Priests, Gift, and Office
Nicolas Simon
Table of Contents
Priests, Gift, and Office
Introduction
Recently I heard one ask, what is so wrong with having a pastor lead a church? The question came from one who did not grow up in such a system. On another occasion I was told that a particular group was moving (in their words) from an ‘elder-model’ to a ‘pastor-model’. They were struggling to find enough elders interested in the care of the congregation. Both are indicative of a condition of things—a condition that began long ago, even before the Apostles departed this world.
Man’s failure in responsibility has everything to do with the present state of Christendom—and we must each own our part in it. Substituting, however, something of men, to shore up that which is perceived to be faltering, is never God’s solution. Samuel’s sons were wicked men and so Israel begged him to provide them a king: “Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). Samuel certainly had to bear much of the blame, but it wasn’t entirely his doing; Israel had rejected Jehovah from reigning over them (1 Sam. 8:7). Christ alone is head to His church (Eph. 1:22), and it is in the power of the Holy Spirit that the saints of God are to act (Eph. 4:3-5). Christ cannot be seen (except through the eye of faith), and the Spirit is quenched and grieved, or, worse yet, discounted altogether, and so people look for substitutes. With Israel, God ultimately purposed for them to have a king—but it had to be one of His choosing, whom He would anoint (Deut. 17:14-20). The church, on the other hand, has no other head than Christ. The order established by God in the early church has not been superseded. If we desire to be obedient to the Word of God, we cannot resort to the ingenuity of men. When we follow that which God has established, then we can expect His support and approval—and not otherwise.
Priests, bishops, elders, ministers, pastors, and deacons are all to be found in the New Testament, and yet, there is so much confusion as to the function of each. One might hear something along the lines of: Isn’t a pastor just another name for a minister—and don’t they function as priests? I recognize that the various denominations within Christendom treat these roles differently, and none would view them all as equivalent. Nevertheless, as to how this or that group may define these roles is of little consequence. Only one thing matters, and that is, what the Word of God has to say. To add to the general confusion, the King James translators were compelled by the guidelines they were given to retain the old ecclesiastical words used in prior translations. Consequently, words such as bishop and deacon have been firmly established in Christendom’s vocabulary. The scope of this booklet will be narrow; in it we will seek to examine these and related roles in the light of Scripture.
Priests
When God, by His sovereign grace, redeemed His people Israel from Egypt, He told them: “Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). But when the children of Israel submitted themselves to the confines of the law—“all that Jehovah hath spoken we will do” (Exod. 19:8)—things became far more restrictive. Mount Sinai became a fearful place, impossible to approach: “Thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death” (Exod. 19:12). Jehovah was a holy God who could not countenance evil. He dwelt in thick darkness and could not be approached by ordinary people—the laity. “The people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was” (Exod. 20:21; see also 1 Kings 8:12).
A priesthood, limited to the house of Aaron, was established under the law as Israel’s sole means of access to Jehovah God. “Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death” (Num. 3:10). The priests alone were permitted to enter the tabernacle. Furthermore, upon the deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10), access into the holy place (beyond the vail, which divided the tabernacle, where the Ark of the Covenant stood) was restricted to the high priest alone (Lev. 16:1-2). “Into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (Heb. 9:7).
The priest’s role, under the Mosaic law, is succinctly given in the book of Hebrews: “Every high priest taken from amongst men is established for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Heb. 5:1). An Israelite could not make an offering or a sacrifice to God without priestly intervention. They were entirely dependent on the priest: “When he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned ... and he shall bring them unto the priest” (Lev. 5:5-6, 8). When the priesthood failed, as recorded in the first two chapters of Samuel, we see the awful results.
With Christianity, however, everything changes. “Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (Matt. 27:50-51). Access into the holiest has now been made by the blood of Jesus through the rent veil (Heb. 19-20). God no longer dwells in thick darkness but has been revealed in His Son (John 14:9). As those washed in the blood of the Lamb, we have just what Israel was denied: “[Jesus Christ] who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in His blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:6 JND). This is an allusion to Exodus 19. Peter also writes: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). Christ Himself is our high priest as the book of Hebrews makes abundantly clear. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession” (Heb. 4:14). And in that Christ is now our high priest, and that after the order of Melchisedec (Heb. 7), the old Aaronic order has been set aside. “For there is a setting aside of the commandment going before for its weakness and unprofitableness, (for the law perfected nothing,) and the introduction of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God” (Heb. 7:18-19 JND).
Not only has the old priestly order been set aside, but so has all thought of an earthly sanctuary—a mere figure of what was purposed by God: “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). To create an earthly sanctuary, restricted for ceremonial use to a priestly order, is a return to the law and Judaism. It is just one of the many ways in which men have practically denied the efficacy of the blood and work of Christ.
As believers it is now our privilege to enter the holy of holies, and that not of an earthly sanctuary (where certain death would await the Israelite) but a heavenly one. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:19-21). This is the right and proper place for the Christian worshiper. And just as the priests of old did not come empty handed, so we, too, come with our offerings: “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name” (Heb. 13:15).
It is very important to state that Christ’s sacrifice needs no repeating. A priest today does not offer atoning sacrifices—Christ’s or otherwise. “By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every [Aaronic] priest stands daily ministering, and offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:10-12 JnD). The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper is most emphatically not a sacrifice—unbloody or otherwise. Nor does its administration require a priestly order distinct from the laity. It is a memorial of Christ’s death: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come” (1 Cor. 11:26). Christ and His death—that one offering which He offered—are most surely the central theme of Christian worship. For this reason, the disciples “Continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Furthermore, they established a pattern of remembering the Lord on the Lord’s Day: “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7; see also 1 Cor. 16:2)—though, it need not be limited to that day.
There is no mediator between man and God other than Christ Jesus. “For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5 JND). Christ needs no vicar. For man to interpose a mediator in the form of a priest, and furthermore, one ordained by man, is an egregious affront to the work of Christ. If He has prepared us for the priesthood, then we are prepared. Certainly, we can behave in a manner quite unworthy of the position—but that is quite another matter, although, a very serious thing (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Priesthood is not something which uniquely belongs to those who have received a special calling. The priesthood of the believer is not a gift. No gift is required for worship—doubtless, it takes a state of soul but that is not gift. All true believers are priests before God, and He expects us to act as such. We can hardly comprehend the blessed position into which we have been brought.
As with the Aaronic priesthood, there may be things which disqualify one from exercising their priesthood (Lev. 21-22). Although the present priesthood of believers is neither established nor bound by the law, these things were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). The principles established by God are unchanging. Defilement, in all its varied forms, is as damaging as it has ever been. The exhortation, “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16) remains as relevant today as in Israel’s day. It applied under law (Lev. 11:44), and it applies under grace. The motivation, however, is different. Then it was because: “For I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy” (Lev. 21:8). Though still no less true, the means of our sanctification is infinitely superior. “Forasmuch as ye know” Peter writes, “that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things ... but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). If the blood is to be brought into the sanctuary to make atonement, then the body must be taken outside of the camp (Lev. 16:27). The believer, likewise, has been set apart or “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Surely our responsibility to maintain holiness before God is greater than Israel’s.
Apostles
The ascended Christ poured out gifts upon His church. These gifts, however, should not be confounded with either the priesthood of the believer or office within the local assembly—a subject we will shortly consider. “But to each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ. Wherefore He says, Having ascended up on high, He has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men. ... And He has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds [pastors] and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:7-8, 11-12 JnD). In Ephesians we have persons, who were gifted by Christ, for the establishment and edification (building up) of the body of Christ—which is to say, the whole church. Elsewhere we find spiritual gifts whose exercise is more limited in scope (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12). My focus, for this present discussion, will be on those persons spoken of in Ephesians, whose function have been turned into officially ordained positions by men.
The word apostle (apostolos in the original Greek) means sent one; it comes from the Greek apo, from, and stello, I set. “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent [apostolos] greater than He that sent him” (John 13:16). The word is used to describe the twelve disciples who were chosen and sent by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The expression is used of both the Lord (sent of the Father) and those He sends: “As Thou hast sent [apesteilas] Me into the world, even so have I also sent [apesteila] them into the world” (John 17:18). With the fall of Judas, the eleven, taking their cue from the Word of God, filled Judas’ position: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office” (Psa. 109:8). The necessary qualifications for his replacement are given. “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). Lots were drawn to choose between two who fit this criterion—Justus and Matthias (Acts 1:23). “The lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). Although candidates were identified by the eleven, the choice remained solely with God (Prov. 16:33). We note that after the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we never again find lots employed; it was a device peculiar to Israel and that former administration (Lev. 16:8; Josh. 18:6; etc.).
We must carefully distinguish between the commission of the twelve when Jesus was here on earth, and the apostles given by an ascended Christ (Eph. 4:8, 11). The former commission was to Israel (Matt. 10:5), whereas the latter is for the church. The Twelve Apostles will judge the twelve tribes during the Millennial reign of Christ—their connection with Israel is distinctive. “Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28).
After Christ’s ascension there are others whom Scripture also styles apostles. James, the Lord’s brother, was numbered among the apostles: “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother” (Gal. 1:19). James was one of the Lord's half-brothers who did not believe during the Lord’s earthly lifetime. “Neither did His brethren believe on Him” (John 7:5). Nevertheless, after Christ’s death and resurrection, we see James closely associated with the early believers at Jerusalem and taking a leading role there (Acts 1:14; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Gal. 2:9). James had the qualification that he was a witness to the Lord’s resurrection: “After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:7). He is quite possibly the author of the Epistle of James.
Paul is unique among all the apostles. Although he never physically accompanied Jesus when He was on earth, Paul saw the ascended Christ in His resurrection glory on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:17). “Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8). Paul’s apostleship was not from men (as its source) nor through men (the means of appointment). He emphasizes the special character of his apostleship in his letter to the assemblies in Galatia: “Paul, apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from among the dead” (Gal. 1:1 JnD). Many challenged Paul’s apostleship (because of its uniqueness, and, I would suggest, especially because of its heavenly origin) and more than once he was compelled to defend it (1 Cor. 15:9-10; 2 Cor. 11:5; etc.).
There are times when Scripture uses apostle in a less formal sense; in these instances, it simply means a messenger: “I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger [apostolon]” (Phil. 2:25). “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes” (Acts 14:14). Words must be interpreted within their context. By way of example, the word eklesia, which is generally translated church, appears in Acts to describe a Greek court of law (Acts 19:39). God did not create a new vocabulary to express Himself, but rather, He used words familiar to His audience albeit in new contexts. It is very important that we allow God to explain the meaning of His words by considering their context within the Scriptures, rather than consult the interpretations of men.
The revelation given to the Apostle Paul completes the Word of God: “ ... given me towards you to complete the Word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been made manifest to His saints” (Col. 1:25-26 JND). The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). The Apostle Paul having a very special place in that foundation: “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon” (1 Cor. 3:10). Just as we do not look for a new foundation—“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11)—nor do we look for new apostles to lay it. The apostles accomplished their commission and the need for them has been removed.
When the apostles passed from this scene, no new apostles replaced them. The unique qualifications of an apostle were, as we have observed, that he had seen the Lord, and especially in resurrection, and that he was sent by Him. Not once do we find instruction for the establishment of new apostles by man. The selection of Matthias was unique, carried out in direct response to an Old Testament prophecy (Acts 1:20; Psa. 109:8), but still in accordance with what has just been stated. When the apostles penned their final letters, they reminded their readers to stay faithful to their teaching; never was there a suggestion that new apostles would follow them. “That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. 3:2). The practice of apostolic succession (as carried out by some) is without the authority of Christ and His Word. It is to misunderstand the apostle’s role, and it usurps the authority of Christ.
Prophets
Scripture associates the apostles with the prophets (Eph. 3:5). What of the prophets? Do we have prophets today? Before continuing, it is necessary to understand the function of a prophet. Prophets are featured throughout the Old Testament—much of it was written by prophets. With the failure of the priesthood (man’s approach to God) the prophet, by God’s sovereign appointment, became the means whereby He might address Himself unto His people. “Thou shalt be as My mouth” (Jer. 15:19). Samuel was the first in a long line of prophets that extended all the way to John the Baptist. “All the prophets from Samuel and those in succession after him, as many as have spoken, have announced also these days” (Acts 3:24 JND). The prophets of the Old Testament were, therefore, especially connected with failure in Israel. They spoke by the Spirit of God to the conscience of the people.
Although the Old Testament prophets foretold events, limiting prophecy to the foretelling of events is a serious mischaracterization of prophecy. God’s desire was to bring His people to repentance and turn their hearts to Himself. An example from Jeremiah (one of many) may be given: “Speak unto all the cities of Judah ... If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent Me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:2-3). Future events were sometimes given by way of encouragement, but more commonly, because the masses refused to listen—the future events were the consequence of their having rejected the word of the Lord. These future events looked forward to the coming reign of Christ and the judgments and glory connected with it. We should always keep in mind that “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10).
The prophets of the New Testament received revelations from God concerning the church (Eph. 3:5). Again, it was upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets that the church was established (Eph. 2:20). Since then, there have been no new revelations, and we don’t look for them—where people have sought them, it has always led them astray. In this sense, there are no longer prophets. As with the apostles, their time has ended. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit can still take the Word of God and use it to speak to the conscience of the people. In this sense, prophecy as a spiritual gift still exists and should be desired: “Follow after [love], and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy ... He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:1, 3).
Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers
Ephesians, chapter four, also speaks of evangelists, pastors and teachers. Only brief comments on the evangelist should be necessary. In the Greek, the ministry of the evangelist is evident in the word used: the euangelistes, bringer of good news, tells forth the euagelion, good news. Though our English words—evangelist and gospel—no longer appear connected, gospel is a faithful translation of euagelion. It is an Old English word meaning good news. Evangelists are given by God for the spreading of the good news—salvation through the death, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The evangelist continues to do this work in the present day. Neither the need nor the work has ceased.
Timothy was instructed to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). Here it is not necessarily a question of a spiritual gift, but rather, of being ready to share the good news of God’s salvation. Peter reminds us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). We can all do the work of an evangelist. This does not, however, diminish the fact that there are those, given by God, who have the gift of evangelism.
Pastors and teachers are connected. It is not and some pastors, and some teachers, but rather, “and some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). A pastor is a shepherd. I do not wish to lessen the significance of the role, nor do I wish to ignore that it is a gift from God, but we must not make it into an ordained position of elevation. A pastor shepherds the sheep of God; this he cannot do unless he is able to instruct the sheep. Likewise, the teacher is to instruct the sheep of God, but in this he will fail unless he can act with the spirit and heart of a shepherd. Teaching is generally understood, but shepherding, less so. A teacher without a shepherd’s heart will lose his students. I think we can all recall teachers from our school years whom we, even now, think of appreciatively. Why? Because it was evident that they cared for us. We weren’t just a classroom of students; we felt personally valued by the teacher. So that I’m not misunderstood, let me be clear: there are shepherds and there are teachers; nevertheless, a shepherd must at times teach, and a teacher must be prepared to shepherd.
In Ezekiel 34, the prophet speaks against the shepherds of Israel. In verses eleven through fifteen we have a good description of the Shepherd’s role—a role which has only ever been carried out in perfection by the Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd of the sheep. The shepherd searches out and seeks the sheep (v. 11); he tends to the flock and delivers them (v. 12); he gathers them out and brings them to their own land (v. 13); he feeds them in good pastures (v. 14); he causes them to lie down (v. 15). Peter was especially commissioned to shepherd the early church: “[Jesus] says to him, Shepherd My sheep” (John 21:16). It is fitting, therefore, that Peter should speak of shepherding in his first epistle. In the fifth chapter, Peter addresses himself to the elders and exhorts them: “Feed [shepherd] the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. and when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:2-4). The true shepherd will not need to be compelled to do his job; he will pursue it willingly and not for pay, and certainly not for his own glory. In a future day, the Lord will reward him for his labors. He is accountable to the Chief Shepherd and not to man.
Naturally speaking, it is easier to be a teacher than a shepherd. Telling others what to do comes all too naturally! James warns against this: “Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment” (James 3:1 JnD). We will be judged by what we teach. The shepherd’s heart knows how and when to administer the oil and wine; it can only be done under the guidance of the Spirit of God and by listening to the needs of the flock. If done in fleshly energy, or in hypocrisy, it will provoke a backlash. The teacher must carry out his work with integrity and in humility. “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation [conduct] his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth” (James 3:13-14). “Be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5). Corinth was full of instructors (and everyone, it seems, had their favorite), but it was not to their credit. “Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers” (1 Cor. 4:15). They had knowledge but were puffed up because of it: “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Cor. 8:1). This expression, puffed up, occurs six times in Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians—there was much pride in that assembly, and the jealousy and rivalries of which James warns was very evident. Paul exhorts “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).
On the other hand, I fear that teaching and knowledge have gained a bad reputation. This is not what God had in mind—indeed, teachers are a gift to the church from Christ. It is good to note that the word used by Paul in First Corinthians, instructor, does not mean teacher. The word refers to a servant whose job was to take children to school—child minders. It was a harsh (but necessary) reality check for those Corinthians; they weren’t teachers at all. True teachers are much needed, and knowledge is essential. “Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge” (2 Pet. 1:5). That knowledge is especially the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Timothy was to “Enjoin and teach these things. ... Till I come, give thyself to reading, to exhortation, to teaching.” (1 Tim. 4:11, 13 JnD). Moreover, Paul tells him: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The knowledge imparted by the Apostle Paul to Timothy was not to be lost; it was to be committed to faithful men who would then be able to teach others. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-5). Our doctrine (teaching) follows our feet, and our feet follow our doctrine. Some among the Corinthians had adopted the outlook: “let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32), and their doctrine very much reflected it—they denied a physical resurrection. It is essential, therefore, to be well-grounded in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. If not, we will be as “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14).
The Word of God and the Holy Spirit are our first source of instruction: “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). Some have erred in claiming that this is the only instruction we need. An appeal will be made to: “The anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him” (1 John 2:27). But here the Apostle John references our ability to discern truth and error by the Spirit. John is refuting Gnostic teaching, which, among its errors, denied the humanity of Christ. John writes: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:2-3). To deny that Jesus Christ came in a physical, human body was a lie. False teaching is not from the Holy Spirit and will strike a discordant note with the Spirit dwelling within us—even a babe in Christ will feel this. This is the significance of John’s statement, and not the discrediting of sound ministry.
We cannot set the Word of God against itself. To use John’s writings to reject or ignore the gifts Christ has given to His church is wrong. Teaching is a gift from God and a ministration of the Spirit: “For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. ... God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers” (1 Cor. 12:8, 28). This was written to the very Corinthians who were so proud of their knowledge, but, alas, it was largely human wisdom. Paul touches on this in the second chapter: “We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which have been freely given to us of God: which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means” (1 Cor. 2:12-13 JnD). The Corinthians needed instruction from sound teachers led by the Spirit of God, and not those with fleshly aspirations and full of man’s wisdom.
Neglecting the assembly meetings in favor of private readings or personal study is contrary to Scripture. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). “They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). In no way are private readings or personal study condemned; far from it. But to practice these at the expense of the local assembly meetings, is dangerous. Independence is a form of pride; it removes us from that sphere where our thoughts can be judged by others (1 Cor. 14:29).
Perhaps one will say that their local assembly has no gift—be that as it may, how does neglecting the assembly meetings help? Just as Timothy was to do the work of the evangelist, he was also told that “the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient” (2 Tim. 2:24). We may not possess the gift of teaching, but we can share those things we have enjoyed from the Word of God and from the ministry of those whom God has given us. Simply echoing ministry that we have read is of little profit. But if we take what we read—both from the Word of God and sound ministry—and meditate upon it, we will be able to share those thoughts which have, by the Spirit of God, been made good to our own hearts. This will be to the profit of all.
It is God who establishes pastors and teachers in the assembly, not man and not the schools of men. To do so is a bold presumption; one which usurps the role the Spirit of God and the authority of Christ. In the Word of God, we never find pastors or teachers appointed by men or an assembly. The laying on of hands is not to be confused with ordination. The laying on of hands is identification; it is the recognition of a gift or commission from God in another. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:2). Apart from the Apostle Paul in Timothy’s case (2 Tim. 1:6), the laying on of hands never conferred gift, rather, it confirmed it—acknowledged what God had already given. For Timothy’s part, he, in turn, was to be careful as to whom he laid hands upon. And why? Because “Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid” (1 Tim. 5:24-25). By laying hands on a person, Timothy would be identified with their work—whether for evil or good. Certainly, one who desires to do the work of the Lord should seek the right hand of fellowship of his brethren: “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). But again, this is not an official appointment to an office.
In Ephesus, Paul separated the disciples from the synagogue and reasoned with them daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). Paul may have hired Tyrannus’ school for his usage (as some assemblies rent buildings today); alternatively, Tyrannus may have been among the Ephesian believers. Either way, it doesn’t change the picture. To justify schools of theology based on Paul’s action is an unwarranted extrapolation. It is into the assembly that God places gift and it is there that the Spirit ministers (1 Cor. 12). The assembly should be our school. Furthermore, the gifts we have been discussing are given for the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Never do we find a pastor (or teacher) as the head of a local assembly. Nor do we find such public gifts restricted to the local assembly. They were given for the building up of the whole body (Eph. 4:12). The Lord’s ministers traveled, as we see in the book of Acts, from assembly to assembly exercising their gift as directed by the Spirit of God.
Bishops, Elders and Deacons
We must return to a verse quoted earlier for it is key to understanding the subject we are about to consider. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed [shepherd] the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Three words found in these verses have gained a special significance in Christendom: elder, or in the Greek, presbuteros; oversight or episkopeo; heritage or kleros. From these we now have (in their various forms) the English words, presbytery, episcopal, and clergy. The noun form of oversight is overseer; in Greek this is episkopos, from which we have the word bishop. The King James translators chose to use bishop instead of overseer in various verses: “A bishop [overseer] then must be blameless” (1 Tim. 3:2). Presbytery, episcopal, clergy, bishop, are therefore untranslated Greek words. In each instance, the underlying meaning—elders, oversight, heritage, overseer—has all but been lost.
From two of these words, elder and overseer, Christendom has constructed two forms of church government—Presbyterian, and Episcopalian. The church is governed in the one by a council of elders, and in the other, by a hierarchy of bishops—both are far removed from Peter’s simple exhortation, and neither, even in view of other scriptures, is supported by the Word of God.
As to clergy, curiously it derives from the Greek word for heritage. Peter exhorts those who exercise oversight not to act as one lording it over their heritage. And yet, historically at least, a clergyman was set over a congregation which they referred to as their flock. Scripture, on the other hand, calls it the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2a). Modern evangelicalism is little better; although the preferred title may be pastor, the role differs little from that of a clergyman. There is still a recognized order distinct from the laity.
There is another word that has entered the ecclesiastical vocabulary, deacon. “Likewise must the deacons be grave” (1 Tim. 3:10). Deacon, or, in the Greek, diakonos, appears numerous times in the New Testament in both noun and verb forms. Aside from First Timothy, the King James translators used minister or servant in every other instance of the word. A diakonos was a Greek servant in contrast to a slave or bondman. In the house of God, the role of a servant (i.e., deacon or minister) is quite simply, service. The seven chosen in Acts 6 served tables. The household of Stephanas was recognized by their service: “Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry [diakonia] of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). The office of a deacon has been elevated above its humble origins. Similarly, the word minister has taken on a distinction that belies its simple meaning, to serve.
Men love rank and title. Each word we’ve considered has been turned into a position of distinction—and in many systems, it comes complete with robes and honorifics. It is most striking, therefore, that Peter encourages the elders with this promise: “When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:4). They were not to look for glory in this earth; they were to serve with humility. But God, who saw their service, would reward them openly when the chief Shepherd appeared in His glory.
Titus was delegated by the Apostle Paul to remain in Crete to set things in order (Titus 1:5). The Cretians had a reputation for unruly behavior and there were many vain talkers and deceivers among them (Titus 1:10-12). Titus was commissioned to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). The word ordain is elsewhere translated make, appoint, or set. Moral qualifications are given—things which would preclude or recommend one from acting in the capacity of an elder. And what role would these elders have? “Ordain elders ... for a bishop [overseer] must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Titus 1:6-7). The elders appointed by Titus, at the delegation of the Apostle Paul, were to be overseers in the assembly. Paul’s instruction is entirely consistent with Peter’s exhortation; the elders were responsible for oversight. Elder refers to their maturity (spiritually and perhaps age) and overseer their role. To speak, therefore, of overseers (bishops) and elders as distinct and separate offices is a departure from the Word of God. An assembly would ordinarily have had multiple overseers as we see at Philippi: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops [overseers] and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). Because of their low spiritual condition, the Cretan assemblies were an exception; a condition that necessitated the Apostle’s direction to Titus—he was to ordain elders (plural) in every city.
In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, we also find qualifications commensurate with one desiring to exercise oversight in the assembly. The qualifications of those wishing to serve (i.e., to act as deacons) are likewise given. In both instances they are moral and spiritual—not degrees or certificates. If Timothy was directed to appoint elders, we never read of it; although, he may well have. Certainly, the apostles and their delegates did appoint elders (Acts 14:23). To suppose, however, that the enumeration of these qualities is a mandate for the church to appoint overseers and deacons is unwarranted. When the apostles passed from this scene, their unique authority passed with them—never do we read of it being transferred to others or to the assembly. It may be argued that the seven in Acts 6 were chosen by the assembly. Truly, seven men “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” (Acts 6:3) were selected, but it was the Apostles who laid their hands upon them and appointed them: “whom we may appoint over this business” (Acts 6:3). I do not wish to suggest that an assembly cannot choose individuals to perform a service—serving tables, for example, as with the seven—but to officially ordain elders or deacons is beyond the authority of the church.
As Paul traveled towards Jerusalem on the final leg of his third missionary journey—the last before his imprisonment and deportation to Rome—he called for the elders in Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. There he forewarned them as to what would come into the church of God: “Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of His own. For I know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29 JND). It is key to note that Paul says: “Wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers.” In the absence of the apostles, the Holy Spirit alone fits individuals for taking on the role of oversight within the assembly—without the pretension of Apostolic ordination.
It may be asked: if God did not intend for us to appoint overseers and deacons, why then did He give us their qualifications? The church has a responsibility in these matters, but not to ordain or appoint. It can no more appoint individuals to an office than it can confer spiritual gifts. God sets individuals in the church and equips them for His service as He sees fit (1 Cor. 12:18). The misbehavior, however, of one who desires to act as an overseer or servant (or even in the exercise of gift) may disqualify them from such a work. The assembly, in these instances, could not condone their work. The church has the authority to act in matters of discipline (Matt. 18:17-20). When she failed to do so, she was reminded of her responsibility—in the case of moral (1 Cor. 5), doctrinal (Rev. 2:14-15), and ecclesiastical evil (Titus 3:10; Jude 11). When it comes to service, it may not be a question of gross evil, but conduct morally and spiritually inconsistent with the office.
The instruction given to Timothy was also written for our individual exercise. In fact, a more literal rendering of Paul’s words may be given as: “The word is faithful: if anyone aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work” (1 Tim. 3:1 JnD). It is the Holy Spirit who lays the burden of oversight and service upon the heart—indeed, we would want it no other way. Whenever man in his own strength and zeal steps in, he will cause untold confusion and strife—it will invariably be accompanied with jealousy. The flesh can never accomplish the will of God. When a burden, however, is placed on an individual by God, then it is God’s work and ministry; one which that individual alone must fulfill. “If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:3-5).
Although there are no apostles to appoint, the need for oversight and ministry has not ceased. The Holy Spirit, if given His rightful place, continues to act within individuals and the assembly. When a burden is placed on an individual by the Holy Spirit, and they act in the power of the Spirit, humbly and for the Lord, peace and blessing will result.
Office versus Gift
Before leaving this subject, we must briefly consider office versus gift. Although office appears in the King James translation of first Timothy, there is no corresponding word in the Greek. Office does appear in the New Testament, but only in Romans: “We have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office” (Rom. 12:4). The word means practice and, in this context, has the sense of work, or function. That being said, when people speak of office the administrative roles of overseers and deacons (as found in First Timothy) are typically implied. An elder oversees and maintains order within the assembly; a deacon serves. In the qualifications given for these roles, no specific gift is mentioned. Office stands in contrast to gift. Not to say there aren’t gifts suited to these roles. The gifts of helps and of governments are mentioned elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:28). Furthermore, an overseer or deacon could possess a prominent public gift, such as teaching—this is not precluded. Stephen (one of the seven chosen in Acts six) was endowed with a notable gift that went beyond serving tables: “They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10). An overseer was, nevertheless, to be well grounded in the Word of God, regardless of whether he had the gift of teaching. “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). They were to be “Apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2)—in the original this is a single word meaning instructive. Without a good grasp of doctrine, the overseer cannot correct or instruct others.
The roles of an overseer and deacon never extended beyond the local assembly. Titus was instructed to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). We do not read of overseers set over the assemblies of multiple cities, nor a hierarchy of overseers. There was no archbishop of Crete with bishops beneath him. And yet, men quickly created such, with Titus, it would appear, posthumously declared the first bishop of Crete. A hierarchy of bishops quickly grew within the church, with Rome ultimately claiming primacy. Any deputed head of the church is a direct affront to the headship of Christ over His church. Vicar means exactly that—a deputy or second in command. None of the apostles, not Peter nor Paul, were deputies over the church; it is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. Christ needs no personal representative here on this earth; the Holy Spirit has taken His place (John 14:16-18). From the Pope (who is called the vicar of Christ) down to the parish priest, all, in one form or another, supplant the authority of Christ and quench the activity of the Holy Spirit. God in His wisdom chose not to place a man on earth over His church.
Leadership
In the New Testament we read of those who lead in the assembly—the King James Version prefers the word rule. Two words are used in the original Greek: the first could literally be translated to stand forth (proistemi), whereas the second means to lead, to guide (hegeomai). These words are used rather generally, and we have no portion dedicated to the qualifications of a leader (as we do, for example, with overseers and ministers). Likewise, we have no instruction regarding the formal establishment of leaders in the church—and certainly not with authority over an assembly. Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, says: “We beg you, brethren, to know those who labour among you, and take the lead [proistemi] among you in the Lord, and admonish you” (1 Thess. 5:12 JnD). To know in this instance is subjective—to perceive, to be aware of—an exhortation that would not have been necessary if leaders were officially installed.
In the Epistle to the Romans, leadership is presented as a gift to be exercised according to the measure of faith given by God—not as appointed by men. “Having different gifts, according to the grace which has been given to us, whether it be prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; ... or he that exhorts, in exhortation; he that gives, in simplicity; he that leads [proistemi], with diligence; he that shews mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom. 12:6, 8 JND). When the Holy Spirit is given His rightful place in the assembly, leaders will be able to exercise their gift.
Given the role of elders, in their capacity as overseers, it is reasonable to ask, are they not leaders in the assembly? Undoubtedly, elders were expected to take the lead in oversight. Paul, in writing to Timothy, says of an overseer: “If a man know not how to rule [proistemi] his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5). “Let the elders who take the lead [proistemi] among the saints well be esteemed worthy of double honour, specially those laboring in word and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17 JND). It is noteworthy that Paul doesn’t use lead twice in the first verse: lead his own house ... lead the church of God. Peter makes it clear that the elders were not to lord it (have dominion) over God's heritage, but rather, they were to be ensamples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:2). In his remarks to the elders at Ephesus, Paul says: “Wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers” (Acts 20:28 JND). Here the King James again uses a stronger expression, “over the which”, nevertheless, in or among is literal. Elders may have had a responsibility to lead in oversight, but in no way did this set them over the assembly, nor should we suppose that this precluded others from taking a lead in other aspects of assembly function.
When we hear the word leader, authority may be one of the first thoughts which comes to mind. There is an authority associated with leadership that can’t be dismissed: “Obey your leaders [hegeomai], and be submissive” (Heb. 13:17). Nevertheless, there are various kinds of leadership. Today one hears the expression servant-leader; this isn’t a new idea. Jesus said: “Let the greater among you be as the younger, and the leader [hegeomai] as he that serves” (Luke 22:26 JND). Rehoboam foolishly rejected the council of the old men who advised: “If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever” (1 Kings 12:7). I would suggest that both Paul and Peter encouraged an elder to be a servant-leader—one who led from within, acting as an example to the flock of God. We find an exhortation consistent with this in Hebrews: “Remember your leaders [hegeomai] who have spoken to you the Word of God; and considering the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7 JND). In this instance, however, I don’t think elders are necessarily being spoken of, but rather those who had faithfully taken the lead in speaking the Word of God, whose lives to the very end were an expression of their faith. These were men to be recognized and imitated. Elsewhere we read of those who took the lead in laboring among the saints of God (1 Thess. 5:12); this leadership probably extended beyond the local assembly. Others took the lead in shepherding the flock (Heb. 13:17). One type of leadership doesn’t necessarily preclude another. However, all must be done according to the grace given and measure of faith possessed.
One who leads, even a servant-leader, necessarily has a visible role. Barsabas and Silas were recognized for the part they played in the assembly at Jerusalem. “Then it seemed good to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men from among them with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called Barsabas and Silas, leading men [hegeomai] among the brethren” (Acts 15:22 JnD). Nevertheless, prominence is not the same as preeminence. Diotrephes sought the preeminence and was judged for it. “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth” (3 John 1:9-10). The disciples debated among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46). It is natural for the flesh to seek after its own distinction—but the flesh, as noted earlier, will never accomplish the will of God. It wasn’t long into the history of the church when men started to take increasingly dominant and authoritative positions within the church—which ultimately led to Pope Gregory VII, in 1074, claiming to be universal bishop.
Conclusion
We find both gift and office within the early church. The personal gifts of prophecy, evangelism, shepherding, and teaching were not local—they were given for the building up of the body. Elders and deacons, on the other hand, were for the orderly operation of the local assembly. Never do we find an individual—not an elder (i.e., bishop), minister (i.e., deacon), or pastor—set over an assembly or the assemblies. There may have been leaders within the assembly, but never over it. Priesthood is distinct from both gift and office and is the privilege of every believer. To establish a priestly caste, distinct from the laity, is to revert to Judaism and is a slight upon the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. To repeat what we began with: Christ is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit is its power—by the Spirit Christ directs the members of the body. Instead, man has substituted his own efforts for the Spirit’s ministration, and Christ’s headship has long been usurped.