This 13-part series of classes has been many years in the making. About 25 years ago I began in earnest to examine the features, character and characteristics of the church as it existed in its earliest years. As I sometimes do, I kept my notes all along the way, and this series of classes is to a large extent the product of those years of on-and-off studying the subject. Several things in my experience contributed to my interest in making this 25-year study which I will mention along the way, and those go much further back.
There may be some difficulty in using the individual parts of this series separately, although viewer are free to do so if it serves their purposes. But to those whose interest is in knowing what the church was like in its earliest years, I recommend starting with Part 1 - Introduction to the Church of the New Testament and proceeding through the parts consecutively.
I have prepared some slides that I used in presenting the series in a classroom setting before adapting it to use as sermons. I have left my cues to advance slides or activate animations in the notes as posted on Sermon Central. If anyone is interested in having the PowerPoint files with the slides, I will be happy to send them. Send me an Email at sam@srmccormick.net and specify what part(s) you are requesting. Be sure that the word “slide” appears in the subject line. It may take me several days to respond, but I will respond to all requests.
THE CHURCH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
I. Introduction
II. The Origin of the Church
III. What is the church?
IV. The First Christians
V. Authority in the First Century Church
VI. Problems in the New Testament Church
VII. How the Church Functioned
A. Introduction to Functions
B. Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers
C. False Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers & Various Gifts and Functions
D. More Gifts and Functions
E. Evangelists, Preachers, and Ministers, Servants and Deacons
F. Pastors, Elders, Bishops, etc.
VIII. How the Church Worshiped
===================================
PASTORS, ELDERS, OVERSEERS, BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS AND SHEPHERDS
Eph 4:11-13 (NASB) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
*Advance to 1st Pastor slide
The word “pastors,” used in verse 11, is from the Greek poimen (poy-mane). A poimen is a shepherd—one who cares for herds and flocks. Poimen is sometimes translated “shepherd” in the New Testament meaning literally, shepherds, as well as - in this study - metaphorically.
*Advance to 2nd Pastor
According to Vines Expository Dictionary, “elders” and “presbytery” in the New Testament are both translated from the Greek word presbuteros, which means older, advanced in life, or senior; the presbytery of a local church.
*Advance to 3rd Pastor
“Bishop” is from eposkopos, an overseer, which Vines says is a synonym with presbuteros, denoting the presbytery of a local church.
Christ called himself a shepherd (poimen literally meaning one who cares for sheep) and bishop (KJV) (episkopos meaning guardian or overseer).
1 Peter 2:25 NASB “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.”
1 Peter 2:25 ESV “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.”
These words describe a function for qualified men. We learn of its existence through numerous references in Acts, and the qualifications of men who are to perform it are given in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9. I believe these various words (pastor, elder, overseer, bishop, and presbyter to be synonymous, they appear to be used interchangeably and as far as I can see, all of those words describe the same work.
As has been shown, "Pastor" means "shepherd." Correlation of this word with Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2, where elders were instructed to shepherd the church, shows that the shepherding of the flock is the work of pastors, the meaning being synonymous with shepherd.
Peter was an elder in the Jerusalem church (1 Peter 5:1). I believe he was appointed by Jesus, who told him, "Feed my sheep," which can just as accurately be translated, "Shepherd the flock." Collateral with being an apostle, John was an elder, as shown by his salutations in 1 John and 2 John: "The elder to the chosen lady..." and "The elder to the beloved Gaius..."
*Advance to the overseer list
Taking these various names or descriptions of overseers as referring to the same work, their work includes--but may not be limited to--the following:
• Shepherd the church of God (Acts 20:28, I Peter 5:2)
• Take care of the church of God (1 Timothy 3:5)
• Preach and teach (1 Timothy 5:17)
• Exhort in sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)
• Refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9)
• Be on the alert for false teaching (Acts 20:28-31)
• Be an example (1 Peter 5:2)
• Help the weak (Acts 20:35)
• Pray for the sick (James 5:14)
Persons who were not elders performed some of the works listed above, but these are specifically identified as works that elders are to perform.
In my personal experience the word “elder” is most commonly used, so I will mostly refer to the function as “elder” or “overseer,” while it is understood that it may rightly be referred to by any of the words used in the scriptures for the same work.
A question appears: in Acts 6:1-6 seven men (may we rightly call them deacons?) were appointed to address the neglecting of Hellenistic widows in the daily distribution of food. The purpose was to release the apostles to attend to the “ministry of the word” instead of “serving tables.” Does that imply that under that principle, the work of apostles - ministry of the word” - descends to today’s elders? Some elders feel that as overseers, they acquire some of the duties of the apostles, although few or none would claim to receive divine revelations or perform the supernatural acts have long since run their course. Is there a corollary, and shouldn’t the elders be about the business of ministry of the word?
In some sense it follows that the elders have general oversight, the “ministry (or serving) of the word” falls to the today’s elders. That would mean that the elders have responsibility over all that is taught in the church, and to assure that it is consistent with “the word,” that is the scriptures. But it would be a presumption of the highest order to claim that elders are to exercise apostolic identity and authority.
Over the course of the church’s history, the word “pastor” has acquired a completely different meaning and application than originally intended in many churches. Today, in those churches, the one called “the pastor” is the one who delivers sermons in the church’s assemblies. In some cases “the pastor” is also the general overseer of the church and possesses the highest authority - even over a group of “elders” who are kind of an advisory or steering committee but lacking, both individually and as a group, the higher authority of “the pastor.”
Although those arrangements draw from some of the terminology in the New Testament, such arrangements - as described above - are foreign to the New Testament. Its roots are found as early as the first and second centuries after Christ. Later in this sermon we will examine the influence of Ignatius, an early Christian writer who strongly influenced generations of Christians toward that paradigm.
There are wide variations in how the overseeing function is practiced in various congregations, ranging from little oversight until some issue comes up to iron-fisted control of everything that happens. A congregation may have elders whose attention is focused primarily on facilities management, while other congregations’ elders may be riveted on the congregation’s business and finances. Many years ago I attended a congregation where one of the elders’ chief concern seemed to be in regulating the attire of those who served in various capacities in the church’s assemblies.
Perhaps some variety is to be expected in practice, depending on differences in elders’ background, aptitudes and interests. This accounts for the practice in some churches of dividing up the elders’ work into bailiwicks, with each having distinct areas of responsibility. This too is probably natural as one elder may have an extensive background in some field and another in another pursuit. But it would be inconsistent with the New Testament guidance to divide those duties to the extent that one elder has no voice in another’s bailiwick. Paul addressed the elders at Miletus as a group and expected them to address the problem of false teachers and dividers as a group.
On close examination of the list presented earlier in this sermon, it is clear that the elders - whether locally referred to as bishops, pastors, shepherds, or presbyters - are principally charged with the care of the congregation on a spiritual level.
How are elders to be selected? What guidance is available in the process of selecting elders?
The first consideration is that since it is an oversight function. it has to do with governance. Recognizing this does not diminish the fact that Christ is the head of the church - the “chief shepherd,” and accordingly Christ’s words and actions, and those of his apostles, are the “constitution” by which the church is to be governed. But locally, a form of congregational government is necessary
The scriptures recognize that government is necessary in:
- The human body
- The family
- The church
- Any commonwealth, or society
Someone has to be in charge of day-to-day decisions and actions.
Those of us who live in America live under a democratic republic form of civil government which was unknown in NT times. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other brilliant men who designed the American system were influenced by earlier philosophers who observed the necessity for government in any society of people.
John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher, considered the equality of every man to be a basic principle of life. He wrote of certain inalienable rights: pursuit of life, liberty, and protection of property. He defined the necessity of government and observed than men willingly give up some liberties for the common good and orderliness of society, and because an ungoverned society in which we are all free, equal as kings, would be very unsafe and insecure. All do not have the same regard for equity and justice, so there must be protection of the rights and property of the citizens against invasion by those who would usurp the privilege and peaceful existence of others.
Therefore, Locke believed that sovereignty resides in the people, that government is by the consent of those governed, and that when a government no longer satisfies the needs of the people, the people have the right to throw off that government.
Before proceeding further, I want to emphasize that the American process of selecting those to whom “we the people” willingly relinquish authority over us is NOT an authoritative and universally applicable model of a selection process. I do NOT offer it here as biblically authoritative direction. However, I suggest that it is a case in point that is consistent and compatible with the scant procedural guidance we have in scripture.
The New Testament was written when the whole world - insofar as is referenced in the scriptures - was dominated by the pagan rule of Rome. Christianity had a dramatic start in that framework. It survives and thrives whether implanted in a democratic society or in a hostile setting. Clearly, Christianity flourishes - perhaps best - in persecution, which is seen in the NT and other periods. Those who live in America should consider that our present culture and experience may disproportionately influence our thinking.
Still, perhaps the NT contains the seed of a democratic selection that was unknown in civil government of the time.
Make no mistake: Jesus Christ is the head of the church.
Sovereignty does not reside in the people or their human leaders, but in the Lord. That does not eliminate or diminish the need for human leadership, so long as it is concomitant with the Lord’s.
• Children are to "obey your parents in the Lord," yet parents are not sovereign lords over their children, but in a sense the servants of those children.
• Wives are to "be subject to your husbands...," yet no husband should feel he is the sovereign lord in his home.
• We are instructed by Peter to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king...or to a governor..."
Leaders are appointed in the church to watch for enemies, feed, care for the church, to be an example, and to "be over" numerous ministries or services. None of these instruction run against the sovereignty of Christ, either in the church or in our lives. They simply meet the need for orderly governing.
Leaders in the church are not sovereign, yet their position of leadership does imply and depend on obedience to them (Hebrews 13:17).
The detailed qualifications for elders as cited in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are not explored in detail here. However, each man considered for appointment as elder must be considered in the light of how he measures up in the light of each qualifying attribute. Applied absolutely, they could disqualify every candidate except Jesus himself. For example, an overseer must be “free from the love of money.” Money - as far as I know - is the medium of exchange in every society. The acquisition of it to meet basic needs and the manner and extent to which it is pursued, can render practically every successful man a “lover of money.”
I don’t advocate watering down the qualifications. But their purpose is to identify qualified men for elders, not to disqualify everyone. But no one may be appointed to the work of elder who does not possess a recognizably high degree of qualification as set forth. The application of the qualifications itself actually participates in the selection.
Willingness to serve, though not explicitly a qualification, is implicitly necessary. If a man is otherwise qualified but unwilling to serve, he cannot serve effectively; however, unwillingness to use his gifts and talents in a needed capacity could indicate a serious--in practical terms--disqualifying condition.
Selection of elders is not based on:
• Seniority
• Who the congregation likes best
• Who has financial or other symbols of success and status
• Reward for faithful church attendance or other achievement
• A need to encourage someone who is faltering in basic duties
• The concern that if you appoint someone, you must appoint another or his feelings (or his family's) will be hurt
How was the choosing of various kinds of leaders done in the NT?
APOSTLE: Acts 1:15-26 Peter pointed to the vacancy created by the loss of Judas. There were about 120 brethren who put forward two men. God selected between the two, the vehicle for expressing his choice being a game of chance. But evidently the narrowing down to two was done by the 120 brethren.
SERVANTS, OR DEACONS: Acts 6:2-3 The twelve said to the congregation, "Select...seven men...the statement found approval with the whole congregation, and they chose...these they brought before the apostles...and they laid their hands on them."
ELDERS: Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders for them in every city." (Notice that Barnabas, though never one of the twelve, is considered an apostle, Acts 4:14 & other refs.)
ELDERS: Acts 20:28 "the Holy Spirit has made you overseers..." By selection, or election? (Bearing His fruit in their lives)
ELDERS: I Timothy 1:3-7 Paul instructed Timothy to remain at Ephesus for the protection of the church against "some men." 3:18-19 Timothy was clearly in command at Ephesus. Paul could not be there, so he put Timothy in charge. Timothy is referred to as an "apostle" in 1 Thess 2:6 (compare with 1 Thess 1:1).
Therefore Timothy, acting as though he were an apostle in Paul’s absence, was given the qualifications Paul, and had some individual responsibility in the decision, and was directed not to appoint an elder "too hastily."
ELDERS: Titus 1:5 The assigned field of labor for Titus was Crete, to "set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city..." Why? (v10 - “because there are some who are rebellious.”
What, then, is the New Testament process for selecting elders?
Granting that the ones assigned the responsibility of appointing had an individual responsibility to not appoint indiscriminately, did the task of choosing the appointees belong solely their individual discretion? Who did the actual narrowing down to the final selectees? What process was used? Is there an answer, that has eluded so many searchers, made so distinct somewhere that it prescribes the process we ought to use today?
My belief that the leaders in a local church are to be chosen by the congregation and if approved, then appointed, or ordained, to the work of their respective offices. The one who ordains does not seem to me a matter of command or precedent, since an apostle will not do it today, nor will someone directly commissioned by an apostle. The "ordainer" should be a person who has the respect of the congregation and can symbolically act on the congregations will and in its collective behalf.
The process of choosing must be one that works for those doing the choosing. It might be one process among a people who live in a democracy, another among a people who live under a dictatorship and have never tasted civil self-government. The people - that is, the congregation - who do the choosing will also choose the process. The process must choose willing men who are generally felt by the congregation to possess the scriptural qualifications for the offices.
We should then, as a congregation, decide by what process we will choose leaders, and whether the number selected will be derived from the work to be done or the from the number of qualified men.
I offer the following as my personal belief:
Less than ideal processes have sometimes been used. We have called for nominees, and then presented names from those nominated to the church with the statement "If you have scriptural objections to these men, state your objection to …" This can either cause a disincentive to offering serious objection because of personal relationships, or on the other hand, to object to some candidate for questionable - or even frivolous - reasons where complex motives are in play. Furthermore, it suggests that any objection whatsoever from one person will miscarry the appointment of someone to a leadership capacity. Choosing of leaders, from a practical view, need not necessarily be unanimous. Otherwise, one or a few could rule the church by sustained dissent, preventing installation of any leaders except those who clear the hurdle of that person’s objections. In appointing leaders, when the general will of the congregation is known, those who do not agree should go along to preserve the strength of Christians banded together.
There has emerged in some fellowships the idea that preachers, evangelists, etc. are equal to and therefore free from any responsibility to the elders, and that their independence forms a sort of “check and balance” system. In some cases it has been suggested that the preacher has authority over the elders. The latter point of view is derived from the idea that Timothy and Titus - hand-picked envoys assigned to their posts personally to the apostle Paul - were directed by the apostle to “appoint elders” and gave the qualifications of those who were to serve in the oversight of the church (1 Timothy 3:7ff and Titus 1:5ff).
However, this conclusion relies on the idea that Timothy and Titus were “preachers” of the same sort as today’s preachers, which in turn relies on the single instruction to Timothy to “preach the word” (1 Timothy 6:2 and 2 Timothy 4:2). This derivation further depends on the dubious reverse inferences that because part of the duties of Timothy and Titus was to preach the word, all of the OTHER duties assigned to those apostolic envoys accrue to every modern preacher today. I find it to be an unconvincing line of reasoning. Titus, believed to be a “young preacher” under Paul’s tutelage, is usually included as support for the argument. It may be reasonable to assume that Titus was a preacher, but Paul gave him no specific instruction to preach, though it is virtually certain that he did so in addition to his specified duties.
Biblically, the preacher is equal in to the elders in the sense that every Christian is equal to every other Christian. But preachers are not equal to elders as to the function they are to perform. Preachers are not independent of any obligation to “obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” The word “leaders” in that passage (Hebrews 13:7) is from the Greek word hegeomai, which means "to lead." It is the clear responsibility of the elders/pastors/shepherds/overseers/presbytery to lead the church on the local level. As was explained in Part 7e of this series, the principal duty of the preacher is to herald the good news of the gospel to those who have not previously heard it, but not to lead or otherwise govern the already converted congregation of Christians.
One may ask, may a local preacher serve in the dual capacities of preacher and elder? Typically, a mature experienced preacher is likely to possess qualifications closely resembling those mentioned earlier. In many congregations - particularly small churches - there is a shortage of qualified men to serve as overseers. So why shouldn’t the preacher serve is both capacities?
Biblically, I find no direct guidance either for or against the practice. In my view, the decision doesn’t come down to a question of whether the bible “authorizes” it or not. The bible is silent as to the practice, which means the bible has nothing to say on the subject either way. Therefore, the decision reverts to a question of whether the practice is workable and wise. There are no doubt examples where a preacher has served well and harmoniously along with other elders, and the arrangement turns out to be eminently workable.
On the whole, however, and in my personal experience, as a practical matter I believe that the arrangement has more against it than for it. While I see no biblical issue in those cases where it has worked with great success, the roles of preacher and elder are distinctly different roles and they can come into conflict. The problem, which I have personally experienced, appears when disharmony intrudes of a severity that requires some action to be taken with regard to the preacher or his function. If that occurs, the preacher may “recuse” himself from participating in a decision that affects him, but the harsh reality is that even though the preacher may be silent or absent while discussions are held and decisions made, the situation itself takes on a sort of voice, which will likely influence and impede the whole group of elders or the entire congregation.
If the preacher is one of the overseers, dealing with conflicts between them is vastly more complex and situations direly needing resolution may linger unaddressed for years, harming the Lord’s work in that congregation.
Must there be a plurality of elders, or may a single individual be the church’s sole elder? Here also, I do not find specific biblical direction that requires a plurality, but my strong personal recommendation is that a solo elder situation should be avoided as a practical matter. If a chain of events results in a qualified man who has served as an elder is left alone by the death or departure of all other elders, I recommend that he immediately resign the post. I myself did so once. If then his influence in the church is strong, then to that extent he may serve as facilitator for the process of selecting qualified men to serve as elders, which of course might or might not include the same man who resigned his post.
I offer this advice because of a false and problematic notion that arose not long after the death of the last apostle. Ignatius - an early Christian writer traditionally believed to have been a student of the apostle John - seeing that a plurality of leaders often had difficulty bringing their divergent points of view to resolution and decision, advocated that each church should have one elder in charge of the entire church, and that each region should have a single individual chosen from those elders in the region to be in charge of the region, and so on. The idea was adoped in churches early, possibly as early as the second century after Christ, and led to grave distortions in the way the church is governed and conducts its affairs.
Perhaps the function of elders is not intended to be an easy one, and by design requires the collective wisdom of men having multiple experiences and points of view to make serious decisions that affect the lives of the entire congregation, and potentially those outside the body of Christ who are affected by the church which should be a beacon of light to the community. Collective judgment is more difficult to achieve, but generally leads to better decisions and actions.
