Church Government
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 (Sun-day). 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 ceratin 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 ceratin 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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment