NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT #1

 A SERIES OF LONG INVESTIGATION ON NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT 

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

Ancient Israel, before the New Testament Church of God began, was called the "church in the wilderness"(Acts 7:38). It was organized from the TOP down. There was God, then Moses, under Moses there were Elders, captains over thousands, and hundreds and so on down the pyramid of the chain of authority. Israel's church - state government - was THEOCRATICAL, from God down to a specific human leader who had total authority and leadership over every other person in the nation. Was Israel's type of government to be carried over into the Church of the New Covenant? If so then we should be able to find ample evidence to support this teaching from the writings of the New Testament. Let us humbly search to find the truth of the matter. by Keith Hunt Using a "Harmony of the Gospels" book, we find that the first recorded person we would classify as one of Jesus' disciples was Andrew, who spent part of a day with Him (John 1:35-40). Andrew soon introduced Simon his brother to Jesus. When Jesus saw Simon He instantly diagnosed his basic personality and said: "So you are Simon the son of John. You shall be called cephas(which means 'stone')." Harmony of the Gospels by Ralph Heim. Now did Jesus by giving Simon a new name establish him as HEAD apostle? The next day Jesus found Philip and he brought Nathaniel to Jesus. Again Christ discerned the character of Nathaniel, "Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile" (v.47). Because you were the first to be called as one of Jesus' disciples, or given another name, or have Christ state your personality in a miraculous way - does that mean you are head disciple? If so, Andrew could claim it as first named or recorded disciple in the ministry of Jesus. Peter could claim it as being given a new name. Philip could possibly claim such an office as he was the first recorded person that Jesus said the words "follow me" to.The truth is, in none of these passages did Jesus name anyone as HEAD disciple. Actually the official calling of Peter and Andrew was some time later, see a "Harmony of the Gospels" book. And James and John were also called at the same time. If you study the Harmony of the Gospels you will see that between these two incidents in John chapter one and Luke chapter five(also recorded in Matthew 4 and Mark 1) Jesus had disciples already following Him. Jesus chose 12 to be His close inner circle (Mark 3:13-19). In the list of these twelve as given by Mark and Luke, Simon Peter is put first. Now does this automatically of itself prove that Peter was the CHIEF apostle? Let's not assume anything but prove all things from God's own word. WHO WAS THE CHIEF APOSTLE? For three and one half years Jesus was in close fellowship with His chosen twelve disciples. He knew their strengths, weaknesses, and their personalities. He had ample time to determine WHO if anyone should be head apostle, who should be second in command, who third, and so on down the line. We have recorded for us in the four Gospels three separate incidents where Jesus could have made it very plain to them who He had chosen to be chief among them and head of all the ministers in the Church, the one with final authority and the power of veto. The first incident is found in Mark 9:33-35 (the same account is also given in Mat.18 and Luke 9) where we read: "And they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house He asked them, ' What were you discussing on the way?' but they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the GREATEST. And He sat down and called the twelve." Here was Jesus' golden opportunity to tell them the governmental structure He wanted among themselves, here was His chance to declare to them, the one, two, three, in the authority line. But what DID He say? "And He said to them, if anyone would be first (desired to be, wanted to be) HE MUST BE LAST OF ALL AND SERVANT OF ALL" (RSV, emphasis mine). Jesus did not even hint that there was to be a pyramid type of Church structure. He told them that if anyone in their own mind desired such a position as being "top dog" that person had better put himself last and be servant to all the others. To be the greatest in God's sight is to be humble and put such a desire of exaltation out of your mind and go about serving! Months went by and the disciples, or at least two of them, forgot what Jesus had taught them. It is human nature to think that in a group of twelve surely someone must be the greatest, and maybe that someone is ME! On a certain day James and John came to Jesus and asked Him if THEY could be the ones to sit on His right and left hand in the Kingdom. Jesus said only the Father had the authority to decide who would be given those positions, it was not for Him or for them to decide (Mark 10:35-40). The account in Mark continues to say: "And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John, and Jesus called them to Him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles LORD it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU." They were not to exercise rulership over each other, they were not to be like the governments of this world, having a system of dictatorial pyramid authority. Continuing: "But whoever would be great among you must be your SERVANT, and whoever would be first among you must be SLAVE of all" (verses 43-44). How this incident must have come to the apostle Peter's mind when he exhorted the elders: "Likewise you younger(in age and/or length of service) submit(honor, respect, look to with appreciation) unto the elder(in age and/or ones who have served longer in the ministry). Yes, ALL of you be SUBJECT one to another and be clothed with HUMILITY. For God resists the PROUD (the self-important ones, those who would rule over others and put themselves in some great office of authority) and gives grace to the HUMBLE" (1 Peter 5:5, emphasis and amplified myself). What words from a mighty man of God. Mighty in the way the Lord used him. Think about Acts chapter two, then chapter 10, and 15. Think about the great miracles Peter did even to the point that when his shadow passed over people they were healed! Peter was a pillar in the Jerusalem Church of God (Gal.2). Yet he also made his errors and went away from the path of truth at times, so that the relative new comer to the apostle function, the apostle Paul had to correct and rebuke him openly (Gal.2). But he took it as a true child of God, he did not allow his pride to get in the way, or allow his "ego" to be hurt and a root of bitterness to spring up. He was exercised to bring forth the fruits of righteousness from all the corrections he received from the Lord. And so could pen those great words above. Peter was a humble man, he was willing to be subject "one to another." Oh, how all the ministers of the Church of God need to exhibit the character of Peter in this matter. I have personally seen the exact opposite manifested many times by some who call themselves the ministers of God. I wonder how many times the Lord has seen this wrong attitude practiced down through the centuries? Even after these two separate incidents, there still arose a third time when: "A dispute also arose among them, which of them would be regarded as the greatest" (Luke 22:24, RSV). Jesus again told them they were not to be like the governments of this world. He gave them HIS EXAMPLE! Be a servant, do not have the "I'm the greatest" attitude. He did specifically promise those twelve (Matthias replacing Judas, Acts 2) a throne each - ruling one tribe of Israel in the Kingdom (Mat.19:28). But He never said any of those thrones would be above the others. Just as He never said any one of them would be above the rest in authority in this physical life within the function of the Church. What Jesus taught them over and over again was to have love and service among themselves. What He inspired Peter to tell all Elders was that they should be humble and be willing to be subject to each other. DID JESUS MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH? Some teach that Christ made Peter chief apostle over the New Testament (NT) Church. Others teach that the true Church today is headed by ONE man! Those who teach this idea often give Matthew 16:18-19 as proof to the supremacy of one authoritarian man as head of the Church. The Roman Catholic church claim the Pope is the direct descendant of Peter who they say was made chief apostle by Christ. But what is the real truth? Let's examine these verses in Matthew very carefully. Jesus said: "And I say unto you, that you are Peter(Greek is Petros - meaning a 'stone') and upon this rock (Greek is Petra - meaning a 'ledge' or 'shelf of rock' or 'crag of rock') I will build my church" (Mat.16:18). Notice the true meaning as originally written in the Greek language. The English word "stone" is translated from the Greek word "Petros" meaning a single stone or loose stone. The Greek word "Kephas" means such a stone. But when Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church" the Greek word used was not Kephas or Petros but PETRA, a large massive rock. Speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness, Paul wrote: "For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST" (1 Cor.10:4). The CHURCH is described in Ephesians 2:20 as, " being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE." Here Christ is said to be the HEAD or chief, the final authority of the Church of God, not some individual mortal man! The real foundation of the Church is Jesus. "For other foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which IS Jesus Christ" (1 Cor.3:11). He is shown in Revelation 1:13-18 to be the living head, in the midst of the Church. Read also these passages - Ephesians 5:23; 4:15; 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18,19; 2:19. THE DISCIPLES GO FORTH Mark tells us that Jesus chose 12 special disciples (chapter 3:13,14). Luke says He called them apostles (chapter 6:13). It is written He sent them "out to preach and have authority to cast out demons" (Mark 3:14,15). Notice it! They were sent out to do WHAT? Have dictatorial power and authority over the members of the Church? Have authority of each other, over other ministers of Christ? NO! They were given authority over DEMONS not other ministers. Jesus never said they were to rule God's children with an iron hand, lording it over them, acting like some little Hitler cracking the whip. Later again Christ sent out the twelve. He gave them POWER and AUTHORITY yes, but over what? Not over each other - no! He gave them authority over demons and power to heal every disease and infirmity (see Mat.10:1-4; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2). He sent them out TO PREACH! Preach what? Personal authority over one another, a pecking order of Church organization? God's word says, "......to PREACH the KINGDOM OF GOD." Jesus later appointed 70 others. He sent them out "two by two" to do His work. He did not say that one of the two was chief of the other. They were obviously a TEAM - two by two - two standing alongside each other, neither having binding authority over the other, but both being subject to each other and the younger respecting the older as we have seen in 1 Peter 5. Please read carefully this account as given in Luke 10. The only authority they had was to heal, cast out demons, and preach the good news of the Kingdom. Jesus had ample time and opportunities to explain in some detail to His first disciples how the Church should be structured along a pyramid authority line if that was what He wanted it to be like. But we find no such teaching from the lips of Christ in the gospels. On the contrary, we find the exact opposite teaching. His people and ministers were to be organized on two basic pillars - LOVE to each other and a SERVING SERVANT attitude. Only those who have some personal gain to follow for the wrong reasons can fail to see these two pillars taught over and over again in the four Gospels. The rest of the NT shows this does not mean ministers and members are to be "door mats" to each other. Everyone walking over each other, ignoring one another. It does not mean there is to be no "correction" within the Church. It does not mean there is to be no logical organization, for Paul was inspired to say that things should be done "decently and in order" and that God was "not the author of confusion" (1 Cor.14). What it simply means is that everything the Church does, its ministers (elders/overseers) and members, is to be done with respect of each other, humility and submissiveness to each other, and with love and service for one another in all things. Some of the last words Christ said to His disciples was not that they should try to dominate and establish authority over each other in a hierarchy Church structure, but that collectively they should with team work effort, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.. ....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you...." (Mat.28: 19-20). Here Jesus gives a THREE PART commission to His ministers and followers: 1) make disciples 2) baptize 3) teach what Jesus commanded. This is NEW Testament instruction for the NEW Covenant Church of God and there is not one word here or anywhere from the lips of Christ about establishing a "pecking orde" of authority for His ministers and members of His spiritual body. Take a good look at Jesus' words found in Mark 16:15-18. Again we have instruction to go and teach and baptize. The sheep of the fold are to be fed and taught. Disciples are to be made from all nations - preaching of the gospel. The Bride is to be prepared for the Bridegroom. Certain signs (as the Lord gives and directs, see 1 Cor.12) would follow within the Church. These signs were very evident in the apostolic Church of the first century. In somewhat of a lesser degree they are evident today among God's people, but will be more powerful and more abundant near the return of Christ. Again you will notice in all this, in all these signs, there is not one word about some GREAT order of hier-archal Church structure to prove to the world the Church of God is the true and only body of Christ. The largest "Christian'' church in the world today(with over one billion members) claims that its church structure from one head man down, is part of the proof that they are the true Church founded upon the apostle Peter. As we can see from the four Gospels, NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! Famous King Arthur of British history who fought with his noble Knights against the invading Anglo-Saxons, is famous in part because of his establishing the "round table." He and his top Knights, we would call them today by the name of "generals" - all gathered round to discuss their plans of attack and defense, seated at a ROUND table. King Arthur said he wanted it so, so that there would be no head or no tail. All would feel as important and as necessary as the next, including himself. In the center of the table going in a full circle were the words: BY SERVING EACH OTHER WE ARE FREE. Christianity had been well established for centuries in the British Isles before Arthur came on the scene. It had been brought there by many of the original disciples of Jesus. It was a much purer Christianity than came later to Britain via the Roman Catholic church. King Arthur was a God fearing man and his realm was founded upon the "good book." I'm sure he knew and had read the words of Christ as found in the gospels, part of those words being "the Truth shall make you free." Arthur did not choose those words for his round table, but took the teachings of Jesus that we have been looking at, and put the heart of them into a phrase for his famous table - "By Serving Each Other We Are Free." If only the Church of God, its branches and its ministers, down through the centuries, had always taken King Arthur's attitude of heart, many problems springing from self-important vanity and ego would have been eliminated, and much hurt and damage and falsehood would have given way to humble teachableness and growth. There are MANY truths in the word of God, one of them is what King Arthur had come to so clearly see. No organization, no government, no body of people can survive for long if it is not founded on some basic godly principles. Arthur knew service was one of those true foundations to keep a people out of the chains of bondage and sin, and so he had engraved in the round table: By Serving Each Other We Are Free. About 1500 years after King Arthur led his people with those words, another leader over another part of the same peoples in a different land, led his people with similar words that history will etch into stone. His words were: "Do not say what can my country can do for me, but say, what can I do for my country." Those words of President John F. Kennedy are the essence of what Jesus taught His ministers and disciples. Please allow me to paraphrase what Christ taught His followers: "If any one of you would desire to be the chief minister with all and final authority. If any one among you would get close to adopting the attitude of 'How can the other ministers and people of God, the Church of God, serve me' then that individual had better humble himself and go about serving everyone that belongs to me, and for whom I gave my life. For I did not come to put my feet up and be served by you all, but I came to serve you. So you go and do likewise to each other. Do not say,' what can I get from the Church' but ' what can I do for the Church.' " It is time for some in the Church of God to REPENT! To repent of the rotten stinking, filthy, arrogant, conceited, vain, attitude of mind and actions of words and deeds, that manifests itself too often and by too many ministers towards other ministers and members in the Church, an attitude of being a self-righteous authoritarian dictator over others perceived to be of lower in "rank" than themselves in the chain of Church ministry and structure. It is time for those who have been guilty of such errors to humble themselves under the mighty hand of the Lord, and to prayerfully re-study this whole subject of the MINISTRY and CHURCH GOVERNMENT to see more clearly from the teachings and examples of the New Testament what the plain truth really is! THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IS STARTED After Jesus had ascended to heaven (Acts 1:6-11) the disciples were together in Jerusalem (v.5). Peter stood up and spoke to them. Did that make Peter the head apostle? The account does not say it did. Those who claim this proves Peter was chief minister, must read into the account something that is completely absent, and they do this to try to uphold a teaching that can not be established with Biblical fact. In any group of persons you will have dominant leader type people who will naturally lead out, Peter was one of those individuals. Many studies today have been done by Business Firms looking for leaders to prove this human natural phenomenon. Peter was a"'born leader" as we say. He told the others that someone had to be chosen to replace Judas (v.16-22). Now notice verse 23, " And THEY appointed two...." It does not say that Peter chose two, or James, or some other "chief/s" among the apostles, but it says "They" the whole 120 of them (v.15) chose the two. The account does not tell us HOW they chose the two men. So that indeed does leave room for some administrative variance within the workings of the Church. They could not decide which of these two men should take the place and office of Judas. The teaching is clear, no apostle standing up here to tell everyone that he and he alone had final authority to decide the matter. What did they do? The account tells us they prayed and cast forth lots (v.24-26). It is not the purpose of this study to examine what these lots may have been (the readers can avail themselves with the Bible Commentaries for such inquiries). Whether this was a voting ballot or pulling of straws makes no difference to the point we want to make here. NO ONE MAN DECIDED THE ISSUE! Not even two, or three, or four, or some board of persons. The matter and decision to be made was too LARGE and IMPORTANT to be left to one man or a few men. Peter certainly did not have sole authority to decide who would take Judas' place. Not only that, but once that decision was made, he did not have authority to ANNUAL it either! Is this an example that some issues are only for God to decide and an organization may have to resort to casting some type of "lot"? Well yes it is and then no it isn't. Let me explain. Both men were qualified in the eyes of human beings. They had met certain necessary criterion. Obviously, for whatever reasons, the Holy Spirit was not giving the brethren any "clear" or "obvious" mental answer as to which man should take Judas' place within the twelve disciples. This was a once in a life time problem, maybe a once in the life of the New Testament Church. This was not an every year, or every 10 year occurrence for the Church of God. It was unique! God had chosen the twelve disciples - it was only fitting He should choose the man who would become part of that special company, after all that man would be given one of the thrones to rule one of the tribes of Israel (Mat.19). If an issue or situation should arise within a Church of God organization that could be seen as just as important to the one here in Acts, then I say this is an example left for us that could be followed. But then, I must seriously question any organization that believes it has a problem as important as choosing one of the twelve apostles. PETER'S POWER? After the Holy Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter was very bold in his preaching of Christ. Thousands were converted by his sermons. Great miracles were done by Peter. We can read of all the things that Peter did and said in the first five chapters of the book of Acts. Indeed it is true that Peter did take a leading role in the early days of the Church. But is there any word in these first chapters that Peter was chief or head in authority over the other eleven apostles or the whole Jerusalem