliest crucifixions were done on a tree or on a stake.

But the Romans had started using a cross before the time of

Christ. Again, no one seems to know for certain the exact type

used for the crucifixion of Jesus.

     The common forms were the Tau, 'T' shaped, one called the

St.Anthony, 'X' shaped, and the Latin cross traditionally shown

in paintings. One writer of the nineteenth century also listed

one called the 'tree,' shaped like 'Y.' I have not been able to

verify this elsewhere.

     But the exact shape of the cross doesn't matter. It was

something made of wood, thus fulfilling both the Hebrew and Greek

words used for that instrument of death........" (Paul E.

Heavilin).

     Ah, words can have an original basic root meaning but can

also in the process of time be used in a way that does not carry

its original literal root meaning.

     Let me further illustrate with the word "Rock."  From Vine's

Expository Dic. of Old and New Test.Words, page 208, we read: 

"ROCK sur...,'rock; rocky wall; cliff; rocky hill; mountain;

rocky surface; boulder.' .....Other than in names of places and

persons, the word appears 70 times in biblical Hebrew and in all

periods. First, sur means 'rocky wall' or 'cliff.' This is

probably what Moses struck in Exod.17:6.....Thus God hid Moses 

in a cleft of the 'rocky cliff' (Exod.33:21-22).

     Second, the word frequently means 'rocky hill' or

'mountain.'  This emphasis clearly emerges in

Isa.2:10,19.....(Num.23:9)......(Deut.32:13)……(Ps.61:2)......

(Job 14:18......(Job 19:24).

     Third, sur can mean 'rocky ground' or perhaps a large flat

'rock.'......(2 Sam.21:10; cf. Prov.30:19).

     Fourth, in some passages the word means 'boulder,' in the

sense of a rock large enough to serve as an

altar......(Judg.6:21).

     'Rock' is frequently used to picture God's support and

defense of His people (Deut.32:15). In some cases this noun is an

epithet, or meaningful name, of God (Deut.32:4), or of heathen

gods:'For their rock(god) is not as our Rock(God).....'

(Deut.32:31).

     Finally, Abraham is the source (rock) from which Israel was

hewn (Isa.51:1)."

     Ah, ah, do you see?  The Hebrew word sur has the basic root

meaning of literal rock, but was also used in a NONE LITERAL

SENSE!  In a way that kept the underlying strength of the word,

its intrinsic quality, but not to be taken in its first literal

meaning. God's support and defense of His people is a "rock." 

Used also as a meaningful name of God.

     Another example is the Greek word gennaoo.  See what Vine's

Dic. says on this word, page 57.

     It is used as "to beget."  It is used of conception.  The

word is used as "to be born."  Used for literal conception and

literal birth.  That is the basic root meaning, yet as Vine's

Dic. points out, the word is used allegorically and

metaphorically. In those instances(some given in Vine's) it would

be ridiculous to take the word in its original literal root

meaning.

     Now back to the word cheirotoneo. 

     Did you note in Vine's Dic. quoted above, the part I said

was of important interest?  I have never seen this quoted by

anyone who wants to hit you between the eyes with its root

meaning in classical Greek.

     Quote from Vine's:  "....to stretch forth the hand.....is

not to be taken in its literal sense; it could not be so taken in

its compound procheirotoneo, "to choose before, since it is 

said of God, Acts 10:41...."

     Now please turn to Acts the tenth chapter and verse

forty-one.

     I told you that the word cheirotoneo is only used TWICE in

the NT. Used on its own that is true. But it is used for a THIRD

time in the above verse of Acts ten. Not on its own but with the

prefix "pro" - before. Hence the statement by Vine's

aforementioned.

     

     Acts ten and verse forty tells us that God - the Father -

raised Jesus from the dead and showed Him openly....."Not to all

the people, but unto witnesses CHOSEN BEFORE  of God...."  

It was the Father in heaven who had already ELECTED and 

pre-determined WHO the individuals would be to see Jesus after 

His resurrection! The Father had pro-cheirotoneo.

     Now ask yourself this question: Did the Father stretch forth

or raise His hand - literally - as He chose or elected these

persons? I think not! He certainly had no need to do so, for who

is greater in authority in the universe? Did He vote with

Himself? Such thoughts are ridiculous! Maybe He voted with Jesus

before His death or right after His resurrection on the matter?

Yet, that does not hold up in the light of John 10:30 and other

scriptures that show Christ and the Father have complete

agreement at all times. There is never any voting among

themselves.

     Then if you want to argue they did vote, how can two vote on

anything and have a majority that wins the day? Oh, I guess if

you are not a part of the Church of God (and Protestant or Roman

Catholic) you could say the person of the Holy Spirit would cast

the vote to decide the issue. Those of us in the Church of God do

not have that answer!

     

     So the Father would not vote with Himself, He would not vote

with Christ. Perhaps the Father voted with the holy angels or the

twenty four elders in heaven. Maybe the "stretching forth the

hand" and voting on who would see Jesus after His resurrection

was done in heaven by the heavenly host.

     I guess it could have been possible, if you want to argue

for the sake of arguing, and want to believe this word

cheirotoneo must be taken in its literal original classical

Greek meaning at all times.

     Let us suppose this voting and literal raising of the hand

did take place in heaven above with the Father and angelic

beings. My next question to you is: WHO would have the final

authority on the issue? There can be no other answer but the

Father would!

     So voting would be redundant and a waste of time in this

case.  True, God is the author of the proverb: "In the multitude

of counsellors there is safety" (Prov.11:14). But seeking input

and counsel on something is not the same by any means as taking 

a democratic vote to let the majority rule.

     God the Father is always the majority!

     The simple logical answer to Acts 10:41 is that the Father

elected, chose, who would see the risen Christ, without any

stretching forth the hand in a vote by anyone. 

     

     The word cheirotoneo as used in the common Greek of the NT

should then be understood as meaning simply, appointed, chosen,

elected, just as the scholars of 1611 translated it, without any

bearing on literally stretching forth the hand in a vote.

     Some, wanting to hold to their position, will not agree, but

will continue to insist voting was carried on in 2 Cor.8:19 and

Acts 14:23.

     Back we go, first to 2 Cor.8:19. 

     

     The "chosen" one here had to do with somebody helping carry

the "gift" of material help to those less fortunate. It had

NOTHING to do with appointing, electing, or choosing a spiritual

elder/overseer in any church, or electing a person to "serve

tables," deacon - as in Acts 6. Please see such Bible

Commentaries as Barnes' Notes on the NT.

     True, the choosing of this person had to be done in some

way. Yet the way it was accomplished is not given to us.

     This is clearly a "none essential" matter of church

administration of physical things. And in such cases how it is

done and decided is left to us, it is our liberty within the law

of God as we have discussed in part one of this study. But as I

have shown above the word itself does not mean we are to

dogmatically take it in any literal sense of voting by

the stretching forth of the hand.

     Acts 14:23.  I have before proved that the contextual "they"

of this verse are the two apostles - Paul and Barnabas. For those

who unrelentingly cling to a voting here taking place, I have no

difficulty in "going along." Because the context plainly shows it

was Paul and Barnabas who would be voting or agreeing (with a

stretching forth of the hand - a hand shake, as we would do it

today) with the final authority vested in them (as we have seen

also in Acts 6) as to who would be appointed elders in the

churches under discussion.

     Let me try to make this plain with my own example. I had

been trained under the Worldwide Church of God (their programs)

back in the 60's, for the ministry/eldership. I was one of the

right hand men to two local ministers during that time. I left

that organization in 1972. By 1979 I was spiritual leader of two

congregation, one near Toronto, and the other situated in

Rochester, NY state. In 1981 I was contacted by Fred Coulter who

had left the WCG in 1979 and founded the Biblical Church of God

in California. He made (in 1982) an early summer visit to Ontario

and the two churches mentioned above, staying with my wife and I.

     He apparently went to both congregations(unknown by me)

stating to them he felt I should be ordained to the eldership. I

was told later, both congregations agreed. Then he came to me,

telling me what I've just related to you, and asking if I would

accept being ordained to the spiritual overseership in the body

of Christ. I said I would. 

     He made it quite clear to me that he would have to go back

to the elders(about 10 at the time) in the BCG organization, and

obtain their consent and final approval. If they all agreed (put

forth the hand - shook hands on it) then I would be ordained at

the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall of 1982. If they did not

agree, I would not be ordained to the ministry.

     They did agree and  I was officially appointed/ordained by

Fred and another elder in St.Louis.

     The proverb "In the multitude of counsellors there is

safety" was applied. The two local congregations were taken into

confidence by Fred concerning my ordination, yet the final and

last word on the matter came from the elders - plural.

     I believe that if Mr.Difley and Mr.Edwards had only ever

experienced true scriptural "church government" in a local

autonomous congregation with a number of spiritual

overseers/elders present, all having equal authority in essential

matters, and where the brethren were all respected as having

different gifts from the Holy Spirit, they would have no problem

with what I have stated above.

     I personally have seen this scriptural truth being practiced

in some Jamaican Church of God, Seventh Day congregations in

south Florida, with wonderful results.

     Ah, I did "hold your horses" and I did not gallop off into

the sunset.

     J.D.

     In Titus 1:5 we read.......The Greek word here used for

appoint is the verb "kathistemi" and literally means "to stand

down." ....... Some translations of the word include: "(to)

place," "set down," "set in order," "set over," "constitute,"

"make," and even "the significance of bringing to (a certain

place)." We can see that it is not as definite in meaning as

simply "ordain" or "appoint" in the English language, and does

not imply how it should be done........

     "appointed." The Greek word is "diatasso" ....... It does

not necessarily mean that the one sent to do the appointing does

the actual work, but rather that the one sent makes sure the work

is done.......

     It now becomes clear in Titus 1:5, and we can justly say,

that Paul was telling Titus that he should make certain that

elders were selected, not that Titus was necessarily to make the

selections unilaterally. Do you suppose that we may also assume

that the congregations did the actual appointing even as other

scriptures indicate? .......

     MY ANSWER:

     Concerning this Greek word "kathistemi."  How you understand

"to place" - "set down" - "set in order" - "set over" etc. with

the English words ordain or appoint is really a matter of

semantics. I have no trouble thinking "set over" is the same as

"appoint." Yes, true "setting someone over" or "appointing them

over" can be done officially in different ways.

     As shown before, there is no concrete "formula" in baptizing

someone. Certain things are mentioned in the word, but very few.

So it is with "setting over" or "appointing" elders. The word

itself does not as Mr.Difley correctly says, "imply how it should

be done."

     Clearly it was something Paul instructed Titus to do. We

have as we have seen, a few examples that prayer, fasting, laying

on of hands and some kind of commending to the Lord was done in

appointing persons to such a duty in the church. The exact

formula of "setting down" these men is obviously left up to every

congregation to "set in order." A pun on words was intended. 

     This is the liberty in Christ all elders and local

congregations have been given.

     I am not sure what J.D. is driving at concerning the word

"diatasso" for it seems irrelevant to our main topic. You may

like to read what Vine's Expository Dictionary has to say about

it, page 34. It is a strong word, and one thing is certain, Titus

was being told by Paul to fulfil this directive that is found in

verse five.

     The argument that Titus did not do the work, was not

involved in selecting the elders or had the congregations appoint

the elders, is weak and hard to justify in the light of

contextual study, not only in this chapter of Titus but also the

entire NT. 

     If by saying "not that Titus was necessarily to make the

selections unilaterally" we mean, to act as some little pompous

vain, all knowing, self-sufficient, arrogant dictatorial

demagogic elder, then as the reader should well understand from

this study, I completely agree! But if by using the word

"unilaterally" we are trying to say Titus did not have the

final authority and last word on who would be elders, if we are

saying the final authority lay in the hands of the congregations,

then I could not disagree more!

     My disagreement to this notion comes from the following

points: 1. The internal evidence of verse five itself. Crete is a

small island in the Mediterranean, churches had obviously been

established but no spiritual elders had been officially

appointed. If that had been the case, Paul would not have left

Titus there to undertake the task. He could have easily asked the

existing elders to ordain other elders. Paul also felt it

necessary to inform Titus about the basic qualifications that

elders were to have in order to be appointed as elders, also

showing this was a new undertaking and the churches on Crete

did not as yet have any elders.  2. Paul gives the qualifications

for eldership to Titus. Not one word is said to him about passing

this information on to the membership of the churches, because it

would be them and not him, who would do the electing and have

the final authority on the matter. I just cannot see something as

important as appointing spiritual overseers/elders in the

churches, being completely ignored by Paul in every letter

(especially those of Timothy and Titus - letters to other elders)

of his, IF SUCH AN APPOINTMENT AND FINAL AUTHORITY 

WAS TO COME FROM THE MEMBERSHIP.

     Surely such a serious election of duty would be given some

space, somewhere in the NT, with careful instructions to the

church membership as to "what to look for" in choosing elders, if

it was they and not the existing elders who were to have the last

word. Paul gave detailed instructions on this matter to TWO

individual persons - Timothy and Titus, yet never to a

congregation. Even when instructing Timothy and Titus on the

subject, he never as much as even hints to them that they must

pass this teaching on to the membership, as it would be they, the

congregation, who would have "authority" over the ordaining of

elders.

     Let me remind you if Acts 6 rushes back into your thoughts,

and you have forgotten what I've shown on that section before.

Acts 6 was the choosing or appointing of men to "serve tables" -

physical duties only in the church. Even then the apostles/elders

had the last word for it is written, "that we may appoint over

this business."  Acts 6 had nothing to do with electing spiritual

elders.   3. If it was the churches/congregations of Crete that

were to do the "actual appointing" and not Titus, Paul could have

easily written: "For this cause I left you in Crete, that you

should set in order the things that are left undone, and tell the

churches to appoint elders in every city, as I have instructed

you." Or "......have the assemblies ordain elders in each

church....." Or ".....when the churches come together, instruct

them to elect elders for each city...." Paul had all these Greek

words at his disposal, but he did not use them!

     The internal evidence both from Titus 1:5 and its context,

the letters to Timothy and the whole NT, shows clearly that the

final authority, having the last word, on who will be appointed

as spiritual overseers and even deacons, lies in the hands of the

existing elders (perfectly elders - plural, but in the unusual

case of Crete, elder - Titus, as there were no other elders in

the churches on Crete at the time Paul was instructing him).

     What do you think of the duty of Elder, someone who is a

spiritual overseer in a church or churches? Is it "no big deal"

to you? Is it "well anyone can do it"?  How do you read the NT 

my friend? If having elders in the church is really "nothing to get

excited about" to you, then why do they have to meet such high

qualifications as taught by Paul in his letters to Timothy and

Titus? Why then does James tell us. "My brethren, be not MANY

TEACHERS, knowing that we shall receive the greater

judgment" (James 3:1)? 

     The word of God powerfully proclaims that MOST should not

set themselves up in any type of official spiritual leadership

over others, for it is an awesome responsibility to do so, and

such persons will come under greater judgment from the Lord.

     

     For me to think that Titus would walk into a church on

Crete, say to the congregation, "Well now, you must elect

spiritual elders, I'm having nothing to do with it. I'm off to

another church, and will look forward to seeing your elders 

when I come back" JUST BLOWS MY MIND!

     To imagine Titus going to all the churches in every city on

Crete and saying the same thing......well I just cannot think

that a dedicated understudy to Paul, would do anything remotely

as irresponsible as that!  Titus was the ONLY ELDER on Crete, 

and to contemplate the idea that he would not have been personally

involved with the electing of spiritual elders - the very first

elders in the churches - is not worthy of consideration.

     Further, if it was the congregations who actually did the

appointing, THEN WHY DID PAUL NEED TO LEAVE TITUS 

IN CRETE?  He wanted Titus to be with him - see chapter 3:12,13. 

Paul could have said: "Titus come to me. I will write a letter for all 

the churches on Crete, telling them to ordain elders, and giving them

the guidelines for the needed qualifications to such a duty." 

Or, "Titus tell the congregations to appoint elders, that's their

responsibility, but you come to me."

     Paul never said any such thing to Titus or any other elder.

Nothing remotely close to this can be found anywhere in the NT.

     

     Do you FEAR AND TREMBLE before the word of God? Do you 

cry out like David did to the Lord that you might know your errors,

wrong ways, and false ideas?

     I appreciate the truths J.Difley and N.Edwards have come to

see. I understand very well the many spiritual darknesses they

were held captive to while in the WCG. Yet I fear that with their

new found freedom, they may if not very careful, jump from one

frying pan into another frying pan with as many misconceptions as

the first one.  

     Titus 1:5 is NO EVIDENCE (without reading into it, and

taking liberties with it) to support the idea that the churches

of Crete appointed their own elders APART FROM and 

INDEPENDENTLY of, the authority of Titus, the only elder on 

the island, and the one Paul had left there to "set in order the things 

left undone (mrg.reading) and ordain elders in every city."

     As to Mr.Difley's statement "even as other Scriptures

indicate" my reply is: WHAT OTHER SCRIPTURES? Please show 

me just ONE NT Scripture that clearly, plainly, and simply, gives the

teaching or example, that a local church congregation has the

final authority and last word, on appointing spiritual elders,

over and above any existing elders.

     

     If it was the elders of Acts 6 that had the last word and

final authority as to who would "serve tables" - who would be

official servers/deacons - serve in physical matters in the

church, then surely it would be the elders who would have the

final say and authority in appointing men to the higher spiritual

duty of church overseer. 

     

     Those are the major difficulties I have with John Difley's

paper called "BY WHAT AUTHORITY?"

     For the most part I am in full agreement with the rest of

his article.

     It has taken me much longer and a lot more space to answer

the above arguments than I first thought it would. But as this

topic seems to be at present, upper-most in the minds of many who

have recently left the WCG, I felt a complete and detailed answer

was justified.

     I have decided to answer some arguments as put forth by

Norman Edwards in his paper called "How Does the Eternal Govern

Through Humans?" in a yet THIRD section to this work on 

"CHURCH GOVERNMENT."

        

            This second part written August 1996

      (all Scripture quotations from the KJV and NKJV)

All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,

e-mailed, and distributed, as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts

nothing will be changed without his consent.

………………..