Church Government

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Christ left a small body of disciples under the direction of the apostles, with a charge to convert the world; but He gave nothing which can be called either a constitution or a code, and He explained the commandments as giving principles, not rules. About the development of a constitution we know little; but the Pastoral Epistles and 3 John, which must be placed early, whoever wrote them, show that the process began soon and continued rapidly, when it became clear that Christ’s return might be long delayed. The process and its rapidity probably differed somewhat in different centres. At first the camps scattered about the eastern half of the Mediterranean had each its own tentative regulations. When the camps became a network of fortifications, spreading westward and inward and communicating with one another, the regulations became more settled and uniform. Thus the Christian organization developed until it became an object of suspicion and dread to the Roman Government, which at last it vanquished. Then the Christian organization did for the Empire what the Roman organization with all its statesmanship and military discipline had failed to do: it gave it cohesion and unity.

The first line of distinction is between the apostles and the other believers; and this line is continued as a distinction between rulers of any kind and those who are ruled-the Seven, elders, deacons, etc., on the one side, and the laity on the other. The great commission was given by the risen Christ to the whole Church and not to any select body in it. Yet this primary fact does not quite justify the phrase, ‘the priesthood of the laity.’ What the NT gives us is the priesthood of the whole Church without distinction between clergy and laity ( 1 Peter 2:5;  1 Peter 2:9,  Revelation 1:6;  Revelation 5:10;  Revelation 20:6), and no individual can exercise it without the authority of the Church. All Christians are priests alike; but, inasmuch as it is by the Spirit that the whole Church is consecrated to the priesthood, so the special ministers need a special consecration by the Spirit. The NT speaks clearly of special functions which are confined to a select minority and are not shared by the rest. It was by the Spirit that the ‘charismatic’ ministries worked. This is manifestly true of the apostles and the Christian prophets. It might or might not be true of those whom St. Paul or his deputy ( Acts 14:23,  Titus 1:5) chose for their capacity for governing. These derived their authority from the Spirit ( Acts 20:28), but they did not necessarily possess the gift of prophecy or even of teaching. But officials chosen to do spiritual work in a spiritual community needed spiritual gifts of some hind; and what these men received in ordination was a spirit of power and love and discipline ( 2 Timothy 1:7) (see Westcott, Ephesians , 1906, p. 169; Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT , 1909, pp. 103, 317, 320).

We are accustomed to think of the first Christians as having no government, other than that of ‘Peter with the Eleven’ ( Acts 2:14). Harnack ( Const. and Law of the Church , p. 20f.) has pointed out that they had a number of authorities, to be loyal to all of which was sometimes perplexing. They had inherited from Judaism the ordinances of the Jewish Church. To administer these there was the Sanhedrin. There were the known commands of Christ, which included the authority of the whole community to forgive and to punish offenders. There were the occasional promptings of the Spirit ( Acts 6:3;  Acts 6:10;  Acts 8:29;  Acts 10:19;  Acts 11:12;  Acts 11:28;  Acts 16:7). There were also the brethren of the Lord, who had some kind of authority. Perplexity might arise as to reconciling Jewish ordinances with the commands of Christ, and there might be differences between the Twelve and the Lord’s brethren. We know that there was collision between the Divine commands and the decrees of the Sanhedrin, and that of course it was the latter that were disobeyed ( Acts 4:19;  Acts 5:29;  Acts 5:32). Nevertheless, none of these provided a constitution, and the common view that the germs of one are to be looked for in the Twelve is not far from the truth.

The Twelve left the selection of the Seven, which was a first step towards development, to the whole body of Christians, most of whom were Palestinian Jews. These showed their liberality by electing men, all of whom bear Greek names and were presumably, but not certainly, Greek-speaking Jews, who would be more acceptable to the murmuring Hellenists. One of the Seven was only a proselyte, and we have here a very early illustration of the expansive power of the Church. St. Luke’s silence about elders in this connexion is the more remarkable, because distribution of the means of life was one of their functions ( Acts 11:30). The common identification of the Seven with the deacons is questionable. Probably they were temporary officials, scattered by the persecution which was fatal to Stephen, and never re-established. See Deacon.

The apostles’ plan of leaving the choice of the Seven to the community was perhaps followed by St. Paul in his earlier work. In Romans he mentions no body of commissioned clergy. We cannot be sure from this that the Church in Rome was not yet organized: possibly there was no need to mention officials. In 1 and 2 Cor. there is no trace of a sacerdotal class; and it is possible that there and elsewhere the Apostle was trying the experiment of a Christian democracy without any hierarchy. Corinth had its charismatic ministry, and this seems to have sufficed for a time. The charismatic ministry came to an end very quickly there and elsewhere. There is little trace of it later than the Didache (a.d. 100-150). While it lasted, it supplied teachers, not rulers. The infant Gentile churches seem to have governed themselves under the direction of the Apostle who founded them. The Apostle does not address his letters to any official at Thessalonica, Corinth, or Rome. He leaves it to the congregation to punish and pardon offenders, to manage the collection of money, and to decide who shall take charge of the fund. These Gentile churches have gifted persons who take the lead in public worship, ‘apostles, prophets, and teachers’ ( 1 Corinthians 12:28,  Ephesians 4:11; cf.  Romans 12:6-8), but they form no part of the permanent organization of the local church. They do not govern, nor are they tied to one community; they may go from one local church to another. They are not classes of officials each with special duties; they are individual believers with special gifts, with which they edify congregations. They are ministers of the word, proclaiming and explaining the gospel, and their business is to convert and instruct rather than to rule. They are ‘spiritual’ men (πνευματικοί), endowed by the Spirit (πνεῦμα) with powers (χαρίσματα) which are not common to all Christians; and their authority depends not upon election or appointment by others, but upon these personal endowments, exercised with the consent of the congregation.

Yet it is scarcely credible that the infant Gentile churches remained very long without rulers of any kind. Congregations which consisted chiefly of Jewish Christians had ‘elders’ analogous to ‘elders’ among the Jews; and in the Gentile communities something similar would grow up, with or without the suggestion of the Apostle who founded the church. The converts who were senior, whether by standing or age, and persons of social position or secular experience, would naturally be looked upon as leaders; e.g. ‘the elder brethren,’ which is the true reading in  Acts 15:23. There are similar leaders at Ephesus. St. Luke calls them ‘the elders of the Church,’ but he does not report that St. Paul in his address to them does so ( Acts 20:17-35). Except in the Pastorals, St. Paul does not mention ‘elders.’ In the earliest of his letters ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12) he exhorts his Gentile converts ‘to esteem exceeding highly them that labour among you and guide (προϊσταμένους) you in the Lord and admonish you.’ F. J. A. Hort ( Christian Ecclesia , 1897, p. 126) points out that although προϊσταμένους cannot be the technical title of an office, standing as it does between labouring and admonishing, yet the persons meant seem to be office-bearers in the Church. The words which follow, ‘Admonish the disorderly, etc.,’ appear to be addressed to these guardians. But here again these guides, like the ‘apostles, prophets, and teachers,’ seem to owe their appointment to personal qualities. The difference is that they guide and admonish rather than teach. But no strict line would be drawn between leading and teaching. The same man would often have a gift for both, and would be specially influential in consequence. When official appointments began to be made, persons with this double qualification would be chosen, and they became ‘presbyters’ or ‘elders’ in the technical sense.

There seems to be a transition stage between the purely charismatic and the official ministry in  Acts 13:1-4, about a.d. 47. There is a fast and a solemn service conducted by prophets and teachers at Antioch. During the service, the Spirit (through one of the prophets) says: ‘Since you desire to know (δή), separate for me Barnabas and Saul,’ who were present. There is another fast and service, and then the two are separated by the laying on of the hands of the other prophets and teachers. This ordination was for mission work, but ordination for the work of ruling congregations was probably similar. In  1 Timothy 4:14 Timothy is reminded of the gift (χάρισμα) which was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. ‘By prophecy’ probably refers to utterances of prophets which marked him out for ordination ( 1 Timothy 1:18) as a helper of St. Paul; and the presbyters of the local church joined with St. Paul in ordaining him. Here for the first time ‘presbytery’ is used of a body of Christian elders. In  Luke 22:66 and  Acts 22:5 it is used of the Sanhedrin. ‘In none of these instances of the laying on of hands is there any trace of a belief in the magical virtue of the act. It is simply the familiar and expressive sign of benediction inherited by the Apostles from the Synagogue and adapted to the service of the Church’ (Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT , p. 384). The laying on of hands was used in blessing  ; and the person who blesses does not transmit any good gift which he possesses himself: he invokes what he has no power to bestow, but what he hopes that God will bestow. When this symbolical action was used by a minister in connexion with an appointment to the ministry, the idea of transmission naturally arose. But the action is a symbol, not an instrument of consecration. The gift which Timothy received at his ordination was just such as was required for ruling infant churches: it was ‘a spirit of power, and love, and discipline’ ( 2 Timothy 1:5;  2 Timothy 1:7). Cf. articleOrdination.

Permanent local officials were required in the first instance for the regulation of public worship. St. Paul gives the earliest directions respecting this, and what he lays down for the Corinthians is based on principles which can be applied everywhere. He gives no directions as to special ministers, but he recognizes them where they exist ( Philippians 1:1). He and Barnabas appointed elders in every church ( Acts 14:23). It is here that the influence of the synagogue is so marked. ‘Elders’ are borrowed from it. The ritual which Jewish and Christian elders regulate is similar-praise, reading of Scripture, exposition, and prayer. The discipline exercised by both is similar; they deal with much the same kind of offences, and the chief penalty in both cases is excommunication. When Christians were told not to take their disputes into Roman civil courts (1 Corinthians 6), that involved the growth of Christian civil law, which the permanent officials had to administer; and here the influence of Roman legislation came in to develop what was derived from Christ’s teaching and that of the OT.

The development of Church organization and the complete separation of the clergy from the laity were the work of the post-apostolic age. The remark that ‘no soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life’ ( 2 Timothy 2:4) contributed to this separation, for it was interpreted to mean that the clergy must abjure secular occupations. Already in apostolic times the clergy had three distinct rights: honour and obedience ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12); maintenance ( 1 Corinthians 9:4-14); and freedom from frivolous accusations ( 1 Timothy 5:19). Before the end of the 2nd cent. most of the elements of the later development were already found in the Church.

Certainty is not attainable, and there is nothing approaching to it in favour of the theory that Christ gave a scheme of Church government to the apostles, and that they delivered it to the Church. There is little evidence to support either of these propositions. The far more probable theory is that Church government was a gradual growth initiated and guided by the Spirit, to meet the growing needs of a rapidly increasing community. This theory is supported by a good deal of evidence, and it is in harmony with what we know of God’s methods in other departments of human life.

Literature.-See works mentioned under Apostle and Bishop; C. Gore, The Church and the Ministry , London, 1888; R. C. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood , do. 1897; J. Wordsworth, Serapion’s Prayer-Book , do. 1899, The Ministry of Grace , do. 1901; T. M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries , do. 1902; A. W. F. Blunt, Studies in Apostol. Christianity , do. 1909; A. Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church , Eng. translation, do. 1910; Robertson-Plummer, 1 Corinthians , Edinburgh, 1911, pp. xl-xlvi, 278-284; C. H. Turner, Studies in Early Church History , Oxford, 1912, Essays i. and ii.

Alfred Plummer.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Church Government . 1. The general development seems fairly clear, though its later stages fall beyond NT times. The Apostles were founders of churches, and therefore regulated and supervised the first arrangements; then were added sundry local and unlocal rulers; then the unlocal died out, and the local settled down into the three permanent classes of bishops, elders, and deacons. The chief disputed questions concern the origin of the local ministry, its relation to the other, and the time and manner in which it settled down under the government of (monarchical) bishops.

2. Twice over St. Paul gives something like a list of the chief persons of the Church. In   1 Corinthians 12:28 he counts up ‘first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powers; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.’ It will be noticed that all the words after the first two plainly describe functions, not offices. A few years later (  Ephesians 4:11 ) he tells us how the ascended Lord ‘himself gave some as apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the work of service’ ( diakonia ) they are all of them ‘deacons’ ( diakonoi ), whatever more they may be.

3. At the head of both lists is the Apostle . The Apostles were not limited to the Eleven, or to the number twelve, though twelve was always the ideal number (  1 Corinthians 15:5 ,   Revelation 21:14; perhaps   Acts 2:14;   Acts 6:2 ). Whether Matthias remained an Apostle or not, Paul and Barnabas were certainly Apostles ( e.g.   Acts 14:14 ), and so was James the Lord’s brother (  Galatians 1:19 ). The old disciples Andronicus and Junias (not Junia) were ‘notable’ Apostles (  Romans 16:7 ). On the other hand, Timothy seems excluded by the greetings of several Epistles ( e.g. 2 Co.), and Apollos by the evidence of Clement of Rome, who most likely knew the truth of the matter.

The Apostle’s first qualification was to have seen the risen Lord ( Acts 1:22 ,   1 Corinthians 9:5 ), for his first duty was to bear witness of the Resurrection. This qualification seems never to have been relaxed in NT times. A direct call was also needed, for (  1 Corinthians 12:28 ,   Galatians 1:1 ,   Ephesians 4:11 ) no human authority could choose an Apostle. The call of Barnabas and Saul was acknowledged (  Acts 13:8 ) by a commission from the church at Antioch; and if Matthias remained an Apostle, we must suppose that the direct call was represented by some later Divine recognition.

Therefore the Apostle was in no sense a local official. His work was not to serve tables, but to preach and to make disciples of all nations, so that he led a wandering life, settling down only in his old age, or in the sense of making, say, Ephesus or Corinth his centre for a while. The stories which divide the world among the Twelve are legends: the only division we know of was made ( Galatians 2:8 ) at the Conference, when it was resolved that the Three should go to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. With this preaching went the founding and general care of churches, though not their ordinary government. St. Paul interferes only in cases of gross error or corporate disorder. His point is not that the Galatians are mistaken, but that they are altogether falling away from Christ; not that the Corinthian is a bad offender, but that the church sees no great harm in the matter. He does not advise the Corinthians on further questions without plain hints (  1 Corinthians 6:5;   1 Corinthians 10:14;   1 Corinthians 11:14 ) that they ought to have settled most of them for themselves.

4. Next to the Apostle comes the shadowy figure of the Prophet . He too sustained the Church, and shared with him (  Ephesians 2:20;   Ephesians 3:5 ) the revelation of the mystery. He spoke ‘in the spirit’ words of warning, of comfort, or it might be of prediction. He too received his commission from God and not from men, and was no local officer of a church, even if he dwelt in the city. But he was not an eye-witness of the risen Lord, and ‘the care of all the churches’ did not rest on him. Women also might prophesy (  1 Corinthians 11:5 ), like Philip’s daughters (  Acts 21:9 ) at Cæsarea, or perhaps the mystic Jezebel (  Revelation 2:20 ) at Thyatira. Yet even in the Apostolic age prophecy (  1 Thessalonians 5:20 ) is beginning to fall into discredit, and false prophets are flourishing (1 John, 2 Peter, Jude). This may be the reason for the marked avoidance of the name ‘Apostle’ by and of St. John.

5. It will be seen that St. Paul’s lists leave no place for a local ministry of office, unless it comes in under ‘helps and governments’ on ‘pastors and teachers.’ Yet such a ministry must have existed almost from the first. We have (1) the appointment of the Seven at Jerusalem (  Acts 6:1-15 ); (2) elders at Jerusalem in the years 44, 50, 58 (  Acts 11:30;   Acts 15:8;   Acts 15:22;   Acts 21:18 ), appointed by Paul and Barnabas in every church about 48 (  Acts 14:23 ), mentioned   James 5:14; at Ephesus in 58 (  Acts 20:17 ), mentioned   1 Peter 5:1; (3) PhÅ“he a deaconess at Cenchreæ in 58 (  Romans 16:1 ), bishops and deacons at Philippi in 63 (  Philippians 1:1 ). Also in the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy at Ephesus about 66 is (  1 Timothy 3:1-16;   1 Timothy 4:1-16 ) in charge of four orders: (1) bishops (or elders) (  1 Timothy 5:1 ); (2) deacons; (3) deaconesses (  1 Timothy 3:11 ) (‘women’ [in Gr. without the article] cannot be wives of deacons); (4) widows. With Titus in Crete only bishops are mentioned (  Titus 1:5 ). To these we add (5) the prominent quasi -episcopal positions of James at Jerusalem in 44 (  Acts 12:17 ), in 50, and in 58; and (6) of Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and in Crete.

To these we must not add (1) the ‘young men’ ( neôteroi ) who carried out Ananias (  Acts 5:6 ). [The tacit contrast with presbyteroi is of age, not office, for it is neaniskoi who bury Sapphira]; (2) the indefinite proistamenoi of   1 Thessalonians 5:12 and   Romans 12:8 , and the equally indefinite hçgoumenoi of some unknown church shortly before 70 (  Hebrews 13:7;   Hebrews 13:17 ). [If these are officials, we can say no more than that there are several of them]; (3) the angels of the seven churches in Asia. [These cannot safely be taken literally.]

6. The questions before us may be conveniently grouped round the three later offices of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon. But bishop and deacon seem at first to have denoted functions of oversight and service rather than definite offices. The elder carries over a more official character from the synagogue; but in any case there is always a good deal of give and take among officials of small societies. If so, we shall not be surprised if we find neither definite institution of offices nor sharp distinction of duties.

(1) Deacons . The traditional view, that the choice of the Seven in   Acts 6:1-15 marks the institution of a permanent order of deacons, is open to serious doubt. The opinion of Cyprian and later writers is not worth much on a question of this kind, and even that of Irenæus is far from decisive. The vague word diakonia (used too in the context of the Apostles themselves) is balanced by the avoidance of the word ‘deacon’ in the Acts ( e.g.   Acts 21:8 Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven). Since, however, PhÅ“be was a deaconess at Cenchreæ in 58, there were probably deacons there and at Corinth, though St. Paul does not mention any; and at Philippi we have bishops and deacons in 63. In both cases, however, the doubt remains, how far the name has settled into a definite office. See art. Deacon.

(2) Elders . Elders at Jerusalem receive the offerings in 44 from Saul and Barnabas. They are joined with the Apostles at the Conference in 50, and with James in 58. As Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every city on their first missionary journey, and we find elders at Ephesus in 58, we may infer that the churches generally had elders, though there is no further certain mention of them till the Pastoral Epistles and 1Peter . Probably   James 5:12 is earlier, but there we cannot be sure that the word is official.

The difference of name between elders and bishops may point to some difference of origin or duties; but in NT (and in Clement of Rome) the terms are practically equivalent. Thus the elders of Ephesus are reminded ( Acts 20:28 ) that they are bishops. In the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy appoints ‘bishops and deacons’; Titus, ‘elders and deacons,’ though Timothy also (  1 Timothy 5:17 ) has elders under him. The qualifications of the elder, as described to Titus, are practically those of the bishop as given to Timothy, and it is added (  Titus 1:7 ) that the elders must be such ‘because the bishop must be blameless,’ etc. which is decisive that the bishop’s office was at least as wide as the elder’s. Moreover, in both cases the duties implied are ministerial, not what we call episcopal. If the elder’s duty is to rule (  1 Timothy 5:17 ), he does it subject to Timothy, much as a modern elder rules subject to his bishop.

(3) Bishops . See Bishop.

H. M. Gwatkin.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

guv´ẽrn - ment  :

I. Approach to the Subject

1. The General Sense

2. The Local Sense

II. Internal Order

1. Subjects of Admission

2. Definite Organizations

3. Ministers

(1) General

(2) Local

4. Ecclesiastical Functions

(1) Control of Membership

(2) Selection of Officers, etc.

(3) Observations of Ordinances

5. Independent (Autonomous) Organizations

III. External Authority

IV. Cooperative Relations

Literature

The object here sought is to discover what kind of church government is mirrored in the New Testament. To do this with perfect definiteness is, no doubt, quite impossible. Certain general features, however, may clearly be seen.

I. Approach to the Subject

The subject is best approached through the Greek word ekklēsia , translated "church." Passing by the history of this word, and its connection with the Hebrew words ‛ēdhāh and ḳāhāl (which the Septuagint sometimes renders by ἐκκλησία , ekklēsı́a ), we come at once to the New Testament usage. Two perfectly distinct senses are found, namely, a general and a local.

1. The General Sense

Christ is "head over all things to the church, which is his body ...." ( Ephesians 1:22 ); "the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" ( Hebrews 12:23 ). Here we have "church" in the broadest sense, including all the redeemed in earth and heaven, and in all ages (see also  Ephesians 1:22;  Ephesians 3:10;  Ephesians 5:22-27;  Colossians 1:24;  Hebrews 12:23 ).

2. The Local Sense

Here the Scripture passages are very numerous. In some cases, the word is used in the singular, and in others the plural; in some it is used with reference to a specified church, and in others without such specification. In all cases the sense is local.

In  Acts 11:26 , it is said that Paul and Barnabas were "gathered together with the church," where the church at Antioch is meant. In  Acts 14:23 , Paul and Barnabas are said to have "appointed elders in every church," that is, churches which they had planted. In Rev 2 and 3 the seven churches of Asia Minor are addressed. In  Acts 16:5 we are told that the churches "were strengthened in the faith." On the local sense see, further,   Acts 8:1;  Acts 15:4;  Acts 16:5;  Acts 20:17;  Romans 16:4; 1 Cor 12;  1 Corinthians 6:4;  1 Corinthians 11:16;  Galatians 1:2 ,  Galatians 1:22 , and many other places.

There are a few passages that do not seem exactly to fit into either of the above categories. Such, for example, are  Matthew 18:17 and   1 Corinthians 12:28 , where it seems best to understand a generic sense. Such, also, are passages like  Acts 9:31 , and  1 Corinthians 10:32 , where a collective sense best suits the cases.

Church government in the New Testament applies only to the local bodies.

II. Internal Order

With respect to the constitution and life of these New Testament churches, several points may be made out beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Subjects of Admission

They were composed of persons who professed faith in Christ, and who were believed to have been regenerated, and who had been baptized. See  Acts 2:41 ,  Acts 2:44 ,  Acts 2:47 (the Revised Version (British and American) "added to them");   Acts 8:12;  Romans 1:8;  Romans 6:4;  Romans 10:9 ,  Romans 10:10;  1 Corinthians 1:2;  Colossians 1:2 ,  Colossians 1:4;  1 Timothy 6:12 , and others, where they are called "saints," "sons of God," "faithful brethren," "sanctified in Christ Jesus."

2. Definite Organizations

They are definitely and permanently organized bodies, and not temporary and loose aggregations of individuals. It is quite impossible, for example, to regard the church at Antioch as a loose aggregation of people for a passing purpose. The letters of Paul to the churches at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, cannot be regarded as addressed to other than permanent and definitely organized bodies.

3. Ministers

They were served by two classes of ministers - one general, the other local.

(1) General

At the head of these is the "apostle" ( 1 Corinthians 12:28;  Ephesians 4:11 ). His official relation to the churches was general. He did not necessarily belong to the group of the original Eleven. Besides Matthias ( Acts 1:26 ), Paul and Barnabas ( 1 Corinthians 9:5 ,  1 Corinthians 9:6 ), James, the Lord's brother ( Galatians 1:19 ), Andronicus and Junias ( Romans 16:7 ) are reckoned as "apostles." The one invariable and necessary qualification of an apostle was that he should have seen the Lord after the Resurrection ( Acts 1:22;  1 Corinthians 9:1 ). Another qualification was to have wrought "the signs of an apostle" ( 2 Corinthians 12:12; compare  1 Corinthians 9:2 ). He was to bear witness to what he had seen and heard, to preach the gospel of the kingdom ( Acts 1:8;  1 Corinthians 1:17 ), to found churches and have a general care of them ( 2 Corinthians 11:28 ). From the nature of his chief qualification, his office was temporary.

Next comes the "prophet." His relation to the churches, also, was general. It was not necessary that he should have seen the Lord, but it appertained to his spiritual function that he should have revelations ( Ephesians 3:5 ). There is no indication that his office was in any sense administrative.

After the "prophet" come the "evangelist" and "teacher," the first, a traveling preacher, the second, one who had special aptitude for giving instruction.

After the "teacher" and "evangelist" follow a group of special gifts of "healing," "helps," "governments," "tongues." It may be that "helps" and "governments" are to be identified with "deacons" and "bishops," to be spoken of later. The other items in this part of Paul's list seem to refer to special charismata .

(2) Local

There were two clearly distinct offices of a local and permanent kind in the New Testament churches. Paul ( Philippians 1:1 ) addresses "all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." See Bishop; Deacon .

The most common designation of the first of these officers is "elder" (πρεσβύτερος , presbúteros ). In one passage ( Ephesians 4:11 ) he is called "pastor" (ποιμήν , poimḗn ). In  Acts 20:17-28 , it becomes clear that the office of elder, bishop, and pastor was one; for there the apostle charges the elders of the church at Ephesus to feed (pastor) the church in which the Holy Spirit has made them bishops (compare  Titus 1:5 ,  Titus 1:7;  1 Peter 5:1 ,  1 Peter 5:2 ).

The function of the elders was, in general, spiritual, but involved an oversight of all the affairs of the church ( 1 Timothy 3:2;  1 Timothy 5:17 ).

As to the second of the local church officers, it has to be said that little is given us in the New Testament. That the office of deacon originated with the appointment of the Seven in  Acts 6:1-15 is not certain. If we compare the qualifications there given by the apostles with those given by Paul in   1 Timothy 3:8-13 , it seems quite probable that the necessity which arose at Jerusalem, and which led to the appointment of the Seven was really the occasion for originating the office of deacon in the churches. The work assigned the Seven was secular, that is to say, the "service of tables." They were to relieve the apostles of that part of the work. A similar relation to the work of the elders seems to have been borne by that of the deacons.

Again, they exercised the highest ecclesiastical functions.

4. Ecclesiastical Functions

(1) Control of Membership

In  Matthew 18:17 , our Lord, by anticipation, lodges final action, in the sphere of church discipline, with the church. When the church has taken action, the matter is ended. There is no direction to take it to a higher court. In the church at Corinth, there was a man who was guilty of an infamous offense against purity. With regard to the case, Paul urged the most summary discipline ( 1 Corinthians 5:5 ). If the church should act upon the judgment which he communicated to them, they would act when "gathered together"; that is to say, action would be taken in conference of the church. In 2 Cor 2, a reference to the case shows that they had acted upon his advice, and that the action was taken by the majority ("the many," the more,  2 Corinthians 2:6 ). In 2 Cor 2 he counsels restoration of this excluded member now repentant. Exclusion and restoration of members were to be effected by a church. This, of course, carried with it the reception of members in the first instance.

(2) Selection of Officers, Etc

This was true in case of the Seven ( Acts 6:3-13; see other cases in  Acts 15:22;  1 Corinthians 16:3;  2 Corinthians 8:1;  Philippians 2:25 ).  Acts 14:23 and   Titus 1:5 seem, at first, to offset the passages just given. In one of these, Paul and Barnabas are said to have "appointed" ( χειροτονήσαντες , cheirotonḗsantes ) elders in the churches which they had planted. But scholars of first quality, though themselves adhering to Presbyterial or Episcopal forms of church government, maintain that Paul and Barnabas ordained the elders whom the churches selected - that they "appointed" them in the usual way, by the suffrages of the members of the churches concerned. The word rendered "appoint" in  Titus 1:5 ( καταστήσῃς , katastḗsēs ) is more easily understood as referring to ordination instead of selection.

(3) Observation of Ordinances

Paul gives direction ( 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 ) to the church at Corinth about the observance of the Lord's Supper. These directions are given, not to any officer or set of officers, but to the church. Ecclesiastically, of course, the two ordinances are on the same level; and, if one of them had been committed to the custody, so to say, of the churches, so must the other.

5. Independent (Autonomous) Organizations

The management of their business was in their own hands. Paul wrote the church at Corinth: "Let all things be done decently and in order" ( 1 Corinthians 14:40 ). In that comprehensive injunction, given to a church, is implied control of its affairs by the church.

III. External Authority

The investigation up to this point places us in position to see that there is in the New Testament no warrant for ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, by which there may be created an ascending series of rulers who shall govern the churches merged into one vast ecclesiastical organization called "the church." So, also, we are in position to see that there is no warrant for an ascending series of courts which may review any "case" that originates in a local church. We may see, on the contrary, that to each local church has been committed by Christ the management of its own affairs; and that He had endowed every such church with ecclesiastical competency to perform every function that any ecclesiastical body has a right to perform.

As the churches are not to be dominated by any external ecclesiastical authority, so they are not to be interfered with, in their church life, by civil government. Jesus taught that Christians should be good citizens ( Matthew 22:15-22 ); so did the apostles ( Romans 13:1-7;  1 Peter 2:13-16 ). Jesus also taught the spirituality of His Kingdom: "My kingdom is not of this world" ( John 18:36 ). It follows that only where the life of a church touched the civic life of the community has the civil authority any right to interfere.

IV. Cooperative Relations

While each local church, according to the New Testament, is independent of every other in the sense that no other has jurisdiction over it, yet coöperative relations were entered into by New Testament churches. Examples and indications of that may be found in  Romans 15:26 ,  Romans 15:27; 2 Cor 8;  2 Corinthians 9:1-15;  Galatians 2:10;  Romans 15:1;  3 John 1:8 . The principle of coöperation effective in those cases is susceptible of indefinite expansion. Churches may properly coöperate in matters of discipline, by seeking and giving counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In the great, paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the nations, they may coöperate in a multitude of ways. There is no sphere of general Christian activity in which the churches may not voluntarily and freely coöperate for the betterment of the world, the salvation of humanity.

For other standpoints see Bishop; Government; Ministry , etc.

Literature

Hort, The Christian Ecclesia  ; Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches  ; Whitley, Church , Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament  ; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Cents .; French, Synonyms of New Testament  ; Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere  ; Holzinger, ZAW  ; Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ , II; Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament  ; Thayer, New Testament Lexicon , and Cremer, Biblical Theol. Lexicon , under the word, " ekklēsia " and " sunagōgē "; Neumann, Rom. Staat und die all-gemeine Kirche  ; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire .; Lightfoot, "The Christian Ministry," in Commentary on Philippians  ; Harvey, The Church  ; Dagg, Church Order  ; Hovey, Religion and the State  ; Owen, Church Government  ; Ladd, Principles of Church Polity  ; Dexter, Congregationalism  ; Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity  ; Abbey, Ecclesiastical Constitutions  ; Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity  ; Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity  ; Bore, The Church and Its Ministry  ; Dollinger, The Church and The Churches  ; Stanley, Lectures on the Eastern Church  ; Dargan, Ecclesiology .