congregation? No! Not one single word! Can we find in these chapters or anywhere (we shall come to Acts 15 later) in the entire book of Acts, where ANY apostle claimed he was "boss" of the rest of them and they had to comply with his demands and "jump to his tune"? No! Does having the ability to speak with authority - preach powerfully - do miracles - automatically qualify a person to be chief or head of the Church? If it does, then the apostle Paul would have been qualified to have dethroned anyone and taken over the Church. Look at his record! When some men wanted to boast of their deeds and talents, and others were looking at these men with great admiration, Paul said to the Corinthian church, "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.....are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often" (2 Cor.11:18,23). Paul continued to list his deeds for the gospel in verses 24-28. He was given visions and revelations of the throne of God, possibly he was taken up to the throne of the Lord, although he was unsure if it was reality or in the minds eye vision (chapter 12:1-7). At another time he told the Corinthians he spoke in tongues more than any of them (1 Cor.14:18). There were times when Paul did great miracles through the power of God's Spirit (Acts 19:11-12). God used him to write 14 books of the inspired New Testament scriptures. The number 14 is the number for deliverance and salvation as used by God in His word. The number 7 is the number for perfection and completion. The number 2 is for the Godhead (presently only the Father and the Son). Now 2 x 7 = 14. Paul was used to write not only salvation but DOUBLE perfection. With ALL THIS Paul never once wrote that he was the human head of the Church, nor did he ever state that Peter or any other man was the head of the Church under Christ. The nearest thing we can find in Paul's writings is the acknowledgement that some men were looked upon as leaders and pillars of strength in the Jerusalem church: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation....but privately to them which were of reputation. But of these who seemed to be somewhat...." Notice what Paul goes on to add to that statement, " whatever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person, for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me, and when JAMES, CEPHAS (Peter) and JOHN, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:1,2,6,9). It is I think more than interesting to note the order of the names of the individuals Paul stated "seemed to be somewhat" in the Jerusalem congregation - Peter's name does not appear first in line. If there is any significance to the order of names (and that question could be very debatable) and if Peter had been made head of the Church by Christ, then Paul was doing an injustice to Peter's authority by placing his name after that of James'. But the truth is, Paul is not stating in this passage that any ONE man was head of the Jerusalem church or the Church of God as a whole. There were leading men in the church at Jerusalem just as there would be in any other local church where there was a plurality of ministers. Yet that fact does not prove certain ministers "lorded it over" other ministers with dictatorial authority. While we are on the subject of the order of names as used in the NT I will take some time to answer the argument put forth by some concerning Paul and Barnabas. Some have claimed that Paul was "over" Barnabas - that Paul had authority over Barnabas. They have given as proof of this, the order of names. One Church of God organization in a piece of literature on Church Government admitted that before Acts 13 the name of Barnabas appeared BEFORE the name of Paul - see Acts 12:25 and 13:1,2. Then they went on to say that AFTER the Holy Spirit separated Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:1-3) for a special work, it was Paul's name that appeared before Barnabas' name. They quoted certain verses to prove this, thus claiming Paul had authority over Barnabas. The verses they gave were as, Acts 13:13,43,44-46,50; 15:2, 35. Now that looks pretty good IF you believe there is significance in the order of names, IF you believe the NT teaches an authority "pecking order" of ministerial structure, and IF YOU READ THE BIBLE WITH TUNNEL VISION! It blows my mind that some would try to prove a point of doctrine by giving you certain verses they claim shows the truth they preach WHILE WITHIN THE SAME CHAPTERS ARE VERSES PROVING THE OPPOSITE, if you believe the order of names has meaning in authority. Read carefully from Acts 13:4 all the way to chapter 15:35. Ah,ah, did you spot the verses that some glide right over with blinkers on their eyes? There's one in chapter 13:7. The name of Barnabas is put before the name of Paul, and that is AFTER verses 1-3. Another is in chapter 14:12. Yes Paul was the chief IN WHAT? He was the chief in speaking! Not authority! Paul like Peter was a fine speaker. All ministers are to be able to teach (1 Tim.3:2), they do not have to be great speakers or preachers. When conducting evangelistic meetings as Barnabas and Paul were doing it is only natural and wise to let the man with the gift of preaching do the speaking most of the time. Notice verse 14 of chapter 14. The name of Barnabas appears BEFORE that of Paul's. Then after Paul's name was put before that of Barnabas' in Acts 15:2 Luke (the writer of Acts) turns right around and places Barnabas' name BEFORE Paul's in verse 12. In verse 22 Paul's name is placed before Barnabas' by Luke, then in verse 25 he again reverses it and