When one sees the word “church” in the New Testament it means something entirely different to
the reader today than it did when originally written. As regular readers of this blog know, we want to present the original, intended meaning of “church” and present the amazing possibility of doing our best to follow that today!
For example, in the New Testament church there was NO CHURCH AUTHORITY GREATER THAN THE LOCAL CHURCH; each was completely autonomous, independent of any extra-local authority. Of course, there were 1.) those who ministered to the local church from outside it, i.e., itinerants such as Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc. There also were 2.) other, more mature churches, such as the church at Jerusalem, with which the other local churches had contact.
However, there is a very important fact of which many today are unaware: in the local church, all extra-local ministry received from more mature individual persons and churches is INFLUENTIAL and not AUTHORITATIVE. Paul was obeyed by those to whom he ministered because of the POWER OF HIS INFLUENCE, not because of his status as an apostle or because he held an authoritative office in another local church!
Paul’s appeal to the Galatians to reject the Judaizer’s legalism was entirely influential, based on his relationship personally with the Galatians, and the power of his ministry in their lives, not on structural authority. As a matter of fact, from the biblical text we do not know how the Galatians responded to Paul’s appeal!
Because all extra-local ministry is influential rather than authoritative, the church is able to receive ministry from a myriad of sources, always at the discretion and with the regulation of local leadership! If an extra-local apostle had authority in the church, which apostle would have the final say? Therefore, since neither Paul nor any other itinerant was in authority over the Corinthians, it was not necessary for Paul to try to control Peter and other itinerant apostles and their input into the Corinthian church. As a matter of fact, Paul even encouraged the church to receive from them and to see all of the itinerants who ministered to them as simply vessels to whom God had given a spiritual supply for them (1 Corinthians 3:5-7). It was the job of the local elders to judge and then to receive or reject their ministries!
While ministry in the church is influential and can come from a multitude of sources, including extra-local ones, AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS LOCAL. There is no intervening layer of authority between the local church leadership and the Head of the church, Jesus Christ.
This is the element of modern-day, congregational church government that happens to be thoroughly biblical! As we have previously stated, there are elements of each of the three “business models” of modern church government (episcopal, presbyterian and congregational) that are biblical.
So, the “no extra local authority” of the congregational church model is one of those elements. Here is how today’s Presbyterians have another one: those in the office of “elder” make final decisions. In the Jerusalem church, a unique situation existed that was not present in any other New Testament church–the permanent presence of the “specific apostles” who had been with Jesus. They gave themselves to “prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:4)–spiritual leadership–while the deacons, chosen by the congregation, handled the physical aspects of church life.
As the church in Jerusalem grew, other spiritual leaders besides the apostles arose from within the church. By the time of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, some 20 years after Pentecost, there were elders as well as the apostles in places of spiritual leadership.
At the Jerusalem Council, first, the whole Jerusalem church congregation heard the initial report from the delegation from Antioch about Gentile conversions on Paul’s missionary journey (Acts 15:4). However, it was the APOSTLES AND ELDERS ONLY who met with Paul and the Antioch delegation to determine the church’s position on the circumcision of Gentile converts (15:6).
It would seem that there was a final consensus of agreement among the whole church as to the decision of the leadership (15:22). This was a congregational element in the decision-making process, though that consensus was probably not unanimous, considering Paul’s ongoing difficulty with Judaizers from this congregation (Galatians 2:11, 12).
As other churches were planted and government arose within them, the Jerusalem pattern was followed, though without the presence of the specific apostles. THE ELDERS ONLY WERE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCHES, giving themselves to spiritual ministry, with the deacons relieving them of concern about the various aspects of the physical requirements of the church. This elder-leadership represents Presbyterian church government on the local level.
There is a plethora of titles that have been given to this office of spiritual leadership in the church over the centuries: Clergy, Minister, Parson, Monk, Reverend, Father, Pastor, Elder, Bishop, Rector, Friar, and the list goes on and on. One thing most of these names have in common is that THEY ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE! Only two of them are used for an office of structural, authoritative, spiritual leadership in the New Testament church: presbuteros (elder), used 16 times to designate church leaders, and episcopos (bishop, or overseer), used 6 times.
Acts 20:17, 18, and 1 Peter 5:1, 2 make it clear that these terms (elder and bishop, or overseer) refer to the same office. The terms were used interchangeably by the New Testament church. Those who held this office were to shepherd, or pastor, the flock (1 Peter 5:2), describing one of the functions of their office. “Elder” refers to his qualifications; “overseer” refers to his work.
If the only authoritative position in the local church in the New Testament church is the corporate body of “elders,” where did the “pastors” go? That’s the topic of next week’s posting!
