APPENDIX
Second continuation
All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise
stated.
Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic
of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to
arguments not addressed in the body of this work.
APPENDIX ADDITIONS
ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE by HERBERT LOCKYER
pp. 246-247
1. Internal Management
Each church was left to manage its own business, and deal with
its own offenders.........No directions are given about taking
matters to a higher court. Each church was an independent
organization. There is no warrant in Scripture for the
ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, and also
for the ascending series of courts which may review a case of
disorder arising in a local church. Each church or assembly was
reckoned competent to perform every faction necessary without
reference to any other source. The inclusion, exclusion and
restoration of members were effected by each church.
2. External Authority
As the churches were not to be dominated by any external
authority, so they were not to be interfered with, in their
church life, by civil government. This at once proves the
untenable position of the so-called State Church. It is only
where the life of the church touches the civic life of the
community that the civil authorities have any right to
interfere.......
3. Fraternal Relationship
While each local church, according to the New Testament is
independent of every other in the sense that no other has
jurisdiction over it, yet co-operative relations were entered
into, as can be proven by the witness of such passages as
Rom.15:1-27; 2 Cor.8:9; Gal.2:10; 3 John 8........Churches may
properly co-operate in matters of disciple, by seeking and giving
counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In
the great paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the
nations, they may co-operate in a multitude of ways. There is no
sphere of general Christian activity in which they may not
voluntarily and freely co-operate for the betterment of the
world, the salvation of humanity.
4. Exclusions
The early Christian society would not suffer the presence of
those immoral persons referred to in 1 Cor.5:11, nor of the
heretics mentioned frequently in the epistles, e.g., Titus
3:10......."
End quote.
WORD MEANINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Ralph Earl
PHILIPPIANS
Bishops (1:1)
The Greek word for "bishop" is episcopos (cf. episcopal). It
occurs five times in the NT.
In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers." In 1 Pet. 2:25 it
refers to Christ, "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." It is
found twice in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) and is
correctly translated "bishop." ("Office of a bishop" in 1 Tim.
3:1 is another word, episcope.) Critics have sometimes insisted
that the technical use of episcopos for "bishop" in the Pastoral
Epistles reflects a later development in church organization and
so demands a second-century date for these letters. But the same
usage here in Philippians (written about A.D. 61) undercuts that
argument.
The word episcopos comes from scopos, "a watcher." So it means "a
superintendent, guardian, overseer"(A-S). Thayer notes that it
has this same comprehensive sense in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey
and in classical Greek writers from that time on (p. 243). The
large Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940) gives as the first
meaning of episcopos "one who watches over," and lists numerous
examples of this use (p. 657). "This was the name given in Athens
to the men sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs"
(Cremer, p. 527). The word was used 14 times in the Septuagint in
the sense of "overseer," or "inspector." Deissmann notes that in
Rhodes, episcopos was "a technical term for the holder of a
religious office" (in the temple of Apollo), as well an being
used in the plural for "communal officials" (BS, pp. 230-31).
Lightfoot mentions its use at Athens, and adds: "The title
however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designation for
instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report
to the Indian kings......; of the commissioner appointed by
Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus.......; of magistrates
who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans.......;
and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown"
(p. 95).
Beyer writes: " In Greek episcopos is first used....... with a
free understanding of the 'onlooker' as 'watcher,' 'protector,'
'patron.' " Then it came to be used "as a title to denote
various offices" (TDNT, 2:609). He notes that protective care is
"the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT,
2:610). This is its classical usage.
By the end of the second century we read of diocesan bishops.
Early in the second century Ignatius indicates that in each
church there was one bishop, a group of presbyters, and a group
of deacons. But in Paul's Epistles (here and in the Pastorals)
"bishop" and "presbyter" seem to be used synonymously. Lightfoot
observes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by the
theologians of all shade of opinion, that in the language
of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called
indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter'
(presbyteros)" (p. 95). In TDNT, Coenen thinks it "probable that
the terms presbyteros and episcopos (bishop) are interchangeable"
(1:199).
Bishop, l TIMOTHY 3:1
The first seven verses of chapter 3 are devoted to outlining the
qualifications of a bishop. As a leader in the church he must be
a man of exemplary character.
"The office of a bishop" is all one word in Greek, episcope.
Elsewhere in the NT it is used in this sense only in Acts 1:20,
in a quotation from the Septuagint.
In verse 2 "bishop" is episcopos, from which comes "episcopal."
It occurs only five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is
translated "overseers" and applied to the Ephesian elders
by Paul. He also refers to the "bishops and deacons" at Philippi
(Phil. 1:1). In Titus 1:7 and following, we again find what is
required of a "bishop." Finally, in 1 Pet. 2:25, Christ
is called "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."
The word episcopos is made up of epi, "upon" or "over," and
scopes, "watcher." So it literally means "one who watches over."
Thayer defines it thus: "An overseer, a man charged with the duty
of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any
curator, guardian, or superintendent.... specifically, the
superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church " ( p.
243).
It will be seen that the basic meaning of episcopos is
"overseer." The ancient Greeks thought of their gods as
episcopoi. This usage is found in Homer's Iliad and many later
writings.
Then it came to be used of men in various functions. Beyer says:
"Protective care, however, is still the heart of the activity
which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610).
Homer applies the term to ships' captains and merchants, who must
be "overseers" of goods.
In the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ episcopos was
used at Athens as a title for state officials. The same thing was
true at Ephesus and in Egypt. But more common was the use of
episcopal (plural) for local officials and officers of societies.
This brings us closer to the Christian eplscopos.
In the Septuagint episcopos is used both for God, who oversees
all things, and for men as supervisors in various fields of
activity. The latter usage is found in the earlier, well as
the later, books of the OT.
Turning to the NT, we discover one fact immediately:
there is no mention of any diocesan bishop. In the one church at
Philippi there were episcopoi, "bishops" (Phil 1:1). The apostles
are never given this title. The bishop was a local official, and
there were several of these in each congregation.
Furthermore, the "elders" (presbyteroi) and "bishops" (episcopoi)
were the same. This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17 it
says that Paul called for the "elders" (presbyteroi) of the
church at Ephesus. In verse 28 he refers to them as episcopoi -
"overseers" (KJV), "guardians" (RSV). The same people are
designated by both titles. We shall find this same phenomenon
clearly indicated in the Epistle to Titus. In the NT Church each
local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops
and a group of deacons.
It seems likely that the former had oversight of the spiritual
concerns of the congregation and the latter of its material
business.
When we come to Ignatius early in the second century (about A.D.
115) there is one bishop over each local church, together with
several elders and several deacons. The bishop is supreme in
authority. One of the keynotes of Ignatius' seven letters is,
"Obey your bishop." To the Trallians he wrote: "For when you are
in subjection to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is clear to me
that you are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ....
Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should
do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the
presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ....
And they also who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ
must be in every way pleasing to all men" (The Apostolic Fathers,
"Loeb Classical Library," 1:213-15). Here we see the beginnings
of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second
century.
But "in the beginning it was not so."
Bishop = Elder, Titus 1:5-7
In verses 5 and 6 we find the qualifications of elder in the
church; verse 7 says, "For a bishop must be blameless." This
seems to indicate rather clearly that the same church officials
were called bishops (episcopoi) and elders (presbyteroi). The
name "elders" emphasizes the fact that the leaders of the church
were to be older men, as was the case with the elders of Israel.
The word episcopos (bishop) literally means "overseer." So it
refers to the function and office of an overseer of the church,
That "bishop" and "elder" are used for the same person is even
asserted by Bishop Lightfoot of the Church of England. In his
commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Philippians he
writes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of
all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament
the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop'
(episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95).
He goes on to show that not only was episcopos used in classical
Greek for various officials, but it is common in the Septuagint.
There it signifies "inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters"
(e.g., 2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chron. 34:12, 17; Isa. 60:17). He
comments: "Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which
lies at the root of the word 'bishop,' its usage suggests two
subsidiary notions also: (1) Responsibility to a superior power;
(2) The introduction of a new order of things" (p. 96).
Lightfoot gives six evidences that bishop and elder are the same:
(1) In Phil. 1:1, Paul salutes the bishops and deacons. He could
not have omitted mention of the elders unless they were included
in the "bishops." (2) In Acts 20:17, Paul summoned to Miletus the
elders of the church at Ephesus. But then he calls them
"overseers" (episcopoi) of the flock. (3) Peter does a similar
thing (1 Pet. 5:1-2). (4) In 1 Timothy, Paul describes the
qualifications of bishops (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13). The fact
that he omits elders here would argue that they were the same as
bishops. (5) Titus 1:5-7). (6) Clement of Rome's First Epistle
(ca. A.D. 95) clearly uses "bishops" and "elders"
interchangeably.
It is not without significance that Jerome, writing near the end
of the fourth century, recognizes this identity of the two. He
says: "Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same,
for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age." Again he
writes: "The Apostle plainly shows that presbyters are the same
as bishops." In a third passage he says: "If any one thinks the
opinion that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be
not the view of the Scriptures, but my own, let him study the
words of the apostle to the Philippians." Other Church Fathers,
such as Chrysostom, asserted the same thing. Lightfoot goes so
far as to say: "Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on
the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or
Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is
affirmed" (p. 99).
1 Corinthians, Apostles (12:28)
In this verse Paul mentions eight types of ministry in the
church. The first is that of apostles.
Who were the apostles in the Early Church? Are there still
apostles in the church of today? Neither of these questions is
easy to answer.
The Greek noun apostolos comes from the verb apostello, which
means "send with a commission, or on service." So apostolos is "a
messenger, one sent on a mission." Abbott-Smith continues his
definition by saying: "In NT, an apostle of Christ (a) with
special reference to the Twelve......... equality with whom is
claimed by St. Paul.......(b) in a wider sense of prominent
Christian teachers, as Barnabas, Acts 14:14, apparently
also Silvanus and Timothy, 1 Thess. 2:6, and perhaps Andronicus
and .Junias (Junia?), Rom. 16:7....... of false teachers,
claiming apostleship" (p. 55). It is evident that the word
has a variety of applications in the NT.
In his long article on apostolos in Kittel's Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, Rengstorf shows that in
classical and early Hellenistic Creek there is no parallel to the
NT use of this word. This is true even of the Septuagint,
Josephus, and Philo (1:408).
The word is found 79 times in the NT. Paul and Luke (his close
companion) each use it 34 times ((68 out of the 79). It occurs
three times in Revelation, twice in 2 Peter. and once each in
Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews,, I Peter. and Jude. Paul has it at
the beginning of 9 of his 13 Epistles..
Apostolos is used for messenger, "one sent" in John 13:16. In 2
Cor. 8:23 Paul applies this term to the commissioned
representatives of local church congregations. "Finally,
apostoloi is a comprehensive term for 'bearers of the NT message'
" (TDNT, 1:422). It is used primarily for the 12 apostles chosen
and commissioned by Christ. This is the dominant usage in Luke's
Gospel and Acts.
Then we also find the wider spread suggested by Abbott-Smith.
Paul and Barnabas were first of all apostles of the church at
Antioch. But Paul calls himself at the beginning of his epistles,
"an apostle-of Jesus Christ." Luke does not hesitate to speak of
Paul and Barnabas as apostles (Acts 14:4, 14).
The first apostle was Jesus himself (Heb.- 3:1), sent from God.
Rengstorf comments: "Here the only possible meaning of apostolos
is that in Jesus there has taken place the definitive revelation
of God by God himself(1:2)" (TDNT, 1:423). All other apostles are
direct representatives of Jesus.
Are there apostles today in the Church? In a general, unofficial,
nontechnical sense, yes. But it may well be questioned whether
apostolic authority as found in the first-century Church has
carried over to subsequent centuries. Acts 1::31-29 indicates
that an apostle was to be one who had been in close contact with
Christ during His earthly ministry and who could be a witness of
His resurrection. Paul fulfilled the latter requirement ( 1 Cor.
15:8), but not the former one. However, he was careful to state
that he had "received" the necessary information (1 Cor. 15:3).
Charles H. Spurgeon was perhaps a bit severe when he
characterized apostolic succession as laying empty hands on empty
heads. But many of those who claim apostolic succession today
hardly show themselves to be true representatives of the
Christ of the NT.
Prophets (12:28)
The Greek prophetes comes from the verb prophemi, which means
"speak forth." So it signifies "one who acts as an interpreter or
forth-teller of the Divine will" (A-S, p. 390). Contrary to
popular usage today, the biblical meaning of "prophecy" is not
foretelling, but forth-telling. Put in simplest terms, the
prophet is one who speaks for God.
In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Friedrich has a lengthy article on prophetes and its cognate
terms in the New Testament. He notes some differences
between OT and NT prophets. He says that "prophecy is not
restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity.
According to Acts 2:4; 4:31, all are filled with the prophetic
Spirit and, according to Acts 2:16ff., it is a specific mark of
the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of
individuals but that all members of the eschatological
community without distinction are called to prophesy" (6:849)
But our present passage, as well as Eph.4:11, shows that there
was a special gift of prophecy in the Early Church. It is ranked
first, as the best gift after "apostles," in our present passage
as well as 14:1.
Has the gift of prophecy continued? In the second century the
Montanists went to unfortunate extremes in their claims for this
gift. Friedrich writes: "With the repudiation of Montanism
prophecy came to an end in the Church" (6:860). On the other
hand. many Bible scholars believe that the NT prophets were
essentially preachers, and so this gift of the Spirit is present
today.
Helps (12:28)
The Greek word antilempsis (only here in NT) is used in the
Septuagint and papyri in the sense of "help." Abbott-Smith thinks
that here it is used for the "ministrations of deacons"
(p. 41). Cremer says that the word is "taken by the Greek
expositors uniformly as answering to deacons (implying the duties
towards the poor and sick)" (p. 386).
Governments (12:28)
Kybernesis is likewise found only here in the NT. It comes from
the verb meaning to guide or steer. In classical Greek it
referred to the piloting of a boat. Then it was used
metaphorically for "government." Beyer writes that. in view of
its literal meaning and attested usage, "The reference can only
be to the specific gifts which qualify a Christian to be a
helmsman to his congregation, i.e., a true director to its order
and therewith of its life" (3:10:36). The word may be translated
"gifts of administration" (NIV).
Evangelists (4:1 1 ) - Ephesians
The word, which is a transliteration of the (Greek euangelistes,
is found only two other places in the NT. In Acts 21:8 Philip is
referred to as "the evangelist." In 2 Tim.4:5 the young Timothy
is admonished to "do the work of an evangelist."
The term comes from the verb euangelizo ("evengelize"), which
means "proclaim glad tidings." An evengelist, then, is one who
preaches the "gospel" (Greek euangelos), the good news that
Christ has died to save men. The evangelists in the Early Church
were probably itinerant preachers.
Pastors and Teachers (4:11)
"Pastor" is the Latin term for "shepherd." The Greek word poimen
also means "shepherd." It is used of Christ(John 10:11, 14, 16;
Heb.13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). Here it is used of Christian pastors.
Homer, in his Lliad, refers to "pastors of the people" (poimena
laon). The pastor is to be the shepherd of the flock.
Apparently the pastors and teachers were the same. Vincent
comments: "The omission of the article from teachers seems to
indicate that pastors and teachers are included under one class"
(3:390).
The end of quotes from Ralph Earle
THE WORD "ELDER" AS USED IN THE NT
The Analytical Greek Lexicon(1978 edition) says:
"presbuteros..........elder, senior: older, more advanced in
years, Lu.15:25; Jno.8:9; Ac.2:17; an elder in respect of age,
person advanced in years, 1 Tim.5:1,2; pl. spc. ancients,
ancestors, fathers, Mat.15:2; He.11:2; as an appellation of
dignity, an elder, local dignitary, Lu.7:3; an elder, member of
the Jewish Sanhedrin, Mat.16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57, 59; an
elder or presbyter of the Christian church, Ac.11:30; 14:23, et
al.freq.
presbuterion.........a body of older men, an assembly of elders;
the Jewish Sanhedrin, Lu.22:66; Ac.22:5; a body of elders in the
Christian church, a presbytery, 1 Tim.4:14.
presbutes.........an old man, aged person, Lu.1:18; Tit.2:2;
Phile.9
presbutis........an aged woman, Tit.2:3.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words, page 195
A. Adjectives
1. presbuteros......... an adjective, the comparative degree
of presbus, "an old man, an elder," is used (a) of age, whether
of the "elder" of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9,
"the eldest"; or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts
2:17; in Heb.11:2, the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so
in Matt.15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used
of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim.5:2, not in respect of
positions but in seniority of age; (b) of rank or position of
responsibility, (1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept.of Gen.50:7;
Num.22:7; (2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the
heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy
who assisted Moses, Num.11:16; Deut.27:1, and those assembled by
Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the
chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law,
e.g., Matt.16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public
affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3; (3) in the Christian
churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the
work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual
care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these
the term "bishops," episkopoi, or "overseers," is applied (see
Acts 20, v.17 with v.28, and Titus 1:5 and 7), the latter term
indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity
of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen throughout
the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each
church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil.1:1; 1Tim.5:17; Titus 1:5. The
duty of "elders" is described by the verb episkopeo. They were
appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the
divine qualifications, Titus 1:6 to 9; cf. 1 Tim.3:1-7 and 1
Pet.5:2; ...........
2. sumpresbuteros........"a fellow-elder (sun, "with"), is
used in 1 Pet.5:1.
3. meizon......translated "elder" in Rom.9:12, with
reference to Esau and Jacob.
B. Noun
presbuterion........."an assembly of aged men," denotes (a) the
Council or Senate among the Jews, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; (b) the
"elders" or bishops in a local church, 1 Tim.4:14, "the
presbytery."
TODAY'S ARGUMENT
Some in the Church of God of recent date are teaching that ALL
older people(men only, but some will no doubt eventually include
women) can be Elders in the church. They teach people can take
turns in being "elders" for a festival time, or for a month, or a
year etc. They teach a local church can "pick and choose" or
"vote in or vote out" who will serve as Elders and for how long.
They say the word "elder" under the OT just meant any older
person. Sure indeed within some contexts it did mean just that,
but upon an in-depth study of the word, as done above, it was
often used in a more limited sense and as a "leadership" function
and responsibility, not shared with just every older man in the
nation or community.
The use of the word "elder" in the NT also clearly shows a much
w i d e r and BROADER use as the two works above explained and
demonstrated. It is used for older men and older women in any
congregation of the church of God. But it is not exclusively to
be understood as meaning that in EVERY passage where it is used.
The context of the passage is most important as to how we are to
understand the use of the word.
