A Spiritual House - Its Government

by J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Category: The House Of God | Sept 1974

In the patriarchal state of society every family lived apart and the jurisdiction of the head of the family extended not only over the immediate members of the family but also over the h9usehold servants. For example, God had confidence in Abraham that he would command his children and his household, at a time when he had three hundred and eighteen trained men, born in his house (Gen.

14:14; 18:19).

As family units merged into nations, the principle of rule and representation was maintained, and appeared vested in the elders. Thus there were elders among the Egyptians (Gen. 50:7). There were elders among the Hebrews (Exod. 3:16). To these Hebrew elders Moses gave the instructions he received from the Lord, and the elders in turn transmitted the word to the people (Exod. 12:21,28). They were representative men who accepted responsibility on behalf of others.

In due course the children of Israel left Egypt and "they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2). He was their God-appointed leader and rule was vested in him. He brought them to Sinai and mediated on their behalf at the making of the covenant. Thus Israel became "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (Exod. 19:6), and were forthwith given by God the opportunity to make Him a sanctuary that He might dwell among them (Exod. 19:6; 25:8).

It had early become evident that the burden of government was too great for Moses. His father-in-law, a wise man, could see that he would wear himself out completely giving judgement on the people's problems. So at his suggestion Moses chose "out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain", and these he appointed "heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" (Exod. 18:13-26). Thus the elderhood of the nation of Israel came into being, rulers of exemplary moral calibre who were prepared to be available to all the people for their help "at all seasons". It was, for example, the elders of the city who delivered up the wilful murderer to the avenger of blood (Deut. 19:12). It was the elders of the widespread territory of Gilead who approached Jephthah for their help (Judges 11:5,6). It was the elders of all Israel who gave counsel in the day of Benjamin's restoration (Judges 21:16).

Moses retained an overall care and the rulers brought him those problems which they found too difficult to resolve. Even in this restricted sphere of service Moses found the demands of the work excessive, so Numbers 11 tells of the appointment of seventy men, from the ranks of the existing elders, to assist him.

In the spiritual house of God in New Testament times, the care of the disciples was first vested in the apostles. This responsibility was not confined to the church in Jerusalem, as witness the matter of Samaria in Acts 8:14; of Saul in 9:30; of outreach in 9:32; 11:1; and 11:22; and of doctrine in 15:2. When we come to Acts 11:30, however, we find elders (without reference to apostles as such) acting together on behalf of the churches of God in Judaea. According to Acts 15:2 elders in the Jerusalem church were now joined in council with the apostles. So just as Moses, before he, passed from the scene left an elderhood in Israel to care and 10 rule, so did the apostles in Jerusalem ensure that the care of the early churches passed to an established elderhood.

In principle, the qualities of an elder are alike in each dispensation. The basic qualification lies in maturity of experience in the commended things rather than in years. Of the pre-Israel era, Job is an outstanding example of one who sat in the gate of his city. Testimony was borne of him, "Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands. Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast confirmed the feeble knees" (Job 4:3,4). Of himself he said, in retrospect, "I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the needy; and the cause of him that I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the unrighteous, and plucked the prey out of his teeth" (Job 29:15-17). Surely a pattern elder for all time.

In Israel's case the appointment was, as we have seen, for "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain" (Exod. 18:21). And "wise men, and understanding; and known" (Deut. 1:13). Again, the standard was high for men who would rule others.

In the case of the spiritual house, the qualifications are set out in 1 Tim. 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Again, the standard is high and in full keeping with what was looked for in earlier dispensations.

That Moses, under God, appointed the first elders in the nation of Israel is clear, but how subsequent appointments were made is nowhere referred to in Scripture. Similarly the first appointments in the church of God in Jerusalem were doubtless made by the apostles, and by Paul and Barnabas directly in the case of the churches in Galatia (Acts 14:23), and indirectly through Titus in the case of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). These were not formal ecclesiastical ordinations, "but the appointment, for the recognition of the churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by

the Holy Spirit, and had given evidence of this in their life and service" (Vine). Beyond that, there is no guidance given in the New Testament as to the appointment of elders. Nor do we require it, else it would have been given. Suffice it that the principle is laid down that recognition came from apostolic guidance; in no instance did a church appoint its own elders. And when the voice of the apostles was heard no more, we believe that elders acting corporately would act for God in this matter also. In an administrative area they would act together in the recognition of additional elders, pointing them out to the saints in the assembly immediately affected for their fellowship in the recognition.

In relation to the house of God in New Testament times the two Greek words translated 'elders', 'overseers' and 'bishops' describe the same men. Their pursuit of good works was to command the affectionate esteem of the saints (1 Thess. 5:12,13). Their life had to have spiritual issues which deeply merited the consideration of the flock, and their faith their imitation (Heb. 13:7). They spoke the Word of God to His people and watched on behalf of their souls (Heb. 13:7,17). They shepherded in their allotted portions with a willing heart, a ready mind and an exemplary manner of life; with no sense of overbearing, of compulsion or of what would be to their personal gain (1 Pet. 5:2,3). They ruled by a persuasion begotten of trust in the hearts of the saints (Heb. 13:17); righteously and in the fear of God, as envisaged in the choice last words of Israel's greatest shepherd (2 Sam. 23:3). They were guides to the flock, steering for them a straight course in spiritual things. Thus the assembly accepted their admonitions (1 Thess. 5:12) and submitted to their rule (Heb. 13:17).

Nevertheless they were human and individually could err. If they did so they were subject equally with the saints to the government of God in His house. But an accusation could only be received against them provided two or three witnesses gave corroborative evidence. Should sin be proved in an elder he was to be reproved by his fellowelders quite apart from any action which it might be competent for an assembly to take (1 Tim. 5:19,20). Again, elders might fail collectively as they did so lamentably in Corinth, where corrective action was called for by the Lord through His servant Paul (1 Cor. 5; 11:34). A vital principle was thus early established that in the event of failure by the elders of an assembly there must be authority elsewhere in God's house to put the matter right in the fear of the Lord. In this case also the authoritative voice of the apostles has ceased and we believe that in accordance with the development of practice in the New Testament, responsibility now rests with the elders of the larger area. Thus, elders in the local assembly care for the saints and the maintenance of divine rule in their allotted charge, but the brethren with whom they are linked in the wider area have a corporate responsibility for all the churches under their care.

All government is with a view to society dwelling securely together in discipline and order. In the spiritual house of God this is to be achieved by the observance of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety in all the churches. There is to be unity of teaching everywhere (1 Cor. 4:17). An appropriate standard of behaviour is expected of all the Lord's people as befitting those in the Church of the living God. So there is to be conformity in conduct everywhere (1 Cor. 11:16). In the very nature of things, therefore, elders of an assembly must meet continually for prayer and discussion. The Chief Shepherd is meticulous in all His ways and under-shepherds will come under condemnation if they are negligent in their allotted portions.

But there is more than the unity of the local testimony at stake. There is the unity of the whole. Hence the need for meetings of elders from the churches of God in all lands, so that by reason of waiting upon the Lord after the pattern of Acts 15, the people of God may be kept in unity. Many problems arise in this complex day for which there is no distinct, specific pronouncement in the Word which would be final for guidance to the people of God. In such cases the will of the Lord must be prayerfully sought so that no course will be decided upon which is at variance with ~he 'mind of the Lord as generally understood, or with principles of Scripture variously stated. The remnant of Israel who sealed the covenant after the great time of prayer in Nehemiah's day construed the unstated mind of the Lord in a matter affecting His service and made an appropriate ordinance applicable to all the returned people (Neh. 10:32). The guidance from the Jerusalem conference was welcomed in Antioch and became decrees to be kept by the churches everywhere; thus the churches were strengthened in the faith (Acts 15:31; 16:4).

We have surveyed briefly our understanding of how government was to be given effect to in the spiritual house of God in New Testament times. It was by men whom the Holy Spirit made overseers (Acts 20:28); the "governments" of 1 Cor. 12:28. The Spirit gave other gifts, for example, the evangelists, pastors and teachers of Eph. 4:11, by means of whom the churches were increased and built up. But by the elders the churches were ruled. They were fellows the one of the other, as witness Peter and the presbytery in the five Provinces (1 Pet. 5:1). There were chief men among them (Acts 15:22), men of repute (Gal. 2:2), pillars (Gal. 2:9), but these did not constitute groups with executive authority over fellow-elders, far less did any individual elder have complete supremacy over the others.

But the intervening centuries have witnessed many and strange departures from the original pattern, from that form of teaching to which the early disciples were delivered (Rom. 6:17). On the one hand we have the Quakers and the followers of J. N. Darby who reject any form of church government. On the other we have Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, the Congregational system, the Roman Catholic and other persuasions, each with its own approach to the regulation of its own affairs. Dean Stanley wrote, "No existing church can find any pattern or platform of its government in those early times" (Christian Institutions, p.188).

We wholeheartedly believe that not only is there no authority from the Founder of the Christian faith to depart from His own concept of church government, but that same concept is altogether adequate for rule in His house to the end of the present age, as envisaged in Matt. 28:18-20. The faith once for all delivered to the saints is clearly intended to apply throughout the entire dispensation. As such it was either workable or unworkable. In Israel's case the law proved unworkable. That was due to the weakness of the flesh. In our case the Holy Spirit has come to indwell believers so that they may be empowered to give effect to the faith; so that it will be workable. That it may be unacceptable to many is quite another matter, and those who find it so have a deep responsibility before the Lord.

May the Lord so maintain His remnant people in lowliness of mind and conformity to the Word that He will be able to bless and lead them on in unity to further growth and development. And should this review be of interest to exercised fellow-believers, editors will welcome the opportunity to give further help.

J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Sept 1974
The House Of God