puts Barnabas' name first. Such is the folly of men who want to cling to false teachings and will not be corrected by the word of the Lord. They just do not have the "love of the truth" (2 Thes.2:10). From reading the first few chapters of the book of Galatians and the rest of the epistles of Paul, together with the book of Acts, one thing becomes very clear to those who have an honest heart and will accept the truth of the word. Paul acknowledged there was a work of the Lord coming from Jerusalem, an organization with leading men such as James and Peter, a work that belonged to God, preaching the same basic truths that he Paul and Barnabas and others were preaching. But not for one minute or one second did he ever believe God was not also using him and others to also do the "work of God." Paul believed with all his might that he was just as much an apostle as the twelve were. That he had just as much authority in Christ as any of the rest. It is clear from the writings of Paul that he did not believe in any hierarchy pyramid, one man down authoritarian Church of God government, where men ruled over men with dictatorial power. Paul respected other ministers who were truly called and faithful to God. Paul had deep love and respect for all of God's children, especially for those who went the extra mile in serving the brethren and doing "the work." Paul was a humble man, and God made sure he would stay that way by giving him a "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor.12:7-9). Paul was a submissive man, he was both submissive to God and to man. Concerning his submissiveness to other men/brethren, we can find many examples. A few will suffice. The account in Acts 9:23-25 was no doubt at the request of the disciples who did not want to see Paul killed. Notice the humility Paul exhibited even after being personally taught by Christ Jesus, in what he wrote in Galatians chapter 2:1-2 (with chap.1;12). He was willing to let other ministers examine his beliefs and teachings so nothing would be done in vain. He recognized they also had the Spirit of God and were able to ascertain truth from error. What an attitude! Think about it! Jesus had personally appeared to him on the road to Damascus and brought him to repentance and conversion. He had been personally taught by Christ. The Lord had given him many of the gifts of the Spirit. He had performed healings and miracles. Yet, this man was willing to be examined by some of the leading apostles to make sure he had not run, or should run, in some useless vain manner that would save no one. Now that is some beautiful heart and mind. Every minister who calls himself a minister of the Lord had better cultivate that attitude of Paul. He didn't go around acting like some pompous swell-headed "know it all" from the number one University of the country. He didn't proclaim to the world that he was the "only" apostle of God. He never claimed that it was him who had the final authority in the Church. Those who can not be like the apostle Paul are destined to find themselves wallowing in the mire of their own filthy vainness with whatever religious empire they established being taken away and given to others of more noble humility and character. How many ministers are willing to have their work and teachings and writings, examined for possible errors by other ministers filled with the Spirit of the Lord? In my experience I am ashamed to say, it is very few. Even when done in the right spirit of mind, most get their "back up" and think they are being "attacked" if someone questions their teaching as being correct. We may not all agree on every last little verse in the word of God, but we should endeavor to disagree without being "disagreeable." Paul was willing for other reputable ministers to examine the way he ran in the work of the Lord. Paul was willing to submit to other ministers when it was right and correct to do so. Another example of that can be found in Acts 21 and verses 17 through to 26. What was Peter's power and authority? Well, it was no more than Paul's! If Peter got out of line, if he was in complete error, if he was in the wrong and committing sin, then Paul had no hesitation in correcting him, and if need be in front of others at that (Gal.2:11-21). THE EARLY CHURCH AND COMMUNISM There are some people who have put themselves into a communal type of life. They all dress alike, eat together, work together and share equally their pooled wealth. Often Acts 4:32-37 and 5:1-11 are quoted to justify this way of living. Are these verses in Acts teaching this type of communistic life for Christians? In verse 32 the multitude of disciples said that their possessions they counted not just belonging to themselves but to others also. That is an attitude of SHARING! We must understand and remember that the Church was just starting - people were being converted by the hundreds and thousands(3, 000 on the day of Pentecost alone - Acts 2:41). They had found the truth of God, they would be excited, joyous, and naturally wanted to stay on in Jerusalem to rejoice with and fellowship with the disciples who had been with Jesus for three and one half years. Imagine the monumental task it would have been just to have fed and housed all those converts. They had come from all parts of the known world to observe the feast of Pentecost and were now converted to Christianity. Some were willing to sell their houses and lands to give help to those in need. They gave AS every man HAD NEED(v.45). Yes, those who had some real-estate were willing to sell some or all of it and give the money to the apostles who in turn gave that money to those in need as the situation arose. Even when they did sell a possession, it, the money, was still THEIRS to do with as led by the Holy Spirit. "As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And (even) after it was sold, was not(the money) at your disposal and under your control?......" (chapter 5:4, Amplified Bible). Ananias and Sapphira died because they LIED about the price, not because they were unwilling to practice communism (see chapter 5:3). The NT Church never taught a communistic life style. God's word teaches no such doctrine. But the word of the Lord does teach a GIVING and a SHARING. A HELPING your brother as he needs it (1 John 3:17-18). There was a need at that time in the Church's early beginning, an unusually LARGE need, and all who could and wanted to help, feed, clothe and house the brethren, did so readily. SEVEN ARE APPOINTED As the Church grew there would (as with any growing organization) naturally arise problems that would need resolving. This is the case as we start into the sixth chapter of Acts. Certain things were being neglected(v.1). This was brought to the attention of the apostles. They called the other disciples (many of them) and asked them to choose seven men, whom the total 12 apostles would agree to appoint over this matter of physical duties (v.l-4). These seven men were chosen from among the "multitude of the disciples." The apostles you will notice did lay down certain qualifications that were to be found in choosing the seven. But the initial choosing of these "diakonein" (today we call them deacons) was done by the multitude of disciples. No indication here of some head minister calling or appointing seven of his personal choosing. Even the twelve apostles did not do it all by themselves. They were quite confident that the other disciples were qualified to find men in whom was the Spirit of God, wisdom, and honesty. Perhaps in this situation the multitude of disciples were better qualified than the apostles in finding the right men, as they were more personally and intimately acquainted with these local men. Maybe they all lived in the same general area and attended the local synagogues together. Whatever the case, for this specific circumstance (which may or may not arise today) the apostles felt the congregation should get involved. There had to be some system for choosing these men, but we are not told what that system was they used. God merely gave us the principle - we then have the liberty under the same situation to work out the details. Perhaps all the disciples were asked to submit a name either orally or in writing. Maybe it was a "secret" ballot vote. Maybe some men even volunteered for the responsibility. Whatever the method, one thing is for sure, it was not some dictatorial man throwing his weight around who chose them. After this mutual search for the seven candidates it is important to notice that the whole group of 12 apostles appointed them to that duty. Verse three says: "whom WE MAY appoint over this business." I am sure that if the Holy Spirit had spoken to the twelve that one or more of the seven was not suitable, they would not have been appointed and the multitude would have had to find new candidates. What this means is that the bottom line, is that the ministers have the last word on those chosen for the duties of deacons. This was a special situation, a never before situation in the early life of the NT Church. It can not be used to claim the NT Church of God is to be run from the bottom up, the members picking by democratic vote their deacons and ministers. Many Protestant churches so operate this way, but not one verse in the NT can be found to support this view or practice. I have personally witnessed members of a Protestant church hiring ministers from a "preaching talent" contest, only they did not call it that as such, but an "invitation" to preach with respect to being hired. They chose a certain fellow who declined the offer to go to another church, and then offered the job to the runner up, who accepted. God, through the Holy Spirit did things a certain way at the start of the NT Church within certain circumstances of context, because it was not already in place, and something needed to be done to solve the problem. Acts chapter six and verses one to seven was one of those contexts. Later God inspired Paul to set down for the minister Timothy and the Church of God, what specific qualifications were required for the Eldership and deaconship (1 Timothy 3:1-15). The word of God is clear that it is the already ordained Elders in the Church who have the last word on who they will lay their hands upon in ordination to Eldership or deaconship. The members may have some input to ascertain or to help the Elders ascertain that a man has basically reached the qualifications of 2 Timothy 3, but it is the Elders who must give the final decision, and it is their hands that are laid on the candidate. Any group of ministers within a local church or area of churches would know over a period of time, by "their fruits" the men whom God was calling to the ordained Eldership. The same principle would apply to those worthy of ordination to deaconship. In a less structured situation more help from the congregation could be needed to make sure 2 Timothy 3 was followed and met. And in those circumstances the words of Paul to Timothy (an already ordained Elder) would apply even more: "Lay hands suddenly on no man...."(1 Tim.5:22). To be continued First written in 1983. Re-written and revised in 1996.