2.1A Kingdom

2.1: A Kingdom Have you ever been asked by a Christian brother or sister that you have met for the first time: “… who is your covering?” It is a spiritual way of asking you to name the church organisation to which you belong and perhaps to whom you pay your tithes to. It comes from a particular ideology that one needs to belong to some institution in order for one to be spiritually protected. Yet this ideology is in fact a façade, because in reality; belonging to an institution does not place us under an actual covering. Be honest, how many Christians are really accountable to anyone, even though they function within the church program? Many Christians only belong to some kind of church institute while it serves their need to be religiously entertained, or to be recognized for the socalled ministry, or has a great kids program. If that purpose is not accomplished in a particular church institution, they would simply move on to another institution that fits their blend of Christianity. How is this being accountable to anyone? Secondly did our Lord really meant to be under an organisation’s covering? Before we look into this issue of church covering and the role of the so-called leaders of the church, we would like to look at a situation that occurred in Old Testament times to help us understand something that is going on in church practice today. Paul writes concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, in: Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (KJV) The Old Testament serve as examples for us to illustrate what happens when people deviate from God’s plan and what happens when people follow God’s plan. So, even though Judaism was a state religion and Christianity is supposed to be a spiritual kingdom, there are instances when Christians can learn from the Old Testament. Let us carefully read the following passage in 1 Samuel to discern God’s will concerning how His people are to be led: 1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have

rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. (KJV) Right up to the time of Samuel, God always sent men to be judges over Israel to deal with issues as they arose. Because of this, everyone in Israel was aware it was God that was their King and their Ruler. The judges God sent were only instruments of God and servants of the people. They hardly ever acted as lords over the nation. Yet Israel in the time of Samuel wanted a king that could govern them as a nation. So let us now continue to read from: 1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. (KJV) What was God’s warning to Israel in desiring a man to be king over them? The king would require the people to serve his purpose in his kingdom. Secondly, he would demand the people’s best resources and then even tax them ten percent of their income. Is there not an eerie familiarity in this warning when we consider what so-called pastors require from the church today? Despite this

warning from God, what was Israel’s response? 1Sa 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 1Sa 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (KJV) Israel wanted to be like the other nations who had a king of flesh and blood in charge over them when they fought their enemies. In other words, they were willing to pay to have a man, rather than God, to look after them as a nation. So what has this got to do with church? To answer this we need to have a look at some historical church events again. When the apostle John, the last of the 1. twelve, died around 100 AD, the desire of the church grew more and more to be like the religions that were run by men whom they could see, rather than being content to be a kingdom under an invisible King and Saviour. In the 2. 3. beginning of the second century, elders such as Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian 4. and Tertullian, introduced the hierarchy structure in the church. The terminology of “clergy” and “laity” came about to separate the church into two groups: those who were in charge and those who were to follow. As time went on, the overseers of the church started to claim more and more authority over the church. Then something drastic happened, to the delight of those who hunger for control and power. Around 313 AD, Constantine supposedly became the first Christian Roman Emperor. Constantine wanted Christianity to become an official state religion, and so devised a way for Christianity to become institutionalized. But in order for Christianity to be institutionalized, it had to develop an 5. institutional infrastructure, such as a unified doctrine of beliefs. So, around 325 AD Constantine called the famous council of Nicea to try to establish doctrinal unity especially over the deity of Christ. By institutionalizing Christianity, Constantine could give state benefits in the form of official religious buildings and subsidies for the clergy, who would have some kind of priestly 5. function and authority, as was practiced by the heathen religions. Even though many Christians today hail this council meeting as the greatest doctrinal breakthrough, it inevitably became our greatest spiritual downfall. You see, after the counsel of Nicea, doctrine was not taught and understood anymore through the revelation of the Spirit but accomplished by brute force;

dictated by an institution. So here the church, that was supposed to be governed by another dimension in the Spirit, was now brought down to this world of manmade rule. From this point on, servants of the church were not called by the Spirit of God, but were appointed by an institution. Man took control over the church and became an institution. The saints who allowed it to happen became spiritually dull and carnal and wanted someone they could see to govern them more than Christ whom they could not see. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the New Testament were to serve a similar role to the Judges, Prophets and elders of the Old Testament. Their role was only to lead God’s people under the rulership of their God. Yet there came a time when those who were to serve the church took on themselves the role of kings and Levitical priests over the church. Those functioning as elders took the name “bishops” as a title, in order to be exalted as lords of the church. Today we might call them pastors but they have the same role and power over the church as was given them in the time of Constantine. Just think about what a so-called pastor requires in human resources to accomplish his so-called “God given vision” for the church. Is it not eerie how pastors, like Israel’s kings, claim ten percent of people’s income and human resources to sustain their man-made kingdoms that they call the church? Yet many Christians will rather pay to have a man govern the church than have an invisible Saviour be the Head of the church. Let us for a moment just return to Israel’s history to consider some other lessons written there for the church today. It was not too long after Israel appointed kings to rule over them instead of God Himself, that they encountered their spiritual downfall. Israel’s first king, King Saul, was ruled by pride and jealousy, which caused rebellion towards God. Israel’s second king, King David, even though the best king they ever had, caused the murder of one of his best servants in order to have his wife. The third king, King Solomon was so overtaken by the wisdom and lust of this world, that he fell prey to idolatry. By the fourth king, King Rehoboam, things really got bad. Through poor management decisions such as increased taxation, Israel was split into two kingdoms. The new king of the north, King Jeroboam, made two idols and with them two more places of worship other than Jerusalem. He did this so that the people in his kingdom would not go to the southern kingdom to worship God in Jerusalem and so doing keep control of his kingdom. This account can be read in one Kings chapter twelve.

Now guess what happened after Constantine institutionalised Christianity and appointed elders to be bishops over the places of worship for the church? By 6. the third council in 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus, and the fourth council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, the church got divided into three 7. denominations, namely: The Assyrian Church of the East; the Oriental Orthodoxy; and of course the Roman Catholic Church. The power struggle led to the creation of more places of worship and so idol worship entered the church gradually over the years. Even with the rise of the Protestant church in the 16th century the “institution of man’s control” continued to prevail and so more and more denominations came about with more and more places of worship.

1. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-the-Apostle, 16 May 2021; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle, 16 May 2021. 2. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, trans. not given., 5.4.0. (ANF 1:0 ) e-Sword 13.0.0 3. Cyprian, Epistle 62-66, trans. Rev. Ernest Wallis, Ph.D., 65.1.0. (ANF 5:0 ) e-Sword 13.0.0 4. Tertullian, On Monogamy, trans. Rev. S. Thelwal., 6.12.1. (ANF 4:0 ) e-Sword 13.0.0 5. Jourels I., Constantine and Christianity: The Formation of Church/State Relations in the Roman Empire. (Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, 2015), 25. 6. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5.55.7 (5.5) e-Sword 13.0.0 7. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5.54.13 (5.5) e-Sword 13.0.0

2.2Head of the Church

Let us ask the questions that we guess you are thinking about: If there is supposed to be no institution, who will run the church? Surely we need some kind of leader? How can a church function without a leader of some sort? Israel had the same philosophy when they desired a man to be king over them as opposed to having God over them as king. Look what Paul writes in: Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (KJV) Who is the Head of the church? Christ Himself of course. Why do we even want mere men to be the head of the church if Christ is in our midst? Some would say, well they do have Christ as their “head” but one still need leaders to be in charge. Does the Bible really teach that leaders need to be in charge over the church? In the business world there is a huge difference between a leader and a manager. To give a breath summary, a manager needs to be in control of all aspects of the organisation, where a leader only needs to inspire people into actions towards a direction. In the same way a church leader’s task is only to inspire the church in the direction of Christ, but is not called to manage and control the church. Peter writes in: 1Pe 5:1 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: 1Pe 5:2 Feed 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; 1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (KJV) Elders are to serve by example and lead the flock to the actual Shepherd, Jesus Christ. Elders don’t lord over the flock. Lording over the church means to run, control or have positional authority over the church as a manager would. Peter teaches us that Christ is Lord over the church and so only Christ is to run and have authority over the church. Peter’s teaching is based on what Jesus taught in:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (KJV) Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. (KJV) In God’s kingdom those who want to lead is supposed to be the church’s servant. A servant is actually a slave which is the complete opposite of someone who would run or control the church. The next thing Jesus speaks of is a benefactor. A benefactor is one who benefits from those who he or she is in charge over, whether he/she is benefiting financially or reaching his or her own career goals. None of these things are appropriate for those who want to serve the church. Another aspect of lording or exercising positional authority over others is when one makes decisions on behalf of others or takes charge over others. Let me read to you an example of an elder who was lording and taking positional authority over the church in: 3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 3Jn 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 3Jn 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. (KJV)

What evil did John talk about that Diotrephes did? Diotrephes took preeminence in the church. He decided whom he would welcome and whom he would not welcome in the church. Does your pastor exercise pre-eminence in the church, for instance deciding who is and who is not allowed to minister in the church, or who is and is not welcome in the church? Some of you might object to this line of questioning, and respond that the apostles exercised authority. It is true that they exercised authority, but the question is: What kind of authority did they actually exercise? Paul writes in: 1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. 1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (KJV) Later Paul writes the following in: 2Co 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (KJV) Is Paul’s authority exercised from a position he received from a man-made institution? No, the authority he received was from Christ and it is seen by the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit. Authority that is demonstrated by the power of the Holy Spirit is quite different from institutional authority. We see an example of this in: Act 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, Act 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Act 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. Act 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and

buried him. Act 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. Act 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Act 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Act 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (KJV) In this example do we see Peter using institutional authority? For instance, did Peter slay Ananias and his wife with his own hands? No, he just spoke the word that the Holy Spirit gave him to speak. It was God who judged Ananias and his wife. Did Peter receive this kind of authority because he had some theological degree or was appointed by some denominational institution? Of course not, Christ appointed him and this was confirmed by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. We read further in: Act 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. (KJV) With this kind of authority men just don’t dare appoint themselves, they wait upon the Lord to appoint them. So what is the difference between institutional authority and authority that is from the Lord? Paul writes in: 1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (KJV) And then in: 2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. Institutional authority in many cases is based on human organisation and wisdom, whereas authority from God is through the demonstration of the Spirit of God. When we talk about the power of God, we are not referring to the

foolish behaviour that is linked to the New-Age spiritual performances that are occurring in many so-called churches. Authority that is from God is neither demonstrated as a performance on a stage nor in words of men’s wisdom but in the acts of God confirming His instruction. Let me illustrate this with the following fictional analogy: A king sends out a messenger – one of his SERVANTS – to go to one of his Generals that are on the battlefield with an instruction. The instruction had to do with strengthening the left flank that is in a vulnerable area of the battle. In this scenario the General has positional authority, and the messenger or servant has command authority. In other words the servant does not have positional authority over the General. If the servant even tried to claim to have a position over the General, he would be in danger of being executed for his arrogance. Yet the General will heed to the servants commands from the king, because it comes from the king and not because of some kind of position that the messenger has. The apostles as well as all other ministers given to the church, have command authority like the SERVANT and not positional authority like the General. Take the time to meditate on the differences before dealing with the next section.

2.3Biblical Authority

There are some Scriptures that are often used by the institutional church to justify institutional authority. One of the most often used is found in: Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.(KJV) Surely when you read words like ‘rule over you’ you should sense that this is in contradiction with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew twenty versus twenty five to twenty eight and Luke twenty two verse twenty five, that we are to serve and not to rule over each other. Obviously there is no contradiction in Scripture, so it can only be an incorrect translation of Scriptures. So let us have a look at the original text. The Greek word for a ruler to show governmental or institutional authority, such 1. as used in Romans thirteen, is the Greek word “arxontes”. On the other hand the author of Hebrews does not use this Greek word to depict institutional authority but uses the Greek word “hygoumenois” which, according to the 2. Greek-Lexicon, means to ‘guide’. It carries the idea of influencing others to follow a recommended course of action, for instance, in the way a guide helps tourists through unfamiliar territory of the country. A tour guide does not rule over the tourists but guides them with good instructions. The Greek word for “obey” in Hebrews thirteen verse seventeen is: 3. “peithesthe”, and literally means “to submit to reason”. This is the same word used in Acts twenty seven verse twenty one, when Paul told the captain of the ship that they ought to have taken heed of his warnings not to sail to Crete. It is obvious that Paul had no positional authority over the prison guards and the captain as he was their prisoner. The word peithesthe, in other words, gives the idea that we are to submit to the persuasive reasoning of the one who gives instructions and has nothing to do with positional authority. So we are to take heed of the instructions of those who are looking after our spiritual well-being, like we would with a tour-guide in dangerous and unfamiliar terrain and not because he has a position over us. The next word in this passage which needs clarification is the word “submissive”, which is translated from the Greek word “hupeikete”, which literally means “to 4. yield”. Think about it; should we yield to a man-made institutional authority or rather yield to the instructions a fellow servant gives from the Lord?

Common sense dictates to us that we do not yield to a man but to God. In other words we yield to the instructions of a servant only if the instructions are from the Lord and not because the person is appointed by some man-made institution. Think of the example given in the previous section where the servant gives the general instructions that comes from the king. The general yields to the instruction, not because of the position of the servant, but because the instructions are from the king. It is with this understanding of submission that Peter writes that we are not only to submit to elders, but in actual fact we all should submit to one another, in the Lord: 1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. (KJV) Paul writes the same in: Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (KJV) So, in actual fact, we all need to submit to one another as we all belong to the body of Christ. There is no reference of Scripture that we are to submit to an institution. Here is an important challenge to those who are seen as shepherds or pastors of the church. Are you able to submit to the brothers and sisters in the fellowship you are part of? Or do you think that as a pastor you are above the counsel of the church fellowship? Another passage that is often misquoted to show institutional authority is where Paul instructs Titus in the following: Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (KJV) With what kind of authority is Paul talking about to Titus? Authority that is from the word of God or from an institutional position Titus received? Well, “these things” that Titus was to speak, referred to what Paul had received from God, with the authority it carried coming from God our King. So the authority is from the word of God and not in some kind of institutional position conferred on Titus. Yet, then there are passages like: 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (KJV)

Here the word “rule” is the Greek word “proistemi” which literally means those 5. who stand before, which means “those who lead or attend to things”. So the passage actually means: “Let the elders that attend to things well, be counted worthy…” Man is power hungry and is more interested in building their own kingdoms in the form of their ministering career as opposed to building the kingdom of God. Listen to what the Lord spoke through the prophet Ezekiel to the shepherds and the sheep of Israel in: Eze 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. Eze 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. Eze 34:5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. Eze 34:6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Eze 34:7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; Eze 34:8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Eze 34:9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them. (KJV) What was wrong with the shepherds of Israel? They were more interested in

their own financial gain than in the well-being of those whom they were to shepherd. What was God’s warning to the shepherds of Israel? That He would take away the flock from them and that they would not be able to make their living from them anymore. Do you not think it is possible that God will deal with the church today in the same way? Well, as we draw closer to Christ’s return, Ezekiel’s prophecy is going to become a reality in the church as it was in Israel. The obsession by pastors in the church for positional authority has also led us to an unbiblical use of titles. Jesus instructed the following in: Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (KJV) Having titles is the opposite of being a servant. Even the title of “deacon” has a sense of irony. The word deacon comes from the Greek word “diakanos” and 6. literally means “servant” or “slave”. It was never meant to be used as an institutional office. Let us challenge you to do something quite eye-opening. Find all the passages that talk about so-called deacons and change the word deacon to servant or slave. Then read those passages again with those changes and you will be amazed how this change brings a clearer understanding of those passages. I will do one passage for you: 1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to

themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (KJV) What are these servants or slaves that the Bible is talking about? Servants are any group of people that are selected by the church to administer a certain task, such as distributing funds to the needs of the saints or to provide ministries to the church. These servants may minister as evangelists, teachers, prophets, and even apostles. All of them are deacons or correctly translated: servants. In some passages the word deacon is even translated “minister” such as: Col 4:7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord: (KJV) By using the phrase fellow servant, Paul is identifying with Tychicus who is the same as he is; a servant in the Lord. Here the words fellow servant is the Greek 7. word “sundoulos” which means a co-slave. Imagine being a slave in ministering to the church?

1.Johannes P. Louw, Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, N. B. P. (Cape, 1993), 478 2.Greek-English Lexicon, 465 3.Greek-English Lexicon, 467 4.Vine’ s New Testament “Submit” e-Sword 13.0.0 5.Greek-English Lexicon, 465 6. Vine’ s New Testament “Servant” e-Sword 13.0.0 7. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, e-Sword 13.0.0.

2.4Pastors

This leads us to the well-known title of “pastor”. Would you be surprised to know that the word pastor as a noun is only found ONCE in the New Testament, and that is in this often quoted passage in: Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (KJV) Nowhere else in the whole of the New Testament do we ever read about: pastors. You would think there would be a lot more said about pastors in the New Testament when we see how much value we place on them in our modern institutional church. There are two other passages though that do talk about who were to pastor or shepherd the church, where the word pastor or shepherd is used as a verb. The one we have read often before which is: 1Pe 5:1 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: 1. 1Pe 5:2 Feed [Pastor] 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; (KJV) Again, in Acts 20, we read that Paul addressed the elders and gave them some instructions before he departed from them for the last time. We are reading from: Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers[bishops], to feed [pastor] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJV) So who was responsible to shepherd the flock? Right through the New Testament we only read of elders who are to oversee and shepherd or pastor the church. If you recall from Part One of this series, in explaining tithing and offerings, we quoted from: 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (KJV) Once again; who is to receive a double honour for their labour?

1. 2. 3.

The Pastor The Head Elder The elders who labour well in preaching the gospel and teaching.

It refers to elders and not pastors. Why do you think that is? The answer is actually simple. Elders were synonymise to or functions as: pastors or shepherds and therefore were used interchangeably. For instance we read in: Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (KJV) In reading this passage, did you note whether Paul instructed Timothy to ordain pastors or elders in the church? The only thing that Paul found was lacking was to appoint elders and not pastors in every city. Once again we read in: Act 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (KJV) In your opinion, why do we read of elders that were appointed and never about pastors being appointed? We read about evangelists, prophets, teachers and apostles, in the rest of the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts, but we do not read about pastors, why is that? Every serious Bible scholar will tell you that there were no separate offices of elders, overseers and pastors, as is practiced in the institutional church today. The elders were the pastors and overseers of the church. The institutional church that is run by a pastor who has a board of elders underneath him and a board of deacons underneath them is completely foreign in Scripture. Even the word overseer, which is sometimes translated bishop, was only used to indicate a function of the elders. There were no “bishops” as a title of an office overseeing the church as is practiced in some institutional churches today. The 2. plain truth is that elders did both the pastoring and overseeing or bishoping of the church. Today’s over-emphasis on pastors has led to one man leading the

show, while building his own little kingdom. The church of Christ was never built or run by just one person or the selected few. When Paul was addressing divisions in the church, Paul wrote the following to the Corinthian church in: 1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. (KJV) According to Paul, is the church only ministered to by one type of minister? No, it is necessary that there are different types of servants with different abilities that God uses for the well-being of the whole church. Do you think it is a wellbalanced church with just one pastor being responsible for the entire ministry of the church? Do you think there might be something spiritually wrong with the church if so-called ministers from different fellowships cannot work together in serving Christ’s church in that city or town? We read about not just one but five gifts given to equip the church so its members can minister to one another. Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (KJV) Often these five gifts are seen as those who have the responsibility to do all the spiritual feeding of the church. Paul writes that these five gifts to the church are to equip the church, in order for the church to do ministry. So the work of ministry is the responsibility of the whole church where the apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastor and teach should equip the church so that the church can do the ministry. In other words these five gifting’s to the church is not there to feed the church but rather to teach the church how to fish or how to bake the bread in order for the church to feed each other. Let us read the same text, but this time we will read it to you with a more literal wording, as the original Ephesian church would have understood it in their native Greek tongue: “…And He gave some to be “commissioners of Christ”, and some to be “God’s spokesmen”, and some to be “messengers of the gospel”, and some to be 3. “shepherds” and “instructors”…”

The word apostle comes from the Greek word “apostolos” which literally means 4. a “sent one”, which refers to a delegate, commissioner or an ambassador. The first generation apostles were sent out by Christ himself to make disciples of the whole world. The second generation apostles have the same mission but are sent out by the body of Christ, which is the church. Disciples are made as churches are planted. When a church was planted, the apostles would move on to plant churches somewhere else. The term “prophet” comes from the Greek word “prophaytace” which literally 5. means one who speaks forth. It is someone who would speak the words of God or who spoke under the inspiration of God. Prophets would go from church to church and redirect the church to Christ if the church had strayed away from the truth. They would also give words of encouragement from the Lord to the churches that were suffering. The term evangelist comes from the Greek word “euangelistace” which literally 6. meant a messenger. Evangelists would preach the gospel of the Kingdom to people. They would assist the apostles to grow the churches numerically by proclaiming the gospel further afield, which helped the apostles to take more time to make disciples thereby establishing churches. They would also function as messengers between the churches where necessary. The “pastors”, or in Greek “poimen”, which we already discussed, literally means 7. shepherds. They would come only later on in the picture. Elders, as we have seen already, were the pastors or shepherds of the church. Elders were recognized and appointed only after some time when a city-church grew to a couple of fellowships. Who then appointed the elders/overseers/pastors over the church? 1. The denomination 2. The church institution 3. The Holy Spirit We’ll let us read in: Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJV) It is the Holy Spirit that makes some disciples to be elders of the church. When

the Holy Spirit has made some to be elders in order to shepherd and oversee the church, the church would recognize these men and the apostles would then be able to appoint or give them official recognition. The responsibilities of the elders were to correct wrong teachings and to teach the church to discern error. The elders therefore also had to function as teachers in the church. Yet the gift of teaching was not necessarily exclusively owned by the pastors, as many in the church could have the gift of teaching. 8.

The word teacher is the Greek word, “didaskalos” which meant “instructor”. We will look at this at a later stage how this ministry of teaching actually functions practically in the church. The church that Christ builds has to have all of these gifts to function correctly. The church does not need all of them at the same time, but all of these gifts would be evident at times in a healthy church. No one person would have all of these gifting. Where there is only one pastor running the show it would eventually quench the gifts in the church and create a passive and unbalanced church with a very unhealthy spiritual diet.

1.Insertion is mine for clarity. 2.Wording is mine for clarity. 3.Translation is mine. 4.Vine’ s New Testament “Apostle” e-Sword 13.0.0 5.Vine’ s New Testament “Prophet” e-Sword 13.0.0 6.Vine’ s New Testament “Evangelists” e-Sword 13.0.0 7.Vine’ s New Testament “Pastor” e-Sword 13.0.0 8.Vine’ s New Testament “Teacher” e-Sword 13.0.0

2.5Run by Brethren

Can you imagine a church that is not run by any one person? Something else that goes beyond our imagination is the fact that most Bible scholars agree that most of the churches that we read about in the Bible functioned without elders for between three to seven years in their infancy. Why was it that the church of Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Crete, had no elders for such a long period of time? Why did Paul only after a couple of years have passed, only then would go back to every city or send Titus to every city to appoint elders? Here is a hint. Paul writes to Timothy concerning the requirements of an overseer in: 1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (KJV) Christians have to be Christians for a while, for them not to be a novice anymore, and to have had time to build up a good testimony. So it is obvious that the churches needed to function for a while so that those who were called to be elders would first be closely observed to see whether they were able to oversee the church. Paul writes following in: 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (KJV) 2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. (KJV) 1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a 1. deacon [servants] , being found blameless. (KJV) Who are to serve the church as elders? 1. They who have a Bible college degree and is a good public speaker. 2. They who have been approved by the Spirit, and tested by the brothers, especially when there are factions among the brothers. You see that if we are to follow the Bible to see who qualifies to be an elder then we would need a couple of years before we appoint elders in the church; instead of just appoint Bible College graduates. The question then that might come up in each person’s minds is who would run the church in the mean time? Would

you be surprised to learn that the church was never run by apostles and elders in the first place? Now I know this might be hard for you to accept and the reason is because the institutional church in general does not have the faith to be led by Christ Himself. It sounds too mystical. Furthermore, how is the church supposed to have faith that Christ is able to run the church without a human mediator if the church has never seen it happen before? Elders, apostles and prophets were to instruct and guide the church in the ways of the Lord, as with the judges, prophets and elders of the Old Testament. Their ultimate goal is to disciple the church to be able to hear the voice of the Lord for themselves. They are not to make decisions for or on behalf of the church in the first place. The church as a body has to discern the voice of the Lord and as a body make decisions. The church fellowship makes decisions as a whole under the leading of the Holy Spirit and not under the dictates of one person or of a few elect. The church which is a spiritual entity is not supposed to have human government. That which is built in the Spirit has to be governed by the Spirit. Human government over spiritual matters makes followers vulnerable to sectarian influences and leaders. Sectarian influences over the institutional church today are spreading like wild fire as the followers have no ability to discern. Instead they are being trained to hear a man on a stage as opposed to hearing the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are not talking about a democracy either. The church is not a democracy but an autocracy, because Jesus is the Lord and King of the church. So it is not about voting, but about the body of Christ sensing the Spirit’s leading into the will of our King and Saviour, Jesus the Christ. This is quite evident in Scripture, for instance, in Acts chapter six where the apostles knew that they needed help to distribute the food among those who are in need. Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (KJV) Here is an interesting point to be made. Have you notice that it was not the apostle who appointed the servants of the church? It was the whole church who were to seek out seven men among themselves, and the apostle only gave instructions as to what kind of men these ought to be. Here is a clear example of how the Holy Spirit led the church, in:

Act 13:2 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. Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (KJV) In Acts fifteen we read of a furious dispute between Paul and men who came from Judea. Who decided what needed to happen to resolve this dispute? Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. (KJV) Well, again it was the whole church, and not some church board that sent Paul and Barnabas and certain others to resolve the matter in Jerusalem. What did the church do next when they could not come to an agreement about the disputes over certain wrong teachings? They asked that some would go to Jerusalem where the dispute originated and sort it out there. We need to understand that in biblical times there was no head organization in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the origin of this particular dispute. So it had to be resolved in the Jerusalem ekklesia. When the dispute was resolved among the elders in Jerusalem, who decided which leading men in Jerusalem would go back with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to report back the consensus they had reached in the Spirit? Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: (KJV)

Again, it was not just the apostles and elders but the whole church that was involved in decision making. What was the reason given in Acts sixteen why Paul took Timothy with him to do the work of an apostle? Well we read in: Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. (KJV) Who gave a letter of recommendation for Apollos? We read the answer to this question in: Act 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: (KJV) In both cases we see that it was either by the witness of the brothers or their letters of recommendation by the brethren. It does not talk of an institution or some church board. Is this not interesting? When it comes to church discipline, according to Jesus in Matthew 18 versus 1517, who decides whether an unrepentant brother should be put out of church? Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (KJV) Pastors or elders are not even mentioned by Christ. The whole church is to be involved to help the person see reason, but if the person is still unrepentant it would be the whole church who would separate the unrepentant brother from the church fellowship. It was never just up to one person or a so-called church board to decide these things. Now, talking about church discipline; whom did Paul instruct in 1 Corinthians, chapter five to deliver the unrepentant brother to satan for the destruction of the flesh? Believe it or not, Paul addressed the whole fellowship without making mention of any leaders of any kind, as we see in: 1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (KJV)

The elders’ leadership was only needed when false doctrines were being taught or if some false brothers caused division. They were then called into the particular fellowship of the city church or town to instruct in proper doctrine and to help make judgments concerning those who were causing division or error. But if the church followed the leading of the Holy Spirit there was no need for any intervention of the elders. When the fellowships followed the leading of the Holy Spirit the elders who were present at the time would participate as anyone else would. If the church functions fine, visitors to the fellowship would not even know who the elders were. All they would see is a family of believers all subjected to their Shepherd, Lord and King: Jesus Christ. This leads us to the next subject matter and that is how would a church meeting function if elders/pastors were not to run the church, but only give leading guidance. For that matter how would a church function for the first couple of years where there are not even any elders or full time pastors appointed yet? In the following chapters we will deal with these questions.

1. Insertion taken from Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, e-Sword 13.0.0.

Chapter 3: Meeting in Homes