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
Church Government #11What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
THIRD CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO
NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER
N.E.
Self-Appointed "Minister" (Servant). "...ye know the house of
Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they
have addicted (appointed) themselves to the ministry (service) of
the saints" (l Cor. 16:15, KJV) The Greek lasso everywhere else
in the Now Testament is fixated as "appointed," "determined" or
some other decision-making word that fits its Greek meaning. The
KJV translators and others after them have used a varied
of words in this verse that hide the true meaning; of
"appointed". They could not accept the Biblical fact that
Stephanas appointed himself to the ministry or service of the
saints. That would go against their doctrine of central
appointment of all "ministers." In reality, there is nothing
wrong with a person deciding they will serve (not be a "boss"
over) the brethren. Apollos made himself a teacher and was
accepted (Acts 18:24-28, I Cor 3:6).
MY ANSWER
Did the KJV translators really have some clandestine,
undercover, secret cloak and dagger, plan to get all the English
speaking population of the world, to believe in a ONE MAN
AUTHORITARIAN HEAD APOSTLE/ARCH-BISHOP CHURCH GOVERNMENT
TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY?
All I can say is that if what Mr.Edwards wants you to
believe about King James and his scholars, is correct, then
overall they DID A PRETTY LOUSY AND INCONSISTENT JOB of their
translating of the Greek, to enslave the world with their idea
of correct "church government."
I was raised and educated in England, went to a "Church of
England" school all my life till I was seventeen. I faithfully
attended "Sunday school" and entered many Bible exams. I read the
word of the Lord. I was taught it in school. Listened to many
church of England priests. Never from my personal reading of the
King James Version, or from the ministers of the church of
England, did I ever get the notion, or have implanted in my mind,
the idea or teaching that the church that Jesus built(which the
church of England claims to be part of) was ever to be a
dictatorial rank pyramid eldership organization.
It was not until AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH AND BEING A MEMBER
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS in the Worldwide Church of God, under the
"only apostle" of God on earth - Herbert Armstrong(as he
eventually claimed), that I was subjugated to believe,
that the NT taught a hierarchial ministerial rank system of
church government akin to the Roman Catholic church.
I certainly did not have that interpretation encased in my
mind from reading THE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATED BY THE KING JAMES
SCHOLARS!!
So if those scholars translated with that object in their
minds, under the directions from King James, then they needed to
go back to theology school, for they did a dismal inconsistent
job. Why I could have done better myself, not being a Greek
scholar! If the King James translators took WILD LlBERTY(which
they did) with planting the word EASTER (where the Greek is
Pascher - Passover) in Acts 12:4, for their translation, they
sure missed the train in taking wild liberties to establish King
James' secret plan. to get everyone believing in a dictatorial
rank ministry for the church.
I speak with some tongue in cheek, but seriously now. The
word "Easter" was a fragrant wild liberty, not even a
transliteration from the Greek. They could have taken just
as much liberty in trying to teach a pyramid structure for the NT
church. Let me give you some examples as to what I mean.
Come back with me to the latter half, to near the end of the
first century A.D. The apostles Peter and Paul have been
executed. Most if not all of the other early elders of the church
have died in one way or another. The original 12 apostles have
either moved far away from Palestine or have died, only the
apostle JOHN is in the confines of Judea. He is old but somewhat
famous because he was one of the specific 12 chosen by Jesus.
The King James translators of 1611 knew the above facts.
John wrote a letter to "the elect lady" and to "the well-beloved
Gaius" (2 JN. 3 JN.). WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY THEY HAD! If they were
conspiring with King James to slant the scriptures so as to
hood-wink the common person(who hardly had a Bible let alone the
NT Greek manuscripts) into believing the NT church was built upon
a pyramid ministerial rank system like that of the Roman Catholic
church, they could have easily INSERTED the word "bishop" in
John's letters to then read:
"The BISHOP unto the elect lady" and "The BISHOP unto the
well-beloved Gaius."
They paid no attention to the Greek in Acts 12:4 when they
inserted the word EASTER, so they could have ignored the Greek
for "elder" in John's letters. if they were really up to some
sneaky, surreptitious, secretive, underhanded and veiled plan
with King James to foster the doctrine of hierarchal church
government on the people.
They could have done the same thing in Acts 14:23 - inserted
the word BISHOPS instead of "elders." It would have fit in
nicely, because they were appointing men in different churches
not just one church. If the English mind thinks of "bishop" as
some higher head minister over lower in authority ministers, and
if the translators of 1611 wanted to teach the people that their
"Church of England" system was taught in the Bible, they sure had
an excellent opportunity in this verse in Acts.
Look they could have done this kind of clandestine move with
other verses also. They could have done it with 1 Peter 5:1 "The
bishops which are among you I exhort, who am also a bishop..."
Wow, this was Peter, surely many were already believing Peter
to be in dictatorial authority over other less ranked
"ministers." Putting "bishop" here would have really added some
weight for King James' church government teaching.
The word bishop could have been used in 1 Tim.5:17, 19, and
in Titus 1:5. They did use it in Titus 1:7.
Doing all that and leaving the word "elders" in passages
such as Acts 20:17 and James 5:14 (where you could not have
many"bishops" in a single congregation, if we take the word
bishop to mean a minister in authority over other less ranked
ministers) WOULD REALLY HELP NAIL IT HOME, that is King James'
plan to teach hierarchal government in the church.
So yes, the translators of 1611 could have done so IF
ignoring the Greek as they did in Acts 12:4, and if working on a
devious false teaching that King James wanted, nay, was
demanding, to be promoted by the NT.
Ignoring the Greek, I could have done a better job for King
James' clandestine theology than his many scholars(who had many
minds to work his devious seductions) he hired.
GIVE ME A BREAK NORMAN EDWARDS! It was not King James and
his scholars who were out "to teach the world" about hierarchal
church government from the NT scriptures. It was organizations
like the Worldwide Church of God and individuals such as Herbert
Armstrong, who were bent on promulgating this false heretical
doctrine, taken right out of the theology book of the Roman
Catholic church. And how did Herbert Armstrong do it for many
years? Why, not from the NT, but by harping on over and over
again about the hierarchal government in ancient Israel, and
saying God is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (which I
covered the real truth of earlier). It was in the late 70's and
80's he went further into error with trying to teach the doctrine
of Rome, namely the "supremacy of Peter" teaching (which I've
also covered in the first part of this book).
As I've said, I was reading the NT long before, for years
before, I ever heard of the Worldwide Church of God or Herbert
Armstrong, and I never got out of it any teaching of hierarchal
church government, not when you read all the scriptures on the
subject from all the NT. Many scriptures the scholars of 1611
translated correctly and well, and which would contradict any
planned, premeditated, conspiracy on their part to promulgate a
doctrine of Rome. Why they and King James were AGAINST the church
of Rome and its "king-pin, above all others" minister - the Pope.
They and other English scholars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th
centuries OPENLY named the Roman Catholic church as the WHORE of
the book of Revelation - Babylon the great, the mother of
harlots.
Let me comment on the specific verse quoted by N.E. -
1 Cor.16:15.
In all my years of reading this verse BEFORE and AFTER being
a member in the Worldwide Church of God, I never came close to
the same thought as Mr.Edwards - that this was part of the
conspiracy plan undertaken by the translation scholars of 1611.
E.N. is quite correct concerning the Greek word lasso, yet I
do not understand the big deal he is making about it. To me the
KJV translators used an English word that is even more POWERFUL
than the English word "appoint" or "determined." The word
"addicted" to my mind is akin to the word "drugged" which carries
a mighty strong, super strong connotation. Being "addicted" to
wine or heroin is stronger than being appointed to the duty of
carrying out the trash for the office staff.
Also note, if the 1611 translators were trying to promote a
doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" they were once
more inconsistent right within the verse itself. For they
translated the Greek word for "service" (diakonian) as the
English word ministry!
And that word to my English mind, within the context of
religion and the church, carries the connotation of teaching and
working in the eldership function with the saints. So I could
possibly take this verse not as something the 1611 translators
were trying to cover up but just the opposite, teaching that
certain ones appointed or addicted themselves to working in the
"ministry"(eldership) of the saints.
Ah, for the semantics of words and how we understand them
one from another within any given sentence. Interesting to say
the least, and possibly confusing to others.
Now to the nitty-gritty!
Mr. Edwards says it was "Stephanas appointed himself" to the
ministry or service of the saints. But look at that verse AGAIN,
look at it carefully! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL! Read it, it
say: ".......you know the HOUSE of Stephanas.......and that
THEY(more than one) have addicted THEMSELVES to the ministry of
the saints."
This was not one single man or person that had appointed
himself to the ministry, BUT A WHOLE HOUSEHOLD OF PERSONS! We are
not told HOW MANY, what their AGES were, nor what SEX they may
have been - male/female. It could have been persons of BOTH sexes
that had appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints. And
if I was to take the word "ministry" (as given by the KJV
scholars) as meaning eldership or as we today often think and use
the word in religious circles, I could come up with the idea(from
the KJV) that whole families - male and female - can put
themselves into the official function of church elders.
Gets kind of wild doesn't it. Under this light, I could
interpret this verse not as something the 1611 scholars were
trying to conceal because they wanted to teach a doctrine of
"central appointment of all ministers" but actually the very
opposite. That whole families of male AND female could addict (be
drugged on) themselves to serving in the "ministry"(spiritual
eldership) of the church.
We clearly know from this verse that it was the "house of
Stephanas" the "themselves" and not just the man Stephanas who
was addicted to serving the saints. What is also just as clear is
that we are NOT TOLD the service they were doing for the
saints. We are not told if it was washing the chariots for
members of the church, cutting the grass, delivering groceries
for the elderly saints, grooming their horses or donkeys,
painting their stone fences, reading the Bible to the blind, or a
hundred and one other things a household of persons can get
enthusiastic about in serving others.
We are just told the basic essentials, that here was a
FAMILY who had become drugged with setting themselves to minister
- serve(and I think we all really know that the word "ministry"
was used by the 1611 translators to mean NOT eldership but
service, just as they used it many times this way in other verses
of the NT - (see the Englishman's Greek Concordance) in some way
or ways to the brethren of the church. AND THAT'S IT! To
speculate any further on the service given would be futile.
Paul was pleased with their service to the brethren, and in
verse 16 he tells his readers to respect and even to be subject
to them, but does not go on to amplify his comments. We take from
that, that they knew what he meant by his remarks and also that
given in verse 18.
What's wrong with what this household did in verse 16? Why
NOTHING AT ALL! This was just an acknowledgment on Paul's part
that such families should be held is high regards for the
ministry of work they had addicted themselves to perform for the
saints. Nothing more and nothing less.
The KJV translators employed by the King in the 17th century
were NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING in their rendering of this verse
from the Greek into English, nor were they trying to teach from
this verse the doctrine of "central appointment of all
ministers."
This verse says NOTHING ABOUT MAKING ONESELF A TEACHER OF
OTHERS. But the verse in James 3: 1 SURE DOES! And quite
frankly there are many going about today trying to be "teachers"
WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND NEED TO BE
LISTENING AND LEARNING. Many who were "kept under" - shackled to
only "pray and pay" - taught to "not think" - finding themselves
free from that straight-jacket, have become themselves "blind
leaders of the blind."
Apollos did what every saint is at liberty to do - go to the
churches in the towns and speak the truths of God if they so
desire and are so led of the Spirit to do. His example is as one
going forth to the deceived and those in various degrees of
spiritual darkness. After he was trained even more in the truths
of God, he was accepted by the brethren to teach them and to
preach to the unconverted world. He was given an opportunity to
"be proved" and to see if he did "desire the office of bishop"(1
Tim.3).
Obviously from what is stated about Apollos in the first
chapters of 1 Corinthians, and the fact that he like Paul was
called an "apostle" it is clear that he was by GOD, and by OTHER
elders and brethren called and appointed to the
overseership/eldership within the NT Church of God.
N.E.
Selective Translations Bolsters "Bishop." The various jobs listed
in the Bible were usually described by plain, everyday words in
Greek. The KJV translators should have used plain everyday
English words to translate them. As we found with diakonos, the
translators used the "plain, everyday" words in some places, but
put in "church terminology" ("minister" or "deacon") when it
suited their purposes.. This practice leaves the English reader
to believe that the Scriptures actually support exalted "church
offices" rather than jobs for the converted people to do.
The Greek episkopos is translated "bishop" in four places where
it apparently applies to only a few men - matching the
authoritarian church concept of a boss over many congregations.
It is translated "overseer" (its true meaning) in Acts 20:28
because Paul was addressing all the elders of Ephesus (vs.
17-18). King James would not have allowed the "high office" of
"Bishop" to be mentioned in a way that made it seem nearly equal
to the "common elder" so the translators obscured it. (The
American Standard Version, produced much later, is at least
consistent and contains "bishop" here) "Overseer" would be a much
better translation for episkopos if we understand it as `"someone
that looks out for the welfare of others," not "someone that
bosses others." A similar problem occurs with the closely related
word episkope (meaning "inspection" or "overseeing"). It is
translated "visitation" in Luke 19:44 rued I Peter 2:12 where it
refers to an individual's "inspection" or "judgment", but
"bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 and even "office of bishop" in
l Timothy 3:1 where it is made to look like a "church office."
During the first century, "overseers" were selected from elders
(older men) of the congregation to take care of the
administrative needs of a congregation."
MY ANSWER
Are there "church offices" in the church? Well again we are
back to the semantics of words. Let's go to the human body
example that Paul used. If you want to take the function of what
the "head" does in relation to the rest of the body and call it a
"body office" then you should be free to do so. If you want to
call what the "blood" does in relation to the rest of the body a
"body office" then you have the liberty within a language to do
so. If you want to call what the "skin" does in the way of
function to the rest of the human a "body office" you have
freedom to do so.
Language is a means of communication, to put a certain mind
thought or scene into that part of the brain dealing with
concepts. To call the "head" a "bodily office" does not of itself
mean it is inheritably superior or exalted above the rest of the
body. Certainly the body can not live or function without the
head, but then again, the body can not function or live without
the blood, or without the skin, or without the internal organs
and so on.
One office of the body is not superior to another. All
offices must be there to make a whole, and for it to be nourished
and to grow to maturity and perfection. And that is exactly how
Paul likened the church. All functions are "offices" in that
sense of how we are using the word.
All in the church are supposed to be converted, yet we do
not all function in the same role within the church. We have
different duties to perform. We are then in different "offices"
the church.
We have seen the NT does indeed break down the body of
Christ into THREE OVERALL basic "offices" or functions - the
SAINTS, the DEACONS, and the OVERSEERS/ELDERS. No one in any of
those offices are to feel "greater" or "more important" than
anyone else. The NT is full of verses that proclaim that truth.
I believe Mr.Edwards is making a "mountain out of a mole
hill" in attributing some secret scheme to the 1611 translators.
Even if by some wild endeavour on their part they were trying to
make the NT teach a Roman Catholic type of church government
(which is hard to believe considering England had rejected Rome
and the "supremacy of Peter" doctrine), it would NOT BE POSSIBLE
by the way God had preserved His word in the Greek language
(unless the Greek itself was cast aside, and so called
"religious" men came up with a so called "word of God" that was
purely from their own minds and not the mind of the Lord).
God's word is written in such a way that anyone trying to
form a false doctrine of complete harmony throughout, would
sooner or later have to reject the original inspired Hebrew and
Greek, and insert their own ideas. No one has ever proved that
the King James translators were not working from the inspired
languages of the Biblical text.
Let's take episkopos as used in Titus 1:7. If the 1611
scholars were trying to teach from the NT that a "bishop" was a
man - a clergyman - in the church who was in rank above the other
ministers, priests, elders, and that he had authority over them
to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, then
they should have been consistent with verse 5. If that was their
aim, their teaching plan, then they should have put the word
"bishop" in verse five also. They would have had to reject the
different Greek word used there(presbuteros), but so what, they
rejected the Greek word for Passover in Acts 12:4 did they not,
yes they did!
They did not reject presbuteros but rendered it "elders" as
they should have. Which immediately, for even those knowing NO
GREEK but only English, tells you that an Elder is also a Bishop
- one and the same individual in the church.
Look at Philippians 1:1. If the scholars employed by King
James to do his dirty work in teaching a pyramid structure of
government in the church, wanted the people to believe a "bishop"
in the church was someone who was the "top dog" in ecclesiastical
authority over lower pries/elders, or someone over a group of
churches and ministers, they sure messed up here.
Paul was writing to ONE TOWN! Would they have "bishops"
plural - a number of them, in one town? I do not think so, and
the Church of England as they use the word "bishop" today, do not
have a number of them in just one town!
To avoid people questioning their "bishop" teaching from
this verse, if they had some secret agenda, it would have been
easy to have put the English word overseers in this verse, as
they did in Acts 20:28.
The word "bishop" can have a number of meanings in English.
Look it up in a good Dictionary. Or talk to someone from the
Mormon church and ask them how they use the word in their
organization.
The King James translators were probably not using the word
bishop in the way it is used today in the Church of England, nor
the way Mr.Edwards wants you to believe.
It wasn't the Church of England that deceived Norman Edwards
for many years into believing this false doctrine of the
"supremacy of Peter" and hierarchal church government. IT WAS
HERBERT ARMSTRONG! And as far as I know Armstrong's teaching came
from the Old Testament mainly, and later from twisting a few NT
verses as the RC church does.
Reading the NT in its entirety, putting scripture with
scripture, FROM THE KJV translation, you will never come up with
the apostolic Church of God being a pyramid or one man hierarchal
structured.
N.E.
Other Religious "Offices" Enhanced. The Greek poimen is
translated "shepherd" all other 16 times, but "Pastor" in
Ephesians 4:11 where there is a list of various functions
of the members of His body. Finally, the Greek euaggelion is
everywhere translated "gospel.'' The very similar word
euaggelistes should be translated "gospel-preacher" -
clearly connecting the relationship between the two words.
Instead, we have three references to "evangelist," assumed by
many to be an ecclesiastic rank or title, not a function."
MY ANSWER
From the World Book Dictionary concerning the word pastor we
read: ".......3. Archaic. a herdsman or shepherd. (< Anglo-French
pastour, Old French Pasteur, < Latin pastor shepherd < pascere to
feed) ."
So the translators of the KJV were influenced by some
Anglo-French-Latin to render the Greek as pastor in Eph.4: 11.
Any big deal? No I do not think so, and I'll tell you why soon.
Poimen in the Greek means ".......'a shepherd, one who tends
herds or flocks' (not merely one who feeds them)......." Vine's
Dictionary.
This is what we learn about the word evangel from whence we
derive the word evangelist, the World Book Dictionary: ".......(<
Late Latin evangelism < Greek evangelion good tidings, ultimately
< eu- good + angellein announce < angelos messenger).
So the 1611 scholars took the Greek word and transliterated
it into the Anglo-Saxon English. Again, really NO BIG DEAL,
unless you are bent on reading something very sinister going on
in the minds of those hired to translate the Bible by King James
- a secret plot of trying to make people believe in a Roman
Catholic church government structure. And that coming from the
minds of those who had rejected Rome is very doubtful.
The words pastor and evangelist do not carry ANY meaning
within them from the Greek, French, Latin, or Anglo, that implies
or teaches an "ecclesiastical rank." It is just NOT THERE,
period!
Tens of thousands of people back in 1611 as today in the
English speaking world, who attend churches of various faiths, do
not acquaint any "dictatorial rank" or "authoritarian title" -
boss you about power - to the words pastor or evangelist. Just go
and ask any average church attender what thoughts come into his
or her mind when they think of the word "pastor" or "evangelist."
Most will say for pastor, a minister who serves and shepherds the
flock of God in spiritual matters. They do not think of a
minister who has dictatorial authority over other ministers that
he orders around.
When those same people think of the word "evangelist" they
do not understand it as someone with some special official "rank"
in the church that has authority over "pastor" ministers. They
think of it as a minister who mainly preaches the word of God to
the outside unconverted persons in the world.
To my knowledge, the Church of England in its ecclesiastical
structure, has never used a minister rank system that carried the
names APOSTLE, PROPHET, EVANGELIST. I do not believe they even
used pastor or teacher, yet I could be wrong on that.
Well to get it from the horses mouth, I have just called the
ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, who are, they inform me, the same as
the Church of England. I asked about their official structure and
names used. It is: THREE TIERED - bottom rung is deacon - second
rung is priest - third rung is bishop. These are separate
ordinations - official appointments. They have never used as
official ordination rank(which the previous three are in their
government) with TITLES of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor.
They do use the words pastor and evangelist, but in an
un-official way, such as assigning a "lay member" the task to do
an evangelistic meeting or promotion to the public.
So the Church of England under King James and his
translators were NOT trying to teach from Ephesians 4:11 or by
using the word "evangelist" three times, the ecclesiastic rank of
church government.
The truth is that from the very Greek words in the sentence
of Ephesians 4:11 and the word euaggelistes, or the English words
used in the KJV, NO DOCTRINE OF "RANK MINISTERS" CAN BE FOUND
WITHOUT SOME WILD INTERPRETATION FROM THE MIND OF MAN!
IT IS JUST NOT CORRECT TO BLAME THE TRANSlATORS OF THE KING
JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE WITH TRYING TO "enhance religious
offices" from their use of the words pastor and evangelist.
Trying to do so is, to put it bluntly(not meaning to offend
Mr.Edwards) - not good theology!
There is NOTHING WRONG with the verse under discussion, nor
with the words evangelist and pastor. What is wrong, is the false
man made interpretation of that verse and of those words, as
Norman Edwards experienced under the ministry of the Worldwide
Church of God, led by Herbert Armstrong.
It was H.W.Armstrong who rejected his own plain truth that
he published about "Church Government" at the beginning years of
his ministry(l have a copy of his article), to adopt a Roman
Catholic type hierarchy. And in so doing he had to twist and
pervert a few scriptures of the NT that would then fit his new
mind set on the subject, while rejecting many other verses and
passages that would sound the death bell on his "one man(he
himself) supremacy of Peter" doctrine.
It is time Mr.Edwards to put the blame of you believing such
heretical nonsense for so many years, where it belongs. Not on
the heads of the translators of King James, but on the head(one
head, though many WCG ministers followed) - the head of Herbert
W. Armstrong!
Under his ministerial "rank" system teachers were divided
into bottom rung "local elders" then second rung "preaching
elders." After them and above them came "pastors." Above pastors
in rank were "evangelists." The rank of "prophets" was
conveniently never used as "there was none" according to HWA. And
the rank of "apostles" did not exist he stated, that is until he
called himself "God's apostle on earth" after the death of his
wife Loma.
So even under his interpretation of Ephesians 4:11 it was
pick and choose, change some words, leave out others, and adapt
it to his ideas of how to govern what he finally called the only
true organization of God's people on earth, which was another of
his false doctrines during his last 20 years of life(he also had
some before those years).
N.E.
Matthew 16:18 Mistranslated. This one translation error known to
many. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [petros -
small stone], and upon this rock [petra - large massive rock]
will I build my church." The Greek shows His assembly or "church"
is not built on Peter but on the Messiah. The English, with no
distinction between the size of rocks, leads us to believe that
the Congregation was built upon Peter and (by deduction) his
successors. (Most top "church leaders" in big organizations claim
to be successors of Peter in some way.)
MY ANSWER
Was this really a translation error on the part of the KJV
scholars? Was it intended to teach the church was built upon the
apostle Peter? Does the English put no distinction between the
size of the rocks?
Just a minute, what rocks? In the English words I do not see
but ONE rock mentioned, not two. So no one was trying to put or
not put a distinction between "rocks" plural, when translating
into the English language. The translators rendered the Greek
petros as Peter because the apostles name was Peter, and Peter
means "a stone." All this fits with what we read in John 1:42,
"....Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jesse,
you shall be called Cephas(Peter) which is by interpretation, a
stone." Then they translated petra as rock because that is what
it means - huge cliff or shelf of rock.
There is NOTHING HERE in the English for understanding the
church of Jesus Christ was going to be built or founded upon the
apostle Peter.
As a young boy(nine, ten, eleven, and into teenage) I had a
red letter NT which I read regularly, especially the words of
Christ written in red. I had read this verse of scripture many
times in those young years of my life. NEVER did it cross my mind
to take from the English translation the meaning that I was being
told by Jesus, that His church would be established upon Peter.
It was not until I was about 20 years of age that I came into the
knowledge that the Roman Catholic church used this verse to teach
the Pope was the ecclesiastical ancestor to Peter, on whom the
Church of Christ was built. Needless to say I was shocked for the
verse just does not say any such thing!
If it did it would not have the English words it does have,
for then it would have to read: ".......You are Peter and on
YOU......." or ".......Thou art Peter and on THYSELF I will build
my church......."
The way it is worded would not be correct English either in
1611 or today, for passing on to the English mind that a church
was to be founded on a human person such as Peter.
We are not given an audio/visual playback, only audio is
presented to us. I believe the scene went something like this:
Jesus had drawn their attention to WHO HE WAS, Peter had answered
correctly, and to further demonstrate His special relationship
with the Father, Jesus looks at Peter, says: "And I say unto you,
that you are Peter(a stone, pebble - petros) AND" - now pointing
with His fingers to Himself - "on this(meaning Himself ROCK -
huge crag of stone), I will build by church..."
As a young boy I was always puzzled as to exactly what Jesus
was meaning here because I had not yet put together the
scriptures that clearly showed Christ as THE ROCK(i.e. 1 Cor.10:4
rock = petra). Once that came to my attention, Matthew 16:18 fell
into correct understanding like jig-saw puzzle. A little here and
a little there until the picture is whole and without
contradiction.
The KJV scholars were NOT trying to teach in this verse that
the church built by Christ was founded upon the apostle Peter.
The Church of England was very much opposed to Rome and the claim
of the Papacy that their Pope was the successor of Peter who was
supposed to have been the first bishop of Rome. The very English
words used by them in their 1611 translation is proof that they
did not entertain the theology of Rome on that point of doctrine.
......................................................................
TO BE CONTINUED
Church Government #12 What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
FOURTH CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO
NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER
N.E.
Hebrews 13:17 Does Not Create Hierarchy. "Obey them that have the
rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your
souls, as they that must give account...." (Heb. 13:17 KJV). The
Greek peitho ("obey") is usually translated "persuade" or "trust"
- it contains the idea of becoming friends, cooperating. The
Greek pietharcheo, used for obeying the Eternal or kings (Acts
5:29; Tit 3:1) was not used here. The Greek hegemoai ("rule") is
more often translated "count" or "think" and here means "leaders"
or "those that must give account." The Greek hupotasso,
("submit") is the same word used for "people submitting to civil
authority" and members "submitting to each other" (Rom. 13:1-5, l
Cor 16:16, Eph 5:21, 1 Pet. 5:5). If hupotasso meant "under
absolute authority," how could the believers be "under absolute
authority" to each other? While this verse does give a strong
message about cooperation with the leaders of his congregation,
it does not set up the ecclesiastical monarchy that King James 1
wanted. Our leaders should tell us what Paul did: "Imitate me,
just as I also imitate Christ" (l Cor. 11:1) We find the same
Greek word for "rule" peitho used in Hebrews 13:7: "Remember
those who rule over you, who love spoken the word of God to you,
whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct."
Again, we are to consider the outcome or fruits of a leader and
follow his faith, not his every word. If leaders stop imitating
the Messiah and His Word, we stop imitating them! "
MY ANSWER
I have no big argument here with Norman Edwards, I fully
agree with what he states. But I do take exception to his
statement "...it does not set up the. ecclesiastical monarchy
that King James 1 wanted." Again poor old King James is blamed
for what Mr.Edwards finds objectional words used by his
translators.
These kinds of words are read routinely in many churches as
they study through the NT. There are more verses in the NT to do
with the same basic teaching than just the verse in Hebrew 13.
The churches that do not teach and do not practice an iron hand,
dogmatic authoritarian, jump to my tune, ministerial system(which
is really the teaching and working of a "cult") HAVE LITTLE
TROUBLE WITH SUCH VERSES! For they do not read into them a "blind
faith" or "stop thinking and let the elders tell you what to do,
when to do it, and how to do it" mentality.
It is organizations and leaders of such that turn their
followers into "cult members" who give their minds over to them,
sometimes done so slowly and cunningly, they do not realize what
has happened until they are so blinded that they cannot see the
trees for the forest. Then leaders can put a false interpretation
upon words as found in Hebrews 13:17 to perpetuate the cycle of
full blind faith dominance, upon their brainwashed followers.
Let's stay for a moment with the English words obey, rule,
and submit. How we understand them is a matter of semantics, and
the overall context will also determine our view of them. Let me
give you an example.
A father writes a letter to his child who is away on a
camping holiday with the Boy Scout troop he belongs to. He writes
to him as part of his letter: "Son, I want you to obey the Scout
Master and those who have rule over you, and I want you to be
submissive to them, for they watch for your wellbeing, as they
must give account to all the parents of the children in their
care."
The child/children and all the parents are quite familiar
with the Scout Troop operation, they know how it is run, what the
teachings and overall objectives of the organization are. They
know the relationship the leaders have with the boys in the
Troop, and vice versa. The child receiving such a letter from his
father using the words obey, rule, and submit/submissive in it,
poses no threat or trepidation to the boy. For he is in full
understanding as to what his father means by those words WITHIN
THE CONTEXT of the organization he belongs to and is at ease
with. He automatically realizes his father is not talking about
"blindly following" like some mindless robot, the Scout Master or
those ruling him, if it should endanger his life.
He knows his father is not meaning to say that if the Scout
leader should tell him to jump from a fifty foot cliff into an
eight foot pool of water, and he is not happy about doing it,
that he must, unquestionably obey the leader.
So likewise it was with Paul and his readers. First of all,
the context was the true Church of God, not some authoritarian
mindless cult they were part of. Secondly, the context was also
talking about true faithful leaders (elders) of the Lord, not
some pompous dictatorial power hungry little Hitlers. Thirdly,
within that context everybody was living and acing as real
Christians who knew the truths of how Christ wanted His people
to interact with one another.
The context of Paul's writing to them was as the context of
the father we talked about above, writing to his child in the
camp out with the Boy Scouts. Nothing intimidating meant and no
intimidation taken.
Under such a context there is no fear in the words obey,
rule, and submit! Paul was writing as a loving spiritual parent
and it is written: "Perfect love casts out fear."
It is only when these verses in Hebrews and else-where, have
been TWISTED and MISUSED by vain egotistical "do as I say, even
to what I tell you to eat for breakfast" mind abusing cultic
leaders, that people start to fear the words obey, rule, and
submit. For those within the true church of Jesus Christ who are
all trying to function with love, in the various tasks they have
been given to do in the three overall classes of saint, deacon,
and overseer, there is no apprehension or trembling before those
three words under discussion.
The King James translators did not have some sinister, stick
a knife in your back, hold you at gun point, make you quake and
shake in your boots, mental mind set, when they chose the English
words, obey, rule and submit. I am sorry that N.E. had to
experience for so many years the mental abuse that the Worldwide
Church of God employed with its members through a dictatorial
hierarchical church government structure, but let's put the blame
where it truly belongs - on the abuse of men with a false
semantic use of words. We need to free ourselves not only from
the captivity of that tyranny, but also from the captivity of
seeing "an evil goblin" behind words used in the translation of
the scholars employed by King James.
The translators of 1611 did not do a perfect job by any
means, and they did a few times, fragrantly forget the Greek like
in Acts 12:4 before mentioned(which is a much more serious
mistranslation than anything Mr.Edwards talks about in his
paper), but even then in that, I do not believe they had any evil
clandestine plan in mind. I will give them the benefit of the
doubt, all will come to light in the judgment day. By and large I
praise and give thanks to the Lord for the King James English
translation of the Bible. It has and is still leading tens of
thousands of people to the light of the world and truths of God.
It is the perverseness of religious mind controllers and
their organizations who twist the scriptures and pollute even the
meaning of English words, that we need to watch out for and
avoid, not the words of the King James Version, imperfect as it
may be.
I could go into a long discourse about the Greek words that
N.E. brings out in the above quote, but it is not necessary here.
You can study them, all the places where they are used etc. in
works such as Stronq's Concordance of the Bible.
Yet I do need to touch on the truth of verses like Hebrews
13:17.
Within the family of God which is the church of God, there
is obey/obedience, rule/guiding/overseeing. and submit/yielding.
God is the lawgiver, He lives and governs by law. He guides and
rules us in the way we should conduct our lives by law. He
expects us to yield and submit to Him and His righteousness. The
church is composed of those who have been begotten by the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their minds - the very nature of
God. The church is the flock of the Lord, and over that flock as
caring shepherds to feed and lead into green pastures, persons
called overseers or elders. It is they who are responsible to
teach in word and conduct, the way, the laws, the righteousness,
of the Eternal, to the flock. Sometimes, as we have seen in the
letters to Timothy and Titus, that leading and teaching must be
with power, strength, and correction, in season and out of
season.
The NT, nay the whole Bible, shows very clearly that the
leading and teaching of the shepherds has to do with
righteousness and sin, NOT WITH GOVERNING THE SHEEP IN TRIVIAL
DAY TO DAY MATTERS, such as what car to buy, what dress to
wear for church services, what job to work at etc. unless of
course for some reason the matter does cross over into the clear
issue of sin and righteousness.
The pastors of the Lord do have the responsibility the
govern with law, the law of God. And within those clear areas of
the Eternal's laws and righteousness, they do have the right to
expect the sheep of the flock to obey! They should expect the
sheep who want to serve the Lord, who desire to grow in grace and
knowledge, to submit when it is plainly a matter of that which is
the commandment and law and righteousness of God.
Examples are often the best way to teach a point of truth. I
will give you some. A few from the NT itself, and one from my own
personal ministry.
First example:
Turn to 2 Thessalonians chapter three and we shall begin
reading from verse ten: "For even when we were with you, this
WE(Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, chap. 1:1 - elders and overseers
in the church) COMMANDED you, that if any would not work, neither
should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among
you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them
that are such we COMMAND and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ,
that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread"(verses
10-12).
Just no way around this, pretty strong stuff from those
three overseers. Paul hit the nail on the head, laid the cards on
the table, and just told them the law of the Lord on this matter.
Oh, you want to look up the Greek word here used for
command/ed to see if there is a way out. Please do! You will find
it is the word parangelloo. Here is what Vine's Dictionary says,
".......'to announce beside' (pare, 'beside,' angelloo, 'to
announce'), 'to pass on an announcement,' hence denotes 'to give
the word, order, give a charge, command', e.g., Mark 6:8; Luke
8:29; 9:21; Acts 5:28; 2 Thes.3:4, 6, 10, 12. See CHARGE, B.
No.8."
Ah, it is used also in verses 4 and 6 of 2 Thessalonians
chapter three. Please look them up also.
Then turn to Mark 6:8, where this same Greek word is used in
connection with Jesus. Please read verse seven to twelve. Christ
did not "suggest" or "request" or "if you so choose" - to do, He
charged them, commanded them, to do and not to do certain things.
They went out and obeyed!
This Greek word is no weakling - it is STRONG! Look at Luke
8:29 if you still want further proof.
Now back to 2 Thes.3:10-12. Is Paul here talking about what
colour of shoes to buy, or what donkey to purchase for your
travels? No, not at all! He is talking about certain problems in
the church that PERTAIN TO RIGHT AND WRONG, TO SIN AND
RIGHTEOUSNESS, TO THE LAW OF THE LORD! Persons in the church
going about willfully not working and being disorderly busybodies
while living off the food of others, WAS CONTRARY TO THE PERFECT
LAW OF GOD! And with the very authority of Jesus Christ the three
men mentioned in chapter one verse one, were charging/commanding
them what to do about this unlawful and sinful situation.
Of course as in any breaking of any concrete law no man can
FORCE any other person to comply, unless you have a gun to their
heads. Then that would be acting as an authoritarian dictator,
and God's church is not to be governed by such commanded actions,
although some have tried to do so. Not literally maybe, but
spiritually.
If some did not want to obey this directive from these three
elders, then they gave more commands to the saints as to what to
do in verses 4 and 6. The same Greek word!
Again let's remember, Paul is here talking about deadly
serious matters, not "on which side of the river do we stroll
down on a Sunday afternoon" decision at all, but spiritual life
and death matters for certain ones in the church.
Second example:
Stay in 2 Thessalonians and chapter three. Keep reading from
verse 12, "But you brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if
any man OBEY not our word by this epistle, note that man, and
have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him
not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (verses 13-15).
Here the Greek word for "obey" is NOT peitho as in Hebrews
13:17, it is a DIFFERENT word altogether - hupakouo. Here again
is what Vine's Dictionary has to say:
".......'to listen,attend' (as in Acts 12:13), and so, 'to
submit, to obey,' is used of 'obedience' (a) to God, Heb.5:9; 11
:8; (b) to Christ, by natural elements, Matt.8:27; Mark 1 :27;
4:41; Luke 8:25; (c) to disciples of Christ, Luke 17:6; (d) to
the faith, Acts 6:7; the gospel, Rom.10:16; 2 Thess.1 :8;
Christian doctrine, Rom.6: 17 (as to a form or mould of
teaching); (e) to apostolic injunctions, Phil.2:12; 2 Thes.3:14;
(f) to Abraham by Sarah, 1 Pet.3:6; (g) to parents by children,
Eph.6:1; Col.3:20; (h) to masters by servants, Eph.6:5; Col.3:22;
(i) to sin, Rom.6:12; (j) in general, Rom.6:16."
The Englishman's Greek Concordance, page 772 lists every place it
is used in the NT. This Greek word is not the same as hupotasso
mentioned by Mr.Edwards in his above quote. You can find that
word and all places it is used on page 780 of the aforementioned
concordance.
This Greek word of 2 Thess.3:14 is again a "hit you between
the eyes" STRONG word, no punches pulled. You will see how strong
it can be in the verses of: Mat.8:27; MarK 1:27; 4:41; Acts 6:7;
Rom.6:16; Heb.5:9; 11:8.
What is the context? Having to decide what colour to paint
the house, and other trivial matters? NO! It is church matters so
LARGE and important that if people would not submit and obey,
the rest should note and sanction by having no company with them
and admonishing them not as an enemy but as a brother. If such
persons still will not repent after such reproof then the full
force of Matthew 18:15-20 must be put into effect.
And that is another subject which I have covered in detail
in my study called "Disfellowshipping - What the Bible Really
Teaches"(please request it if you do not already have it).
Yes indeed there is some strong authority at times(the
correct righteous times) invested in the overseers of the church,
as to how they are to shepherd the flock, within the LAW of the
Lord. Not man made laws, not the ideas and wishes of men who
pervert the scriptures or claim some "apostolic" inspiration as
"God's apostle on earth" or "only apostle of the Lord" mentality.
That appointed function of leading and teaching for the elders
does carry with it the necessity for the saints who are truly the
children of God to obey, not with blind faith, but with
respectful trusting faith, because such elders do watch for the
welfare of their spiritual souls, and must give account to the
Eternal one day for the job entrusted to them.
There is an aspect, a very real one, of obeying in no
"wishy-washy" term, the overseers of the church, when they are
teaching the written in stone spiritual laws and commandments of
the Eternal God. It is a great responsibility to take on the duty
and function of being a guide and helper to others in their
spiritual Christians lives. Quite frankly, many should back off
and think twice before undertaking such an awesome task, that is
why James was inspired to write what he did in verse one, chapter
three of his letter. And it is no light thing, and should not be
taken lightly, for a saint to ASK FOR HELP AND COUNSEL on an
issue of importance, from one or more of the overseers of
the church. The Lord has recorded for us the importance He places
on the subject of those coming to His chosen and appointed
guides/elders/overseers of His flock.
Turn to Deuteronomy the seventeenth chapter. Please read from
verse eight to verse thirteen.
Wow!!! Pretty heavy stuff don't you think? Now friend, I did
not write it. This is not "and Keith Hunt said" theology. This is
from THE ETERNAL GOD of heaven! Again, we are not dealing here
with coming to the ministers for counsel on what sheep to slay
for the evening meal, or which model of computer to buy for your
home. Many "cultic" organizations try to dictate their followers
lives this way, right down to small unimportant daily liberties.
Such is not the way of the Lord. This passage is talking about a
"matter too hard for thee in judgment." Serious matters! Notice
verse eleven - the priest(under the NT, the elders/overseers) is
to teach "according to THE SENTENCE OF THE LAW." Not something
out of his own head or "opinion" but out "of the law" - that
which has some teeth and grip to it.
If you just want some other persons "opinion" on what breed
of dog to buy for your child's birthday, you do not have to run
off to the ministers to answer that question. If you do I hope
they will tell you not to bother them with such none essential
matters, as their time is more valuable than deciding for you
what dog to buy. Most of them will probably be as expert on dogs
as they are on the "man in the moon."
It is serious matters the priests/ministers of the Lord are
to help you in, not things you can decide for yourself or with
the help of friends or other experts in other fields and
skills. It is in matters that pertain to the spiritual law in
your life, and where it is too hard for you, and you need the
service of God's chosen experts on this skilled trade - theology.
God instructs that under those conditions, you are to arise
and get thee up to His ministers for counsel. They are to render
judgment according to the "sentence of the law which they shall
teach you." Showing you clearly from the law the answer to your
hard matter. Then if you WILL NOT DO IT, IF YOU WILL NOT OBEY the
Eternal pulls no punches, He hammers the nail home friend. You
can again read it for yourself. Under the Old Covenant such
persons refusing to obey WOULD DIE! For such evil was to be put
away from Israel.
I think you will fully see what this is all about, if you
still have any doubts lingering in your mind, as I give you my
last example from my personal ministry.
Third example:
I was pastering a small congregation near Toronto in the
early 80's. A Few young men came into our fellowship. They were
zealous for the word of the Lord, wanting to learn and obey the
way of God. Through the process of time, Bible studies, and
personal counselling with me, all seemed to be proper and correct
for them to be baptized. I did all I could to ascertain they were
ready to fully serve the Lord in their lives. They were baptized.
All went just fine for about one year. Then my wife and I both
noticed a few things about one of the young men, nothing really
major, but a certain gravitation to particular parts of the
Bible, and certain articles laying around our home when he came
to visit. We just "wondered" but did not think too deeply on the
matter. He did have a few male friends he introduced us to that
were in some ways a little "strange," yet we did not dwell
on....... our wondering.
Then one time he came to me privately and wanted to know
about "homosexuality" from the Biblical point of view. I showed
him in a general way what the word said, and we talked about it
in a general way, no more was said.
Sometime later his best friend who had been baptized at the
same time came to me quite upset. The young man in question had
finally confided to him that he was homosexual, and was keeping
company with homosexuals. He thought his friend would understand
and commiserate, but he did not, it just left him in total shock.
He did not come to church for a while, then slowly asked to
counsel with me, which I did. I thought he was trying to see what
God's word said about such a life style. I talked with him for
many hours. I think it was the third counselling period I had
with him that things got down to the nitty-gritty. He told me he
was thinking about moving into the city of Toronto to live. He
wanted to know what to do about overcoming homosexuality. I told
him he would have to be willing to obey me on two specific
points, namely: 1. As Toronto is the second largest city in North
America with a homosexual community(second behind San Francisco),
he should not go to live there. 2. He must give up going around
with homosexual men.
I told him that not to follow my directives on those two
points would sound the death bell for him spiritually.
He did not listen to me. He did not obey. He went to live in
Toronto, and never came back to church again. I have never seen
or heard from him to this day.
This was no "small fry" - just shoot the breeze matter. This
was a HARD MATTER - seriously IMPORTANT matter, one that was
clearly plain in the word of God. Practicing homosexuality is
SIN! It is an abomination to the Lord. Under the Old Covenant it
was punishable by the death penalty!
The young man came to me for counsel and advice. I
instructed him according to the sentence of the law of the Lord,
and gave him directives to follow, charged him to follow, I could
say "commanded" him to obey(but I did not use such words), if he
was going to stand any chance with the power of God to overcome
this sin. I could not make him obey, I could not force him to
follow my instructions. He and we all are free moral agents. He
went his way and chose to do his own thing, leaving behind his
fellow Christians that loved him so much. We all shed some tears
over the whole occurrence.
There is an interesting point of slight difference between
verse seven and verse seventeen of Hebrews chapter 13.
The Greek word for "remember" in verse seven is totally
different from the Greek word for "obey" in verse seventeen. In
verse 7 the word is mneemonuo and means to mentally keep in the
mind something. It is found on page 503 in the Englishman's Greek
Concordance. It is used in such verses as: John 15:20; Gal.2: 10;
Rev.2:5; 18:5.
Paul is telling his readers to keep in their mind the
leaders/guides/overseers that have taught them the word, and to
follow their conduct of character as it is in Jesus Christ. The
emphasis here is more on the conduct of life than on the words
they speak. But in verse 17 the emphasis changes somewhat to the
words that come forth from those leaders, the teaching they give
forth, as I've covered above in the three examples given.
The word "obey" in Greek is as N.E. says, the Greek word
peitho, pepoitha. And although it may not carry the connotation
of obeying as under the authority of a dictator, such as those
obeying Hitler during the second World War. Although it is an
obedience from a trusting belief persuasion connotation, it
nevertheless is still meaning the end result is OBEYING! The cake
of obedience is still being cut, but with a certain knife slicing
it from a different angle than some other knife(word) in the
Greek language.
This word peitho and every place it is used in the NT can be
found in the Englishman's Greek Con. on pages 609 and 610. It is
translated FIVE times as "obey" - in Gal.3:1; 5:7; Jam.3:3;
Rom.2:8; and here in Heb.13:17. You would do well to look up
the verses in Galatians, James, and Romans.
It is used by King Agrippa in Acts 26:28 when he said to
Paul, "Almost you persuade me to be a Christian." To be a true
Christian is to obey Christ. King Agrippa was close to wanting to
live as an obeying follower of Jesus Christ. Talking about Christ
in Heb.2:13, He says: "....I will put my trust in Him(the
Father)...." Jesus' trust or belief or persuasion in the Father
was manifest in obeying Him! The word peitho carries WlTHIN
itself to obey, which ever way you want to slice the cake!
The King James translators were quite correct in rendering
peitho as obey in Hebrews 13:17. For that is exactly what Paul
was meaning to say to those reading his letter. From the whole NT
they would understand(and from what Paul and others had
personally taught in teaching and preaching) this was not a
"blind" obedience to every whim of a minister, but obeying as "in
the Lord" just like a wife to her husband, and servants to their
masters(Eph.5:22; 6:5). Obeying that which is within the holy law
of God, that does not conflict with it, and only those things
that are important issues of spiritual life and death.
You do not have to obey a minister who orders you to wash
his car and the like. If any so called minister does that, my
advice to you is run from him as fast as you can and stay away
from him until he repents and asks your forgiveness. Such a man
is not in the true attitude of a humble shepherd of the Lord. Of
course you could try correcting him in love, but with that mind
set he has, it will probably be like water on a ducks back. Such
men with such attitudes of mannerisms have become a cult unto
themselves.
All of the above does not contradict the truth of the matter
plainly taught in the NT, that every child of God is responsible
for studying the scriptures for themselves, in order to do as
Paul said: "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is
good." The example of the Bereans is given to us not to fill
space in the book of Acts, but to teach us a very important
truth of the Lord. They heard things, they were preached at, they
had been taught(teaching) by two apostles and overseers (Paul and
Silas) the word (the scriptures of God, not the ideas of men).
The Bereans were willing to listen, they had no prejudice,
but they were not gullible either. They were not going to have
"blind faith" and swallow everything coming out of the mouths of
these two men who claimed they were ministers of God. What was
said to them, they would make very sure was according to the
scriptures. They "searched the scriptures daily, whether those
things were so" (Acts 17:10-1).
Because of this correct action on their part it is written:
"Therefore MANY believed"(verse 12).
You need to also mark with bright yellow and never forget
the verse found in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and the testimony: if
they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them."
You need to remember that the NT(and the old also) teaches very
clearly that some elders/overseers WILL NOT REMAIN FAITHFUL AND
TRUE TO THE WORD AND DOCTRINES OF THE ETERNAL GOD!! THEY WOULD
FALL AWAY INTO FALSE AND HERETICAL DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS, IN
ORDER TO PLEASE MEN AND/OR GAIN A FOLLOWING AFTER THEMSELVES
(Acts 20:17-31; 2 Tim.4:1-5; 2 Pet.2:1).
You personally are to "work out your own salvation with fear
and trembling." You will not enter the Kingdom on the shirt tails
of the eldership, nor will Jesus entertain the excuse "well the
overseers said I could do it" or "the elders told me I didn't
have to do it."
The eldership is put there by God to teach/lead/guide and
set you the correct example in the truth and the way that leads
to life. Your responsibility is to make sure from the word that
they are on the straight and narrow path of righteousness, in
what they teach and how they live.
If leaders do stop imitating in word and conduct, the
Messiah, then certainly we need to do as Mr.Edwards says - "stop
imitating them!"
The reader may want to request my article "When does a
Minister become Disqualified from the Ministry?"
It is also the plain truth of the NT that God does have in
His church, men whom He has called and chosen and appointed to be
spiritual leaders and overseers of His people. They have been
there from the start of the NT church on the day of Pentecost.
They have been there from that time forward and are there today!
Somewhere, in some places, on this "good green earth" are men who
have not been corrupted by Satan, the world, the flesh, or human
organizations. They are standing tall for the word of truth,
teaching and living it faithfully and pleasing to God.
It is also the responsibility not only for the shepherds to
seek the sheep who may be scattered, but for the sheep to seek,
look for, and recognize WHO THE TRUE SHEPHERDS ARE, for make no
mistake, the Lord has them out there ready to lead, serve, and
guide to green pastures besides the still waters.
THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH IN NORMAN
EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. THERE ARE SOME OTHER
SECTIONS I FEEL I DO NEED TO SAY A FEW WORDS ON HERE AND THERE
IN HIS STUDY.
COMMENTS ON OTHER POINTS
Voting References Suppressed(pages 5,6).
This is to do with that Greek word cheirotoneo. I have
covered that quite thoroughly in section or part two of this
work. There is no need to say any more here except N.E.'s
reference to the Weymouth NT translation and Adam Clarke and
other commentaries to back his assertion, really proves nothing.
I can find many more NT translations and Bible Commentaries in
support of the opposite.
Ekklesia Translated "Church" Instead of "Congregation" or
"Assembly"(page 6).
It is true that the Greek word ekklesia would have been
better translated as assembly, then again that is not correct
either. Ekklesia is from ek, "out of," and kleesis,"a calling"
(kaleoo, "to call"). So if we want to get real technical about
things, the best translation from the Greek ekklesia in the NT
would have been - "the called out of ones."
The English word "church" can be from the Old English circe,
but not necessarily.
The World Book Dictionary gives: "(Old English circe <
Vulgar Latin cyriaca < Greek kyriakon (dogma) the Lord's (house)
< kyrios master < kyros power)."
As the above dictionary brings out the English word "church"
can be understood in DIFFERENT ways. So we are again back to
"good ol" semantics of words. How YOU may interpret in your mind
the meaning of the word.
I grew up with the word "church" not only from the KJV but
from all the years (starting at the age of six) I attended a
religious school and local church, the "Congregational Church"
with the word to me NEVER containing the dark sinister meaning it
seems to convey to Mr.Edwards. I never saw any plot by King
James, his translators of 1611, nor the Church of England, to
make people attend THEIR church, or support them with money. To
read that into the word "church" takes from my view point, a HUGE
imagination, flamed by a paranoia that must come from having the
unfortunate experience of being a member of an "abusive church"
(there is a book by the name of "Churches that Abuse" I recommend
you read, the author is R.M.Enroth) using the name of Church of
God.
You want to use the words "congregation" or "assembly" or
"called out ones" that is fine with me, I have no problem, but
please allow me to use the word "church" for I also have no
problem with that word. And please keep to yourself your sinister
notions about some clandestine plot on the part of King James and
his hired scholars. For the plain truth is the King James Version
of the Bible has done LESS damage to the minds of people over
nearly 400 years, than what Herbert W. Armstrong and the
Worldwide Church of God did in 20 years (1966 to 1986). He and
his organization may have taught many truths(so does the Roman
Catholic church), but the errors and heresies, twisted
and perverted his followers into mindless brainwashed robots,
whom he himself called "dumb sheep." Only now are some beginning
to see the truth of the matter and the errors he perpetuated as
"God's only apostle" and the "Elijah to come."
Kingdom Conflict(page 6).
No sinister plot here either on the part of the KJV
scholars, unless you are grasping at every straw to try to build
your case. Most people from the WCG do not understand this verse
of Luke 17:21 within its context. Nor do they understand, for
they have not been taught the Biblical truth about the TWO
aspects or fulfilments of the Kingdom of God - a present reality
aspect AND a future literal aspect. The reader can request my
article "Is the Kingdom of God 'Within' You?" and find the whole
answer from the scriptures.
What is the "Government of God?"(page 6).
From this heading to page 12, I have very little trouble in
agreeing with what Mr.Edwards has written. There are a few
thoughts and sentences I may not fully see eye to eye on. I have
either covered them in previous pages or they are not of
sufficient importance to elucidate upon here.
What are the Qualifications of an Apostle?(pages 12, 13).
Mr.Edwards is not the first to write on the so called
"qualifications" of an apostle, and will not be the last. Some
misunderstanding and a few hand-stands, and cart-wheels have been
done with the scriptures in regards to this subject of
"apostles."
First, let's look at what Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT
Words has to say in full:
" 1. apostolos is, lit., 'one sent forth' (apo, 'from,' stello,
'to send'). The word is used of the Lord Jesus Christ to describe
His relation to God, Heb.3:1; see John 17:3. The twelve disciples
chosen by the Lord for special training were so called, Luke
6:13; 9:10. Paul, though he had seen the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor.9:1;
15:8, had not 'companied with' the Twelve 'all the time' of His
earthly ministry, and hence was not eligible for a place among
them, according to Peter's description of the necessary
qualifications, Acts 1:22. Paul was commissioned directly, by the
Lord Himself, after His Ascension, to carry the gospel to
the Gentiles. The word has also a wider reference. In Acts 14:4,
14, it is used of Barnabas as well as of Paul; in Rom.16:7 of
Andronicus and Junias. In 2 Cor.8:23 (RV, margin) two unnamed
brethren are called 'apostles of the churches'; in Phil.2:25 (RV,
margin). Epaphroditus is referred to as 'your apostle.' It is
used in 1 Thess.2:6 of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, to define their
relation to Christ.
2. apostolee 'a sending, a mission,' signifies an
apostleship, Acts 1:25; Rom.1:5; 1 Cor.9:2; Gal.2:8.'
Note: Pseudapostoloi, 'false apostles,' occurs in
2 Cor.11:13."
We note from the above the NT gives us TWENTY ONE men who
were named as apostles, men who were sent forth!
Really quite simple. You are functioning as an apostle for
God if the Lord personally Himself appoints you to go forth(as He
did with the 12 apostles, Paul and Barnabas. A "?" must be placed
on the other men concerning direct sending by God, for we are not
told, or if He uses the Church(as a whole) or a church(single
congregation) to send a person forth. The going forth and some
examples are by that of Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas -
journeying here and there to churches near and far, preaching
and teaching. Sometimes also doing Evangelistic work IF the Lord
had given you that gift of ministerial function. As we saw
earlier in section one, an elder could have more than one
function of ministry, or change functions as directed by the
Lord.
It would seem from the NT there were 21 men at least who
functioned primarily as apostolic elders in the church as a
whole.
Did those men who were NOT OF THE TWELVE first apostles,
have to meet the qualifications that Peter gave in Acts 1:21,22?
NO, THEY DID NOT! And I will explain Acts chapter one and the
choosing of Matthias is a moment. The point here is that IF
God directly or indirectly through the church(inspiring the
elders and others) called you to go forth to the churches near
and far, you were functioning in the eldership of the church as
an apostle. It was and is just that simple, no big theologically
complicated doctrine, for the word apostle means "to go forth" or
"one sent forth."
The trouble for many begins when they smoke-screen this
simple truth of the NT with Acts 1: 15-26. They try to do
cart-wheels with the word in order to fit Paul(and some
others) into this context, WHEN THEY SHOULD DO NO SUCH THING!
Paul. Barnabas, Timothy etc. were NEVER a part of the twelve, but
they were just as much apostles as any of the twelve were, no
more and no less.
The TWELVE were a class of apostles quite unique from all
other apostles to come. No other apostles after them were or ever
will be a part of that distinct group of 12. They were unique as
a group of twelve apostles. But unique in what ways? Did they
have more dictatorial authority over other apostles and elders in
the church? No, they did not, as we have before proved in the
first part of this book. They had no more authority over each
other than any other elder in the church. Paul, we have seen,
certainly did not think any of them had authority over himself.
He respected them, said some seemed to be pillars in the church,
but he made it very clear he was not "under" them in authority.
As a unique group of twelve, did they have more talents and
abilities in theology than the other elders? Oh, not at all, far
from it! Paul in theology training could have run rings around
many of them I am sure. Even Peter found some things written by
Paul "hard to understand" so he stated(2 Pet.3:16). But not
impossible note.
Were they blessed with more of the gifts of the Spirit than
any other apostles or elders? No, they were not! Peter was able
to perform great miracles at the onset of the NT church, but we
are not told that the others of the twelve were able to do the
same. Then on the other hand Stephen and Philip, who were not
apostles did great miracles also. And Paul sure had as many gifts
of the Spirit as anyone.
So if it was not these things that made the 12 apostles
unique, then what indeed was it?
Three basic areas made them a special group of apostles that
will never be duplicated in the same way again.
1. They were personally picked by Jesus Christ while He was in
the flesh on this earth during His last three and one half years
of life and ministry (Luke 6:12-16), and called apostles because
He would send them forth.
2. They would be given a special commission of going forth to a
certain race of people - the "lost sheep of the House of Israel"
(Mat.10:1-6). This they did do. William Steuart McBirnie,Ph.D.
has written a fascinating book called "The Search For The Twelve
Apostles," published by Tyndale House, that verifies the facts of
history to prove they did what Jesus sent them forth to do, after
His resurrection.
3. The twelve apostles were the only persons recorded for us of
all the children of God, that were in advance told specifically
what their reward would be in the Kingdom age to come
(Mat.19:28).
These three basic areas combined together make the original
twelve apostles unique among all apostles, elders, and saints.
The truth of Acts chapter one should now start to become
clear. A man HAD TO FILL the position of the dead Judas Iscariot.
To be as the other eleven, the man had to be qualified as the
others were, namely part of the disciples that were the large
overall group of persons that followed and toured Palestine with
Jesus during His ministry and witnessed His resurrection.
There is no need to try and do hand-stands with God's word
to fit Paul and Barnabas and other later apostles into these
requirements, for those requirements were not necessary to become
a member of the 12. Only the twelve were the twelve, no more
no less. It was important that another be found from the group of
men who followed Jesus from the baptism of John to the day Christ
was taken up into heaven. The twelve had to stay as twelve! And
be of the same basic bottom line qualifications - all had to
have the qualifications Peter laid down. All of them did, so the
one to replace Judas also had to have the same.
Because he would be one of the official 12 apostles given a
main basic commission to go forth to the "lost sheep of the house
of Israel." Paul and Barnabas and other apostles were never a
part of that specific duty in the way the twelve were, so the
qualifications of Acts 1:21,22, did not have to apply to them, in
order for them to be also called apostles, with just as much a
right to the word as the twelve had. For being an apostle is a
FUNCTION of the eldership ministry, not some position of "rank."
As we have before proved (see the appendix to part one) an
apostle is also an elder/overseer(Peter called himself an apostle
and also an elder in the same letter - 1 Peter 1: 1; 5: 1). We
have also before proved that an elder is an overseer who is a
bishop who is a shepherd of the flock(so a pastor and teacher).
All apostles are also elders, just as all Californians are
Americans. But not all elders are apostles, just as not all
Americans are Californians.
Then there is the question to be answered: WHY did they need
to have a twelfth apostle now that Judas was dead? Why not just
leave it the way it was with eleven? Could not eleven still go to
the house of Israel, would it not be enough? Probably to cover
that specific duty Christ sent them forth to do, it would have
been enough. Yet there is one more very important reason why a
man had to be chosen to take Judas' place. Have you figured it
out yet? I have really given you the answer already.
There had to be twelve and NOT eleven for the start of the
NT church, and to begin at least the commission Christ had for
them B E C A U S E EACH OF THE TWELVE was given the reward in
the Kingdom of ruling over one of the TWELVE tribes of Israel!
There were TWELVE tribes, not ELEVEN. Those specific rewards
had already been given out by Christ to 12 apostles. So there had
to be twelve not eleven original apostles of Christ.
Paul and Barnabas could not have applied for the position,
as they had not yet been baptized as Christians, let alone as
appointed elders in the church.
Then we must not forget perhaps an even greater reason why
someone had to be chosen to take Judas' place as one of the
twelve. IT WAS PROPHESIED, IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE PSALMS IT WOULD
BE SO! Peter knew it must be for the prophecy would have to be
filled and come to pass (Acts 1:20).
Were there apostles after the first century ended and the
death of the apostle John? Are there apostles today in the church
of God? Did that apostolic function end with the death of the NT
apostles? Not at all, not by any means! Ephesians 4:11-16 is for
the church through all ages, until the church has grown up in all
things, fully mature, completely perfect. And that my friends
will not reach its pinnacle until the day of Christ's return and
the resurrection of the saints into glory and perfection.
Are there apostles in every age and generation of the
church? Well, I did not say that! The word does not say there
will be any guarantee of that. But for sure God has had
some apostles down through the last two thousand years, who were
sent forth here and there, near and yonder, to teach and preach
to the churches of God. Who they were and if they ever had such a
functional title laid upon them by the congregations of God may
not be history. And what does it really matter, if they were
functioning as an apostle then God surely knew, and that is all
that matters. Better to have no official eldership title and
do what the Lord has called you to do and given you the means to
do it, than have some official title from men, and be sleeping at
the wheel whereby you end up in the ditch.
For the word of the Lord makes it very clear that no matter
WHO you are, WHAT you are given to do, HOW many natural abilities
and God given gifts you posses, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO FALL
AWAY AND BECOME A BLIND LEADER OF THE BLIND!
The great apostle Paul talked about Pseudapostoloi - false
apostles, and the church at Ephesus was commended for trying
those who said they were apostles and were not, but were liars (2
Cor. 11: 13; Rev.2:2).
Timothy an official apostle = elder.
Before I leave this section, it is very significant for our
proof and evidence that Timothy was an officially appointed
elder/overseer of the church, to point out 2 Thess.2:6. The "we"
that Paul talks about in this verse is Silas, Himself, and
Timothy - verse one chapter one.
Paul clearly tells them and us today, that THEY, the three
of them(from the beginning of his letter) WERE APOSTLES! Paul
sure knew he was, he had seen Christ, was taught by Him -
Galatians chapter two - absolutely no doubt in Paul's mind that
he himself was an apostle of Christ. He elsewhere said he
believed he had the mind of Christ, was inspired to say and write
the things he did. He knew God was with him, guiding him, and
inspiring him.
If ANYONE should have known who the true elders and apostles
of God were in the church of God, it would have been Paul! He
plainly said Timothy(and Silas) was an apostle. As far as Christ
was concerned He had put Timothy in the function of being an
apostle. We are never told specifically HOW, whether in a direct
personal manner or through the eldership of the church (as with
Paul and Barnabas on one occasion - Acts 13). It does not matter
to our point, the fact remains Paul tells us that both Silas and
Timothy were apostles, just as he was.
Being an apostle is ONE function WITHIN the
eldership/overseership of the church.The word elder being an
umbrella word under which lies the words and functions
of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and shepherd(pastor)/teacher.
Timothy was an official elder of the church, recognized as
such by other elders including the great elder and apostle Paul.
He was also an apostle and at times was admonished and encouraged
by Paul to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim.4:5).
..................................................................
Church GovernmentWhat the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed THIS IS THE FINAL PART IN ANSWERING
NORM EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT
Prophets - In the New Testament?(pages 13-15).
I have no disagreement here with what Mr.Edwards has
written. The "prophetic role" in the Church has often been
overlooked and misunderstood. Many even claim it does not exists
any more since the days of the first apostles. Nothing could be
further from the truth!
The study of the function of "prophet" is a most fascinating
one. You may like to spend some time with a Bible Concordance
like Strong's under the word "prophet." It is not the purpose of
this work to elaborate on this function of the ministerial
eldership.
I will recommend to the reader a book that does do
that(elaborates in detail on the function of the prophet). The
book is entitled "HE GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN - A Biblical
Perspective of Apostles, Prophets, and Pastors" by Kenneth E.
Hagin.
While I do not agree with every sentence in this book,
overall it is a work that the progressive Christian who believes
in the "gifts of the Spirit" still being given today, should
read. The wealth of information, wisdom, and experience related
by Hagin in this book, is profound and edifying.
Other Congregational Functions(p.15-19).
Administrator, Leader, Shepherd, or Pastor
No problem with what Norman Edwards says here. I have before
shown that at the beginning of the NT Church, the
apostles/leaders/overseers, were responsible for both
the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. This can be
clearly seen from chapter one to five in the book of Acts. When
the Church was so large that physical cares were too great for
the apostles, they were inspired to delegate the physical
responsibilities to other persons, who had to meet certain
qualifications as directed by the spiritual leaders(the apostles
in this case).
This was done in order that the shepherds could mainly
continue in "prayer and the word."
Certainly if the situation arose in some very small
congregation, it would not be wrong for the Pastor/overseer to
function in BOTH the spiritual and physical duties of the Church.
But such a situation in my mind would be extremely rare today.
The principle and example given to us in Acts 6 and elsewhere, is
that persons are chosen from the congregation who meet the
qualifications to look after the physical matters of the
Church, and in so doing allowing the elders to concentrate on
"prayer and the word."
Apostle
Covered above in some detail.
Discerner of Spirits
No disagreement with N.E. Some do have the gift of seeing
deep into the attitude and motivation of people. Can be of great
benefit to some churches who need that gift among them.
Evangelist or Gospel Preacher
No problem with what Mr. Edwards states.
Exhorter
Faith-filled person
Giver
Healer
Help
Knowledgeable person
Love
I am in full agreement
Minister or Helps(service to others, physical or spiritual)
I agree with some things stated by not with all. The third
section of this book (also the first and second) gets to the
"nitty-gritty" of where I disagree.
Miracle worker
Merciful person
Teacher or speaker
Tongues speaker and Interpretation
Wise person
I have no problem with what is stated.
The Role of Elder(p.19,20).
Most of what N.E. has said under this section I have no
difficulty with. Where I may differ has been covered already in
this work.
It is interesting to note that he does allow for Titus to
have selected the men who were to be appointed, who were to be
"elders" in every city. He goes on to say that these men had to
meet qualifications, but thinks Titus "not knowing everyone in
every city, would certainly have asked the congregation which men
were qualified, as in Acts 6."
I have little trouble with a congregation being part of the
process, as I have previously stated earlier, under certain
situations and circumstances. I told you about Fred Coulter, the
Biblical Church of God, the two congregations I was leading at
the time, and how my appointment or ordination as an official
Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ was determined. Yet to think
that Titus, or to say that Titus did not know everyone in every
city......well that is reading into, or adding something to the
word that is just NOT THERE! We have no facts at all to say how
much Titus had worked with paul in that area before Paul gave
those instructions to him. He may well have known every
congregation and all the leading men in each, for all we are told
about the situation. We are just not told, pure and simple, and
to guess otherwise is mere personal speculation at best, and
doctrinal dogmatism at worst.
Acts 6 may have been applied, but we just do not know, we
are not told. Yet, if Acts was taken as a principle to be used in
other situations, as I have before proved, the last word on the
matter was still with the overseer/apostles/elders of the Church.
And in the case of appointing elders in the churches on Crete,
that would have been Titus, for he was by the authority of
Paul(one of the great men used by the Lord and inspired in
a special way) given that responsibility.
I am in full agreement when Mr. Edwards says: "Elders are
responsible for shepherding the flock of the Eternal and to serve
as overseers. They are to be examples, not 'lords' over the
others. They are to anoint and pray for those in need of help.
They are to lay hands on others for spacial tasks. Those that do
a good job of overseeing or teaching should be paid for their
work. If leaders do sin, they should be corrected in front
of the entire congregation....."
Today, some who would follow E.N's paper as a "sacred cow"
doctrine, are scared of the NT fact that men were employed full
time in the work of the Lord and lived off the people they
served, because that would make them a "special class" of
persons, different from the rest of the congregation, in their
eyes, and they would not want that. These people say "all are or
can be elders in the church(not sure if they think women can also
be) so why should some be paid and others not?"
And with such a theology, I can see that would indeed create
problems over "paid ministers." For who would decide which men
would be full time and/or part time, with pay? For how long?
I'm sure many men, if having secular work problems, out of work,
not liking their work etc., would love to be employed by the
Church. Having the doctrine that all men can be elders or
ministers in the Church, could easily cause "politics" of
carnality to abound, especially as "clicks" of personality do
tend to evolve in any congregation of any size. I can see
personality pulls and lobbying tactics going on behind
closed doors, to influence the "vote" in WHO is, and for HOW
LONG, the ones to be full/part time "paid" elders.
I would love to observe say for 10 years, a 100 member plus
congregation that teaches every man can be and is an elder, and
can help lead the congregation when his turn arrives. I would
love to watch them as they vote in and out their overseers. I can
imagine the lobbying and politics in the corners, and the house
parties to win votes. I would be surprised if any church
congregation could survive that kind of free for all and
still be doing any kind of work for God in ten years.
Mr. Edwards goes through a number of OT examples and
scriptures concerning "lots." Interesting, but besides the point
when we come down to the question of the NT Church Government.
For to bring "lots" over into the NT Church we would have to find
NT examples and plain NT scriptures teaching us that we should,
as congregations, "vote" on who our overseers/pastors/shepherds
should be at times. And such teaching in the NT cannot be found!
But, you say, what about Acts chapter one! Well, let's look
at it and ask a few questions as we go.
Did Jesus tell the disciples to wait for the promise they
heard from Him?
Yes, He did.
What was the promise?
It was the Holy Spirit (verses 1-5).
Did the disciples continue together waiting?
Yes, indeed (verses 12-14).
Was Peter inspired to think about the prophecy concerning
Judas and its fulfilment?
He was (verses 15-20).
Was there a basic qualification required to take the
position held by Judas?
There was (verses 21-22).
How many were appointed? Who did the appointing?
Two men were appointed. It was "they" - all the disciples
who appointed. How it was done is not revealed.
Then what did they do?
They prayed (verses 24,25).
After they prayed what did they do?
God was to give the answer to them via "casting lots."
Why did someone have to take Judas' place?
The answer can be found earlier in part three of this study.
This is an important question.
Were they filled with the Holy Spirit yet?
NO THEY WERE NOT! The majority had not yet received it. A
few may have received a token of it when Jesus breathed on
them and said, "receive you the Spirit" at an earlier date.
The Spirit had not yet come as it would come on the day of
Pentecost (Acts 2).
What are some of the attributes of having the Spirit?
You may think about the "fruits of the Spirit." You may
remember the verses that say it is the "power" of God, the
"divine nature" of God, the "sound mind" of the Lord, the
"love of God" shed abroad in our hearts, and other
attributes. Jesus said that both the Father and He would
come and live within the believer (John 14:23).
It would be through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that
they would do this. The Spirit would also GUIDE the believer
into all truth (John 16:13).
Now, put it all together!
The disciples, when having to choose another to take the
place of Judas, DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! They did not have
the nature, the power, the sound mind, the in-dwelling of the
Father and Christ in them. They did not have the Spirit that
would lead into all truth. They, in their natural state, could
not decide which of the two men God wanted to fill the position
and place held by Judas. They acted in this situation as others
had acted over the centuries under the Old Covenant. They
resorted to casting "lots" and praying to God to give the answer
by this method. They were without the Spirit and so without the
mind of Christ. They were very much still carnal humans without
the nature of God in them.
The Eternal did honor this use of an OT system, BUT IT WAS
FROM THE OLD COVENANT!
After the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy
Spirit, when the very mind and nature of God was implanted within
the leaders of the Church and all the saints, WE NEVER READ OF OR
HEAR ABOUT, WE ARE NEVER INSTRUCTED IN THE USE OF THIS "CASTING
OF LOTS" AGAIN TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD, FOR ANY MATTER OR
DECISION WITHIN ANY CHURCH CONGREGATION!
Under the New Covenant, the Spirit of the Lord should be
quite sufficient, along with prayer and fasting, as NT examples
show us (i.e. Acts 14:23; 13:1-3).
I cannot see ANY need to ever have a congregation "vote" on
anything except the issue of having to "disfellowship" a person
from the church's fellowship. That subject I have covered
in-depth with a separate study. I am here talking about the
spiritual affairs of the Church, not the color of the carpet
etc., which possibly may need a general vote on.
With the Elders overseeing the spiritual matters in the
Church, and certainly the doctrines and truths of the Lord are
not "up for vote" but MAJOR issues being solved as in Acts 15.
With official servers or deacons taking care of the physical
matters, and all the saints with differing gifts of the Spirit
being used for all the needs and benefits of the Church and
community. With the Spirit of the Lord in every baptized member,
WHY would VOTING ever have to be resorted to?
It was used, and worked well under the OC, but the vast
majority in Israel did NOT HAVE the Holy Spirit united with their
minds. Today, under the NC, every begotten child of God in the
Church, has both the Father and the Son living within them.
Surely the Spirit of the Lord is able to guide the different
people in different functions within the body of Christ to
administer their duties wisely and correctly, especially when the
"checks and balances" are in place, so no abuse can take hold (as
much of this study has been about abuse and false doctrines).
Then couple all that with "prayer and fasting"..........and
I see that voting to know the will of God is old and passed away.
It was physical and carnal for a physical and carnal people, but
today God is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth, for the
Father seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and they that
worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John
4:23,24).
Bible Teaches Attitude not Form (p.22-23).
I have no large disagreements with what Norm Edwards says
under this heading.
If Everyone is Free to Disagree,
Can Anything be Accomplished? (p.23-25).
I agree fully with the basic understanding and teaching that
E.N. puts forth here.
What Happens when Serious Disagreement Arises? (p.25-26).
No problem here, I agree with that is stated.
When Should a Person be "Put Out'? (p.26-28).
I am in agreement.
Conclusion: How should the Congregation
be Governed (p.28-30).
I agree with the overall teaching of attitude, but as this
book of mine shows, I would disagree with some specifics in
actual functioning of government within the Church of God.
Is it "Rebellion" Not to Follow an
Established "Church Leader"? (p.30-31).
Fully agree.
Was not "the Government of God" the First of the
18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong? (p.31-32).
I again agree with most of what Mr. Edwards says here. I
have personally never seen the list of these so-called 18 Truths
Restored by Herbert Armstrong. If Church Government was supposed
to be the first on the list, then all I can say is the list
starts off with a HUGE error! HWA did not restore the truth on
NT church government, he CORRUPTED and PERVERTED it from the
truth he once knew and wrote about!
E.N. talks about the last 20 years of the life of HWA as if
it was OTHER men who were to blame for the corruptions in the
WCG, and not HWA also. I guess when you stay with an
organization until well after the death of HWA you will blind
yourself to the reality of the man heading that organization. To
the idea that HWA did not know what was going on, I say,
nonsense, absurdity, tomfoolery, fiddle-faddle, balderdash, and
big files of garbage.
Don't kid yourself for one minute! HWA knew exactly what he
was doing once he had Stanley Rader off his back, out of the way,
and unable to blackmail him any more. He knew exactly what he was
doing after his wife died in 1967 and on into the 70's.
From 1966 to 1986 HWA allowed a few new truths, some little
"growing in grace and knowledge" of our Lord and Savior to
continue in the WCG, but all that was FAR OUT WEIGHED BY THE
MANY FALSE TEACHINGS, PERVERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE, CORRUPTIONS, AND
CULTIC ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES, THAT WERE EXHIBITED BY HIMSELF
PERSONALLY AND THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE.
Other Misunderstood Scriptures (p.32-34).
I fully agree with what is written by Mr. Edwards in this
section.
So ends my critique of Norman Edwards' paper.
.....................................
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment