The Difference Between Gift and Office
Christians almost always confuse “gift” and “office”. Attempting to localize a gift (such as a pastor) to function as an office in a local church is a clear proof of this misunderstanding. Gift and office are two distinct things in Scripture. Gift is exercised in relation to the body of Christ; office is a responsibility in connection with the house of God. Gift is for edification, whereas office is to do with government. As gift is universal (for the whole body); office is a local charge (i.e., for a local assembly).
There is one exception to this—apostleship. Apostleship is both an office and a gift. It is the only case in Scripture where office is a universal thing (Acts. 1:20; 1 Peter 5:1). Twelve of the Lord’s disciples were appointed to the office of apostleship (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:20). The Lord did this when He was still on earth. Judas fell by transgression and his “office” was given to another man—Mathias (Acts 1:16-26). However, they received the “gift” of apostleship by the Spirit after the Lord ascended to His heavenly position at the right hand of God (1 Cor. 12:28). Gifts, as we have mentioned, flow down from Christ in heaven. These men were then given to the church to help it get established in the truth. “When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men... He gave some apostles” (Eph. 4:8-11).
An individual who has a local charge (office) in an assembly may also have a gift for public teaching or preaching (1 Tim. 5:17), but when Scripture deals with the subjects of gift and office, it never confounds the two.
When we understand the difference between these two things as Scripture distinguishes them, we will see how far from the truth a statement, such as, “He is the Pastor of a church,” really is. Under normal circumstances, the Lord’s servant is never “the” single gift in a local church. Nor is he to restrict the exercise of his gift to “a” local church, or even to a certain sect within the church. His gift is for the whole body of Christ. To be Scripturally accurate, people should say, “He is a pastor in the church.”
Elders, Overseers [Bishops], & Guides
Apart from apostleship, there are only two offices in the church. One is an overseer (bishop)/elder/guide. The other is a deacon.
As to the office of an overseer/elder/guide, it is the Lord’s normal means of guiding a local assembly in its administrative responsibilities. The focus of their work pertains particularly to the spiritual welfare of a local assembly. The three words in the epistles used for those who function in this office are: “elders,” “overseers [bishops],” and “leaders [guides].” These words can be used inter-changeably for the same office. See Acts 20:17 with 28; Titus 1:5 with 7; 1 Peter 5:1-2.
“Elders” (Presbuteroi) describes the maturity and experience that should mark those who fill this place. It refers to those advanced in age. However, not all aged men in the assembly necessarily function in this place of responsible leadership. (1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 2:2) This is because all may not have the experience, or the exercise, or the moral qualifications that are necessary (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9).
“Bishops” or “overseers” (Episkopoi) describes the work that they do; shepherding the flock (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:28), watching over souls (Heb. 13:17), giving admonition (1 Thess. 5:13), etc.
“Leaders” or “guides” (Hegoumenos) describes the leadership they are to give in the local assembly.
Scripture refers to those in this place as, “Them that take the lead among you” (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cor. 16:15-18; 1 Tim. 5:17 – J. N. Darby Trans.). Notice, it is “them,” not “him.” Whenever they are spoken of as functioning in their place, they are always referred to in the plural. They may be spoken of in the singular, if it is in reference to their personal character (1 Tim. 3:1-7), but when performing their work, it is in plural. This shows that under normal conditions this work is not to be carried out by one man. It is a God-given guard to have more than one elder in a local assembly, so that no individual would attempt to rise up and preside over an assembly. Sad to say, this has not been heeded, and men at times have risen up and have taken over in local assemblies. (Acts 20:30)
Furthermore, the Authorized Version (KJV) renders the verses quoted above as, “them over you in the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:12); and, “them that have the rule over you” (Heb. 13:17, 24). These renderings might convey the idea that these men are to preside over the flock of God. But this is not true. These verses should be translated, “Them that take the lead among you.” This shows that they have a place, like all the other members of the body of Christ, “among” the flock. The only place in Scripture where we have somebody presiding over a local assembly is in the case of Diotrephes, and he was an evil man. (3 John 9-10)
How different all this is from the order that men have arranged in their man-made denominations. God’s way is to have a number of bishops in a local church (assembly) (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5); man’s way is to have one bishop over many churches (assemblies)!
Taking “the lead among you” does not necessarily refer to leading in public teaching or preaching, but to the administrative affairs of the assembly. Again, to confuse these two things is to misunderstand the difference between gift and office. These men, however, should be “apt to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2). This refers to being able to expound the Word as they have been taught, even though they may not necessarily be gifted as a teacher (Titus 1:9). Some of them that “take the lead” may not teach publicly at all, but it is very good and helpful when they can. And such should be “counted worthy of double honour” when they do (1 Tim. 5:17).
Those in this place of responsible leadership are viewed under the figures of “stars” and “the angel of the church” in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:20, 2:1, 8, 12, 3:1, 7, 14). As “stars” they are to bear witness to the truth of God (the principles of the Word) as light bearers in the local assembly. This shows that they must be instructed in the Word (Titus 1:9). When the assembly is confronted with a problem or an issue, they should be able to provide light from God’s Word as to what the assembly should do. Acts 15 gives us an illustration of their work. After hearing the problem that was troubling the assembly, Peter and James, as “stars,” gave light on the matter. James applied a principle from the Word of God, and then gave his judgment as to what he believed the Lord would have them to do (Acts 15:15-21).
As “the angel of the church,” those same ones in that place of responsibility act as messengers to carry out the mind of God in the assembly in the performance of those things that have been decided. This is also illustrated in Acts 15. After they had determined what was believed to be the Lord’s mind in connection with the problem, they “took the lead” in the local assembly in carrying out His mind. They spread their conclusions before the assembly so as to not act independently of them, who also believed it to be the mind of the Lord. This was followed by a letter being sent to the brethren in Antioch notifying them of how the problem was solved (Acts 15:22-33).
In some respects, the work of pastors (shepherds) and elders are similar. Both are called to shepherd and feed the flock. But the two are never equated. The pastor does not localize his service, whereas the elder/overseer/guide does.
Deacons
While those in the office of an elder/overseer/guide are occupied with the spiritual welfare of a local assembly, those in the office of a deacon are to be occupied with the temporal cares of a local assembly (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). The word “deacon” could be translated “minister,” for ministry in the Bible is not confined to spiritual things only (Luke 8:3; Acts 6:1 – “daily ministration,” 12:25; 13:5; Rom. 16:1). Deacons minister in temporal things, but their service for the Lord does not need to be confined to that exclusively. If they should have a gift for ministering the Word they could exercise that gift as the Lord may lead them (1 Tim. 3:13). Both Stephen and Philip, who were deacons, also had gifts for ministering the Word. Stephen was gifted as a teacher (Acts 7); and Philip was gifted as an evangelist (Acts 8:5-40; 21:8). Sisters can also serve as deaconesses. Romans 16:1 says, “I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister [deaconess] of the assembly which is in Cenchrea.” However, they would not fill that place in an official capacity, because Paul said to Timothy that such were to be “husbands of one wife,” which shows that such were men (1 Tim. 3:12). Those in this office also had to have moral qualifications in their lives similar to those of elders/overseers/guides.
The Choosing of Elders
The question might be asked, “How did people get into these offices?” In every case in the Scriptures, they were chosen. But, nowhere in Scripture do we read that elders were chosen by the church—the local assembly. Just as we have shown that there is not one local assembly in the Bible that chose its pastor, there is also not one assembly that chose its elders! Regardless of this, in Christendom today almost every church group chooses its elders. But where do they get their authority for doing this? Nowhere in the Bible was an assembly entrusted with a choice so difficult as choosing its elders, regardless of the piety and intelligence of those who made it up. The Word of God says that they were chosen by the apostles. It says, “When they [Barnabas and Paul] chose for them, elders in each assembly and prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord on Whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23—W. Kelly Trans.). On certain occasions delegates of the apostles chose elders. Titus is an example. Paul sent him to the island of Crete for the purpose of ordaining elders there. Even then, his commission was for that place only. He had no authority to ordain elsewhere, unless commissioned by the Apostle (Titus 1:5).
The wisdom of God is seen here in having elders specifically chosen for an assembly and not by an assembly. If a local church chose its elders, it might be biased and pick leaders that favoured its inclinations. But being an apostolic function, the assembly would be delivered from this danger.
In the case of deacons, however, local churches did choose them. A case in point is Acts 6:1-6. Seven men were chosen by the church at Jerusalem to fill the place of deacons (though not directly called deacons in that chapter), but they were officially appointed to that place by the apostles. A local church today could choose ones to carry out temporal cares in the assembly, but they could not officially appoint them to the office of a deacon, because there is no apostle or apostolic delegate to do it.
There Are No Apostles Today To Appoint Elders and Deacons
The whole value of a person’s appointment to an office, hangs on the validity of the power that does the appointing. Scripture allows no appointing power except that of an apostle, or an envoy who had a commission from an apostle for that purpose. But where is such a delegate today that can produce adequate evidence of having an apostolic commission for the work of appointing? The Word of God does not even hint at the continuance of ordaining powers. Hence the church today has no power to appoint elders/overseers/guides to their office, or a deacon to his office, simply because we do not have an apostle or a delegate from an apostle to do it.
We realize that this is contrary to the belief and practice of some Christians who think that there are apostles on earth today. The Bible, however, indicates otherwise. It says that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Corner-stone. In Whom all the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord; in Whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:20-22). In this passage of Scripture, the formation of the church is likened to the building of a house. It begins with the laying of the chief Corner-stone (Christ); then the foundation is laid (the apostles and prophets); and then finally, the building goes up wherein every true believer is added, until the whole building is complete at the coming of the Lord. This shows that the place the apostles and prophets occupy in the church is that of the foundation. They were directly used by the Lord to establish the church in the beginning. The epistles they wrote set out the order and function of the church: in them the foundation of Christianity has been laid. The Lord no longer gives apostles to the church because He is no longer building the foundation. It has been laid. In fact, the building is just about complete. We are waiting for the last persons to be saved, so that the last few (living) stones can be put into place in the building. The ministry of the apostles and prophets still remains with the church in their inspired writings, but we no longer have them personally with us on earth (Eph. 4:11-13).
Three Qualifications for Apostleship
We list the following three things that qualify a person for apostleship. These things show that there could not be apostles on earth today.
• They had to have seen the Lord personally (1 Cor. 9:1; 2 Cor. 12:2).
• They had to be chosen and sent directly by the Lord (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; Acts 9:15; 22:21).
• They had to be a witness of His resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:8, 15).
The Bible does tell us that there will be impostors posing themselves as apostles. Therefore, any person who claims apostleship today could only be putting themselves in that category (Rev. 2:2 – “them which say they are apostles;” 2 Cor. 11:13-15 – “false apostles;” 2 Tim. 3:13)
Mr. Kelly said, “It is clear that we have neither apostles living on earth, nor representatives, like Titus, charged by an apostle to do quasi-apostolic work. The consequence is, that now, if subject to the Word of God, you cannot, and do not, look for elders in their precise official form. If any man allege these can be, it might be well to hear his grounds from Scripture. What has been produced, in my judgment, is amply sufficient to disprove it. You cannot have persons formally and duly appointed to this office, unless you have a power formally and duly authorized of the Lord to appoint them. But you have not that indispensably needful power to authenticate elders: this is your fatally weak point. You neither have apostles or functionaries commissioned by the apostles to act in their stead: and therefore the entire system of appointment breaks down for want of competent authority.”
Are There Elders Today?
Some might ask, “Does this mean that you don't believe in having elders?” Though we do not have anyone to appoint elders today, we mustn’t think that the work of oversight does not go on. If that were so, God has left the local assemblies without leadership when He took the apostles away to heaven. The Holy Spirit still raises up men to carry on this work (Acts 20:28). In a gathering of Christians meeting together according to Scripture, there will normally be men who will carry on this work. They will be known by the work they do, and are to be recognized as such, even though they have not been officially appointed to that office. We are to:
• “Know” them (1 Thess. 5:12, 1 Cor. 16:15).
• “Esteem” them (1 Thess. 5:13).
• “Honour” them (1 Tim. 5:17).
• “Remember” them (Heb. 13:7).
• “Follow” their faith (Heb. 13:7).
• “Obey” them (Heb. 13:17).
• “Submit” to them (Heb. 13:17).
• “Salute” them (Heb. 13:24).
But nowhere in Scripture is the Church told to ordain them, simply because the church has no power to do so. The Spirit of God has fully anticipated a time when the apostles would not be on earth to appoint elders, and He has given us some guiding principles in the Word so that we might know those whom He has raised up to carry on this work in a local assembly. There were at least two assemblies that Paul wrote to that did not have ordained elders. Nevertheless, in writing to them he marked out a principle that set apart certain ones for that work in those assemblies, and it gives us a valuable guideline today when we have no official appointment of elders.
In writing to the Corinthians, he told them to acknowledge those of the house of Stephanas, and others like them who “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” He said that they were to acknowledge such as leaders and to submit themselves to them (1 Cor. 16:15-18).
In writing to the Thessalonians, Paul told them to acknowledge those that laboured among them for the good of the assembly. They would be known by their labours among the flock. Consequently, the assembly was to “esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
Mr. Kelly said, “What then? Are there none suitable to be elders or bishops, if there are no apostles to choose them? Thank God, there are not a few! You can hardly look into an assembly of His children without hearing of some grave elderly men who go after the wanderers, who warn the unruly, who comfort those who are cast down, who counsel, admonish, and guide souls. Are not these the men who might be elders, if there were a power existing to appoint them? And what is the duty of a Christian man as things now are in the use of what remains? I say not to call them elders, but surely to esteem them highly for their work's sake, and to love and acknowledge them as those who are over the rest of their brethren in the Lord.”
No Ordination Today
The so-called church organizations that we have been speaking of, use ordination as a sanction for a person to minister among them, but Scripture never does. If a certain number of Christians organize themselves into what they call a church, with their own creeds and rules of government, surely no one could be free to minister in their organization without its sanction. It could hardly be otherwise. After all, it’s their system. If someone wants to minister in that sect, he will have to subject himself to its rules and regulations. But all this is only further proof that these organizations are sects indeed.
Even though most Christians believe that a person must be ordained before he can minister in the church, there is not one person in the Bible who was ordained by men to preach the Word to the church! Not one! It is time that we got back to a Scriptural practice in these things.
