NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT #5

NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  #5

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

Part Three

by

Keith Hunt

Mr.Norman Edwards has written an interesting and edifying paper

entitled "How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?" For the

most part, as much as 90% I would estimate, I have no problem,

and would agree with what he states. I do take issue with some of

his comments. If in any way I am not understanding correctly

what he is saying, I apologize.Yet I am hoping my answers will

still be of benefit to those studying this important topic. From

this point on Norman Edwards will sometimes be referred to as

N.E. for short.

N.E.

The Major King James Translation Errors

"Ordination" Doctrine Forced into Bible. Most people understand

an "ordination" to be a decision made by the Eternal that is

marked here on Earth by a ceremony, or by "the laying on of

hands" or possibly just witnessed by believers. You cannot find

this in an original-language Bible. What is the Greek word for

ordain? There is no word! There are 13 different Greek words that

are occasionally translated "ordain" in the King James Version.

Every one of these Greek words is usually translated as some

other English word. For example, the KJV Mark 3:14 says:

"He ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he

might send them forth to preach." The Greek poieo is translated

"ordain" here but it is a very general word used over 500 times,

usually translated "do" or "make." The Greek cannot mean a

ceremony or laying on or hands. "He made twelve" - that is all.

Some of the other words translated "ordain" do have a meaning

closer to "mark out publicly" or "to arrange," but none of

them have a meaning anywhere close to the Greek hagiazo which

means "to set apart for a holy purpose."

You can easily verify these facts with a Strong's or Young's

concordance. The invention of the "ordination" doctrine is also

evident in the Old Testament where 11 different Hebrew words are

occasionally translated "ordain." Many "church government" ideas

crumble when you realize that the concept of an "ordained

ministry" is simply not in the Bible.

MY ANSWER

     True, in a "religious" context, most people do understand

the word ordination to mean a ceremony of some kind and type. 

But to say that ceremony is a "decision made by the Eternal that is

marked here on Earth" is another question all together. Because

men may claim such a thing does not make it so. Jesus said many

would claim Him as "Lord, Lord" - they would claim they were

Christians, yet would not do what He taught. And on the day of

reckoning Christ will say to them, "depart from me, you that work

lawlessness."

     Many things are done "in the name of God" - yet the truth of

the matter is, God is NOT IN THEM AT ALL!

     As I showed in part two of this study, an ordination

service/ceremony of and by itself does not make a man a true

minister/elder/overseer of the Eternal.

     Yes, if you are looking for some special Greek word that

signifies "ordination ceremony" as we English think of the words

in a religious context, you will not find it anywhere in the

Bible!

The Greek words sometimes translated as ordain in the KJV, DO NOT

WITHIN THEMSELVES, intrinsically carry any meaning of "ceremony."

     Now, by itself, what does that prove? Does it prove ANYTHING? 

The question is not really the inherent meaning of these Greek words, 

for several Greek words used in connection with "ceremony" do not 

carry ceremony within them, but the question is: Can we show from the 

Bible that the Eternal approves or dis-approves of His church having 

ceremonial consecration, "setting apart" - ordination services for men 

called and chosen to His spiritual ministry?

     Let us look at a few other Greek words that we use and think

of as connected with ceremony, yet in truth have nothing to do

with ceremony per se.

     We covered one of these words in part two. The word being

BAPTIZE. In the Greek baptisma as a noun, and baptizoo as a verb.

Both are derived from bapto - meaning to dip. I refer you to such

works as Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words for a complete 

understanding and use of the above.

     What we need to note here is that NOWHERE inherent within

the above words is there ANYTHING to do with "ceremony" - a

"baptismal ceremony" or public service (small or large in numbers

of attendants) of any kind! Is it therefore evil, pagan, sin, or

even wrong, for the Christian Church of God to establish as a

basic tradition, the practice of public baptismal services or

ceremonies?

     I believe most would answer: Of course not! Why is it not

wrong? Because we have Biblical EXAMPLES of public (large and

small gatherings) baptismal services!

John the Baptist in what is recorded for us, did all his

baptizing in the river Jordan, out in public view, with possibly

hundreds of people watching from all walks of life. Jesus was

baptized by John in the river Jordan. with again possibly

hundreds looking on. Three thousand were baptized by the

apostles/disciples on the Day of Pentecost after Peter's

sermon. Surely these baptisms were a public affair.

     There must have been something said and done during those

baptisms. We certainly know something was done, the person being

baptized was put under the water by the person doing the

baptizing. In the examples above where many were being

baptized over a period of hours, there would have been order and

a logical format established. There would have been what we think

and understand in English, as a baptismal service or ceremony

taking place. A ceremony where things were being said and done in

an organized and orderly manner, with others looking on.

     The Christian church has from these and other examples

correctly taught that from a religious theological church

doctrine stance, there is nothing wrong with, and there is

authority from God, to establish a tradition and custom of public

ceremony baptisms, without the need for the word baptism/baptize

to intrinsically mean "ceremony."

     One more word example - the Greek word for marriage. The

noun is gamos, and the verbs are from gameoo etc. See Vine's

Dictionary.

     The noun is usually found with words such as "feast" or

"garment." So we have in the NT "marriage feast." and "wedding

garment."

     There is nothing inherent, inborn, innate, in the word

itself to do with "ceremony." You may want to take a few minutes

or hours and peruse some of the Bible Dictionaries or Hand Books

on the development of marriage ceremonies. You will be amazed at

what you will discover. Obviously the first marriage ceremony was

the simplest in terms of other humans in attendance, as there

were none - only Adam and Eve. But it did not stay that way, in

the process of time many different cultures developed many

different customs of "marriage ceremonies" and "wedding feasts."

     Nothing in the word "marriage" itself establishes such

customs and ceremonies. Not even any direct command from the

Eternal to bring this man and woman together "in the prescribed

ceremonial pattern I give you to follow."

     It "just isn't there folks." You cannot find it in the word

"marriage" nor in any command of instructions from the Eternal.

Nothing about "ceremony" for marriage. Yet, does that mean it is

pagan, or sin, or wrong, for the Christian church to establish a

tradition of performing a marriage ceremony - service for those

called together to be husband and wife?

     No! Of course not! And why does the Christian church believe

it is not wrong to have marriage ceremonies or services? Well,

one very good reason indeed. Jesus (God in the flesh) gave His

approval to man made marriage/wedding feasts and ceremonies,

when He attended one in Cana of Galilee and turned many gallons

of water into the very best of wine, so the attending people

could rejoice.

     Take a few minutes and investigate the traditional Jewish

marriage feast, it is quite revealing.

     There is nothing in the word of God to command us to observe

a marriage in the way the Jews did or do observe it. Nothing in

the word to tell us to do it this or that way either. Nothing in

the word marriage itself to instruct us concerning ceremony. But

it is clear from the examples in the Bible (i.e. marriage feast or

supper of the Lamb Rev.19) that God has approved of His people

establishing public marriage ceremonies, feasts, services, or

whatever you want to call such organized proclamations of

sanctifications to holy consecration.

     So it is with men called, and selected to serve in the body

of Christ. Called to serve in a certain specific function -

either as spiritual overseers - elders or as physical

servers/deacons (and as concerning the physical, women as

deaconesses).

     We have before shown and proved that Acts 6 was some kind 

of physical service - ceremony, done in an open public church setting

to some degree(several elders and disciples involved), with

certain physical things performed. And all this was done to

men who were to be set apart officially for the church, in the

performing of physical duties - to serve tables! If such an

example of ceremony is given concerning the consecration,

appointment, ordination, of men to physical duty within the

congregation, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU SUPPOSE 

THE CEREMONY OF CONSECRATION TO SPIRITUAL 

OVERSEERSHIP SHOULD BE FOR MEN CALLED AND 

PROVED?

     The Christian church as a whole has seen that from the

example of the consecration service - ceremony of Aaron in the 

Old Testament (covered in part two) and that recorded in Acts 

chapter six for deacons, God has given His approval for His NT

church to establish as a traditional custom, an ordination

ceremony/service for those called to be elders or deacons.

     God most certainly does have an appointed, called, elected,

chosen, proved, ordained ministry in the church, the body of

Christ! God certainly does have an appointed/ordained ministry in

the true Church of God. Those ministers have been recognized and

publicly consecrated by other existing elders and disciples. Ones

to come will also be so openly shown to the people and the world.

     The appointed - ordained ceremony of an individual to the

spiritual overseership or deaconship, does not automatically

transform them into a true elder or deacon in the body

of Christ, IF they have not already been living in word and deed

as an elder or deacon. Just as a person receiving their doctor

diploma at an official ceremony, is not a true doctor, if they

have not been living in theory and deed, the qualifications and

standards that are required for being a doctor.

     Doctors are put through the test, in mental theory(study

etc.) and practical work usually as interns before any public

recognition is granted them. This is not done overnight, nor

should it be, because of the grave responsibility put on the

shoulders of those entering the medical profession.

     Similarly, for those who would desire the function of

elder/overseer in the church (which desire is not necessarily

wrong - 1 Tim.3:1), there should be a long time testing and

proving - many years in fact. Paul said the church

servers/deacons should be proved (1 Tim.3:10). If proving was

necessary for them who would serve in physical things, then how

much more do you suppose, is proving necessary for spiritual

elders?

     I tell you that to meet the required qualifications given by

Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for church overseer in

1 Timothy 3, takes MANY years. The very word elder carries with

it the meaning of older. The reader may want to request my

in-depth article called "Qualifications For The Ministry" if they

would like to study this more

     Those who have been ordained to the church eldership and

were not qualified, or did not have the true heart and mind, or

were ordained because of church politics, only prove one thing:

The devil can appear as an angel of light, or can come as a wolf

in sheeps clothing. Men may have been fooled, BUT GOD 

CANNOT  BE!

And the fruits of such a man's ministry will eventually be

revealed, for Jesus said that by their fruits we shall know them.

The true child of God who has his/her nose in the Bible, who

lives and thinks true Christianity, will know who are the true

faithful elders of the Lord.

     Because the homosexual community conducts marriage

ceremonies and ordination to the ministry services for its

followers, does this mean the true body of Christ cannot

do likewise? I guess not!

     The word of the Eternal, not by any specific word with some

special inherent meaning, BUT BY CLEAR EXAMPLE (Lev.8; 

Mark 3:13-14; Luke 612,13; Acts 6:1-7; 14:23; Titus 1:5-9; 

1 Tim.5:22) teaches us that it is appropriate, fitting, relevant, and

correct, for the Church of God to practice the public

acknowledgment that men have been appointed/ordained to serve 

as elders in the body of Christ.

N.E.

Ministers and Deacons Not Different. They are both servants. 

Most KJV uses of the word "minister" are translated from the Greek

diaakonos (noun) or the diakoneo (verb meaning "to minister").

All occurrences of deacon and deaconess are translated from

these same words - the New Testament writers could not possibly

have had two "offices" in mind and then used an identical word

for both of them! How could you "raise someone in rank" from a

diakonos to a diakonos? King James 1 needed to justify his church

offices from the Bible so his translators supplied him what he

needed. Furthermore, diakonos, does not imply any kind of

elevated or ecclesiastical position, but means a real working

servant and is so translated many times: "but the servant who had

drawn the water knew [that it was created by a miracle]"

(John 2:9). Diakonos could not mean a "teacher" in the

congregation because it is used to describe women which were

forbidden to teach (1 Tim 2:12). Martha "served" the

Messiah (John l2:2) and Phebe was a "servant of the Church'' (Rom

16:1). The Scriptures do not support the traditionally taught two

classes of people: the "ministry" and the "lay members." (The

latter term is not found even in the KJV.) Had the Greek diakonos

always been translated "servant," people would have understood

the Messiah's organization much better.

MY ANSWER

     Ministers and Deacons are not different...... well, in one

way. Yet they are different! But then again they are not

different. Seems like I am contradicting myself doesn't it? All a

little confusing to you? Hang on, hold your horses, don't gallop

away into the sun-set. l will fully explain, and I hope make it

quite clear.

     Many will no doubt think this Greek word diakonos - diakoneo

is used dozens of times, all over the place, in the NT. That is

not the case!

     They are used quite a number of times, about 65 times

altogether. Then the Greek words——

doulos/doulia/douluo/doulon/douloo also translated serve/servant,

are used even more times in the NT. See the Englishman's Greek

Concordance pages 145, 163, 164.

     Here is what the Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary has

to say concerning the word "deacon" on page 147.

“……diakonos.........primarily denotes a 'servant,' whether as

doing servile work, or as an attendant rendering free service,

without particular reference to its character. The word is

probably connected with the verb diookoo, ' to hasten after,

pursue' (perhaps originally said of a runner). It occurs in the

NT of domestic servants, John 2:5,9; the civil ruler, Rom.13:4;

Christ, Rom.15:8; Gal.2: 17; the followers of Christ in relation

to their Lord, John 12:26; Eph.6:21; Col.1:7; 4:7; the followers

of Christ in relation to one another, Matt.20:26; 23:1; Mark

9:35; 1 0:43; the servants of Christ in the work of preaching and

teaching, 1 Cor.3:5; 2 Cor.3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph.3:7; Col.1:23,25;

1 Thes.3:2; 1 Tim.4:6; those who serve in the churches, Rom.16:1

(used of a woman here only in the NT); Phil.1: 1; 1 Tim.3: 8,12;

false prophets, servants of Satan, 2 Cor.11: 15. Once diakonos

is used where, apparently, angels are intended, Matt.22:13; in

v.3 where men are intended, doulos is used.

     Diakonos is, generally speaking, to be distinguished from

doulos, 'a bondservant, slave'; diakonos views a servant in

relationship to his work; doulos views him in relationship to his

master. See, e.g., Matt.22:2-4; those who bring in the

guests(vv.34,6,8,10) are douloi; those who carry out the king's

sentence(v.13) are diakonoi.

     Note: As to synonymous terms, leitourgos denotes 'one who

performs public duties'; misthios and misthotos, 'a hired

servant'; olketes, 'a household servant'; huperetes, 'a

subordinate official waiting on his superior' (originally an

under-rower in a war-galley); therapon, 'one whose service is

that of freedom and dignity.' See MINISTER, SERVANT.

     The so-called 'seven deacons' in Acts 6 are not there

mentioned by that name, though the kind of service in which they

were engaged was of the character of that committed to such."

     End quote from Vine.

     I gave you the full quotation from Vine's. 

     The word diakonos (the verb is diakoneo) is, I will call it,

an UMBRELLA word, under which several persons shelter, a tent

type of umbrella. The following diagram I believe will illustrate

the truth of what Vine's Dictionary brought out.

                   D  I  A  K  O  N  O  S

    

_____________________________________________________________

Domestic/Civil Ruler/Disciples/Christ/Teachers/Servers/Angels

     The umbrella word diakonos......C O V E R S.....all of the

above people and spirit beings, BUT all of the above persons

though the same diakonos in the meaning of servers, are DIFFERENT

from each other in function and even in authority. It is

something like saying: All Californians are Americans, but not

all Americans are Californians.

     A civil ruler, gudge, police officer, etc. is a diakonos but

his function and authority is quite DIFFERENT from the domestic

servant diakonos. They are both diakonos - both the same in one

sense, yet both different in function and responsibilities.

     The angelic beings are diakonos - servers, yet their

function and authority is NOT the same, it is different from the

function and authority of civil rulers.

     Jesus Christ is a diakonos. He serves also(one function is

as our High Priest, interceding for us). His function and

authority is not to be compared to the function and authority of

domestic servants.

     Satan the devil also has diakonos members in his band of

followers, they appear as the diakonos of righteousness, but in

fact are the diakonos of evil - the Devil himself

(2 Cor.11:13-15). In no way is the function and authority of

Satan's diakonos to be compared to the function and authority of

the disciples/diakonos of Jesus Christ.

     THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIAKONOS! 

All are "diakonos" but not all function the same, not all even have 

the same authority! Jesus is a diakonos (servant), but His function

and authority is higher than any other except the heavenly

Father. The civil ruler diakonos has in his particular functions

certain authority over the diakonos of the followers of Christ.

Try saying he does not if you are hauled before the courts

because you broke the speed limit law, and see how far it gets

you. The diakonos of Jesus have more authority over spiritual

matters than the un-converted domestic diakonos of the world.

     So it is in the Church, the body of Christ. All in that body

are diakonos - servants in one way or another, but not all

diakonos have the same function, nor even the same authority. 

The seven men chosen to "serve tables" and to see that certain

"widows" were taken care of in physical necessities, spoken 

about in Acts chapter six, were given a particular function and 

with that function, a certain authority. It was given to them by the

apostles/elders and the church. They had the authority to

literally hand out, as they deemed proper, physical goods to

members of the church. Someone else from who knows where, 

walking into the store house of the church and deciding to take 

what  he wanted to give to whom he wanted, could be stopped and 

prevented from doing so by any one of the seven. For it was THEY 

who had authority over such matters, and functioned in that

administrative duty, and not just "blow Joe" from Tim-buck-too.

     Paul went into some detail concerning all the diakonos

functions in the body of Christ with the church at Corinth. It is

found in 1 Corinthians chapter 12. The eye has a certain function

within the body, even a certain amount of authority over its

function. The foot has function with authority over its duty. The

foot cannot function as an eye, it was not designed to do so, nor

was it given the abilities or gifts to function as an eye. The

foot cannot authorize itself to see. The eyes cannot function as

feet, or claim authority to move down to the ankles and become

feet.

     All the members of the body are "parts" - all serve - all

are in that sense diakonos, but not all are the SAME, there are

DIFFERENCES, otherwise all would be an eye, or all would be 

a foot, or all would be a hand. And if all were a foot or ear or

hand, WHERE WOULD THE BODY BE?

     The Church of God is ONE body - we are ALL servants/servers

- we are all diakonos, but we have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS and 

with those functions goes varying differences of authority.

     If it was not so, then as Paul points out, we would be one

part not many parts, and if we were only one part then there

would be no body. Yet, thankfully as he showed, there are many

members (parts/functions/responsibilities) which make up that one

body.

     As we have previously expounded, there is an eldership

ministry - an eldership/overseeing diakonos in the body of

Christ. And there is also a specific chosen class of individuals

called and appointed, to the function of administrating physical

duties. They are the diakonos of "tables."

     Both classes of elected persons, for basic functions of the

duties they are called and appointed/ordained to do, are servants

- diakonos. Yet, in saying that I still need to emphasis that

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME in 

function or authority.

     Even within the eldership not all function in the same way.

There is differences in the eldership ministry. God inspired Paul

to break it down into various "parts" of that bodily function.

Some were to function as apostles, some as prophets, some as

teachers, and so on (1 Cor.12:28). Apparently by using the words

"first" - "secondarily" - "thirdly" God shows that He gives a

higher function to certain sections of the eldership part of the

body of Christ. I have before proved we are here talking about

function not dictatorial "rank" authority. Nevertheless. we can

see that there are DIFFERENCES even in the overseership of 

the church.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELDERS AND DEACONS

     Surely after all that I have presented in this study so far

of over one hundred pages, the reader can clearly see that the NT

church does have a body of men who have been called by God to be

OVERSEERS, GUIDES, SHEPHERDS. SPIRITUAL ELDERS 

AND LEADERS over the rest of the membership in the body of Christ. 

Surely a simple reading of the NT will give the truth of the matter on 

that understanding. If some still want to argue to the contrary, all I

can say is that if they are correct, then words of the NT do not mean 

what they say and do not say what they mean. So nothing in the NT 

is reliable. But that is not the case. The NT is quite clear, there is 

an eldership ministry function within the Church of God.

     We see from the first chapters of the book of Acts, HOW that

ministry did function. Up to the beginning of chapter six the

apostles - the appointed elders - LED the way, guided the way,

taught the way. From the last part of chapter four and the

beginning of chapter five, also what the apostles said to the

disciples in the first few verses of chapter six, it is clear

that the elders functioned BOTH in the overseership of the

spiritual and the physical. They had jurisdiction and authority

over both aspects of the church - the spiritual religious and the

physical administrative.

     When the trouble erupted between the disciples over the

neglect of certain widows (chapter six) and the apostles made 

the decision as what to do about it, namely, others were to "take

over" and be responsible for this physical duty, they were in

effect handing over, delegating part of their overseership to

others. As Jesus once said concerning the Father and Himself,

"the one sent is not greater than he who sent him." And on

another occasion "The Father is greater than I."

     The elders, in delegating other individuals to the function

of official servers of physical concerns in the church, did not

in so doing, make those persons greater in function and authority

than themselves. In fact the ones sent to function cannot be as

great in function and authority as the senders, especially as

this was a function to physical duties only.

     Was there a DIFFERENCE still existing between the diakonos

of the apostles/elders and the diakonos of those who were to

"serve tables"? Oh, you bet there was!

     The diakonos of the seven were to meet many of the same

qualifications that Paul later laid down for the men who would be

overseers in the church(1 Tim.3). And why not! The apostles were

handing over HALF THE DUTY THEY HAD BEEN DOING! 

It would have been quite irresponsible for the apostles, not to have 

done it the way they did. A high and important administration duty

falling under the total functioning of the elders work, demands a

highly qualified person.

