CHURCH GOVERNMENT #4, #5, #6

 

Church Government #4

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

APPENDIX All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. JAMES 3:1 The argument is that ALL and EVERYONE in the body of Christ should be teachers. That all can take turns in the church to teach or be elders. With this argument comes the idea that James is NOT contradicting this notion, but is saying that people should not become "GREAT teachers" or "be not GREAT BIG(DEAL) teachers." Teacher with proud swelled heads of vanity and dictatorial authority. But is this the truth of the matter. Was James meaning an "attitude" of mind, or was he simply telling his readers that many should NOT ASPIRE to want to be ELDERS/overseers(who must teach - 1 Tim.3) in the church congregations? The truth is found from the Greek. This is one instance where the peculiarities of the Greek language can cause confusion. "polus"(many) can mean "great big" or "much" (but not "deal"). However, the word in James 3:1 is not "polus"(singular) but "polloi"(plural). As Zhodiates says: ".....(II) In the pl.masc. polloi......means many. With nouns of multitude it means great, large." (i.e. a great large multitude.) In James 3:1 the plural "polloi" IS followed by a "noun of multitude," namely "didaskaloi" (teachers). (i.e. be not a great large multitude of teachers). Here's how the NRSV puts it: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." You may want to look up this verse in many other translations. I have not found any that translate it as "great big deal teachers" or conveying an attitude of mind. If James was trying to convey a meaning of "great big deal" teachers he would have used something along the lines of "hyperlian" (as in 2 Cor.11:5 for "superlative") or, another word with "hyper-" or other in it. THE WORD - HIERARCHICAL The question of the use of this word in regards Church Government keeps being raised. There is I believe some confusion in some minds as to HOW and as to WHAT is meant by this word in the context of CG(church government). Some are saying GOD is hierarchical - always was and always will be, and has always governed as a hierarchy and will always so do. Some say God is not under the NT(New Testament) governing in a hierarchical manner, and never did even under the OT(Old Testament). Both sides accuse the other of being theologically incorrect. What is happening here is the misunderstanding of how each side is using the word hierarchy and what context it is used in. The GODHEAD(God) is indeed hierarchical. It is written, "God is the head of Christ." Jesus Himself said, "the Father is greater than I." And, "the one sent is not greater than he who sent him." So God has always ruled as a hierarchy - from the TOP DOWN, and always will so rule. God the Father is supreme in authority, then comes Christ Jesus, second in authority. Then it is written, "Christ is head of the Church." And as Jesus said it is the Father who will determine who sits on the right and left hand of Christ, in the Kingdom. The question then is, WHERE does the hierarchy go, if it goes anywhere, in relationship to the physical members of the NT church in this age? And this is where all the debate about Church Government really lies. The debate is not really over the hierarchy of God per se, but: Is the NT church to be hierarchical in human structure of persons? Or, trying to make this as clear as I can to the reader, the question is: Does the Bible, especially the NT, teach that the church Jesus built is to be STRUCTURED and GOVERNED like the human hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church - one single flesh and blood human who has all and final authority over all other elders and ministers and lay persons on matters of doctrine, ethics, morality, and administration? This is the argument and question, not whether God rules hierarchically, but whether the physical ministers and lay persons within the NT CHURCH are to organize themselves in structure as have the people and ministers of the Roman Catholic church, and/or, is the NT church run on a democratic form of the congregational persons voting into office elders and deacons and doctrines etc. Has God decreed for the NT church that it is to have ONE supreme physical man as head, with all final authority over all things that pertain to the running of the church? This is the question that concerns many today in the Church of God. This study has addressed THAT question, and I believe given the truth of the matter as found in the plain teachings and examples of the NT. ANCIENT ISRAEL - DID THEY HAVE A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM? Among all the debating over this topic, there has now risen another question: Did God institute a human hierarchical system in ancient Israel? Some say it is clear God did do so. Others say He never did. Those on the side of "no He never did'' say that Exodus 18 was only of human institution - namely Jethro and Moses without God in the picture. They claim that God gave His Spirit to other men(i.e. Num.11) so Moses was NOT the "chief" among the physical Israelites. They say that the supreme "one man rule" of the Kings of Israel was of human request and not the desire of God. I have great difficulty accepting their arguments and reasoning not the least is just a simple reading of the OT. It seems clear to me that God DID, most of the time RULE or tried to rule(if the people would respond) ancient Israel through the leadership, guidance, and inspiration of a DOMINANT authoritarian leader that had final authority in matters of God and the ways of God. Let's go back to Exodus 18. Was this JUST of men? Or was it also of God? Was this ONLY an idea of Jethro? Or had God given it to Jethro(at least backed him in it) and did He inspire Moses to adopt Jethro's advice? Notice what is missed by many, it is found in verse 23. "If you do this thing, AND GOD SO COMMANDS YOU, then you will be able to endure...." Jethro did not want Moses adopting his idea and suggestion without consulting God about it! Obviously Moses did consult God and God did approve because we then read "So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said"(v.24). The account in Deut.1 would also bear this out. This pyramid structure of government - Moses as "top chief" - the supreme in authority over other lesser rulers of people, who were over still lesser rulers - this Roman Catholic structure of OT church government - WAS FROM GOD, it was ORDAINED of Him, sanctioned and set in order of Him. Just because the empire of Babylon, or Egypt had an established religious "priesthood" does not mean God could not establish His own priesthood for Israel if He so chose. God's probably came first, and other nations copied, for Satan is the great counter copier of the truth, but he perverts it. God giving His Spirit and rulership ability to others besides Moses is only wise and just. But that does not take away the plain truth that Moses was HEAD and SUPREME human authority over all other humans in the organized state/church of Israel. It was Moses who commanded them at that time to do the things they needed to do(Deut.1:18). He still maintained the number one leadership role under God. All the hard matter they were to bring to him for settlement. I have no trouble with that fact, because it is clear from reading the OT that God, organizationally, did operate DIFFERENTLY with different people at different times. After Moses, the supreme human authority over Israel was passed to Joshua. After Joshua there were a number of individual leaders God used from time to time to guide and judge Israel. The Lord even used a woman, one single person, to judge Israel - Deborah. She lived in mount Ephraim and "the children of Israel came to her for judgment"(Judges 4:4,5). Samuel was the last of the judges to directly under God, lead and rule and guide the nation and church of Israel. Again, I just can not see any other way but to accept the fact that from reading the story of Samuel, he was chosen by God to be the ONE human authority over all other humans(including the priesthood) in the state/church of Israel. He was directly inspired and talked with God as did Moses. Sure it was the people of Israel who humanly wanted a KING to reign and rule them, and not God's desire, but the CHURCH government side of the state/church of Israel still had its Levites, priesthood, and HIGH priest who was "chief" over the other priests. Yes, there were others who had the "spirit of the Lord" - who worked in the state religion of God, did the Lord's work and served the people, yet there still was a high, top of the line, priest. The example of ELIJAH and ELISHA is a classic. There was a school of prophets, many were "with" Elijah, but to me it is evident from just reading the story, Elijah was TOP GUN, with top authority under God in doing the work of God. When the Lord called it a day for Elijah, Elisha was chosen to take over number ONE position in the work of God. So, by and large, under the OC as God dealt with Israel and Judah, especially in religious matters, there was most of the time, a human structure of rule that was Roman Catholic in nature(as shocking as that seems to some today). And this worked for God towards His people for that time BECAUSE 1) He often directly, verbally, and in some cases VISIBLY, inspired and talked to the one head man over His work, i.e. Moses, Samuel, Elijah. 2) God had judges that were filled with His Spirit(Num.11). 3) God instituted the URIM and THUMMIM for often judgments and decisions(see a Bible Dictionary). I have no difficulty in accepting that God did work under the OC with Israel on a human pyramid structure of rulership. I believe that is QUITE EVIDENT from a reading of the OT. BUT the question is: IS GOD WORKING ON A HUMAN PYRAMID - ONE AUTHORITARIAN, ALL POWER, MAN - WITHIN HIS NT CHURCH? The body of this study has addressed that question and answered from the pages of the NT scriptures. JESUS - THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER? In showing that the NT church of God was never to be organized with any ONE single human being, having all power and all authority over all ministers and members of the church, further confusion in some minds has been thrown up by those who find it difficult to accept the truth that God does CHANGE the way He does things from time to time. The confusion arises from people "shouting out" the verse in Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the SAME yesterday, today, and forever." I will now spend some time and space to answer this. Recently within the church of God, this verse has been one of the most MISUSED and MISUNDERSTOOD verses of the NT. In the context of Church Government, those who see that God used a human pyramid with Israel under the OC, cling to Heb.13:8 and say God must then be using a human pyramid structure of government for His NT church under the NC age. So they must try to fit the NT scriptures into their idea and really do some magic tricks with some pretty plain verses, that would blast their notions out of the water. Then on the other hand those who see the truth that the NT scriptures teach no such doctrine for God's church as a Roman Catholic structure of ministerial pyramid authority and "rank" system, they, based upon Heb.13:8, must try to prove that God NEVER EVER had a human pyramid system in ancient Israel under the OC age. Both sides are missing the bulls eye and causing confusion in people's minds. They are running with only one leg on TWO counts: 1) They do not see or have forgotten, that God DOES CHANGE things at times in His plan, as His plan unfolds from age to age. He does make adjustments and amendments from time to time as needed and as He sees necessary, according to His will. 2) They do not see what the MAIN TRUTH and PURPOSE is for Hebrews 13:8 God does CHANGE and is not the same in certain things. Most of you know it, so don't jump too hastily to say I'm contradicting Heb.13:8. When did God institute circumcision? Was it with Enoch? Or was it with Shem? Was it with Noah? NO! It was with ABRAHAM and his seed! Before Abraham it was NOT THERE as a covenant for God's people! With Abraham and Moses it was! No male could become a full OC Israelite unless they were circumcised in the flesh! No male could partake of the Passover unless circumcised! So important had physical circumcision become to Israel under the OC that some were teaching within the NT church that it was still necessary to "be saved." The issue had to be brought to a head in the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. The NT shows plainly that physical circumcision is NOW under the NC of no religious concern (Rom.2:28,29; 1 Cor.7:19; Acts 15; Gal.6:15). God has CHANGED circumcision(physical) from a MUST under the OC to a NOTHING under the NC. Whatever way you slice it, there has been a change in physical circumcision from the OC age to the NC age, and all of it was instituted and de-instituted BY God! God has not always been the "same" in some respects. The law of TITHES was a certain way to a certain TRIBE under the OC. That was decreed and instituted by God. Now the NC makes it very clear that there is a CHANGE, and that change is decreed and instituted by God. See Hebrews the seventh chapter. Note the very word 'change' is used in verse 12. There was a certain type of priesthood involving a certain tribe(Levi) under the OC. Now under the NC there is a NEW high-priest from another tribe, with a new priesthood of His own(see again Heb.7 and note verse 12). All this was decreed and instituted by God - a CHANGE for Him, not the same as before! Remember the God of the OC was the one who became the Christ of the NC(you may want to request the article that proves that truth). Under the OC physical animal sacrifices were instituted by Christ - God. They were a MUST for all Israelites under the OC. Now under the NC there is a CHANGE - animal sacrificing is NOT DESIRED or required by God (see Heb. 10:1-18). There is NO Levitical priesthood, and NO temple. Animal sacrifices CAN NOT be offered to God, even if those two physical requirements were in place the NC shows it is NOT required in this age. God has CHANGED the way He does things, He is not always the same in all operations of His plan. Under the OC vows were permitted and wow to him who did not follow through with them. Under the NC there are to be no vows or swearing but a "no" or a "yes" for the Christian. There has been a change - Jesus is not doing things exactly the "same" today as before. Jesus said to the Pharisees that "divorce for any reason" was permitted and allowed under Moses - the OC. But "from the beginning it was not so." Jesus under the NC does not allow divorce for every reason, the law is changed. Jesus is not governing the NC Israel as He did OC Israel - things are not the same with Him in certain respects. The OC itself is CHANGED. Who instituted the OC? Why Christ did, the God of the OT. The OC is changed to the NC, which is based upon BETTER promises and is a BETTER covenant (see Heb.8). The OC never automatically gave the "Spirit of God" or "eternal life" to those under it. The NC gives BOTH! That is a CHANGE, that is not the same, that is a change in the way God - Christ, has acted and done things differently in different ages. Under the OC God did not give them the HEART to obey (Deut.5:29; 29:1-4) - under the NC all that has changed (see Heb.8 again). The promise from God is not the same! Now, do you see the truth of Heb.13:8? The words "the same" must be understood in the light of the TOTALITY of the word of God as to HOW Paul was using them. and the CONTEXT Paul was using them in will also give us the correct understanding of what is the "same" about Christ in the past, present, and future. Let's look at the context of Hebrews 13. Verse 7, Paul tells his readers to remember (look to, esteem, take note of) those who rule(lead - mrg. reading) them. He tells them to remember those ministers who have led them and spoken the word of God to them. He tells them, "whose FAITH FOLLOW." Did he mean by those words - doctrine, certain technical ideas of theology? I think not, for sometimes even God's true ministers have incorrect doctrines at times(remember how we observed Pentecost on a Sunday for 40 years or more before finding we were wrong). The context again shows us what Paul meant by the words "whose faith follow." The next words and sentence make it clear, "considering the outcome of their CONDUCT." They were to consider their CHARACTER OF PRACTICAL DAY TO DAY LIVING. Paul was not first of all concerned with small points of doctrine, of course he knew that God's leaders they were to remember, would have the correct BASIC doctrines of God right, or he would have warned them about false leaders coming as wolves in sheeps clothing. That was not his concern in verses 7 and 8. His concern was they look to and follow the faithful servants of God in their CONDUCT of character and living, which matured or evidenced (outcome) in "Jesus Christ - the same yesterday, today, and forever." The true leaders of God(whatever they may have had in small errors of doctrine) speaking the true word of God, were trying to set the right example of faithful living in holy character of daily conduct AS JESUS CHRIST HAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST, IN THE PRESENT, AND WILL IN THE FUTURE FOREVER. This is what Paul wanted them to see and follow in those leaders - the HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER OF CONDUCT AND PURITY OF LOVE, JUSTICE, PEACE, MERCY(all the fruits of the Spirit) that was the sum total of Jesus Christ from past eternity to future eternity. He started to talk about DOCTRINE in verse 9! He was not talking about theological issues as the changing from the OC to the NC and what was not the same with them, or other "not the same" as before doctrines, in verses 7 and 8. Verses 7,8 are concerned with HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER in daily living not about doctrinal changes God may have made from one age to another age (i.e. circumcision, baptism, covenants, tithing, priesthood, vows etc.). When Jesus was dealing with Adam and Eve, when He was dealing with Enoch, when He was dealing with Noah and others under THAT age, when the doctrine of circumcision, Levite priesthood, rigorous animal sacrificial system and other OC laws of Israel were NOT in effect, He - Jesus - was HOLY and PURE and RIGHTEOUS and JUST in all His CONDUCT towards those He was governing. When Christ was dealing with Moses, the people of Israel and all under the OC(with instituted laws of physical circumcision, tithing to Levi, a priesthood, sacrificial system, vows, divorce, and the like, that would change later), He was HOLY and PURE and RIGHTEOUS and JUST in character towards those He was ruling in THAT age. When Jesus deals with those He is leading today under the NC with its changes from the OC, He is still HOLY, JUST, PURE, and RIGHTEOUS in CONDUCT and MIND as He has always been and will always be for eternity. Also with all this the PLAN and PURPOSE of God in creating mankind has always been the same, yesterday, today, and forever. That spiritual character of purpose will never change, it will always be the same, as before the foundations of the earth were laid when that plan and purpose was formulated. When Christ deals with, leads and guides, all the physical people during the 1,000 year reign(millennium) of the Kingdom of God on earth, with WHATEVER changes the earth and NC will have (the prophets say physical animal sacrifices will again be offered in a temple in Jerusalem by a priesthood) during that age, He will still be the SAME in Holy Righteous conduct. On into the WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT age, the NEW heavens and earth age, and out into eternity. Whatever God decides to do, whatever His plans, whatever CHANGES, whatever will not be the same, along the way, one thing will always remain the SAME - the Holy Righteous conduct of Jesus Christ (and God the Father) will FOREVER remain unchanged. Under all situations, under any covenant agreement, under all circumstances, with all people, God will be always JUST, LOVE, MERCY, HOLY, PURE, RIGHTEOUS and whatever other word can describe PERFECT SINLESS perfection of CONDUCT. The Holy character and divine plan and purpose of God and Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Ah, yes, He may change some doctrinal things from time to time as He wills(after all He is God, not us humans, and can do what He wishes, when He wishes, in the manner He wishes and with whom He wishes - we are the clay He is the potter) but His holy sinless conduct has and will always remain THE SAME! Now that is the truth of the matter concerning Hebrews 13:8 as it is also with Malachi 3:6. Truly as Jesus said "the scriptures can not be broken." There is no contradiction in the word of the Lord, and so the truth about NC church government does not contradict the truth about OC church government, and the sum total of both does not contradict Hebrews 13:8. LOGIC, AND WHO TODAY COULD BE HEAD OF THE PHYSICAL CHURCH? Stop and think - let's use some logic. If God has decreed that His NC church for this age was to be humanly pyramid in structure, then with all the various BRANCHES of the Church of God that have "come out" of the one organization called the "Worldwide Church of God," WHICH human man is chief of the others, the one with all authority that the other ministers must say "yes sir" to? Is it Ted Armstrong or Ron Dart who is "directly under Christ"? Is it David Hume from the UCG who is next in authority under Christ? How about Rod Meredith from the GCG, maybe it is he who is top dog? Then possibly it is none of the above, but ministers like Fred Coulter of the CBCG, or John Ritenbaugh of the COG, or John Pinkston of the CGSD? Maybe it is Gerald Flurry of PCG. Her's another problem, if it is one of these men, now that the WCG has split into many organizations, how can this TOP man exercise authority over the others in any practical way? Further, if you believe Herbert Armstrong was God's TOP man in God's NT pyramid structure of human ministers, believing God has always had a human pyramid hierarchical structure in His NT church(as the RC church teaches), THEN TELL ME, if you can, WHO WAS TOP GUN in authority and power BEFORE HWA took over, and further more, tell me WHEN and WHY did HWA take over from the one before him? And further still, WHO was the chief minister before that, and before that, and so on down the historic line? The Roman Catholic church can tell you as they see it, so what about the Church of God and those that uphold the same type of idea as the RC's. Let's face it, the whole idea of human hierarchical authority in the context of the NC Church of God is LAUGHABLE when you recognize the true history of the true Church has been SPLITS upon SPLITS. The truth is HWA became leader of ONE part of the true Church of God, there were other parts teaching the same basic doctrines in other parts of the world, and yes keeping the festivals of Lev.23. Such a branch was found by WCG ministers in South America back in the 1960's. That has been the norm for God's people since the days of the last apostle of the first century A.D. - John. There has never really been UNITY among God's people since the end of the first century. And even during the apostle Paul's time a pretty strong case can be built from NT verses that God's people had trouble with unity even during the life time of Christ's original apostles(i.e. 1 Cor.l-3). The plain truth is, if the last 2,000 years says anything about the true Church of God and unity, it will NOT BE A REALIZATION until Jesus Christ returns to establish God's Kingdom on earth. Those who cling to the teaching that God is still using the same form of church government in the NT age as He used with Israel in the OT age, must somehow try to find verses in the NT that would seem to support their hypothesis. The RC church has for centuries claimed that the apostle PETER was "chief" and authoritarian head of all other elders and apostles mentioned in the NT. The body of this study has examined the scriptures they use to expound the "supremacy of Peter" teaching and has found such ideas to be totally without any truth in fact. Now I must answer arguments that have been put forth by some in one branch of the Church of God, that PAUL had dictatorial authority over a church and/or churches as well as certain ministers. 1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-3 is often quoted to give credence to a "Supremacy of Paul" idea. One writer states: "Although he certainly must have had much information and probably also counsel from other leaders of the Church, the apostle Paul had authority to make the decision to disfellowship this sinner. Obviously, he was not seeking permission from any committee or 'church board' to carry out this action" (What Is the Biblical Form of Church Government? GCN-Global Church News, Vol.3, No.5, p.5). Please turn to 1 Cor.5 and read verses 1-12. Can you find anywhere in these verses where Paul said anything like: "As I have authority over you all and your elders, I command you to disfellowship this sinner." Or, "I am in authority and you MUST DO as I say, so cast this sinner out from among your fellowship." Or, "I have sole authority to judge and declare what the rest of you shall do with this sinner." No such dictatorial authority can be found in this passage! If it was a common fact that Paul had some sort of '"supreme - you must do as I say because I have authority over you and your ministers" rank, and the Corinthians KNEW IT, then surely somewhere in the two letters he wrote to them, he would have had point to tell them. Just look at all the things he had to CORRECT and INSTRUCT them on! As I read those letters it comes across to me VERY CLEARLY, that the Corinthian church, its members and elders, were NOT standing in AWE of the apostle Paul as some "chief" authority that they had to bow down before and lick the dust off his feet. Paul had to correct them on following MEN and not the ONE and only HEAD of the church - Christ (chap.l-3). Paul had planted - raised up the church at Corinth, but it was Apollos who WATERED, yet it was God who gave the increase(chap.2:5,6). Some were following neither of these two men but were looking to PETER as authority(chap.l:l2). Paul tells them that all of God's ministers are FELLOW WORKERS - one is NOT ABOVE the others - God is in charge, not men. They were to consider THEM (Peter, Apollos, Paul) as SERVANTS of Christ, none were to be puffed up against another (chap.3 to 4:7). Paul tells them they were acting as if they had no need of ANY minister to guide them(chap.4:8-13). Here was Paul's opportunity to set them in line and tell them it was HE - Paul, that had personal dictatorial authority over them, but he did no such thing. He goes on to use words not of dictatorial power but one who was spiritually more MATURE than they, to WARN and INSTRUCT them as to HOW they SHOULD be living and acting in the Spirit. "I do not write these things to shame you, but as my BELOVED CHILDREN I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I URGE you, IMITATE me. For this reason I have sent Timothy who will REMIND you of MY WAYS in Christ, as I TEACH everywhere and in every church" (v.14-17). Do you see how Paul conducted himself towards people? Not as some "big cheese" authoritative "I am the boss around here" head apostle with final power over all others. Not as someone saying "I will make the decision and you all will obey" but he presented himself as a servant of Christ, a fellow worker with other elders of Christ, a spiritual mature father of others he had brought to Christ through the gospel, someone who had to warn yes, but who also URGED, PLEADED with and ENCOURAGED others to IMITATE himself as he walked and imitated Christ (chap.11:1). Yes, and in all of that there could be times when POWERFUL correction may have to be used(see Paul's instruction in 2 Tim.4:1-4) as he explained to them in verses 18-21. Now chapter 5. It had been reported to Paul that OPEN incest was being practiced and the church was ignoring the situation - allowing it. Paul had to CORRECT them, show them their ERROR, so he did. He had to INSTRUCT them the WAY of Christ in regards to HOW a church should act towards a person doing such blatant sins and not repenting of it, while still being a member of the church and everyone knowing what was being practiced by this individual. Paul told them he personally had to judge the case, just as if he was there within the congregation, as each of them must do. And his judgment was that such things CAN NOT be allowed to be practiced within the church, as if no sin was being done, or as if grace was to be extending towards the sinner by allowing him to remain with them while practicing such a sin. Notice clearly what Paul said: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER, along with my spirit, with the power of out Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan"(v.4,5). Read it again, get it CLEAR! The decision to disfellowship the sinner out of the church into the unconverted world of Satan was to be a COLLECTIVE church matter! "....when YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER ALONG WITH my spirit..." Paul wanted them ALL to come to the SAME judgment as he, a mature spiritual father to them had come to. The judgment decision was to be passed by THEM collectively, when they gathered together, and Paul would be among them in spirit. If Paul ONLY had authority to make the decision to disfellowship this sinner, no such language would have been needed from Paul to them, no GATHERING TOGETHER would have been needed on their part. Paul would have merely told them he knew what was going on, he had made a decision, he had authority over them all including their elders, and they were to tell the sinner that Paul had disfellowshipped him and that was all there was to it. Paul would have said to them that they were to send him this sinners address and he would write to him telling him that he was disfellowshipped on the authority of Paul himself. Or he could have told them that one of their elders was to tell this man that Paul had made a decision to disfellowship him, and that it would be announced from the pulpit to the whole congregation on the Sabbath. He could have told them to tell the sinner "Just tell him I've judged and he is disfellowshipped." No such words are here recorded, no such words from Paul as: "By the sole authority invested in me over you all, I now disfellowship this sinner. You are commanded to do as I say." No such words can be found from the mouth of Paul because HE FOLLOWED CHRIST! And Christ had given the 1, 2, 3, of disfellowshipping. The local church had FINAL judgement and authority NOT ANY ONE SINGLE MAN(Mat.18). That is why Paul said to the church at Corinth "when YOU are GATHERED together along with my spirit." Paul went on to say, "with the POWER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST" not with his(Paul's) power or authority, as some "highest" court judge, but with CHRIST'S authority. And Christ had already given His authority on such sinful matters in the church and how to handle them (Mat.l8). Paul had previously INSTRUCTED them about the way of Christ in regards un-repented open sins within the church and how THEY were to JUDGE such matters inside the church (v.9-13). But in this matter of a member practicing incest they were NOT judging when they SHOULD HAVE BEEN! And Paul had to correct and instruct and URGE them to do the right thing in this situation. There is a VAST difference between CORRECTING, INSTRUCTING, URGING, and PLEADING with someone to act upon the way of Christ, and dictatorially stating you and you alone apart from other humans or body of humans, have full authority to disfellowship someone. Of course this kind of individual power is very prevalent in "cultish" organizations. Paul did not come close to acting with any such demagogue authority. Notice how he corrects and instructs them about judging, and courts of law in chapter 6. Brother was taking brother to the courts of this world for justice and trouble solving between themselves. Did Paul think that the church at Corinth did NOT have the ABILITY and the spiritually mature elders among them to JUDGE? No way! This was a church full of "spiritual gifts" and prophets (chap.12 through 14). They had the "wise" among them, they had those who could judge, but they were not using those gifts, and those men, as they should have, so he had to "tongue in cheek" use SHAME to get them to see their errors (chap.6:2-6). He wanted THEM to judge the matters pertaining to the church. He wanted them to judge the matters between brothers, not the courts of the unconverted world. He wanted them to judge matters of serious sins being practiced openly within the church. He did not say anything about them just handling the minor problems, little sins, while he, as chief authority would personally judge the "hard" cases and serious sins, and have sole authority to disfellowship. Paul wanted them with their elders and the spiritual gifts they had to JUDGE, and to govern their congregation in the way of Christ. Paul was CORRECTING yes, Paul was INSTRUCTING yes, Paul was WARNING yes, Paul was URGING and PLEADING, yes. He was ENCOURAGING, yes, but it was they - as a collective body and unit - elders, deacons, and saints, who were to judge and act and walk the way of Christ Jesus in all things. The church at Corinth was willing to listen to Paul, they were willing to be corrected and taught. They did disfellowship the sinner for his practice of incest. When he writes his next letter to them he has heard that the sinner is truly repentant, but the church is holding back its forgiveness and comfort towards him. He then must INSTRUCT and URGE them to now do what Christ would do. See the beauty of this love expressed to the church and repentant sinner in 2 Cor.2:1-11. Please read it in the AMPLIFIED BIBLE TRANSLATION. The sinner was censured for his sin not by Paul per se, but "by the MAJORITY" (v.6). He tells them in verse 7 to FORGIVE, to COMFORT, to encourage the repentant man lest he despair. Notice verse 8 in the Amplified Bible. "I therefore BEG you to reinstate him in your affection and assure him by your love for him." The NKJV says, "Therefore I URGE you..." The same language as in his first letter. There is no "I command you by my authority" language. Nothing here about Paul telling them he will allow him back into fellowship so they must obey. Nothing about Paul writing to the man and telling him that on his authority only he could come back. No, the ultimate DOING was in their hands. Paul could GUIDE, TEACH, INSTRUCT, CORRECT. He could URGE and BEG them to follow the way of Christ, to follow him as he followed Christ. He could PLEAD with them to LISTEN to him, but it was finally, when all was said and done, UP TO THEM TO DO THE WAY OF CHRIST! You will note in this also - in this re-instating of the now repentant sinner - it was THEY who had to do it! Paul did not say that he would do it. Paul FORGAVE because the sinner was repentant. They forgave - Paul forgave. The church at Corinth was not writing to Paul to acquire his authority for getting this man reinstated. Paul had been told the sinner had repented and he was INSTRUCTING the church what the way of Christ would now be. He was URGING - BEGGING them to show love, mercy, forgiveness, comfort and encouragement to this man, and to allow him back into fellowship. The chances are very likely that this man went through all this - the 1, 2, 3, steps of Mat.18, the final judgment and decision by the majority to disfellowship, the period of repentance, the caring, encouragement, forgiveness, and reinstating to full fellowship again, WITHOUT EVER HEARING THE NAME OF PAUL!! I have spent time on this issue because the plain truth of the subject of excommunication from the church has been greatly MISUNDERSTOOD, PERVERTED, and ABUSED by a number of denominations of Christianity over the years, including sadly to say, some branches of the Church of God. It seems few really understand what the word of God correctly teaches on this subject. This is one time when the voting majority of the church must make the decision to disfellowship, and not any single elder or group of elders. I have written in great depth and detail the truth about this subject in an article called "Disfellowshipping - What the Bible Really Teaches." I have to my pleasant surprise also discovered over the years that some fundamental Protestant churches as well as the Seventh Day Adventist church not only understand but practice the truth of this doctrine in their structure of church governing. When done correctly as Jesus taught and all the NT enjoins, it is most loving, merciful, and rewarding for the whole church. It brings the sinner, the elders, the deacons, and the saints together in a humility that transcends human ideas. It brings the church together as a FAMILY in a way that only trials, tests, pain, sorrow, crying, humility, forgiveness, mercy, and love can do. Not all the truths of the Lord are easy to accept or enjoyable to enact (from the human emotional view) but the end result is the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them who are exercised thereby. As Jesus said, " You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."                                          .............................................  To be continued Church Government #5 What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed APPENDIX Continued All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. HIERARCHY IN THE MILLENNIUM Some may argue that God's government in the age to come (the millennium) will be hierarchical(Christ over everyone, David over Israel, the 12 apostles under David, each ruling a tribe of Israel - Ezek.37; Jer.30; Mat.l9), so the NT church and its physical ministry should follow that example. This idea is faulty and weak with a number of flaws. 1) It fails to see that the persons mentioned (Christ, David, the 12 apostles) in the context of the millennium, are ALL in the God Family - the very God-head, at that time. And as we have before proved, the Godhead has always been hierarchical in government. In this age of the church we are dealing with physical flesh and blood people, whether elders or deacons or saints, they are not perfect, holy, sinless spirit beings. 2) The argument fails to ask the question: What instructions has the Lord given in the NT scriptures as to HOW the NT church is to be governed, regardless as to how God did things BEFORE, or as to how He may do things in the FUTURE, in the age to come? As we have proved, the Lord does do things differently as He chooses from time to time, or age to age. 3) Leading from above, it fails to see that God CHANGES His dealings and approach to some things at times, as He works out His UN-changing purpose and plan. His holy righteous character and purpose never changes, it remains the same, but His administrative dealings with people may, if He so desires. As we have stated before in the millennium a physical temple, with a physical priesthood, with physical animal sacrifices, will again be part of God's administration and economy as He deals with physical people during that age. Such is NOT part of His administration today under the present age. THE CHOOSING OF ELDERS AND GOVERNING THE CHURCH We have covered this somewhat in the body of this study, but a little more space is need here also. One writer(GCN - Sept/Oct 95, p.5,6) can see (from such passages as Luke 6:12-13; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9; Eph.4:11-13; and let me add Acts 1; 13:1-3; 14:19-23) that the clear example ALL through the word of God, is that called and chosen Elders of the church and work of the Lord, are chosen in TWO ways: 1) By God Himself - i.e. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, John the Baptist, Paul. 2) By other Elders - Acts 14:19-23; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9 etc. There is NO instruction nor ANY example in the NT to show that any "church boards" or "church committees" of saints, EVER chose or voted men into the office of ordained/appointed elder. Never, in the NT can you find any group of saints/members of a church LAYING HANDS on a man to appoint him to the eldership ministry. There is no instruction or example in the NT where LAY persons(as a whole or as a board/committee) gave orders or told the elders of a church HOW to RUN and GOVERN/GUIDE the church. The clear teaching of the NT is that the Elders guide and govern the church, as I have before proved in the body of this work(even more specific proof is presented in part two and three of this book). Yet, the elders ruling the Church of God is not as little vain dictators in some military army. This I have also proved before, and will so show again later. Does the lay person have ANY responsibility then? Yes indeed! Very much so. They are not to be so "broad minded" that their brains fall out! They are not to leave their minds at the door when entering the church. The examples and instructions for all of God's children are MANY, i.e. Mat.24:4,5; Acts 20:17-30; 17:10-12; 2 Tim.2:15; 3:15-17; Titus 1:9,10; 3:9-11; 2 Pet.2; 1 John 2:18-29; 4:1-6; 2 John 4-11; 3 John 9-11; Jude. As before shown ALL in the church have a duty to follow Mat.18 in relation to problems within the membership of the church, regardless of office and function. Then if a serious problem arises with a minister, two or three or more can take their case to other ministers for justice (1 Tim.5:19-21). The saints member must always remember Acts 20; 2 Pet.2. Some Elders MAY go off into apostasy and heresy. After all the above actions are taken, the congregational member must reject those elders who will not repent, and leave to find ministers who are faithful to God's word. PAUL IN AUTHORITY OVER TITUS? Now I must answer in depth the argument put forth that Paul had some "authority" and as one stated it "especially in administrative matters" OVER Titus. Some use a Bible translation that renders Titus 1:5 this way: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city AS I COMMANDED YOU...." Now to the English reader the words "I commanded you" or "as I command you" will trigger a certain mind set - DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY power, a "thou shalt" as if God was speaking. It is interesting to look up this word in STRONG'S concordance. It is number 1299 from 1223 and 5021 "to arrange thoroughly, i.e.(spec)INSTITUTE, PRESCRIBE, etc.:- appoint, command, give(set in) order, ordain." If we have Paul as saying to Titus: "you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I thoroughly arranged with you...." our English mind takes a different view, that Paul was not acting as some overbearing dictator funnelling out commands to those beneath his superior rank. It is more conciliatory, kind, and affectionate towards Titus. Yes, there is a sense of spiritual INSTRUCTION and leadership with Paul over Titus in these words and letter. So also as Paul wrote to Timothy and instructed him on how to govern the church. Does this contradict what I have written and expounded in the body of this work? No! Not at all. The very words and life of Paul PROVE he taught no such doctrine as a "ministerial authority rank" within the NT Church of God. Turn to the book of Philippians. The letter is from both Paul and Timothy and it is to ALL three levels of the ministry - SAINTS, DEACONS, BISHOPS(elders) - verse 1. Please keep that clearly in mind. Chapter 2 verses 3,4 are POWERFUL in relation to this subject of Church Government. "Let NOTHING be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind LET EACH ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN HIMSELF. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the INTERESTS OF OTHERS." Paul instructs - under INSPIRATION - that everyone in the body of Christ, all in the church at Philippi (elders, deacons, saints) - have HUMILITY to look upon others better than themselves. WOW!! What teaching from Paul. How then do you think he treated Timothy and Titus? What attitude of mind do you think he had towards them or anyone in the Church of God? What was Paul's spiritual relationship with Timothy and Titus? How did HE HIMSELF explain it? As a hierarchical rank relationship? As a, "I'm over you in authority and don't you forget it" attitude? He himself tells us about his relationship with these younger ministers. "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly........you know his proven character, that AS A SON WITH HIS FATHER he SERVED WITH me in the gospel" (verses 19,22). Notice, Timothy served WITH Paul, not under Paul, and that in Paul's own words. He followed his own inspired writings of verses 3,4. It was a spiritual father/son relationship that Paul had with Timothy and Titus. A loving, warm, honorable, and mutually respectful relationship. There is not one word from Paul to Timothy or Titus about any RANK authority he held over them. nothing about him reminding them of his superior position in the ministerial "pecking order" of church hierarchy. Nothing even about church administrational authority so they had better obey. There is plenty of INSTRUCTIONAL TEACHING, WISE ADVICE, SOUND INSIGHTS, HELPFUL POINTS, REMINDER OF THINGS, ENCOURAGEMENT, REQUESTS, and all done in a spiritual father/son relationship. Here were two younger men in age and length of service in the ministry, and here was Paul older in both areas, who had spent time helping, guiding, teaching Timothy and Titus the "ins and outs" of being an effective Elder. They had worked WITH - along side - Paul in the work of the gospel. There had grown a mutually loving BOND between them, as a father to son, and son to father. No "authority" statement was needed on the part of anyone. Here we find a perfect example of Peter's inspired words of his first letter chapter five, verses one to six. The younger elders were to submit and respect the older elders, and ALL were to submit/respect each other in clothes of humility. Paul and Peter spoke the same language, the same truths, the same doctrines, and they followed and obeyed what God inspired them to write, as I have before shown. Paul's humility is profoundly evidenced - 1 Cor.15:9. What a contrast with Paul and some dominating "authority" ego ministers that have risen in this 20th century, within the very Church of God. This father/son - brother/sister/mother - relationship was very important in the mind of Paul(hence God's mind, as he inspired Paul) as he instructed ministers on how to function in their office within the church, how to relate to the brethren of the church. Note carefully what the Lord wrote through him in 1 Timothy 5:1-2. "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity." This has been God's instruction all along for the elders, it has been in the word for nearly 2,000 years, yet many ministers in the Church of God have fragrantly rejected or conducted themselves in complete antithesis to these words of the Lord, in this 20th century. Many elders have brought dishonor upon the name of the Church of God by the way they talked to, corrected, instructed, guided, and just plainly conducted themselves towards the children of the Highest, for whom Christ died. I pray that those who acted less than what these verses instruct will deeply repent and seek the forgiveness of the Lord, and turn about to get in harmony with God on how to conduct their relationship with the brethren of the church. Now consider all this with one more light added - a HUGE flood-light indeed! Who was this man Paul and what did God do through him? He was converted on the road to Damascus by Christ PERSONALLY appearing and talking to him (Acts 9). Who since Paul has had that experience? Paul's calling and commission by God was revealed to another man and recorded (Acts 9). Who since Paul can claim that revelation? He was personally TAUGHT by Christ (Gal.1). Who since Paul(and maybe John - with the book of Revelation) has been given that honor? Find such a person who claims it and you have found a conceited liar. Paul was given visions and revelations WAY BEYOND most others (2 Cor.12; Acts 16). Who in this 20th century can claim such phenomenon? He was given the gift of TONGUES and HEALINGS (1 Cor.14; Acts 19:11-12). Who in this 20th century was given such gifts for the work of the Lord? Paul physically suffered unbelievable hardships, pain, troubles, and persecutions for the gospel (Acts 9:16; read the rest of Acts; ~ Cor.11: 16-28). Who in this century can boast of such things in the flesh? He was finally put to death as a Christian martyr (2 Tim.4:6). Who in the Church of God in this century can claim such a death? Finally, Paul was used by the Lord to write DIVINE INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE - God breathed scripture - 14 books of the NT that are directly INSPIRED of God (2 Pet.3:15-17). Who since the apostle John and the book of Revelation can claim that accomplishment? Find such a person and you have found a pompous fool. Now with all that under Paul's belt, do you not suppose he had just a little tiny bit of '"authority" to instruct others in how to "behave yourself in the house of God" (1 Tim.3:15)? You bet your bottom dollar he did! Yet Paul said his relationship with Timothy (and so Titus also) was not built upon an authority rank system, but one of a father with a son, and that Timothy served WITH him in the work of the gospel. Now if that was Paul's attitude, example and way of life, as it was, a man so mightily used and inspired of God, then can ANY other man to follow him in the ministry be any different? Not if they are following Paul as he followed Christ (1 Cor.11:1). Nobody in this century or before has come CLOSE TO BEING A Paul, anyone thinking or claiming so has never clearly read the NT, but has been blinded by their own vanity. So what right do they have to speak about "authority" over other ministers when one of the greatest inspired elders of God never spoke about his "authority"' over other true ministers of God. Yet those who knew and worked with him would have given him deep respect and honor because of how God was using him. But he never used an "authority line" with any minister. He did not believe James, Peter, or John had authority over him (Gal.2), nor did he teach that he had authority over them. God used them all, HOW, WHEN, and WHERE as He decided and willed. Paul instructing Titus to "ordain elders in every city" is FAR MORE than purely "administrative." Being an elder in the church is far more than deciding which photo copying machine to buy, or what hall to rent for Sabbath services, or what PA system to purchase. Prayer and fasting are part of ordaining men to the eldership (Acts 14: 23). No small undertaking, nothing to be taken lightly at all. Certain standards and qualifications are to be met by those who "desire the office of overseers" (1 Tim.3:1-7). Paul was TALKING ABOUT DOCTRINE in regards to this matter of ordaining men in each city, not physical administration! When even in purely church administrative matters (not even doctrine) Paul and Barnabas had a huge serious DIFFERENCE that could not be reconciled at the time, and they parted company to do separate works for the Lord, there was no "authority" line by either man pulled from the holster and fired off (Acts 15:36-41), or brought before some "higher in authority" minister. So even in administrative matters ministers must learn to CO-OPERATE together as TEAM WORKERS - giving and taking, or they must go their different ways to work the work of God as Paul and Barnabas chose to do. We have seen Paul's attitude of mind and way of life towards Timothy and Titus(notice the words in Titus 1:4), two younger ministers who worked WITH him in the gospel. Then note also his disposition towards EPAPHRODITUS in Phil.2:24-30. Again only, love, affection, and humility, telling others to hold such in "reputation." Turn to Romans 16:1-15 and see how Paul addressed many of them. Once more appreciation, praise, thankfulness, honor, love, and humility is shown. Some were FELLOW WORKERS/CO-WORKERS as the Greek is for "helpers" in the KJV. Note Paul's humility and respect and affection for the two WOMEN of verses 1-5. And this is Paul whom some claim "put down" women or hated them or was a racist towards them. What utter garbage! What utter falsehood and perversion of the scriptures that God inspired him to write. One final word on this section. When Paul was writing to instruct Timothy and Titus, he was writing INFALLIBLE INSPIRED SCRIPTURE - GOD BREATHED WORDS DIRECTLY FROM THE MIND OF THE LORD - A "THUS SAYS THE LORD." I guess he did have the right to use some "authority" with it, for it was really God speaking, and God does have some authority you know. No man's writing since the book of Revelation carries that authority. Nothing I have written(and there is much) over the last 17 years is God breathed. I hope there is lots of truth to be found in it all, yet there may be error that needs correcting. Nothing that HWA wrote can be said to be God breathed. There was much truth in much of his writings, but there was also error and incorrect understanding of verses of scripture at times, that need to be corrected. This I can prove is the plain truth for those who may believe otherwise. Nobody since the days of the apostle John has been used to write inspired infallible scripture, let's get that clearly set in our minds. No minister today can speak to another minister as Paul spoke to Timothy and Titus, for no minister today is writing God breathed scripture as Paul was doing when he was instructing those two younger elders. ONE MAN AT A TIME IDEA The next argument that needs to be answered is: "It should also be very clear that the Living Christ has ALWAYS directed major areas of His Work primarily through one man at a time" (GCN Sept/Oct.95, p.6). The writer gives the example of Moses, Joshua, Samuel etc. Well okay - under the OC I can agree with that. Under the NC? The example of Peter and Paul over the circumcised and uncircumcised (Gal.2:7-9) is given. Oh, I can agree that God did primarily use as PILLARS the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul for those large areas of His work. BUT those two men LIVED at the SAME time, and were part of the SAME church, attended the SAME ministerial conference in Jerusalem(Acts 15), visiting each other at times (Gal.l), attending the SAME local congregation at times(Gal.2), and acknowledging they were writing scripture(2 Pet.3:15-16). Who decided who would do what work in these large areas of God's work? Was it the ministers themselves getting together to decide? Was it a "board" of ministers? Or a committee of congregational persons giving out orders? No! It was God who decided (i.e. Acts 9; 10; 13). The responsibilities and FUNCTION of elders had really nothing to do with "huge differences and antagonism between the Gentiles and the Jewish people of the day, and also because of geographical considerations and the fact that there was no instant communication as we have in our time now" (GCN -Sept/Oct 1995, p.6). The reasoning of man to try to hold on to false concepts of the idea of "one man at a time" under the NC age is wondrous to behold. God had no trouble with geographical distance and instant communication on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Nor in scattering the church to preach the word in Acts 8. He had no trouble with geography in sending Philip to Samaria and later Peter and John (Acts 8). God had little problem in getting Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch when necessary (Acts 8:26). He was also able to take him away with little effort (verses 39,40). The church at Corinth had little trouble in communicating with all their different languages. God just gave them the gift of tongues (1 Cor.14). On and on I could go. The gospel was spread quite nicely and quickly thank you, until the world was turned up-side down, and that without the aid of TV, radio, or the computer Internet. As for the huge difference and antagonism between Jews and Gentiles, I'm sure Paul could have managed very well with BOTH, if it had been the will of God, after all Paul was a Jew and a one time Pharisee. He also had good vibes with the Gentiles, and FOR A TIME he DID work on BOTH fronts of the line. It was God who eventually decided to use Paul mainly in the Gentile camp. The fact is ONE man like Paul could have worked in both camps of Jews and Gentiles IF the Lord had willed so. It had nothing to do with geography or instant communication, but SOLELY with the WILL and DECISION of God as to WHO would do WHAT ,and WHERE, and WHEN ,they would do it. And so it is to this very day! All this argument is to lead to one final belief. "ONE" UNDER ONE INSPIRED LEADER "Today, such a division is NOT necessary since we have almost instant communication around the world through telephones, computers, fax machines, etc. These modern means of communication enabled the vast majority of God's people to be 'one' under the inspired leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong. Christ guided and BLESSED His Work in that way for over 50 years!" (GCN - Sept/Oct. 1995, p.6). Ah, reading between the lines, I see where this is leading, to the false teaching that God is STILL leading the "vast majority" of His people to be "one" under another organization with another single man as leader, who will be BLESSED above all others. It is a clever psychological "come on" based upon a quick-sand foundation in order to get people to belong to the "one" and really true extension of the - work built by HWA - the Global Church of God. What men will do to get a following or to build their "empire." If God has used in the NC age "one man at a time" to direct major areas of His work, and for 50 years or more that ONE man was HWA, then tell me WHO was the one man directing the major area of God's work BEFORE HWA? Where was the "major" area of God's work being done, WHO was the one man over it, what happened to him and how did HWA get to take over his mantle? Then if you can answer that, tell me the name of the one man over God's work before the man who was before HWA? Further still, how does all of that fit in with the present state of things among the different branches and splits that have come out of the WCG founded by HWA? Who is the "one man at a time" NOW? If is it governed by literal numbers then at present it must go to the "one man" (whoever he is) of the UNITED Church of God, as they seem to be on top in number of members. Again, if they should fall behind in membership to say the GLOBAL Church of God, will the "one man at a time" change to the one man of Global? What if the CGI(Church of God, International) should in the next 5 or 10 years surpass in number of members all other branches, will their one man (if they have one) become the "one man at a time" director over God's major area of work? And to yet add more fuel to the fire, what if the CGI only held the record of membership for a year or two, and the ministers of the present WCG all repented of their apostasy - returned to full truth and became the largest branch in membership etc. Would God transfer the "one man at a time" to the WCG's one man? I speak with tongue in cheek. Pretty silly isn't it? Not just silly - it is DUMB!! What illogical ideas the heart of man ponders. AN "INSPIRED" LEADER? I did not bring this up, I was not going to even mention it, talk about it, or discuss it, in this study, but here it is again in the quote previously given, "........God's people to be 'one' under the INSPIRED leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong......" I didn't bring this up, yet it has been brought up within the subject of Church Government. So it would be shirking my duty as a minister and servant of the Eternal God to let this go unanswered. Those who put men on pedestals had better have large enough shoulders to carry the burden. Now I earlier used the word "inspire" for Paul and John the apostles. I called them inspired - they truly were! For any man to use that word in regards to another human being since the death of John is danger, d a n g e r , DANGEROUS! There is sometimes a very loose way in which we use the word "inspire" today in the twentieth century, but I have personally experienced some in the church using this word for HWA not in the loose sense at all. Their mind and heart and emotions making it very plain to me as to how they were using the word. The Jehovah Witnesses have their "inspired" man - William Russell. The Mormons have their "inspired" leader - Joseph Smith together with the book of Mormon. The Christian Science people have their "inspired" teacher - Mary Baker Eddy. The Seventh Day Adventist church have their "inspired" prophet - Ellen G. White. I have talked with, had Bible studies with, over the years, members from the above churches. I know their basic beliefs, I have read and studied their books and literature. I have personally been witness to the results of the mental attitude in the above groups and MANY of their members, in relation to their "inspired" one. They eventually take their eyes off Jesus Christ, they look away from the word of the Lord to the words of their human "inspired" one. Eventually it becomes a mill-stone around their necks, it blinds them to the truth that would set them free as Jesus said. Their faith and trust is in a physical person. They loose the ability to see error and mistakes in the "inspired" one. They loose the ability to be corrected and shown error in their lives and doctrine of belief from the word of God. They enter complacency, thinking they have it all, and have no need for anything. They enter the never never land of the self-righteous Laodicean attitude of Revelation 3. They eventually stop thinking and growing in grace and knowledge of Christ and the word of God because their "inspired" one did it all for them and there is nothing new to learn. They develop a mind set that precludes them from seeing any new light, for that would mean to them their "inspired" one did not have all the light. They especially get up-set, irritable, and often plain out and out ANGRY when shown that their "inspired" one wrote things or taught things that the word of God clearly shows is error or the antithesis to the truth. Again I will say, I have personally had members of the aforementioned groups, as well as members of the WCG(those who believed HWA was inspired to the point of infallibility) who got red hot with anger and stormed out of my presence, because I showed them from the word of God, errors in the writings of their inspired one. Some have put so much faith in the inspiration of their churches "inspired" prophet, that upon being shown they were not so inspired as they believed, they WALKED AWAY from God. Yet it was not the fault of God, but false teachers and they themselves for not heeding the word of God about such matters. Only God's word is truth, only He does not lie, or misunderstand, or misinterpret, or fall prey to human carnality and sin. I hope you dear reader have not put a man on a pedestal where he should never have been put, for if you have the day will come when you will discover your error and then as your "inspired" one falls to eye level, you had better be strong enough to take the fall and not fall yourself where "all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty TOGETHER AGAIN." I could take the time, but here is not the place, to fully e x p o u n d to you the errors, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, false ideas, false teachings, wrong decisions, carnal works of the flesh, and yes, at times, some wrong doctrines, of Herbert Armstrong. HWA was far from being "inspired" at times, then at other times he was, if we use the word loosely, as we often do, inspired in his writings and study of God's word. Using the word "loosely" I can say I hope many of God's people are inspired as they write articles on Christian faith, but nobody from the second century A.D. on, has been inspired in the way Paul was inspired. That is why he wrote for you and me today "PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD." HWA was not inspired like the apostle Paul was inspired. And to give the man credit, HWA never said he ever was. Nobody today is inspired in the way Paul was inspired. Maybe the two witnesses of God in the book of Revelation, when they preach, we will see again the inspiration that filled the apostle Paul. Make sure you do not err by thinking I am against HWA. I love him as I love all God's people. I acknowledge he was a minister of God that was used to do a mighty work for God, and preached much truth to many people. Christ did use HWA and the WCG for many years. To state it was for over 50 years is VERY DEBATABLE indeed, a debate I will not enter into here. 1 TIMOTHY 5:17 There is need to comment on what Paul said to Timothy in the above verse about an elder being "counted worthy of DOUBLE honor." It is argued that Paul is speaking about an elder receiving double WAGES. At fist glance it would appear from verse 18 that there is some truth to that idea. Then on closer look, even if we allow the above argument to stand, we note that Paul says "be counted worthy of double honor" and NOT that he must as a command from him absolutely, at all times, be paid double wages or re-numeration. The elder may, if he does his work well within the church, be worthy to be paid double what he is paid, but that does not mean there are the funds to literally do so. And even if there was, there is still another problem to solve. Paul gives no instruction on a "yard stick" line as to HOW MUCH IS THE FIRST WAGE in the first place that some say should be doubled. What may have been a good livable wage in Paul's time, could be starvation and a homeless situation today in the Western World. Who would determine if the first bottom of the line wage before being doubled, for the minister or elder, would be the upper average wage of the middle class, the average lower wage of the lower class, or the poverty wage line, of the country the elder lives in? There are FAR TOO MANY FACTORS to consider if we believe Paul is here giving an absolute command and law that churches are to pay their elders (who are full time in the ministry) DOUBLE wages. I believe a better understanding of these verses is that Paul is emphasizing having a very HIGH esteem of mind towards those elders who really work hard and govern the church well, while not ruling out a proper physical renumeration. The Greek word used for "honor" in verse 17 would bear out the interpretation I give above. The number in Strong's Concordance is 5092 - teemay - is the English way to pronounce the word. Strong's will show it could refer to literal valuables, i.e. money, it also refers to the mental attitude and value of words like - esteem, dignity, precious, honor. We must look further to get more light on this word and how we should understand it in the context of 1 Tim.5:17. The Englishman's Greek Concordance will serve us well. Page 732 lists every scripture where this word is used in the NT. It is used in 42 verses. In 8 of those uses the word is translated as "price" in the KJV. In 6 cases it is referring undoubtedly to the price of money. The other two cases it is referring to the price of the death of Christ to buy us back from sin. In one case it is translated by the word "sum" and again refers to money - Abraham bought a piece of land for a sum of money. In all other instances it is rendered as "honor" except once when it is rendered as "precious." Note verses like John 4:44 "has no honor in his own country." Rom.2:7 "seek for glory and honor." Rom.12:10 "in honor preferring one another.'' Rom.13:7 "honor to whom honor." 1 Tim.6:1 "their own masters worthy of all honor." 1 Pet.3:7 "giving honor unto the wife." It is used many times as giving honor to God the Father, as well as to Christ. By a margin of at least 3 to 1 the word is used in the NT to denote a MENTAL ATTITUDE of esteem, dignity, praise, appreciation, honor. I believe Paul was FIRST telling Timothy and hence all of us, that the elders who really work hard and well in governing the church should be mentally counted very high in esteem, appreciation and honor. We may put it as "he is greatly honored" in a figure of speech, Paul said "double honor'' as his figure of speech. He was first emphasizing this attitude of mind but was also not ignoring a physical pay for their labor in the word and doctrine. The physical pay would have to be governed by the number of full time elders in the church, the amount of money coming into the church funds, and the cost of living as found in the area or country the elders live in. BARNE'S NOTES ON THE NT has some fine comments: 17." Let the elders that rule well......The word used - elder or presbyter - properly refers to age, and then it is used to denote the officers of the church......The word rendered rule...... is from a verb meaning to be over, to preside over, to have the care of......That rule well. Presiding well, or well managing the spiritual interests of the church......Be counted worthy of double honor. Of double respect; that is, of a high degree of respect. Comp.1 Thes.5:12,13. From the quotation which is made in ver.18, in relation to this subject, it would seem probable that the apostle had some reference also to their support, or to what was necessary for their maintenance...... corresponding to the amount of time which their office required them to devote to the service of the church......Especially they who labor in word and doctrine. In preaching and instructing the people. From this it is clear that, while there were 'elders' who labored 'in the word and doctrine' that is, in preaching, there were also those who did not labor in 'the word and doctrine' but were nevertheless appointed to rule in the church......part of them were engaged in preaching.......a part may have been employed in managing other concerns of the church, and yet all were regarded as the......'elders presiding over the church.' .........Those who among them 'labored in the word and doctrine,' and who gave up all their time to the business of their office, would be worthy of special respect, and a higher compensation." End quote. IS THIS THE END It is, but who knows for how long. With all that is taking place in the various branches of the Church of God coming out of the WCG, I may yet have to answer more arguments from more study papers yet to be written on this subject. The appendix was first written in November 1995, with revisions in 1996. .............................................. Indeed, it was not long before it was necessary for me to have to write more on this subject. Two widely distributed papers came out which contained much truth BUT also some SERIOUS errors. Those errors I answer in the second half on this book on Church Government. Church Government #6 What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed APPENDIX Second continuation All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to arguments not addressed in the body of this work. APPENDIX ADDITIONS ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE by HERBERT LOCKYER pp. 246-247 1. Internal Management Each church was left to manage its own business, and deal with its own offenders.........No directions are given about taking matters to a higher court. Each church was an independent organization. There is no warrant in Scripture for the ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, and also for the ascending series of courts which may review a case of disorder arising in a local church. Each church or assembly was reckoned competent to perform every faction necessary without reference to any other source. The inclusion, exclusion and restoration of members were effected by each church. 2. External Authority As the churches were not to be dominated by any external authority, so they were not to be interfered with, in their church life, by civil government. This at once proves the untenable position of the so-called State Church. It is only where the life of the church touches the civic life of the community that the civil authorities have any right to interfere....... 3. Fraternal Relationship While each local church, according to the New Testament is independent of every other in the sense that no other has jurisdiction over it, yet co-operative relations were entered into, as can be proven by the witness of such passages as Rom.15:1-27; 2 Cor.8:9; Gal.2:10; 3 John 8........Churches may properly co-operate in matters of disciple, by seeking and giving counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In the great paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the nations, they may co-operate in a multitude of ways. There is no sphere of general Christian activity in which they may not voluntarily and freely co-operate for the betterment of the world, the salvation of humanity. 4. Exclusions The early Christian society would not suffer the presence of those immoral persons referred to in 1 Cor.5:11, nor of the heretics mentioned frequently in the epistles, e.g., Titus 3:10......." End quote. WORD MEANINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Ralph Earl PHILIPPIANS Bishops (1:1) The Greek word for "bishop" is episcopos (cf. episcopal). It occurs five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers." In 1 Pet. 2:25 it refers to Christ, "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." It is found twice in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) and is correctly translated "bishop." ("Office of a bishop" in 1 Tim. 3:1 is another word, episcope.) Critics have sometimes insisted that the technical use of episcopos for "bishop" in the Pastoral Epistles reflects a later development in church organization and so demands a second-century date for these letters. But the same usage here in Philippians (written about A.D. 61) undercuts that argument. The word episcopos comes from scopos, "a watcher." So it means "a superintendent, guardian, overseer"(A-S). Thayer notes that it has this same comprehensive sense in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and in classical Greek writers from that time on (p. 243). The large Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940) gives as the first meaning of episcopos "one who watches over," and lists numerous examples of this use (p. 657). "This was the name given in Athens to the men sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs" (Cremer, p. 527). The word was used 14 times in the Septuagint in the sense of "overseer," or "inspector." Deissmann notes that in Rhodes, episcopos was "a technical term for the holder of a religious office" (in the temple of Apollo), as well an being used in the plural for "communal officials" (BS, pp. 230-31). Lightfoot mentions its use at Athens, and adds: "The title however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designation for instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report to the Indian kings......; of the commissioner appointed by Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus.......; of magistrates who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans.......; and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown" (p. 95). Beyer writes: " In Greek episcopos is first used....... with a free understanding of the 'onlooker' as 'watcher,' 'protector,' 'patron.' " Then it came to be used "as a title to denote various offices" (TDNT, 2:609). He notes that protective care is "the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610). This is its classical usage. By the end of the second century we read of diocesan bishops. Early in the second century Ignatius indicates that in each church there was one bishop, a group of presbyters, and a group of deacons. But in Paul's Epistles (here and in the Pastorals) "bishop" and "presbyter" seem to be used synonymously. Lightfoot observes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by the theologians of all shade of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95). In TDNT, Coenen thinks it "probable that the terms presbyteros and episcopos (bishop) are interchangeable" (1:199). Bishop, l TIMOTHY 3:1 The first seven verses of chapter 3 are devoted to outlining the qualifications of a bishop. As a leader in the church he must be a man of exemplary character. "The office of a bishop" is all one word in Greek, episcope. Elsewhere in the NT it is used in this sense only in Acts 1:20, in a quotation from the Septuagint. In verse 2 "bishop" is episcopos, from which comes "episcopal." It occurs only five times in the NT. In Acts 20:28 it is translated "overseers" and applied to the Ephesian elders by Paul. He also refers to the "bishops and deacons" at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). In Titus 1:7 and following, we again find what is required of a "bishop." Finally, in 1 Pet. 2:25, Christ is called "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." The word episcopos is made up of epi, "upon" or "over," and scopes, "watcher." So it literally means "one who watches over." Thayer defines it thus: "An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent.... specifically, the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church " ( p. 243). It will be seen that the basic meaning of episcopos is "overseer." The ancient Greeks thought of their gods as episcopoi. This usage is found in Homer's Iliad and many later writings. Then it came to be used of men in various functions. Beyer says: "Protective care, however, is still the heart of the activity which men pursue as episcopoi" (TDNT, 2:610). Homer applies the term to ships' captains and merchants, who must be "overseers" of goods. In the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ episcopos was used at Athens as a title for state officials. The same thing was true at Ephesus and in Egypt. But more common was the use of episcopal (plural) for local officials and officers of societies. This brings us closer to the Christian eplscopos. In the Septuagint episcopos is used both for God, who oversees all things, and for men as supervisors in various fields of activity. The latter usage is found in the earlier, well as the later, books of the OT. Turning to the NT, we discover one fact immediately: there is no mention of any diocesan bishop. In the one church at Philippi there were episcopoi, "bishops" (Phil 1:1). The apostles are never given this title. The bishop was a local official, and there were several of these in each congregation. Furthermore, the "elders" (presbyteroi) and "bishops" (episcopoi) were the same. This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17 it says that Paul called for the "elders" (presbyteroi) of the church at Ephesus. In verse 28 he refers to them as episcopoi - "overseers" (KJV), "guardians" (RSV). The same people are designated by both titles. We shall find this same phenomenon clearly indicated in the Epistle to Titus. In the NT Church each local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops and a group of deacons. It seems likely that the former had oversight of the spiritual concerns of the congregation and the latter of its material business. When we come to Ignatius early in the second century (about A.D. 115) there is one bishop over each local church, together with several elders and several deacons. The bishop is supreme in authority. One of the keynotes of Ignatius' seven letters is, "Obey your bishop." To the Trallians he wrote: "For when you are in subjection to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is clear to me that you are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ.... Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ.... And they also who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must be in every way pleasing to all men" (The Apostolic Fathers, "Loeb Classical Library," 1:213-15). Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But "in the beginning it was not so." Bishop = Elder, Titus 1:5-7 In verses 5 and 6 we find the qualifications of elder in the church; verse 7 says, "For a bishop must be blameless." This seems to indicate rather clearly that the same church officials were called bishops (episcopoi) and elders (presbyteroi). The name "elders" emphasizes the fact that the leaders of the church were to be older men, as was the case with the elders of Israel. The word episcopos (bishop) literally means "overseer." So it refers to the function and office of an overseer of the church, That "bishop" and "elder" are used for the same person is even asserted by Bishop Lightfoot of the Church of England. In his commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Philippians he writes: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)" (p. 95). He goes on to show that not only was episcopos used in classical Greek for various officials, but it is common in the Septuagint. There it signifies "inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters" (e.g., 2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chron. 34:12, 17; Isa. 60:17). He comments: "Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which lies at the root of the word 'bishop,' its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also: (1) Responsibility to a superior power; (2) The introduction of a new order of things" (p. 96). Lightfoot gives six evidences that bishop and elder are the same: (1) In Phil. 1:1, Paul salutes the bishops and deacons. He could not have omitted mention of the elders unless they were included in the "bishops." (2) In Acts 20:17, Paul summoned to Miletus the elders of the church at Ephesus. But then he calls them "overseers" (episcopoi) of the flock. (3) Peter does a similar thing (1 Pet. 5:1-2). (4) In 1 Timothy, Paul describes the qualifications of bishops (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13). The fact that he omits elders here would argue that they were the same as bishops. (5) Titus 1:5-7). (6) Clement of Rome's First Epistle (ca. A.D. 95) clearly uses "bishops" and "elders" interchangeably. It is not without significance that Jerome, writing near the end of the fourth century, recognizes this identity of the two. He says: "Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age." Again he writes: "The Apostle plainly shows that presbyters are the same as bishops." In a third passage he says: "If any one thinks the opinion that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be not the view of the Scriptures, but my own, let him study the words of the apostle to the Philippians." Other Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, asserted the same thing. Lightfoot goes so far as to say: "Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed" (p. 99). 1 Corinthians, Apostles (12:28) In this verse Paul mentions eight types of ministry in the church. The first is that of apostles. Who were the apostles in the Early Church? Are there still apostles in the church of today? Neither of these questions is easy to answer. The Greek noun apostolos comes from the verb apostello, which means "send with a commission, or on service." So apostolos is "a messenger, one sent on a mission." Abbott-Smith continues his definition by saying: "In NT, an apostle of Christ (a) with special reference to the Twelve......... equality with whom is claimed by St. Paul.......(b) in a wider sense of prominent Christian teachers, as Barnabas, Acts 14:14, apparently also Silvanus and Timothy, 1 Thess. 2:6, and perhaps Andronicus and .Junias (Junia?), Rom. 16:7....... of false teachers, claiming apostleship" (p. 55). It is evident that the word has a variety of applications in the NT. In his long article on apostolos in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Rengstorf shows that in classical and early Hellenistic Creek there is no parallel to the NT use of this word. This is true even of the Septuagint, Josephus, and Philo (1:408). The word is found 79 times in the NT. Paul and Luke (his close companion) each use it 34 times ((68 out of the 79). It occurs three times in Revelation, twice in 2 Peter. and once each in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews,, I Peter. and Jude. Paul has it at the beginning of 9 of his 13 Epistles.. Apostolos is used for messenger, "one sent" in John 13:16. In 2 Cor. 8:23 Paul applies this term to the commissioned representatives of local church congregations. "Finally, apostoloi is a comprehensive term for 'bearers of the NT message' " (TDNT, 1:422). It is used primarily for the 12 apostles chosen and commissioned by Christ. This is the dominant usage in Luke's Gospel and Acts. Then we also find the wider spread suggested by Abbott-Smith. Paul and Barnabas were first of all apostles of the church at Antioch. But Paul calls himself at the beginning of his epistles, "an apostle-of Jesus Christ." Luke does not hesitate to speak of Paul and Barnabas as apostles (Acts 14:4, 14). The first apostle was Jesus himself (Heb.- 3:1), sent from God. Rengstorf comments: "Here the only possible meaning of apostolos is that in Jesus there has taken place the definitive revelation of God by God himself(1:2)" (TDNT, 1:423). All other apostles are direct representatives of Jesus. Are there apostles today in the Church? In a general, unofficial, nontechnical sense, yes. But it may well be questioned whether apostolic authority as found in the first-century Church has carried over to subsequent centuries. Acts 1::31-29 indicates that an apostle was to be one who had been in close contact with Christ during His earthly ministry and who could be a witness of His resurrection. Paul fulfilled the latter requirement ( 1 Cor. 15:8), but not the former one. However, he was careful to state that he had "received" the necessary information (1 Cor. 15:3). Charles H. Spurgeon was perhaps a bit severe when he characterized apostolic succession as laying empty hands on empty heads. But many of those who claim apostolic succession today hardly show themselves to be true representatives of the Christ of the NT. Prophets (12:28) The Greek prophetes comes from the verb prophemi, which means "speak forth." So it signifies "one who acts as an interpreter or forth-teller of the Divine will" (A-S, p. 390). Contrary to popular usage today, the biblical meaning of "prophecy" is not foretelling, but forth-telling. Put in simplest terms, the prophet is one who speaks for God. In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Friedrich has a lengthy article on prophetes and its cognate terms in the New Testament. He notes some differences between OT and NT prophets. He says that "prophecy is not restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity. According to Acts 2:4; 4:31, all are filled with the prophetic Spirit and, according to Acts 2:16ff., it is a specific mark of the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of individuals but that all members of the eschatological community without distinction are called to prophesy" (6:849) But our present passage, as well as Eph.4:11, shows that there was a special gift of prophecy in the Early Church. It is ranked first, as the best gift after "apostles," in our present passage as well as 14:1. Has the gift of prophecy continued? In the second century the Montanists went to unfortunate extremes in their claims for this gift. Friedrich writes: "With the repudiation of Montanism prophecy came to an end in the Church" (6:860). On the other hand. many Bible scholars believe that the NT prophets were essentially preachers, and so this gift of the Spirit is present today. Helps (12:28) The Greek word antilempsis (only here in NT) is used in the Septuagint and papyri in the sense of "help." Abbott-Smith thinks that here it is used for the "ministrations of deacons" (p. 41). Cremer says that the word is "taken by the Greek expositors uniformly as answering to deacons (implying the duties towards the poor and sick)" (p. 386). Governments (12:28) Kybernesis is likewise found only here in the NT. It comes from the verb meaning to guide or steer. In classical Greek it referred to the piloting of a boat. Then it was used metaphorically for "government." Beyer writes that. in view of its literal meaning and attested usage, "The reference can only be to the specific gifts which qualify a Christian to be a helmsman to his congregation, i.e., a true director to its order and therewith of its life" (3:10:36). The word may be translated "gifts of administration" (NIV). Evangelists (4:1 1 ) - Ephesians The word, which is a transliteration of the (Greek euangelistes, is found only two other places in the NT. In Acts 21:8 Philip is referred to as "the evangelist." In 2 Tim.4:5 the young Timothy is admonished to "do the work of an evangelist." The term comes from the verb euangelizo ("evengelize"), which means "proclaim glad tidings." An evengelist, then, is one who preaches the "gospel" (Greek euangelos), the good news that Christ has died to save men. The evangelists in the Early Church were probably itinerant preachers. Pastors and Teachers (4:11) "Pastor" is the Latin term for "shepherd." The Greek word poimen also means "shepherd." It is used of Christ(John 10:11, 14, 16; Heb.13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). Here it is used of Christian pastors. Homer, in his Lliad, refers to "pastors of the people" (poimena laon). The pastor is to be the shepherd of the flock. Apparently the pastors and teachers were the same. Vincent comments: "The omission of the article from teachers seems to indicate that pastors and teachers are included under one class" (3:390). The end of quotes from Ralph Earle THE WORD "ELDER" AS USED IN THE NT The Analytical Greek Lexicon(1978 edition) says: "presbuteros..........elder, senior: older, more advanced in years, Lu.15:25; Jno.8:9; Ac.2:17; an elder in respect of age, person advanced in years, 1 Tim.5:1,2; pl. spc. ancients, ancestors, fathers, Mat.15:2; He.11:2; as an appellation of dignity, an elder, local dignitary, Lu.7:3; an elder, member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Mat.16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57, 59; an elder or presbyter of the Christian church, Ac.11:30; 14:23, et al.freq. presbuterion.........a body of older men, an assembly of elders; the Jewish Sanhedrin, Lu.22:66; Ac.22:5; a body of elders in the Christian church, a presbytery, 1 Tim.4:14. presbutes.........an old man, aged person, Lu.1:18; Tit.2:2; Phile.9 presbutis........an aged woman, Tit.2:3. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, page 195 A. Adjectives 1. presbuteros......... an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, "an old man, an elder," is used (a) of age, whether of the "elder" of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9, "the eldest"; or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts 2:17; in Heb.11:2, the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt.15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim.5:2, not in respect of positions but in seniority of age; (b) of rank or position of responsibility, (1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept.of Gen.50:7; Num.22:7; (2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num.11:16; Deut.27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt.16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3; (3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the term "bishops," episkopoi, or "overseers," is applied (see Acts 20, v.17 with v.28, and Titus 1:5 and 7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil.1:1; 1Tim.5:17; Titus 1:5. The duty of "elders" is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the divine qualifications, Titus 1:6 to 9; cf. 1 Tim.3:1-7 and 1 Pet.5:2; ........... 2. sumpresbuteros........"a fellow-elder (sun, "with"), is used in 1 Pet.5:1. 3. meizon......translated "elder" in Rom.9:12, with reference to Esau and Jacob. B. Noun presbuterion........."an assembly of aged men," denotes (a) the Council or Senate among the Jews, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; (b) the "elders" or bishops in a local church, 1 Tim.4:14, "the presbytery." TODAY'S ARGUMENT Some in the Church of God of recent date are teaching that ALL older people(men only, but some will no doubt eventually include women) can be Elders in the church. They teach people can take turns in being "elders" for a festival time, or for a month, or a year etc. They teach a local church can "pick and choose" or "vote in or vote out" who will serve as Elders and for how long. They say the word "elder" under the OT just meant any older person. Sure indeed within some contexts it did mean just that, but upon an in-depth study of the word, as done above, it was often used in a more limited sense and as a "leadership" function and responsibility, not shared with just every older man in the nation or community. The use of the word "elder" in the NT also clearly shows a much w i d e r and BROADER use as the two works above explained and demonstrated. It is used for older men and older women in any congregation of the church of God. But it is not exclusively to be understood as meaning that in EVERY passage where it is used. The context of the passage is most important as to how we are to understand the use of the word. Clearly, this Greek word is an umbrella word. Something similar to our English word today of "minister." That word is an umbrella word. For we use it not only when talking about those men who are pastors of churches, but it is used of various functions and duties of the nations Government. We today have a "minister of Finance" or a "minister of Defence" or a "minister of Health" - "minister of Public Affairs" - "minister of Agriculture" etc. etc. It should be clear from all we have studied in the previous pages, that the NT does use the term "elder" in a specific limited context, of men who were appointed by meeting certain qualifications, to function in duty as overseers, shepherds, leaders, guides, pastors, teachers, of the flock. Such men had to meet specific qualifications. They could not be new to the faith(no matter how old in age they were) when chosen to be an overseer. Many other points did Paul lay down in 1 Tim.3 as to who could qualify for eldership. It should be pretty plain to the honest searcher for truth, that not ALL older men would have all the qualifications required to be appointed as church pastors/overseers/elders. Not all older men in the nation are qualified to be part of the local officials that are to guide and direct the affairs of local towns and cities. Not all older carpenters, plumbers, fire-fighter, policemen, have the gifts to be leaders, and guides, and overseers, of a crew of persons in their chosen profession. That is just the way it is in this natural life. It does not mean the leader/guide, of a group of fie-fighters, is any better man in character or worth. He may very well not be as good in some areas as a man under his guidance. It just means that he has proved he has the qualities needed to oversee that trade well on the whole. He has proved he is rounded and balanced enough, has the overall gifts, needed to take care, watch out for, instruct correctly, guide, help, and serve, those he is overlooking and overseeing. That's all it means! It does not mean he is "special." It means he has been given certain gifts to meet certain qualifications that are needed to function correctly in the appointment of overseeing and leading others. Then depending on how well he does in that function, staying basically within those qualifications from then on out, will determine how long he keeps that function. If he falls too many times from those qualifications, especially if it brings shame and disgrace upon his company, then his reward is accordingly, even to the point of loosing his function and being then a part of the team under other overseers and leaders. If we teach that EVERYONE can be or have turns in being "elders" in the church, there are LARGE problems to answer! If being an elder is just being an "older person" then we have to determine at what age is older? Do we become an elder of the church at age 50? Is that "older"? Or is it at the age of 55? Maybe we become an elder in the church at age 60! Or is it 65 when we retire? That's the age our nations call us seniors, unless you live in Florida. There certain stores(to receive discounts) and certain movie theatres, call you senior at the age of 55. Should the age be 70 when you become a church elder? Some would think 40 years old is old enough. Or how about 30, that's when Jesus started to teach and lead and guide. Then, what if someone comes into the church at age 60. Do they become an elder right away because of their older age? If not, then how long do they have to wait, how many months or years, before they are counted as an elder of the church? Who sets all the answers to the above questions? Where do they get the authority and Bible answers to answer those questions? I can see a whole list of problems arising from this teaching of "everyone can be elders, who are older." What if someone does not want to be considered an "elder" when he is older? What does the church do to "unfrock" him? How long does an elder remain an elder in his old age, and who sets the time, by what authority, and by what set of scriptures? We have not yet touched on the problem of older women. They too are "elder" as part of elder means older. Paul said in Christ there is no male or female, Gentile or Jew, so should not older women also be "elders of the church"? If not why not? And so we are back to the beginning of the circle. What is the NT definition of a church "elder"? From all that I have presented to you so far in this study, from all the NT scriptures we can "put together" on the subject, we should by now KNOW THE ANSWER! If you do not, then better read over the last dozen or so pages once more - S L O W L Y! ..................................... Appendix Additions updated in January 1997