"But People Were Ordained in the Bible!"
People often reply to this, “But people were ordained in the Bible.” Yes, the Bible tells us that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every city on one of their missionary journeys (Acts 14:23). But there is not a single instance in Scripture where Paul, Barnabas, Titus etc., ever ordained a pastor, teacher, or evangelist! For that matter, there is no Scripture where they ordained a prophet or a priest either! There is not the slightest hint of any of these being ordained. Where do the denominational churches get authority in the Word of God to do this? To repeat W. T. P. Wolston’s remark, “The idea is in people’s heads, but not in Scripture.” If it was God’s will for the church, then He would have instructed us in His Word about it.
Now, it is true that gifted men were ordained, but not for the purpose of carrying out the ministry of their gift! Those who were ordained by the Apostle (or an apostle’s delegate) were chosen to fill the office of an overseer/elder/guide in an official way. Since all believers have a gift, these men must have had a gift too. Some of them may have even had the gift of pastor or teacher (1 Tim. 5:17), but we repeat, their ordination was not to exercise their gift, but to fill the office to which they were appointed.
The Laying On Of Hands
What about Acts 13:1-4, which says, “Now there were in Antioch, in the assembly which was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas and Simeon who is called Niger, Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then having fasted and prayed, and having laid their hands on them, they let them go?” This seems to show that it is necessary for a person, even an apostle, to be ordained before he can go forth preaching.
Many.ideas that people have on divine subjects, come from casually reading of the Word of God. People often do not take time to carefully and prayerfully search the Scriptures before drawing their conclusions. This subject of the laying on of hands is a prime example. First of all, we have no authority to say that this was ordination. It does not say that it was. The word (ordain) does not even appear in the passage. It mentions the laying on of hands, but it is an assumption to think that ordination comes through the laying on of hands. In each case where elders were ordained in the Bible, there is no mention that hands were ever laid on them! It may be that hands were laid on those who were ordained, but Scripture does not say so. For that matter, the apostles (or their delegates) may have done a lot of things when they ordained elders, but it would be pure assumption on our part to say they did, simply because Scripture is silent about it. W. Kelly said, “I have no doubt that the Spirit of God knew the superstition that would be attached to it in later years of church history, so He took care never to connect laying on of hands with ordaining elders. ...My assertion is that in this very matter of ordination, Christendom has missed God's mind and will; and is ignorantly, but not without sin, fighting for an order of its own, which is mere disorder.”
It is clear from Acts 11:25-26 and Acts 12:25 that Barnabas and Saul were already in “the ministry” before those in Antioch laid hands on them. Paul did not become fitted for the ministry as an apostle through these men laying hands on him. He said that the Lord did it. Writing to Timothy, he said, “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry” (1 Tim. 1:12). He did not receive his apostleship from men. Writing to the Galatians, he said, “Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead)” (Gal. 1:1).
If this incident in Acts 13 was ordination, who ordained them? Simeon called Niger, Lucius, Manaen, and perhaps others there? These were prophets and teachers who were second and third in the church (1 Cor. 12:28). If they ordained the apostles, the lessor ordained the greater. This cannot be. Mr. Kelly said, “Did the apostle Paul consider the laying on of the hands of others ordination to his special office? Surely we may believe he did not. Else why, when vindicating his claim to be an apostle, did he not refer to this time and this act? (1 Cor. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:12).”
Acts 14:26 explains what really happened when the hands of others at Antioch were laid on Barnabas and Saul. It says, “They sailed away to Antioch, whence they had been committed [or commended] to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled.” This shows that the brethren at Antioch had extended “the right hands of fellowship” to them (Gal. 2:9). They had given Barnabas and Saul their full fellowship and support in the work they were about to do. This may have included a practical gift of financial help and their continued prayers for them in the journey, though Scripture does not specify it. There is nothing in Acts 13:1-4 about Barnabas and Saul being ordained for a place among the clergy.
More than this, the commending of Paul to the grace of God was repeated. It was something that the brethren did for the Lord’s servants each time they went forth in a new work of spreading the gospel (Acts 15:40; Gal. 2:9). This surely proves that it was not ordination, for even those who think they see ordination in Acts 13 do not believe that a person needs to be re-ordained every year or two.
Now if a person’s ordination turns on the validity of the power that appoints him, and Scripture allows no appointing power except that of an apostle, or an envoy from an apostle, then it is clear that those who are trying to ordain today have no power from God for it. A brother who had once submitted to man’s system of ordination aptly put it, “They laid their empty hands on my empty head!”
What about 1 Timothy 4:14, which says, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery [eldership]?” This passage also has the laying on of hands in it, but again, there is no word about ordination. It is an assumption in people’s minds. It really is quite simple. Timothy had a gift from the Lord; and it was prophesied by a prophet (or prophets) that he would be used of the Lord in the exercise of it. The elders recognized the gift that he had from the Lord, and extended the right hands of fellowship to him in his work. Paul wrote to Timothy, exhorting him not to neglect his gift, and reminded him that others (the elders) were also behind him with their support. This must have been a tremendous encouragement to him.
Collections Versus Tithing
Another thing that has become an integral part of the denominational church services is the use of tithing (giving 10% of one’s income). It is something that is distinctly Jewish, and has been borrowed from that earthly order of things that the epistle to the Hebrews calls “the camp” (Lev. 27:30-34; Num. 18:21-24; Heb. 13:13). It has no place in Christianity. Christianity operates on wholly different and much higher principles than the Mosaic system of law. To impose such a standard on the children of God today in Christianity is to misunderstand grace, and the distinction between Judaism and Christianity.
Tithing was a statute put upon the children of Israel under law. In Christianity the new man does not need a law. He delights in pleasing God and doing His will (Rom. 8:4). To put the new life in Christ under the principle of law is to suppose that there is something in that life that wants to do otherwise, but there is no such impulse in a believer walking in the Spirit. In Judaism, it did not matter whether a person was willing or not, he still had to give his 10%. It was law. This is not at all the principle on which Christians are to give. In 2 Corinthians 8-9, we have the principles for Christian giving. Carefully notice that there is no word in these chapters, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that tells Christians to use the legal method of tithing in their giving.
In these chapters, the principles of Christian giving are laid out quite simply. There is first to be a giving of ourselves to the Lord and to the will of God, then a giving out of our substance according to the measure of what we have. It says, “It is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Cor. 8:5, 11-12). Christian giving is something that has to come from the heart before it has value before God. If there is not a “willing mind,” then a person’s giving is really just a legal thing, and there would be no real sacrificial value in it.
These chapters also unfold the purpose of Christian giving. The Apostle shows that it was:
• To express fellowship to the other members in the body of Christ (2 Cor. 8:4).
• To abound in every aspect of Christian experience (2 Cor. 8:7).
• To prove the reality of our love (2 Cor. 8:8, 24).
• To imitate our Lord Jesus (2 Cor. 8:9).
• To help meet the need of others (2 Cor. 8:13-15).
• That we might have the practical experience of God abounding toward us according to His all-sufficiency (2 Cor. 9:8-10).
• To give occasion to others to thank God (2 Cor. 9:11-15).
• That fruit may abound to our account (Phil. 4:17).
In God’s order there are to be collections made on a regular basis on the first day of the week, when the saints come together. The Word of God says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches [assemblies] of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Although the collection mentioned in this verse was for the specific needs of the saints at Jerusalem, the principle holds good for us today. There still exist specific needs in the church.
The time when the collection should be gathered is when the saints gather together for the breaking of bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Hebrews 13:15-16 links the sacrifice of “communicating out of our substance” with “the sacrifice of praise” which is offered at the breaking of bread.
What is appalling in Christendom today, and certainly a dishonor to the Lord is the encouraging of those who are not even saved to give in the collections. The impression this leaves in the minds of those of this world is, that they can do something that is acceptable to God in their unregenerate state. More than this, it also gives the impression that Christianity is a take-and-get system. As one person remarked, “Your God sure must be poor, because He always has you Christians asking for money!”
In the Bible we do not read of collections being taken from those who were not saved. The practice of the early church was to take no public collections. To guard against such notions that the world might have, the servants of the Lord in the early church, were careful to take “nothing” from those in the nations to which they carried the gospel, who didn't know the Lord (3 John 7). This is still God’s order for the church today.
Discipline in the Church
Another subject to do with local church government that is neglected in the so-called churches is that of discipline and excommunication. As we showed in the chapter entitled “A Call to Separation,” every individual Christian is responsible to separate from evil. It is obvious, therefore, that an assembly of Christians is to keep itself pure from evil too. This is a corporate responsibility. The reason for this is because association with evil defiles the whole assembly.
As we have already mentioned, the three main kinds of evil that are to be kept out of the midst of a company of Christians are: moral evil, doctrinal evil, and ecclesiastical evil. If a person in an assembly becomes involved in or associated with such evil, the local assembly is responsible to put that person out of its fellowship. The Apostle Paul said, “Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:12-13). This shows that the assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst when it appears.
There are three main reasons why the assembly is to put away evil persons.
1) The Lord’s Glory
The assembly must be careful to not allow the Lord's Name to be associated with evil before the eyes of the world. When the Corinthians acted for the Lord’s glory and put out the person engaged in sin, the Apostle wrote commending them, saying, “Behold this self-same thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge!” (2 Cor. 7:11). They acted with vehement zeal and revenge for the Lord's glory.
2) Holiness in the Assembly Must be Maintained
There are two reasons for this: firstly, the assembly is God’s dwelling place. It must be kept as a fit place for His holy presence. The Lord dwells in the midst of His people gathered to His Name (Matt. 18:20), and therefore, the assembly is to keep evil out of its midst so that it would remain a fit place for His presence. “Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, forever,” is a principle that holds good for all ages (Psa. 93:5). “He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house” (Psa. 101:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; Num. 5:1-4). The second reason is the leavening character of sin. As we have mentioned earlier, association with evil defiles. The Apostle Paul said, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump” (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:9-12). He also said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). If the assembly did not put away evil from its midst, before long others would be affected by it.
3) The Correction and Restoration of the Offender
The action of putting someone out of fellowship should always have the good and blessing of the erring person in view. He is put out and not socialized with, so that he might be broken down in repentance and restored to the Lord. “I have written unto you, if anyone called a brother be a fornicator, or avaricious, or idolator, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, not to mix with him; with such a one not even to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). When the person is repentant and has judged his sin, the assembly is to receive him back into fellowship. Concerning the sinning person that the Corinthians put away from among themselves, the Apostle Paul said, “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him” (2 Cor. 2:6-8).
The assembly should always take the matter up as their sin. Their attitude in regard to excommunicating someone, should be that of mourning—owning they have failed in not being able reach him when he was on a course toward the sin. This is what the Corinthians had not done. Paul said to them, “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” (1 Cor. 5:2). Each one in the assembly should search his heart asking themselves, “What could I have done that might have stopped this person from failing?” We must see that we have had a part in it; in that we have not shepherded this person properly, or that we have not prayed for that person enough, etc. This is what is referred to as “eating the sin offering” (Lev. 6:26).
This kind of care for the Lord’s glory is something that is almost non-existent in Christendom today, but nevertheless, should be done by every Christian assembly.
Reception—A Responsibility of the Local Assembly
Another thing the early church practiced that is almost non-existent in Christendom today, is carefulness in receiving persons into fellowship.
Now in view of what the Bible teaches in regard to the purity of the assembly, when someone desires to break bread at “the Lord's table” (1 Cor. 10:21), the assembly must be careful not to bring someone into fellowship who may be involved in evil; whether it be moral, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical. The principle is simple. If a local assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst, as we have shown (1 Cor. 5:12), then it naturally follows that it must be careful what or who it brings into its midst.
It has been rightly said that the local assembly is not to have an open fellowship, nor is it to have a closed fellowship, but rather, a guarded fellowship. The assembly is to receive to the Lord’s table every member of the body of Christ, whom Scriptural discipline does not prohibit. If it did otherwise, it would be acting inconsistently with the ground of the one body upon which it professes to be gathered (Eph. 4:4).
While every Christian has a title to be at the Lord’s table, every Christian does not necessarily have a right to be there, because his privilege may be forfeited by his engagement in some evil.
Who Decides Who Should Be In Fellowship?
It is important to understand that the brethren in the local assembly do not decide what is suitable to the Lord’s table and what is not. The Word of God does. This is because it is not their table: it is “the Lord’s table.” Personal preferences, likes and dislikes, of those in the assembly have nothing to do with reception. The Word of God decides all. When there is no Scriptural reason why a person should be refused, the person is received. If a believer has been baptized, is sound in faith and godly in walk, there is no reason why he should be refused. Knowledge of Scripture is not a criterion. A person may be a simple believer, but Scripture says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Rom. 14:1).
However, whether one is sound in faith and godly in walk, often cannot be determined immediately. The greater the confusion from which a person comes in the Christian testimony or in the world, the more difficult it may be to determine. If this be the case, then wisdom would dictate that the assembly should ask the person desiring to be in fellowship to wait awhile. This does not mean that the assembly is saying that the person is connected with evil. He could be, but they simply do not know, and should wait until they are satisfied that he is not; for they are ultimately responsible to God for whom they bring into fellowship. Scripture says, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins” (1 Tim. 5:22). Although the application of this verse is broader than reception to the Lord’s table, it gives a principle by which the assembly can be guided in reception. It should not offend a mature and godly person, for certainly no godly Christian would expect the assembly to violate a principle of Scripture. In fact, it should give him confidence that he is coming into a fellowship where there is a concern for the Lord’s glory and the purity of the assembly.
Are Personal Testimonies Enough?
An important principle that needs to be understood in connection with this subject is that the assembly, functioning Scripturally, does not do anything in the mouth of one witness. Things to do with the assembly must be done according to the principle, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). Compare also John 8:17 and Deuteronomy 19:15. Accordingly, the assembly is not to receive persons on the basis of their own testimony. And especially so when all people tend to give a good report of themselves, as the Scripture says, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Prov. 16:2). And again, “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory” (John 7:18). This is why a person desiring to come into fellowship may be asked to wait, and especially when the assembly does not know anything about him. Once the local assembly has gotten to know a person who desires to be in fellowship, it can receive him on the basis of the testimony of others.
This is a principle that runs throughout Scripture. Even the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, submitted to this principle when He presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah. He said, “If I bear witness of Myself, my witness is not true [valid].” (John 5:31). He then proceeded to give four other witnesses who testified as to Whom He was: John the Baptist, His works, His Father, and the Scriptures. (John 5:32-39) While having plenty of witnesses of His Messiahship, the Lord warned the Jews that there was a day coming when they, as a nation, would receive a false messiah (Antichrist) without witnesses. He said, “Another shall come in his own name, and him ye shall receive” (John 5:43). Thus the Lord denounced the practice of receiving someone on their own testimony.
The children of Israel failed in this very thing, when they received the Gibeonites on their own testimony (Josh. 9). This is recorded in Scripture to warn us of the danger of such a practice.
Acts 9:26-29, gives us an example of the carefulness the early church had in receiving someone into its fellowship. When Saul of Tarsus got saved, he desired to come into fellowship with the saints at Jerusalem, but was refused. Even though everything he may have said to the brethren in Jerusalem of his personal life was true, still, he was not received on his own testimony. It was not until Barnabas took Saul and brought him to the brethren, and testified of Saul’s faith and character, so that there was the testimony of two men, that they received him. Thereafter, “he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28). If the early church did not receive Saul of Tarsus immediately, surely Christians today should not expect to be received immediately when they desire to be in fellowship at a local assembly.
The Test of a Person's Profession
Another important principle in receiving is that there is such a thing as putting a person's profession to the test. If a man says that he is a Christian, he is to prove it by departing from all known sin. Second Timothy 2:19 says: “Let everyone that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity.” See also Revelation 2:2 and 1 John 4:1. If he does not depart from iniquity, he is not true to his confession. This is especially important in a day of ruin and breakdown in the Christian testimony, where all kinds of evil doctrine and practice abound. An example of this is seen in a type in 1 Chronicles 12:16-18. David was the rejected king of Israel at that time. As ones from various tribes in Israel realized their wrong in rejecting him, they came and owned him as Israel's rightful king. When those from the tribe of Benjamin (King Saul’s tribe) came to him, he put their profession to the test. When their confession was deemed to be real, and they showed that they were truly on David’s side, it says, “Then David received them.”
If a person holds bad doctrine, it is clear that the assembly is not to receive him, for it will be in fellowship with the evil teaching. (Compare 2 John 9-11 and Rom. 16:17-18.) We do not speak of differences people may have on topics such as baptism, but things that touch the foundations of Christian truth. Scripture says, “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:5-7). This shows that the assembly is to receive persons into fellowship when they can glorify God “with one mind and one mouth.” If a person were received who held some evil teaching, how could the assembly do this? They would be speaking one thing, and the person would be speaking another thing. It would be confusion. Paul said to the Corinthians, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).
With ecclesiastical evil, patience and discernment are required in discerning it in a person. There is a difference between someone associated with clerical error out of ignorance and someone actively upholding and promoting it. A believer who may be ignorant of God's Scriptural order for Christian worship and ministry, may come from a man-made denomination which practices a clerical order of things, wanting to break bread at the Lord’s table. Even though he may be associated with ecclesiastical error, he is not at that point, in ecclesiastical evil. And if such a person is known to be godly in walk and sound in doctrine, there should be no hindrance to allowing him to break bread, even though he has not formally severed his association with that denomination. The whole question is, “When does ignorant ecclesiastical association become ecclesiastical evil?” We believe the simple answer is, “When the person's will is involved.” To ascertain this will require priestly discernment on the part of the assembly. In such cases the assembly needs to be much cast on the Lord to know His mind in the matter. Under normal conditions, the brethren should allow him to break bread, hoping and trusting that God has been working in his heart—and that he will, after being at the Lord’s supper, will leave that ground he formerly has been on and continue with those gathered to the Lord’s Name. This principle is seen in 2 Chronicles 30-31. Hezekiah allowed the people of Judah, and the some from the ten departed tribes, to partake of the Passover, and to worship the Lord at the divine centre in Jerusalem. After they did this, they went home and destroyed their idols and images. (We are not insinuating that man-made denominations are akin with idolatry. We are speaking of the principle only.) The interesting thing to note here is that Hezekiah had not told them to do it! It was a response from their hearts that came purely from their being in the Lord's presence in Jerusalem. However, if a person wants to continue to go to both places regularly, it should not be allowed. As J. .N. .Darby remarked, such a person is not being honest with either. He also said that as looseness and corruption in the Christian testimony rises; it will become increasingly more difficult to practice this principle. More discernment is needed as the days grow darker. In our day it is only acted on infrequently.
Another Old Testament type illustrates the care in receiving. When the city of Jerusalem, the divine centre on earth where the Lord had put His Name, was re-built in the days of Nehemiah, there was great danger from the enemies around them. Consequently, they did not open the gates to allow persons into the city until “the sun was hot [literally—midday]” (Neh. 7:1-3). They made sure there was no trace of darkness around before they received persons into the city. Until that time, they made those wanting to come into the city “stand by” or wait. As the darkness in Christendom grows in these last days, this kind of care must be exercised in receiving. See the same principle in 1 Chronicles 9:17-27 (“doorkeepers”).
All this usually seems quite strange to most Christians who know nothing other than the denominational methods of open fellowship. The emphasis in the churches is to get as many people in the group as possible. Great efforts are made to reach this end. To be careful who is brought into fellowship probably seems a little unusual, but nevertheless, it is what the Word of God teaches.
Too Exclusive!
Some object to these things, declaring that it is being exclusive. We would emphasize again that these principles are not something that we have devised, but principles that the Word of God teaches. Local Christian assemblies are to be exclusive to sin, and if they do not know what a person is connected with, they need to be careful. First Corinthians 11:28 is brought forward to support the idea that each person is individually responsible before the Lord to judge himself, and that it is not the responsibility of the assembly to “screen” people. The verse says, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” Those who have this idea are quick to tell us that the assembly is not to “examine” the person, but that the person is to “examine himself,” and then he is to partake of the supper.
Now if the verse meant that, then it would run in collision with the principles we have mentioned above—that the assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst, and therefore, careful who was in fellowship (1 Cor. 5:12). Since the Word of God does not contradict itself, this verse must be referring to something other than reception to the Lord’s table. A closer look at the context of the chapter wherein the verse lies, gives us to see that the verse is not referring to those who desire to come into fellowship at the Lord’s table, but to those who already are in fellowship there. It is simply saying that each one who is in the fellowship has a responsibility to judge himself before he partakes of the supper. If he does not do this, he “eats and drinks damnation [governmental judgment] to himself” (1 Cor. 11:29).
It is something like the command parents give to their children before they sit down to eat dinner. They say, “Be sure your hands are washed before you sit down.” This command applies to the children who are in that family who partake regularly of the meals in that household; it does not refer to the neighbours down the street. Those in the household who are going to partake of the dinner are to be clean when they come to the table. It is the same in the assembly. Those who are in fellowship at the Lord’s table are the ones who are exhorted to examine themselves before they partake of the supper.
The Responsibility of the Individual
While the local assembly has a responsibility in this matter, on the one hand, the person seeking to come into fellowship with a local assembly has a responsibility too. If he desires to walk uprightly before the Lord, he will want to be careful in this step. Notwithstanding, many Christians think that they can associate with whatever they want and not be affected by it, but the Bible teaches that we are affected by those with whom we associate, and a person seeking fellowship with an assembly of Christians he knows little or nothing about, should be careful. The principle of association with evil defiles, works both ways. The assembly must be careful as to who and what is in its fellowship, but the individual seeking to be in fellowship should be careful too. Scripture says, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). This was written to an individual in the house of God in regard to fellowship. The responsibility of every Christian is to keep himself pure because “evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).
In view of this, why would someone come to an assembly of Christians, of which he has no knowledge of what they hold or practice, and insist on breaking bread with them, when it means that he is in association with all that goes on there? How does he know that he hasn’t stepped into a company of people that hold blasphemous doctrines or carry on with horrendous practices? Our only conclusion is that such a person has never considered these things, or that he simply does not believe them to be true.
This care that every individual believer ought to have is seen in a type in the Old Testament regarding Israel’s worship. The Lord said, “Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest, but in the place the Lord shall choose” (Deut. 12:13-14). This principle will guide a Christian who is looking for the place of the Lord’s appointment today. The children of Israel were not to offer their sacrifices and worship just anywhere—and Christians shouldn’t either. A Christian shouldn’t just go any place to offer up his worship to the Lord. He is to do it only in the place where God would have him to be. In view of the evil and departure from the Word of God in the Christian testimony today, and the danger of being led into error, a person shouldn’t be in a hurry to offer his sacrifice of praise in fellowship with an assembly of Christians that he knows nothing about. He should find out a little about that company of Christians first. He needs to ask, “What do these Christians hold as to doctrine and practice?” If a person has found the place that he believes the Lord is leading him to, he shouldn’t be in a hurry to break bread with them. He needs to pray about it, and wait on the Lord until he is satisfied that he is not associating himself with something that is a dishonour to the Lord. May the Lord guide the reader in this important step.
Letters of Commendation
Another thing closely connected with receiving is the use of letters of commendation. This is a letter written from one assembly to another (signed by two or three), commending a certain person or persons to the fellowship of the saints in that locality to where they are traveling. Again, this is something that is not generally practiced in the churches in Christendom.
An example of this practice, among the early Christians, is seen in the case of Apollos in Acts 18:24-28. It says, “When he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace.” Apollos was an extremely gifted man, yet needed a letter of commendation from the brethren in order for him to be received by the assemblies in Achaia, who until then, knew nothing about him. This shows the care there was among the early Christians as to whom they were in fellowship with. See also Romans 16:1 and 2 Corinthians 3:1-3.