     Yet, you will notice in Acts chapter six and also in 1

Timothy 3 that those individuals chosen for physical duties DID

NOT HAVE TO TEACH OR TAKE CARE OF THE CHURCH IN 

ANY SPIRITUAL OFFICIAL WAY, AS DID THE "EPISKOPOS" - 

OVERSEER, OF 1 TIM.3:1.

     Paul makes a deliberate Greek word DIFFERENCE in 

1 Timothy 3. He gives the specific qualifications for those who 

will be "episkopos" in the church, who will as this study has before

shown, be overseers, elders, spiritual guides and leaders, those

who will shepherd the flock. Then in verse eight he gives the

qualifications for servers - diakonos - deacons. The context must

show a difference between the two or Paul is needlessly repeating

himself. And there are differences, namely the two most important

ones I have given before - teaching and care of the church (verses

2, 5).

     The context of 1 Timothy 3 leaves us in no doubt that Paul

was specifically talking about TWO very important, nay, about the

two MOST important functions in the working church, that of

spiritual elder and that of physical administrator (or deacon as

most churches call them). Any other explanation falls under the

weight of NT evidence, for if Paul was addressing ALL saints, all

Christians, throughout the church, he could have used words such

as "saint" or "church" or "brethren." Again if he was addressing

all the saints to encourage all of them to attain these qualifications 

and goals, then the whole body would be an eye or a nose or a foot, 

and where would the body be then?

     The apostles had decided the physical affairs that they had

been administrating as part of their complete shepherding of the

church, should be handled by qualified persons. Individuals who

would be called and elected and whom the elders would

"appoint over this business" (as we saw in part two of this

study). They were chosen to "serve tables" only - serve in

physical matters. They did not have to as an official function

preach, teach, or do any spiritual caring or guiding of the

church, for that the apostles/elders would retain as their number

one concern and responsibility.

     THAT MY FRIEND IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 

THOSE APPOINTED TO THE SPIRITUAL ELDERSHIP AND 

THOSE APPOINTED TO PHYSICAL SERVINGSHIP—

DEACONSHIP.

     There is a difference between ministers and deacons (as the

words are customarily used in today's popular church language).

     So there will not be any misunderstanding, I refer you back

to my earlier pages in the first section and main body of this work. 

On a personal basis, everyone in the body of Christ is free

to spread the gospel in letters, written articles, speech, and

whatever the Spirit of God leads one to do, large or small, 

near or far. This is what Stephen and Philip (two of the seven

appointed to serve tables) did. Many today call it "personal

evangelism." And that is precisely what it is. But they were not

called to officially function as elders to "take care of the

church of God."

     Paul said in the context of deaconship to Timothy, "they

that have diakonos well, purchase to themselves a good

degree...."(1 Tim.3:13).

     The Greek for "good degree" means actually "a step" such 

as in a stair case. Certainly such individuals will go on to

perfection as all Christians should strive for, but also will earn 

respectability from fellow humanity.

     It will also be a step, if the Lord calls and appoints a

man, to the eldership. Many a fine elder has come to that

appointment through first learning to be faithful in the

physical things, growing in grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus,

and after being proved and tested, given the responsibility to

spiritually "take care of the church of God."

     Ministers and Deacons are not different, then again

Ministers and Deacons are different. No it is not a contradiction. 

Now I hope you know and understand that both  are correct.

     Mr. Edwards writes: "The Scriptures do not support the

traditionally taught two classes of people: the 'ministry' and

the 'lay members.' "

     That is indeed very true! What the NT does teach and support

is one body of diakonos persons divided into FOUR classes. The

first class is really a class by itself apart from the other

three classes, which are joined into one diakonos to and under

the  first diakonos. Really got you wondering now haven't I.

     Christ Jesus is the first diakonos - servant - perfect,

sin-less, chief Shepherd of the church. He was the first human 

to be raised to eternal life by the Father. He is in a class all by

Himself. Everyone else comes under Him, yet He is willing to 

have them joined to Him, willing to call them His brothers and

sisters. And those brothers and sisters with all their differing

gifts and talents distributed by the Holy Spirit, make up the

varying parts of the "body of Christ" (1 Cor.12). Those parts all

come together as ONE under THREE classes of diakonos - 

servants.

     This clear proof in given throughout the NT by putting

scripture with scripture. Then thankfully this proof is given

very plainly to us in one verse! It's been there all along

friend, I did not put it in your Bible during the night. Will you

believe it? Will you let it teach you the plain truth? The true

Church of God is made up of THREE classes of people!

     Turn to it, and mark it! Philippians chapter one and verse

one!

     This is how the Greek reads: "Paul and Timotheus,

bondmen (doulos) of Jesus Christ, to all the saints (agiois) in

Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, WITH the overseers (episkopois)

AND those who serve (diakonois)."

     CAN THERE BE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING? Paul 

addresses the church at Philippi - addresses them as having 

THREE CLASSES, three basic divisions of functioning people. 

There are the saints, there are the overseers, and there are the 

servers.

     Obviously he contrasts the saints from the servers, and

contrasts them from the overseers. We have seen that all in the

body of Christ come under the umbrella word of diakonos, all in

the body are servants to Christ and to each other. Paul here is

not thinking about that aspect of Christian unity or local church

unity. He is thinking about the basic THREE functioning classes

of people that are within and make up not only the local church

but also the general church.

     There is no other way to understand Paul here, any other way

interprets Paul as repeating himself needlessly, and using

language that would contradict "synonym" use.

     In Paul's mind the church at Philippi consisted of THREE

classes of people that functioned in three ways. There were the

saints in general, who were not functioning as overseers/elders

or deacons. There were overseers/elders who were not functioning

as deacons. And there were servers/deacons who were not

functioning as overseers.

     Here Paul sets the saints in general apart from the

diakonos, showing that there was a class of persons in the church

who functioned in an official appointed way as servers. Why not,

for that official function had been establish by the apostles in

Acts chapter six. Besides that class of persons was also the

official functioning class of elders or overseers, who were

appointed/ordained to "teach" and to "take care of the church 

of God."

     Oh, I better SAY THIS LOUD AND CLEAR, for I know 

some will, even after reading all I have written in the first section 

of this study, run off - gallop away - and claim I am promoting the

teaching of "authoritarian ranks" within the church. NOTHING

COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

     The THREE classes of persons Paul mentions are not ranks,

they are functions! God gives the gifts of those functions to

whom He will. Not everyone gets the same gifts, and no matter

what gift is yours, you are not "greater" than your brother or

sister.

     The fruits of the Spirit ALL CAN HAVE, but the gifts of the

Spirit ARE DIFFERENT from one member to another. There are

differences, not in rank, but in function and responsibility.

     Salvation and the fruits of the Spirit are EQUAL for all.

Every member in the body of Christ is on equal footing and the

same playing field, when it comes to those two things. Salvation

and conversion is very personal for everyone. There is no

physical man between you and God, it is that personal. Entering

the Kingdom is not dependent on any flesh and blood person, it is

you, Christ and the Father. Your REWARD will be given based 

upon what you do with what you have been given.

     Some little old saint that has never functioned as a deacon,

or as an overseer, may very well be given a higher reward in the

Kingdom because they really increased what they were given, and

some overseer or deacon did not, and so will not receive as high

a reward.

     God is completely fair and righteous, all will receive a

reward according to what they have done with what they were

given. Some just do not have the gifts to be an overseer in the

church, or even function as a deacon, but WOW! They are a 

dynamo of a Christian saint, using every gift given them to the 

fullest.

     Another man may have the qualities and gifts to be an elder, 

yet never use those gifts to full potential, or go to sleep on them.

He could end up with a lower reward in the Kingdom than the

dynamo saint.

     All of that being the truth of the matter, which it is, does

not negate the truth that God does still have THREE basic

functioning classes of people in His church - overseers,

deacons, and saints. Not necessarily in that order, as Paul

displayed to the church at Philippi.

     Also remember as we have covered in-depth already, when it

comes to personal evangelism, the door is wide open for any

Christian to walk through and "have at it" using his/her natural

abilities together with God's gifts of the Spirit.

                       TO BE CONTINUED

     ..................................................

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

                    SECOND CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO

           NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER

OFFICIAL FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

A MINISTER/ELDER  AND  DEACON/SERVANT

We have before proved in part one, that the elders of the

church are also the same as the overseers, bishops, shepherds,

and teachers. An appointed elders can be called by the preceding

names. The word "elder" or as we commonly today would say

"minister"(used in the religious community) is an overall

umbrella name, under which lies the names mentioned

above (overseer etc.). The word commonly given to official church

servants - deacon - by most Christian churches, is not an

umbrella name, in the same way "elder" can be. A deacon - servant

of the church in the way Acts 6 appointed is just that - a

servant or deacon, no other names specifically given in the NT.

Their one official function is that of "serving tables" -

physical matters within the church. The eldership ministry in

contrast, is broken down into what we might call sub-functions

under the one name of eldership.

The following will I hope clarify what I have said in simple

diagram form.

ELDERSHIP MINISTRY

SUB-NAMES

overseer, bishop, shepherd, pastor, teacher (as used in the KJV).

MAIN FUNCTIONS

to "give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of

the word" (Acts 6:2,4).

SUB-FUNCTIONS

1. Apostles

2. Prophets

3. Evangelists

4. Pastors/Teachers

(Eph.4: 1 )

DEACON MINISTRY

SUB-NAMES

serve - servant

MAIN FUNCTIONS

to "serve tables" - physical matters (Acts 6:2).

SUB-FUNCTIONS

None

     As before shown, the Elders/Apostles at first in the NT

church had the responsibility of BOTH the spiritual and physical

duties. When this became too much work to handle, they answered

by delegating the physical work of the church to qualified

persons. As the elders were delegating half of their

responsibilities to others, it was naturally logical that such

persons chosen should have nearly all of the same basic

abilities and qualifications that the elders had.

     This we shall clearly see as we look at the following

outline of basic requirements and qualities Paul was inspired to

lay down, for the appointment of Overseers - elders and

Deacons - servants, in his letters to Timothy and Titus.

     The reason as to why, should I believe, be plain to those

who have carefully studied all that has been written by me thus

far.

     Acts the sixth chapter tells us that the apostles believed

their number one function in life was "prayer and to the ministry

of the word." Paul here to Timothy breaks it down further still

into two categories - "able to teach" (or as the Greek reads -

"skilful in teaching") AND in taking "care of the church of God."

     The time involved for a man to qualify in these two skills

alone would require some considerable length of days. That is why

Paul went on to say such a person could not be a "novice" or as

it is in the Greek - "newly planted." They would have to have had

a pretty good duration of time living as a Christian and walking

with God and His word, together with "church community"

experience.

     These two functions as well as prayer, are the MAIN heart

and core of the work of the spiritual eldership ministry. As we

have seen earlier, an elder may also function for a long or short

time as an apostle, or prophet, or evangelist, maybe a

combination of the functions mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.

Nevertheless, an overseer/elder has always to officially be "on

duty" shall we say, as a "skilful teacher" and as someone who

"takes care of the church of God."

     Those two duties "go with the territory" and are "part of

the job" - they "come with the job" as some say.

     But those same two duties DO NOT OFFICIALLY BELONG 

TO THE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY OF DEACONS!

     Persons chosen as official church servers or deacons for

physical duties DO NOT have to be official church "teachers" or

official "taking care of the church" servants in the spiritual

sense.

     Elders must "feed my sheep" spiritually, as Jesus told

Peter. They must "teach" in official church gatherings the word

of God. They must "teach" in ways that are other than private

personal evangelism. I am teaching in writing these study

articles, or bringing a sermon, or conducting a church "bible

study." I am officially obligated by God and the church to teach

in these ways, though not necessarily all of them. A deacon while

functioning in that appointment IS NEVER UNDER ANY OFFICIAL

CHURCH DUTY TO EVER "TEACH" IN THE WAY I HAVE 

JUST DESCRIBED ABOVE.

     If a deacon is invited or requested to preach a sermon,

conduct a church "bible study" or write a spiritual article, he

is not under ANY obligation to accept. He can politely refuse.

His deaconship should never come into question because he refuses

to lead out in official spiritual church functions.

     He was called and chosen to serve in physical matters in the

church and that is where his duty starts and ends. He should be

wonderful at fulfilling those physical duties because he has the

qualifications and the abilities from God to so function. I have

known and talked to some deacons who had been faithfully carrying

out their duties in the church for decades, and who had NO DESIRE

WHATSOEVER to be an overseer/elder or have any official function

in spiritual duties within the congregation. They had no desire

to preach, to teach groups of people, or write any spiritual articles 

for the churches publications. They knew their calling, they knew 

where God had placed them in the body of Christ, they were honest 

enough to "examine themselves." They knew God had not

called them to be elders. They knew God had not given them the

gifts and abilities needed to be spiritual overseers in the church. 

And they were perfectly happy and contented Christians!

     They sure knew, had no bones about it, were quite candid in

admitting, often the first to admit, that THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A DEACON.

     An Elder must take care of the church of God. He is required

to do so, he is obligated to so work. This may call for private

member counselling on many personal problems and troubles in

life, that the individual member requests guidance on, from child

rearing, to marriage difficulties, to sex questions, to financial

matters, to employment decisions, and whatever else the church

member wants to confide in the minister/s. After all the elders

are to be as spiritual fathers (not to be called "father" as a

title) to the members of the congregation. And I have noted that

churches who do have the correct form of NT government, live as a

family, where the elders are highly respected and taken into

great confidence, as the people do want to be cared for in many

ways.

     Sometimes that "taking care of the church" may mean the

elder/s are humble enough to see the personal problems of some

are so large and complicated, that the advice given is for the

member to seek counsel from someone who specifically deals with

and is a certified expert in such matters.

     The duty of a deacon covers no such territory. He is under

no obligation to so counsel with congregation members. If someone

from the church comes to them wanting to pour out all their

nitty-gritty private problems and seeking advice, he can kindly

refuse to hear and send them to the elders.

     Again I have talked to many deacons who have been wise

enough (one of their qualities is wisdom - Acts 6) to realize they

were not called to function as elders, and just did not

have the gifts from the Lord to "take care of the church of God"

in this spiritual way. And believe me it does take special gifts

to care for the church in this manner. The mental stress of

having people confidently share with you their many trials,

tests, and troubles, hoping you will be able to help them, can

put you in the hospital with a nervous break down. I have seen a

few good ministers end up this way. Certainly men who have not

been called, given the gifts, and met the qualifications to be

overseers in the church, should ever try to be one, for it is a

most demanding occupation! Please believe me, as one who speaks

from personal experience.

     It is one reason why James was inspired to write: "My

brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we

shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).

     A minister's life can be very difficult at times, in many

ways, sometimes physically, sometimes spiritually, sometimes both

at the same time. Read again 2 Corinthians chapter eleven and

verses sixteen to twenty-eight. Note verse 28, "Besides those

things that are without, that which comes upon me daily, the care

of all the churches."

OH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERS 

AND DEACONS !

     Then let me say, in the event that some would misunderstand

all I have stated above. If some deacons are gifted, or find

themselves to be gifted in spiritual matters, after being

appointed to function in official physical matters, it will come

out, it will be noticed believe me. Such things can not be hidden

from the elders or from the congregation. If such deacons are

invited to lead in spiritual church matters such as "Bible

studies" etc. they can accept the invitation. It is hoped they

will accept, for in so doing God may be calling them to move into

the eldership ministry. They will need to be trained and proved

to find if this is so and the will of God.

     I have seen this in action also over the years. Some men

have been called from the official deaconship duty into the

official eldership duty in the process of time and experience.

Then on the other hand, I have seen it work this way. A man is

appointed as a deacon, he has met all the requirements to

function in that duty. After a while, the elders as well as the

general membership note that he has some spiritual leadership

abilities. God may be calling him to the eldership. The man

himself is pleased to be given official spiritual church

opportunities, so he and others can see if the eldership ministry

is his ultimate destiny.

     As time goes by he serves in spiritual church programs like

Bible studies, youth evangelism gatherings, and visits to the

homes of the brethren with an elder or elders. He clearly

discovers within himself that although he may have some "talking"

ability and a pretty good understanding of the word of God, the

ELDERSHIP MINISTRY is just not for him! He finds through 

getting his feet wet, he just cannot cut it, just cannot handle the

daily stress and responsibilities of "caring for the church" as

elders must do. He is then quite content and happy to let

everyone know, and once more function in the duties of a deacon

only.

     I have seen this very thing take place among some churches

of God. That is fine, sometimes it takes a little maneuvering

within the body of Christ before we find exactly which part of

the body we are to function as. God places us in the body as it

pleases Him, and in accordance with the gifts and abilities we

have through the Holy Spirit.

     I should also make it plain that a man chosen for the

eldership ministry does not have to be a deacon first. The 12

apostles, Paul, and others in the NT were not deacons(as we think

of deacons today in the church) first, and then later elders.

Many officially appointed elders have never served as officially

appointed deacons, for their qualifications as noted above COVERS

that for deacons, and goes beyond to that of the overseership.

MORE NECESSARY DUTIES FOR MINISTERS - ELDERS

     Before we look at them, somewhat in detail, I think this is

a good place to answer an argument that goes like this: "Timothy

is not called an elder, he may not have been one."

     True, we may not be able to find the words "elder Timothy"

or in any of Paul's letters something like: "Unto Timothy, my son

in the faith and elder in the church of God."

     Yet despite this, I believe the overwhelming internal

evidences of the letters to Timothy, prove beyond a reasonable

doubt, that Timothy was an officially appointed/ordained elder in

the church. The following are the main points to support this

conclusion.

1. 1 Tim.2:9-15. He (Timothy) had obviously from the very wording

by Paul, some authority and enough respect to not only teach the

women this directive of Paul's(inspired by God), but to make sure

it was followed. Surely only an officially appointed elder could

carry this much respected guidance and teaching for all the women

in the church to obey.

2. Chapter 3:1-13. The fact that Timothy is given the

instructions as to what the basic qualifications are for the

overseership and deaconship of the church, naturally implies he

will teach other elders/deacons this truth, and has enough

respect from every quarter of the church to see that it became

established true doctrine. Anything less than Timothy being an

officially appointed elder of the church for such an undertaking,

would to me, be naive to contemplate, especially in the light of

the fact that Paul himself had many who opposed him as his other

letters show.

3. Chapter 3:15. Paul wrote these letters to Timothy "...so that

you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of

God........." Not exactly the same words as he earlier gave to

Timothy concerning one of the requirements for overseership -

namely, an elder is to "take care of the church of God"(verse 5).

But close enough to make this another way of saying the same

thing. Surely an honest mind will see by reading carefully

these two letters, that Paul is instructing Timothy in some

rather fine detail at times, how indeed to "take care of the

church." Instructions that Paul (not having much longer to live

- 2 Tim.4:6-8) thought important for his "son in the faith" to

have, and to be able to pass on to other elders and the church as

a whole.

4. Note verses 6, 11, 13, 16, of chapter four. Timothy was in the

function of teaching the brethren, and in no uncertain manner at

times: "These things command and teach" (verse 11). As before

shown, one of the qualities needed to be an overseer/elder is

that of being a "skilful teacher." From this section alone (never

mind many other passages in these two letters showing the same)

we have proof Timothy was an official elder within the church.

5. Chapter 4:14. The word "presbytery" in the KJV is the Greek

word presbuterion. It is the same Greek word as in Titus 1:5

except for the ending. In Titus it is presbuteros. See the

Englishman's Greek Concordance page 652, for all their places of

use. The Greek Interlinear by Berry, translates presbuterion of 1

Tim.4:14 as "elderhood" while presbuteros in Titus 1:5 is

rendered as "elders."

     I guess we could argue from now until the cows come home, as

to WHEN and for WHAT REASON specifically did the elderhood 

lay hands upon Timothy. Was it at his baptism, at his official

appointment to the eldership ministry, or for some special

undertaking(as with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3)? From the

use of where Paul  puts this sentence - the context it is

enclosed within - having to do with instructing, teaching, even

commanding, the brethren concerning the things so far stated by

Paul, I believe the best understanding would be to take this

"laying on of the hands of the elderhood" at Timothy's official

appointment to eldership.

6. Chapter 5: 17-18. This is obviously concerning spiritual

elders - appointed elders - of the church, who are guiding and

leading in an official way. It is hard to imagine Timothy

having any influence over this matter unless he himself was a

recognized appointed elder.

7. 5:19-21. Here Timothy is instructed to act as "arbitrator"

between church saints and an elder. If the elder is in a

sin(obviously a major one and unrepentant) he is given the

authority to "rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Again, to think under these conditions, that Timothy was 

anything less than an elder himself, to me is absurd.

8. Verse 22. The context is spiritual elders of the church.

Timothy is instructed to be very careful and slow in laying hands

on men to the appointment of elders. There is a certain amount of

blame to be carried by the one or ones doing the appointing, if

the one appointed turns out practicing sins that need rebuking

before all (above verses). Once more showing Timothy was an 

elder with authority to lay hands on and appoint other men to the

eldership ministry.

9. Timothy was to "teach and exhort" (chapter 6:2). The whole

context of this first letter to him is in the form of "teaching"

in an official church format and frame. Elders are to function as

teachers in the church.

10. 2 Tim.4:1-5. Paul urges Timothy to "Preach the word, be

instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with

all longsuffering and doctrine.........do the work of an

evangelist, make full proof of your ministry." Words from Paul

that I cannot reconcile being given to anyone but an elder in the

church. Surely no one believes this is instructions for personal

evangelism that all church members can undertake to do? No, it is

for Timothy and those in his like function today. For those who

are obligated because of the church appointed duty as elder, to

officially teach and preach to the brethren and to the

unconverted world.

     With all the weight of the above ten points it should be

plain to see I believe, for the honest seeker of truth, that

Timothy was indeed an officially appointed Overseer or Elder in

the church of God.

STILL MORE DUTIES FOR THE ELDERSHIP MINISTRY 

THAT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DEACONSHIP MINISTRY, 

IS FOUND IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS.

LET US LOOK AT THEM!

 Qualifications and Requirements of 

 Elders(E)                  

 Deacons(D)

 1 TIMOTHY 3                

 Verse 2

                  

 Blameless = E

 Blameless(v.10)= D                    

 One wife = E                    

 One wife(v.12)= D

 Vigilant ( 1 Pet. 5: 8)= E      

 None = D

 Sober (1 Pet.5:8)= E            

 None = D

 Good behaviour = E              

 None = D

 Hospitable = E                  

 None = D

 Able to teach = E               

 None = D

 Verse 3

 Not given to much wine = E     

 Not given to wine(v.8)= D

 No striker = E                  

 None = D

 Not greedy for money = E        

 Not greedy for money(v.8)= D

 Patient = E                    

 None = D

 No brawler = E                  

 None = D

 Not covetous = E                 

 None = D

 Verse 4

 Rules well house = E             

 Rules well house(v.12)= D

 Verse 5

 Take care of church = E        

 None = D

 Verse 6

 Not novice = E                  

 Be proved first, Acts 6(v.10)= D

 Verse 7

 Good report (character) = E    

 Honest,Spirit,Wisdom(Acts 6)= D

     Note the differences!

     Now please take note of the following:

     Tim.1:18; 2:1,8,9-14; 3:1-15; 4:6,11,13,14,16; 5:1-22;

6;1-2, 17-20.

     Here we find clear and obvious directives and instructions

to a person that must have had the official backing and sanction

of the church, to teach, establish, and some authority to carry

out, or see they were carried forth in practice. Only overseers

or elders would have the respect and authority to so guide and

"care for the church." The SERVANTS (diakonos - deacons) 

appointed to "serve tables" in Acts 6 were never given this kind 

of directive or instructions to serve the brethren, as we find in

the verses above.

     Let's move to 2 Timothy:

     Verse two of chapter two shows Timothy was to train other

men to be "teachers." A deacon is under no obligation to so do,

it is not within their function of serving in physical matters

for the church.

     Verse 24. Paul tells Timothy he is a servant of the Lord. He

uses not the word "diakonos" here but the Greek word doulon -

bond slave. He reminds Timothy of some of the qualities and

qualifications for the eldership - skilful in teaching is one of

them. As we have seen those in the deaconship are under no duty

or obligation to be official teachers in the church, as was

Timothy.

     Chapter 4. The very instructions given in verses two through

five were never given to those who would serve the church in

physical matters only. Official church servers/deacons are under

no obligation to fulfil the directives here given to Timothy by

Paul.

     As we look carefully at the letter to Titus we shall see many 

more functional requirements pertaining to the elders of the

church, which are NOT specifically amplified upon, for those 

who will function as deacons.

     Verse six mentions children not accused of riot or unruly.

Verse seven, an "overseer" is to be "blameless as the steward 

of God, not selfwilled, not soon angry. Verse eight - a lover of

good things(marg.reading), just, holy, temperate. Verse nine -

holding fast the word, exhort by sound doctrine, and to convince

the gainsayers. Verse eleven tells the overseer that he must at

times (mentally, verbally, and in written form) stop the mouth 

of those who teach deception in the name of God.

     Chapter two starts out with powerful instructions from Paul

about more automatic duty functions for the men like Titus. The

overall quality of being "apt to teach" is broken down into some

specifics on teaching older men, older women, younger men,

servants to masters. Note verse seven and eight. Incorruptible in

doctrine, serious, sincerity, and sound speech that brings shame

upon those who oppose.

     Verse 15 is mighty strong, no punches pulled. I did not say

it friend, Paul did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

"These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.

Let no man despise you."

     The Greek word used here for "authority" is epitage (number

2003 in Strong's Con.). Here is what Vine's Dictionary says:

"epitage.......an injunction (from epi, 'upon,' lasso, 'to order'), 

is once rendered 'authority,' Titus 2:15 (RV marg., 'commandment'). 

See COMMANDMENT. Note:  The corresponding verb is 

epitassoo, 'to command.'  See COMMAND."

     Need I say any more on this word? The reader can explore it

more under the words commandment and command in Vine's or 

some other lexicon.

     There is POWER and there is AUTHORITY in the sound 

speech, doctrines, and word of the Lord. It is the duty of elders to

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that 

needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing(handling correctly, cutting

straight, being faithfully honest with) the word of truth" (2 Tim.2: 15). 

The Greek word used for "study" means to "be diligent, zealous."

     It is let me again EMPHASIS, an awesome responsibility for a

man to take on the function of being a spiritual elder and

teacher in the church. When James was inspired to write the words

he did in chapter three, verse one, of his letter, he was not

talking about one on one personal evangelism (which usually only

cover the simple basic truths of sin, repentance, salvation,

etc.). He was talking about men desiring the function of

overseer, elder (1 Tim.3:1). While that desire is not wrong as

Paul told Timothy, there are important qualifications to attain,

and James said, "My brethren, be not many teachers...." He had

very good reasons to say it!

     Paul finishes his letter to Titus with still more

instructions for the duties of functioning elders. He mentions

more things to teach in verses one and two. Certain things a

minister is to avoid in verse nine. And even people (heretics) to

reject in verse ten.

     It would not be correct for me to leave this without

commenting on still one more important section of NT scripture

that pertains to the function of Elders and not deacons. It is

the instructions of the apostle and elder Peter, found in his

first letter, chapter five, verses one to eleven.

     Elders NOT deacons are to "feed the flock of God....taking

the oversight (overseership/shepherding).......willingly......."

They are to do it without money being an issue. They are to

oversee not as pompous dictatorial masters, but by example

mainly. Yet we have also seen they do have some authority (the

word of God is authority) in the truth of God they are to teach,

preach, and proclaim.

     The younger (in age and length of time as elders) are to

submit to the older(in age and length of service) elders. Yet,

ALL elders are to submit to each other and be clothed with

humility.

     Yes, sure.......it is true, the basic principles of the

above can be taken and used by ALL THE SAINTS, including 

those in the deaconship. But that still does not negate the truth of 

the matter that all of the instructions we have covered, were first

given to officially appointed Elders in the church, in order to

elucidate more fully upon their functioning duty.

THERE IS A LARGE FUNCTIONING DIFFERENCE 

BETWEEN MINISTERS AND DEACONS!

     As this work and study of mine has now evolved over the

years from a relatively lengthy paper(the first section written

in 1983) into a full size book(at the close of this third

section), I will not move on to another argument in the study by

Norman Edwards, without quoting in some length, from the book 

MAN and WOMAN in Biblical Perspective by James B. Hurley. 

The pertinent section of his book to our present study is found in

chapter 8, page 224, beginning with the sub-heading Church office

in the New Testament.

Quote:

     ".......The book of Acts gives indications of an emerging

structure, but does not give sufficient detail to gain a full

picture. The letters provide more insight.......The elders are

to nurture, guard, teach, build up, and be examples to the flock.

Deacons minister to it. Responsibility to foster growth and to

ensure faithful teaching necessarily entails authority.

Authority can be abused. We have already noted Jesus' concern 

to prevent abuse of authority (Lk.22:24-26). His concern is

reflected by Peter (1 Pet.5:1-2). I hope that the concentration

on authority in the study which follows will not mislead any into

thinking that I am suggesting that the eldership should be

conceived of primarily in terms of authority and the right to

command. The eldership should be seen primarily in terms of

shepherding.

     In Acts we see apostles and 'elders' (Acts 11:30; 14:23;

15:2-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18) and the appointment of 'deacons'

(diakonoi, men who serve needs) to ensure fair treatment of

Hebrew and Hellenistic widows (Acts 6).......Acts witnesses the

appointment of 'elders' (presbytery in cities such as

Ephesus.......We get some indication of their function when Paul

charges them, 'guard....all the flock over which the Holy Spirit

has made you overseers (episkopoi, 'bishops'). Be shepherds of

the church of God....' (Acts 20:28). The elders (or bishops or

presbyters; the terms are used interchangeably in the New

Testament) were charged with the welfare of the congregations.

Their shepherding responsibilities involved guarding their people

against false teaching (20:29) and teaching them by word and

example to live as Christians (1 Pet.5:1-3; Eph.4:1, 12). Acts

knows other roles in the church such as prophet and

evangelist.....

     The New Testament letters, especially those of Timothy,

Titus and the Philippians, witness to the establishment of the

categories of elder and deacon in a formal way. Paul and Timothy

are teachers of the apostolic message and Timothy is charged to

entrust that message to qualified men who will in turn teach

others (2 Tim.2:2). These men are not just congregational

members, but have formal responsibility for passing on correct

teaching, which teaching is to be lived out in the lives of the

Christian (2 Tim.1:13-14; 3:10-12). Such men are elders who

direct the life and work of the church.

     Paul commands that 'the elders who direct the affairs of the

church well are worthy of double honour(possibly 'honorarium',

i.e. wage), especially those whose work is preaching and

teaching' (1 Tim.5:17). The author of the letter to the Hebrews

comments on such men from a slightly different perspective. He

calls upon his readers to be mindful of those who rule over them

(13:7) and to 'obey those who rule over you and submit yourselves

to them, for they watch over your souls, and they must give

account' (13:17). Paul charged the elders/shepherds to watch over

the sheep which God had placed in their charge. The author to the

Hebrews charged the sheep to obey and noted that the shepherds

are accountable for them. These texts from the letters to Timothy

and Hebrews supplement what we have seen in Acts and provide a

picture of the elders as men who are involved in the direction of

the congregations and who are charged particularly with teaching,

ensuring that the message is faithfully taught and directing the

outworking of the message in the life of the church. These tasks

involve distinctive leadership and authority, extending to formal

actions to rid the flock of the 'savage wolves' whom the apostle

warned would rise up within the flock (Acts 20:29; cf. 1 Cor.5).

     We need not pursue the work of elders here at length.

Sufficient has been said to show that his task of instruction,

shepherding and discipline falls easily within the area of

'teaching and exercising authority over men' which Paul reserved

to men in 1 Timothy 2. These basic considerations will be of

importance when we look at 1 Timothy 3.

     The role of deacons is more difficult to define precisely

from Scripture.......

     We shall first consider the biblical data. The term diakonos

means 'one who serves', 'servant' or 'minister'. It can be used

to describe the activity of 'one who serves' the needs of another

(Mk.9:35; 10:43). It can also describe one who represents or acts

on behalf of another as his servant or minister (Acts 6; Eph.3:7). 

In this sense it takes on a slightly more formal meaning. The formal, 

representative aspect and the idea of serving others can come together, 

as with the deacons of Acts 6 who ministered to the needs of the 

widows as representatives of the church. The term 'deacon' points both 

to  their representative role and to their actual function in serving. 

It is clear that the deacons of Acts 6 possessed a certain amount of 

authority in their distribution of food......

     The biblical data are not the only data to be considered

when using the terms 'elder', 'bishop', 'minister', and 'deacon'

today.The terms are used differently in different forms of church

government. Virtually all are agreed that the role of the bishop,

elder or presbyter is one which involves responsibility to direct

the life of the flock, teaching with authority, and the exercise

of disciplinary authority to guard the faith. The term 'minister'

is most frequently used of a man who preaches regularly and

supervises the pastoral care of the congregation. His function is

that of elder. The term 'minister' can, however, be used in a

less technical way to describe someone who meets the needs of

others(ministers to their needs). In this sense it has little to

do with church office as such. It is important to be careful to

grasp which sense is intended in a given context........

     The 'deacons' of Acts 6 were men who were well respected in

the congregation and would not be suspected of favouring either

Jews or Greeks. Their task was not in directing the flock, but in

distributing resources. The apostles, on the other hand,

continued in prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4). The

basic division is not identified as corresponding to that of

elder and deacon in the letters to Timothy, but is very

suggestive, especially when coupled with those passages in the

letters to Timothy which call for the committing of apostolic

messages to men who will faithfully teach and for special respect

for elders who direct the church by teaching and preaching (1

Tim.5:17; 2 Tim.2:2). The impression is strengthened by the

coupling of apostles and elders in the authoritative decrees of

the Council held at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Those elders were

certainly carrying out functions parallel to those of the

apostles.

     If the elders preach and teach and shepherd, what did the

deacons do? 1 Timothy 3 isolates elders and deacons as special

classes of persons, with special qualifications, and also clearly

distinguishes them from one another. In Acts 20 Paul met with the

elders, but not with the deacons of Ephesus, addressing them as

the shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28). The deacons of Acts 6

did not teach and rule but served physical needs.

     Could it be that the deacons of 1 Timothy 3 are to be

distinguished from the bishops by similar division of labour? I

think so.

     The discussion which follows will presume that both deacons

and elders are congregational representatives and are

distinguished by their tasks. The elder's calling is to foster

the spiritual growth of the congregation, and the deacons lead in

ministering to its physical needs and showing the love of Christ

to outsiders through meeting their physical needs. Elders teach

with formal authority and exercise disciplinary authority to

protect the flock, deacons do not share this task. As described,

the task of a deacon does not involve the sort of teaching and

exercising of authority which 1 Timothy 2:11-12 reserves for men.

With this understanding of the office of deacon, therefore, there

is no violation of biblical restrictions on authority if women

serve as deacons. This fact does not authorize the appointment of

women deacons, but it does remove a problem which many

face when they think of women deacons......."

     For those interested in an in-depth study on the subject of

the role of men and women in the church, I do recommend James

Hurley's book "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective" published

by Zondervan. 

                         TO BE CONTINUED

                      ..............................