Clearly, this Greek word is an umbrella word. Something similar
to our English word today of "minister." That word is an
umbrella word. For we use it not only when talking about those
men who are pastors of churches, but it is used of various
functions and duties of the nations Government. We today have a
"minister of Finance" or a "minister of Defence" or a "minister
of Health" - "minister of Public Affairs" - "minister of
Agriculture" etc. etc.
It should be clear from all we have studied in the previous
pages, that the NT does use the term "elder" in a specific
limited context, of men who were appointed by meeting certain
qualifications, to function in duty as overseers, shepherds,
leaders, guides, pastors, teachers, of the flock.
Such men had to meet specific qualifications. They could not be
new to the faith(no matter how old in age they were) when chosen
to be an overseer. Many other points did Paul lay down in 1 Tim.3
as to who could qualify for eldership. It should be pretty plain
to the honest searcher for truth, that not ALL older men would
have all the qualifications required to be appointed as church
pastors/overseers/elders.
Not all older men in the nation are qualified to be part of the
local officials that are to guide and direct the affairs of local
towns and cities. Not all older carpenters, plumbers,
fire-fighter, policemen, have the gifts to be leaders, and
guides, and overseers, of a crew of persons in their chosen
profession. That is just the way it is in this natural life. It
does not mean the leader/guide, of a group of fie-fighters, is
any better man in character or worth. He may very well not be as
good in some areas as a man under his guidance.
It just means that he has proved he has the qualities needed to
oversee that trade well on the whole. He has proved he is
rounded and balanced enough, has the overall gifts, needed to
take care, watch out for, instruct correctly, guide, help, and
serve, those he is overlooking and overseeing. That's all it
means! It does not mean he is "special."
It means he has been given certain gifts to meet certain
qualifications that are needed to function correctly in the
appointment of overseeing and leading others.
Then depending on how well he does in that function, staying
basically within those qualifications from then on out, will
determine how long he keeps that function. If he falls too many
times from those qualifications, especially if it brings shame
and disgrace upon his company, then his reward is accordingly,
even to the point of loosing his function and being then a part
of the team under other overseers and leaders.
If we teach that EVERYONE can be or have turns in being "elders"
in the church, there are LARGE problems to answer!
If being an elder is just being an "older person" then we have to
determine at what age is older? Do we become an elder of the
church at age 50? Is that "older"? Or is it at the age of 55?
Maybe we become an elder in the church at age 60! Or is it 65
when we retire? That's the age our nations call us seniors,
unless you live in Florida. There certain stores(to receive
discounts) and certain movie theatres, call you senior at the age
of 55.
Should the age be 70 when you become a church elder? Some would
think 40 years old is old enough. Or how about 30, that's when
Jesus started to teach and lead and guide.
Then, what if someone comes into the church at age 60. Do they
become an elder right away because of their older age? If not,
then how long do they have to wait, how many months or years,
before they are counted as an elder of the church?
Who sets all the answers to the above questions? Where do they
get the authority and Bible answers to answer those questions?
I can see a whole list of problems arising from this teaching of
"everyone can be elders, who are older." What if someone does
not want to be considered an "elder" when he is older? What does
the church do to "unfrock" him? How long does an elder remain
an elder in his old age, and who sets the time, by what
authority, and by what set of scriptures?
We have not yet touched on the problem of older women. They too
are "elder" as part of elder means older. Paul said in Christ
there is no male or female, Gentile or Jew, so should not older
women also be "elders of the church"? If not why not?
And so we are back to the beginning of the circle. What is the NT
definition of a church "elder"?
From all that I have presented to you so far in this study, from
all the NT scriptures we can "put together" on the subject, we
should by now KNOW THE ANSWER! If you do not, then better read
over the last dozen or so pages once more - S L O W L Y!
............
Appendix Additions updated in January 1997
Church GovernmentWhat 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).
Servant's News, PO Box 220, Charlotte, Michigan 48813-0220
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 Choosen 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
Church GovernmentWhat the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed Part Two
CONTINUED
J.D.
In the New Testament the selection of elders does have some
commentry. Let's read Acts 14:23.......
At first reading this seems to be very clearly stated. It
appears that Barnabas and Paul simply appointed some of the
mature men to be elders. But hold your horses! Don't gallop off
so fast! Is that what it really says?.......the Greek word
translated "appointed" is the one we isolated earlier as
"cheirotoneo" .......Literally it means "to stretch forth the
hands." .......
In the light of our previously reviewed scriptures, who do
you suppose made the actual selection? Who do you think might
have done the voting?
MY ANSWER:
Yes indeed, at first reading it does seem to be very clear!
Okay, we will hold our horses, and not gallop but walk slowly.
First, as I have said so many times before, the Bible is
basically written in a simple format. Oh, you must find and put
together ALL scriptures on any topic, to ascertain the truth of
the matter, but you do not need a degree in theology from some
Bible institution to understand all the fundamental doctrines of
the Lord. As Jesus said: "Thank you Father that you have hidden
these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them
unto babes."
You must become as little children in belief and faith to
enter the Kingdom, so it is taught by Christ.
The Bible was not written in so-called classical Greek. It
was handed to us written in simple everyday common Greek. Today
we would say it was written in everyday common English, no big
high sounding words, certainly not even close to the language
of lawyers.
Yet, although common day to day Greek is the language of the
NT it still employed the use of the basic rules of grammar just
as good common English does.
One very important rule of grammar and also correct biblical
understanding of any single verse, is to look at and read the
whole context the verse is within.
Did the scholars and translators of the King James Version
in 1611 make a fundamental grammar mistake here in Acts 14:23 ?
The context will tell us.
Let us start way back in chapter thirteen and verse four.
WHO is the subject of verse four? Verse two tells us -
Barnabas and Saul(Paul). Those two men are the "they" mentioned
in verse four.
Who is the subject of verse five? It is Barnabas and Paul -
the "they." Look at verse six! Again, who is the subject? Why it
is Paul and Barnabas - the "they."
Read all the way to verse forty three. The context does
single out Paul saying certain words, yet it is still
"them"(verse 8) and "they" in verses 14. It is "them" in verse
15, and "Paul and Barnabas" in verse 43.
Who is the subject of verses 44 through to 52? It is Paul
and Barnabas - the "they" of verse 51.
Carry on into chapter fourteen. The persons the context
singles out as the who of the subject is "they went both together
into the synagogue of the Jews" - Paul and Barnabas! Who is the
subject of verse six and seven? It is "they" - Barnabas and
Paul.
See verses 11, 12, 14, 18. WHO IS THE SUBJECT? It is the
"apostles" - the "they" - the "them" - Barnabas and Paul!
Move on to verses 19 and 20. The persons who are the subject
are Paul and Barnabas.
Verses 21,22 it is "they" who are the subject - Paul and
Barnabas. Notice verse 24. Who is the subject? Why the two
apostles, the same two as in the above verses. What about verses
26 through to 28? Who is the subject? It is "they" - Paul and
Barnabas!
Could ANYTHING BE PLAINER? The context from chapter 13 to
the end of chapter 14 shows who is the subject of the thought and
the deeds of the whole. And that was Paul and Barnabas! It is so
simple, common day to day Greek or English, a young child could
understand, that the persons who are the subject of the discord
are the two apostles - Barnabas and Paul. And so using words such
as "they" and "them" is quite within correct grammar.
The verse under question - verse 23 - is WITHIN THE WHOLE
CONTEXT - within the "who is the subject" of the context. The WHO
(what persons as the main subject) NEVER CHANGES! The who
remains as Paul and Barnabas!
From the before and after of the context of verse
twenty-three, it is only logical to continue to use the simple
English grammar rule of "subject" and add the "they" in that
verse. The "they" being still the two apostles - namely Paul and
Barnabas.
We know from the Greek NT itself that Luke(the author of
Acts) did have at his disposal words in the Greek for assembly or
church or congregation or group of persons. If he wanted us to
have no questions as to the fact that it was the whole church
congregation that had final authority and that elected and
ordained these men to be elders, then he could have and should
have (according to common rules of grammar) changed the subject
in verse 23. He could have easily written: "And the churches
appointed themselves elders, and after prayer and fasting they
commended them to the Lord." Luke would have thus instructed us
that the subject had changed from Paul and Barnabas to the church
or congregation or assembly of believers in Lystra, Iconium, and
Antioch. He could have said: "The assembly of disciples ordained
them elders in every church...." etc. Then in verse 24 used the
names "Paul" and "Barnabas" to bring the who of the subject back
to them for the rest of the chapter. But he did not! Because of
one simple factor, he never intended us to believe the persons of
the subject of the context HAD CHANGED from the two apostles to
the collective membership of the churches in Anitoch, Iconium,
and Lystra!
The two apostles - Paul and Barnabas - are the subject(the
"they" and "them") of the context. Luke never changes it from
chapter 13:4 to the end of chapter 14, in fact even into the
first number of verses in chapter 15.
The rules of grammar leave us with no alternative but to
render verse 23 of chapter 14 as found in the KJV. The scholars
of 1611 were quite correct!
The unescapable contextual evidence is that it was indeed
Paul and Barnabas, two apostles, and two elders, overseers, that
prayed and fasted, and ordained/appointed elders in every church
in the three towns mentioned. They had the last word as to who
those elders would be.
I did not say that the congregations may not have had some
impute on the final decisions made by Paul and Barnabas as to who
should be ordained as elders. Surely Paul and Barnabas would have
had to do some inquiring, looking carefully, asking questions,
ascertaining who was meeting the qualifications to be elders
within those churches. But as in Acts 6, it was "they" - Barnabas
and Paul - who would finally have the last word, and "whom we may
appoint over this business."
NOW TO THE WORD "APPOINT" - cheirotoneo.
Some today are wanting to stress this Greek word
"cheirotoneo." Telling you that "...in classical Greek, is
primarily used to denote voting in the Athenian legislative
assembly."
This particular Greek word is used by itself(and I have a
very good reason to say by itself, that we shall come to later)
ONLY TWICE in the entire NT. Here in Acts 14:23 and also in 2
Corinthians 8:19.
Here is what Strong's Concordance has to say about this
word: ".....to be a hand-reacher or voter(by raising the hand),
i.e.(ge.) to select or appoint:- choose, ordain."
The Analytical Greek Lexicon page 436 says: "....to stretch
out the hand; to constitute by voting; to appoint, constitute,
Ac.14:23; 2 Co.8:19."
In part Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT has this to
say: ".....extending the hand....a. prop. to vote by stretching
out the hand.......b. to create or appoint by vote......c. with
the loss of the notion of extending the hand(emphasis mine,KH),
to elect, appoint, create......"
Now I give you the full explanation of this word as given in
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985
copyright, page 34. See if you can find one section that is very
revealing and interesting.
".....primarily used of voting in the Athenian legislative
assembly and meaning 'to stretch forth the hands' (cheir, 'the
hand,' teino, 'to stretch'), is not to be taken in its literal
sense; it could not be so taken in its compound procheirotoneo,
'to choose before,' since it is said of God, Acts 10:41.
Cheirotoneo is said of 'the appointment' of elders by
apostolic missionaries in the various churches which they
revisited, Acts 14:23, RV, 'had appointed,' i.e., by the
recognition of those who had been manifesting themselves as
gifted of God to discharge the function of elders(see No.2). It
is also said of those who were 'appointed' (not by voting, but
with general approbation) by the churches in Greece to accompany
the apostle in conveying their gifts to the poor saints in Judea,
2 Cor.8:19. See CHOOSE, ORDAIN."
The NT I repeat was not written in classical Greek, but the
common every day Greek of the average citizen of the Roman
Empire, who did not speak classical Greek.
We need to be very careful when trying to understand certain
Greek words. Many of them can have various meanings and uses. The
common Greek of the NT was not unlike our common English, many
words had more than one use and not always the original stem
meaning. So it was also in the Hebrew language.
I hope the following will clearly show you the truth of what
I am stating. The Church of God Seventh Day in their July-August
1996 edition of The Bible Advocate, under the question and answer
section, had this to say concerning "Is a cross a stake or
a tree?"
".......In the English language, a stake or a cross in not a
tree. But we are dealing with basic Hebrew and Greek words
translated into modern English, which, by the way, has changed
tremendously since the King James Version was published. Let's
deal with the Hebrew word for tree first.
The basic word transliterated ets is a general word for
anything made of wood. It may be a literal tree, a stick of wood,
a shepherd's staff, a stake, or gallows. Read the book of Esther,
particularly the story of Haman. The gallows he arranged to be
built was called an ets.
So to say that a cross or stake is not a tree is incorrect.
The Hebrew word may mean those objects as well.
From the Greek word for tree (xulon) we derive our word
xylophone, which means 'wood sound.' The bars are made of wood
and create a pleasing sound when the right person plays them.
This word helps us see that the word for tree in Greek is a
general word for something made of wood. So when the author of
Acts uses xulon, he may not be talking of a literal tree.
In fact, Paul and Silas were put in 'trees' in the prison at
Philippi. The usual translation there is 'stocks.' Again, the
Greek word is xulon.
Interestingly, Luke, who also wrote Acts, uses the word
generally translated 'cross' when telling what Christ was killed
on. In Acts, Luke always uses the general word meaning 'tree' or
'wood.'
The Greek word translated 'cross,' as best we can translate
it, originally meant 'stake.' The history of crucifixion usually
says the earliest crucifixions were done on a tree or on a stake.
But the Romans had started using a cross before the time of
Christ. Again, no one seems to know for certain the exact type
used for the crucifixion of Jesus.
The common forms were the Tau, 'T' shaped, one called the
St.Anthony, 'X' shaped, and the Latin cross traditionally shown
in paintings. One writer of the nineteenth century also listed
one called the 'tree,' shaped like 'Y.' I have not been able to
verify this elsewhere.
But the exact shape of the cross doesn't matter. It was
something made of wood, thus fulfilling both the Hebrew and Greek
words used for that instrument of death........" (Paul E.
Heavilin).
Ah, words can have an original basic root meaning but can
also in the process of time be used in a way that does not carry
its original literal root meaning.
Let me further illustrate with the word "Rock." From Vine's
Expository Dic. of Old and New Test.Words, page 208, we read:
"ROCK sur...,'rock; rocky wall; cliff; rocky hill; mountain;
rocky surface; boulder.' .....Other than in names of places and
persons, the word appears 70 times in biblical Hebrew and in all
periods. First, sur means 'rocky wall' or 'cliff.' This is
probably what Moses struck in Exod.17:6.....Thus God hid Moses in
a cleft of the 'rocky cliff' (Exod.33:21-22).
Second, the word frequently means 'rocky hill' or
'mountain.' This emphasis clearly emerges in
Isa.2:10,19.....(Num.23:9)......(Deut.32:13)......)Ps.61:2)......
(Job 14:18......(Job 19:24).
Third, sur can mean 'rocky ground' or perhaps a large flat
'rock.'......(2 Sam.21:10; cf. Prov.30:19).
Fourth, in some passages the word means 'boulder,' in the
sense of a rock large enough to serve as an
altar......(Judg.6:21).
'Rock' is frequently used to picture God's support and
defense of His people (Deut.32:15). In some cases this noun is an
epithet, or meaningful name, of God (Deut.32:4), or of heathen
gods:'For their rock(god) is not as our Rock(God).....'
(Deut.32:31).
Finally, Abraham is the source (rock) from which Israel was
hewn (Isa.51:1)."
Ah, ah, do you see? The Hebrew word sur has the basic root
meaning of literal rock, but was also used in a NONE LITERAL
SENSE! In a way that kept the underlying strength of the word,
its intrinsic quality, but not to be taken in its first literal
meaning. God's support and defense of His people is a "rock."
Used also as a meaningful name of God.
Another example is the Greek word gennaoo. See what Vine's
Dic. says on this word, page 57.
It is used as "to beget." It is used of conception. The
word is used as "to be born." Used for literal conception and
literal birth. That is the basic root meaning, yet as Vine's
Dic. points out, the word is used allegorically and
metaphorically. In those instances(some given in Vine's) it would
be ridiculous to take the word in its original literal root
meaning.
Now back to the word cheirotoneo.
Did you note in Vine's Dic. quoted above, the part I said
was of important interest? I have never seen this quoted by
anyone who wants to hit you between the eyes with its root
meaning in classical Greek.
Quote from Vine's: "....to stretch forth the hand.....is
not to be taken in its literal sense; it could not be so taken in
its compound procheirotoneo, "to choose before, since it is said
of God, Acts 10:41...."
Now please turn to Acts the tenth chapter and verse
forty-one.
I told you that the word cheirotoneo is only used TWICE in
the NT. Used on its own that is true. But it is used for a THIRD
time in the above verse of Acts ten. Not on its own but with the
prefix "pro" - before. Hence the statement by Vine's
aforementioned.
Acts ten and verse forty tells us that God - the Father -
raised Jesus from the dead and showed Him openly....."Not to all
the people, but unto witnesses CHOSEN BEFORE of God...." It was
the Father in heaven who had already ELECTED and pre-determined
WHO the individuals would be to see Jesus after His resurrection!
The Father had pro-cheirotoneo.
Now ask yourself this question: Did the Father stretch forth
or raise His hand - literally - as He chose or elected these
persons? I think not! He certainly had no need to do so, for who
is greater in authority in the universe? Did He vote with
Himself? Such thoughts are ridiculous! Maybe He voted with Jesus
before His death or right after His resurrection on the matter?
Yet, that does not hold up in the light of John 10:30 and other
scriptures that show Christ and the Father have complete
agreement at all times. There is never any voting among
themselves.
Then if you want to argue they did vote, how can two vote on
anything and have a majority that wins the day? Oh, I guess if
you are not a part of the Church of God ( and Protestant or Roman
Catholic) you could say the person of the Holy Spirit would cast
the vote to decide the issue. Those of us in the Church of God do
not have that answer!
So the Father would not vote with Himself, He would not vote
with Christ. Perhaps the Father voted with the holy angels or the
twenty four elders in heaven. Maybe the "stretching forth the
hand" and voting on who would see Jesus after His resurrection
was done in heaven by the heavenly host.
I guess it could have been possible, if you want to argue
for the sake of arguing, and want to believe this word
cheirotoneo must be taken in its literal original classical
Greek meaning at all times.
Let us suppose this voting and literal raising of the hand
did take place in heaven above with the Father and angelic
beings. My next question to you is: WHO would have the final
authority on the issue? There can be no other answer but the
Father would!
So voting would be redundant and a waste of time in this
case. True, God is the author of the proverb: "In the multitude
of counsellors there is safety"(Prov.11:14). But seeking input
and counsel on something is not the same by any means as taking a
democratic vote to let the majority rule.
God the Father is always the majority!
The simple logical answer to Acts 10:41 is that the Father
elected, chose, who would see the risen Christ, without any
stretching forth the hand in a vote by anyone.
The word cheirotoneo as used in the common Greek of the NT
should then be understood as meaning simply, appointed, chosen,
elected, just as the scholars of 1611 translated it, without any
bearing on literally stretching forth the hand in a vote.
Some, wanting to hold to their position, will not agree, but
will continue to insist voting was carried on in 2 Cor.8:19 and
Acts 14:23.
Back we go, first to 2 Cor.8:19.
The "chosen" one here had to do with somebody helping carry
the "gift" of material help to those less fortunate. It had
NOTHING to do with appointing, electing, or choosing a spiritual
elder/overseer in any church, or electing a person to "serve
tables," deacon - as in Acts 6. Please see such Bible
Commentaries as Barnes' Notes on the NT.
True, the choosing of this person had to be done in some
way. Yet the way it was accomplished is not given to us.
This is clearly a "none essential" matter of church
administration of physical things. And in such cases how it is
done and decided is left to us, it is our liberty within the law
of God as we have discussed in part one of this study. But as I
have shown above the word itself does not mean we are to
dogmatically take it in any literal sense of voting by
the stretching forth of the hand.
Acts 14:23. I have before proved that the contextual "they"
of this verse are the two apostles - Paul and Barnabas. For those
who unrelentingly cling to a voting here taking place, I have no
difficulty in "going along." Because the context plainly shows it
was Paul and Barnabas who would be voting or agreeing (with a
stretching forth of the hand - a hand shake, as we would do it
today) with the final authority vested in them(as we have seen
also in Acts 6) as to who would be appointed elders in the
churches under discussion.
Let me try to make this plain with my own example. I had
been trained under the Worldwide Church of God(their programs)
back in the 60's, for the ministry/eldership. I was one of the
right hand men to two local ministers during that time. I left
that organization in 1972. By 1979 I was spiritual leader of two
congregation, one near Toronto, and the other situated in
Rochester, NY state. In 1981 I was contacted by Fred Coulter who
had left the WCG in 1979 and founded the Biblical Church of God
in California. He made(in 1982) an early summer visit to Ontario
and the two churches mentioned above, staying with my wife and I.
He apparently went to both congregations(unknown by me)
stating to them he felt I should be ordained to the eldership. I
was told later, both congregations agreed. Then he came to me,
telling me what I've just related to you, and asking if I would
accept being ordained to the spiritual overseership in the body
of Christ. I said I would.
He made it quite clear to me that he would have to go back
to the elders(about 10 at the time) in the BCG organization, and
obtain their consent and final approval. If they all agreed(put
forth the hand - shook hands on it) then I would be ordained at
the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall of 1982. If they did not
agree, I would not be ordained to the ministry.
They did agree and I was officially appointed/ordained by
Fred and another elder in St.Louis.
The proverb "In the multitude of counsellors there is
safety" was applied. The two local congregations were taken into
confidence by Fred concerning my ordination, yet the final and
last word on the matter came from the elders - plural.
I believe that if Mr.Difley and Mr.Edwards had only ever
experienced true scriptural "church government" in a local
autonomous congregation with a number of spiritual
overseers/elders present, all having equal authority in essential
matters, and where the brethren were all respected as having
different gifts from the Holy Spirit, they would have no problem
with what I have stated above.
I personally have seen this scriptural truth being practiced
in some Jamaican Church of God, Seventh Day congregations in
south Florida, with wonderful results.
Ah, I did "hold your horses" and I did not gallop off into
the sunset.
J.D.
In Titus 1:5 we read.......The Greek word here used for
appoint is the verb "kathistemi" and literally means "to stand
down." ....... Some translations of the word include: "(to)
place," "set down," "set in order," "set over," "constitute,"
"make," and even "the significance of bringing to (a certain
place)." We can see that it is not as definite in meaning as
simply "ordain" or "appoint" in the English language, and does
not imply how it should be done........
"appointed." The Greek word is "diatasso" ....... It does
not necessarily mean that the one sent to do the appointing does
the actual work, but rather that the one sent makes sure the work
is done.......
It now becomes clear in Titus 1:5, and we can justly say,
that Paul was telling Titus that he should make certain that
elders were selected, not that Titus was necessarily to make the
selections unilaterally. Do you suppose that we may also assume
that the congregations did the actual appointing even as other
scriptures indicate? .......
MY ANSWER:
Concerning this Greek word "kathistemi." How you understand
"to place" - "set down" - "set in order" - "set over" etc. with
the English words ordain or appoint is really a matter of
semantics. I have no trouble thinking "set over" is the same as
"appoint." Yes, true "setting someone over" or "appointing them
over" can be done officially in different ways.
As shown before, there is no concrete "formula" in baptizing
someone. Certain things are mentioned in the word, but very few.
So it is with "setting over" or "appointing" elders. The word
itself does not as Mr.Difley correctly says, "imply how it should
be done."
Clearly it was something Paul instructed Titus to do. We
have as we have seen, a few examples that prayer, fasting, laying
on of hands and some kind of commending to the Lord was done in
appointing persons to such a duty in the church. The exact
formula of "setting down" these men is obviously left up to every
congregation to "set in order." A pun on words was intended.
This is the liberty in Christ all elders and local
congregations have been given.
I am not sure what J.D. is driving at concerning the word
"diatasso" for it seems irrelevant to our main topic. You may
like to read what Vine's Expository Dictionary has to say about
it, page 34. It is a strong word, and one thing is certain, Titus
was being told by Paul to fulfil this directive that is found in
verse five.
The argument that Titus did not do the work, was not
involved in selecting the elders or had the congregations appoint
the elders, is weak and hard to justify in the light of
contextual study, not only in this chapter of Titus but also the
entire NT.
If by saying "not that Titus was necessarily to make the
selections unilaterally" we mean, to act as some little pompous
vain, all knowing, self-sufficient, arrogant dictatorial
demagogic elder, then as the reader should well understand from
this study, I completely agree! But if by using the word
"unilaterally" we are trying to say Titus did not have the
final authority and last word on who would be elders, if we are
saying the final authority lay in the hands of the congregations,
then I could not disagree more!
My disagreement to this notion comes from the following
points: 1. The internal evidence of verse five itself. Crete is a
small island in the Mediterranean, churches had obviously been
established but no spiritual elders had been officially
appointed. If that had been the case, Paul would not have left
Titus there to undertake the task. He could have easily asked the
existing elders to ordain other elders. Paul also felt it
necessary to inform Titus about the basic qualifications that
elders were to have in order to be appointed as elders, also
showing this was a new undertaking and the churches on Crete
did not as yet have any elders. 2. Paul gives the qualifications
for eldership to Titus. Not one word is said to him about passing
this information on to the membership of the churches, because it
would be them and not him, who would do the electing and have
the final authority on the matter. I just cannot see something as
important as appointing spiritual overseers/elders in the
churches, being completely ignored by Paul in every letter
(especially those of Timothy and Titus - letters to other elders)
of his, IF SUCH AN APPOINTMENT AND FINAL AUTHORITY WAS TO COME
FROM THE MEMBERSHIP.
Surely such a serious election of duty would be given some
space, somewhere in the NT, with careful instructions to the
church membership as to "what to look for" in choosing elders, if
it was they and not the existing elders who were to have the last
word. Paul gave detailed instructions on this matter to TWO
individual persons - Timothy and Titus, yet never to a
congregation. Even when instructing Timothy and Titus on the
subject, he never as much as even hints to them that they must
pass this teaching on to the membership, as it would be they, the
congregation, who would have "authority" over the ordaining of
elders.
Let me remind you if Acts 6 rushes back into your thoughts,
and you have forgotten what I've shown on that section before.
Acts 6 was the choosing or appointing of men to "serve tables" -
physical duties only in the church. Even then the apostles/elders
had the last word for it is written, "that we may appoint over
this business." Acts 6 had nothing to do with electing spiritual
elders. 3. If it was the churches/congregations of Crete that
were to do the "actual appointing" and not Titus, Paul could have
easily written: "For this cause I left you in Crete, that you
should set in order the things that are left undone, and tell the
churches to appoint elders in every city, as I have instructed
you." Or "......have the assemblies ordain elders in each
church....." Or ".....when the churches come together, instruct
them to elect elders for each city...." Paul had all these Greek
words at his disposal, but he did not use them!
The internal evidence both from Titus 1:5 and its context,
the letters to Timothy and the whole NT, shows clearly that the
final authority, having the last word, on who will be appointed
as spiritual overseers and even deacons, lies in the hands of the
existing elders (perfectly elders - plural, but in the unusual
case of Crete, elder - Titus, as there were no other elders in
the churches on Crete at the time Paul was instructing him).
What do you think of the duty of Elder, someone who is a
spiritual overseer in a church or churches? Is it "no big deal"
to you? Is it "well anyone can do it"? How do you read the NT my
friend? If having elders in the church is really "nothing to get
excited about" to you, then why do they have to meet such high
qualifications as taught by Paul in his letters to Timothy and
Titus? Why then does James tell us. "My brethren, be not MANY
TEACHERS, knowing that we shall receive the greater
judgment"(James 3:1)?
The word of God powerfully proclaims that MOST should not
set themselves up in any type of official spiritual leadership
over others, for it is an awesome responsibility to do so, and
such persons will come under greater judgment from the Lord.
For me to think that Titus would walk into a church on
Crete, say to the congregation, "Well now, you must elect
spiritual elders, I'm having nothing to do with it. I'm off to
another church, and will look forward to seeing your elders when
I come back" JUST BLOWS MY MIND!
To imagine Titus going to all the churches in every city on
Crete and saying the same thing......well I just cannot think
that a dedicated understudy to Paul, would do anything remotely
as irresponsible as that! Titus was the ONLY ELDER on Crete, and
to contemplate the idea that he would not have been personally
involved with the electing of spiritual elders - the very first
elders in the churches - is not worthy of consideration.
Further, if it was the congregations who actually did the
appointing, THEN WHY DID PAUL NEED TO LEAVE TITUS IN CRETE? He
wanted Titus to be with him - see chapter 3:12,13. Paul could
have said: "Titus come to me. I will write a letter for all the
churches on Crete, telling them to ordain elders, and giving them
the guidelines for the needed qualifications to such a duty."
Or, "Titus tell the congregations to appoint elders, that's their
responsibility, but you come to me."
Paul never said any such thing to Titus or any other elder.
Nothing remotely close to this can be found anywhere in the NT.
Do you FEAR AND TREMBLE before the word of God? Do you cry
out like David did to the Lord that you might know your errors,
wrong ways, and false ideas?
I appreciate the truths J.Difley and N.Edwards have come to
see. I understand very well the many spiritual darknesses they
were held captive to while in the WCG. Yet I fear that with their
new found freedom, they may if not very careful, jump from one
frying pan into another frying pan with as many misconceptions as
the first one.
Titus 1:5 is NO EVIDENCE (without reading into it, and
taking liberties with it) to support the idea that the churches
of Crete appointed their own elders APART FROM and INDEPENDENTLY
of, the authority of Titus, the only elder on the island, and the
one Paul had left there to "set in order the things left
undone(mrg.reading) and ordain elders in every city."
As to Mr.Difley's statement "even as other scriptures
indicate" my reply is: WHAT OTHER SCRIPTURES? Please show me just
ONE NT scripture that clearly, plainly, and simply, gives the
teaching or example, that a local church congregation has the
final authority and last word, on appointing spiritual elders,
over and above any existing elders.
If it was the elders of Acts 6 that had the last word and
final authority as to who would "serve tables" - who would be
official servers/deacons - serve in physical matters in the
church, then surely it would be the elders who would have the
final say and authority in appointing men to the higher spiritual
duty of church overseer.
Those are the major difficulties I have with John Difley's
paper called "BY WHAT AUTHORITY?"
For the most part I am in full agreement with the rest of
his article.
It has taken me much longer and a lot more space to answer
the above arguments than I first thought it would. But as this
topic seems to be at present, upper-most in the minds of many who
have recently left the WCG, I felt a complete and detailed answer
was justified.
I have decided to answer some arguments as put forth by
Norman Edwards in his paper called "How Does the Eternal Govern
Through Humans?" in a yet THIRD section to this work on "CHURCH
GOVERNMENT."
This second part written August 1996
(all scripture quotations from the KJV and NKJV)
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed, as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts
nothing will be changed without his consent.
Church GovernmentWhat 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 ceratin
"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 GovernmentWhat 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
..............................
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment