"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY"Family Matters (5:1-2)INTRODUCTION 1. In his instructions to Timothy as a minister of the gospel, Paul counsels him on how to treat the members of the congregation - cf. 1Ti 5:1-2 2. The figures used in this passage presuppose that we... a. Are indeed a family b. Should act accordingly [In this lesson, I would like to expound upon that thought. First, as Christians and members of the body of Christ...] I. WE ARE INDEED THE FAMILY OF GOD A. THAT WE ARE THE FAMILY OF GOD... 1. Was alluded to earlier in this epistle - 1Ti 3:14-15 2. Was taught by Jesus during His ministry - Mt 12:46-50 B. WE BECAME MEMBERS OF THIS FAMILY... 1. By doing the will of the Father - Mt 12:50 2. By faith and baptism - Ga 3:26-27 3. By being "born again" of water and the Spirit - Jn 3:3-5 4. By being "adopted" (to use a different figure) - Ep 1:3-5 C. WHEN WE BECAME MEMBERS OF THIS FAMILY... 1. Some might have been cut off by our physical family - Mt 10: 34-39 2. Yet we gained a much larger family - Mk 10:28-30 3. Included in this family are: a. God as our Father in heaven b. Jesus as our "elder brother" - He 2:11-12 c. All Christians as our brothers and sisters [This is a wonderful blessing we can enjoy now in Christ, if fully utilized. Yet with blessings come responsibilities; this is especially true when it comes to the family of God...] II. WE SHOULD TREAT ONE ANOTHER AS FAMILY A. OUR TEXT DEMONSTRATES HOW... 1. From a young person's point of view, they should treat: a. Older men as fathers b. Older women as mothers c. Younger men as brothers d. Younger women as sisters 2. From an older person's point of view, they should treat: a. Older men as brothers b. Older women as sisters c. Younger men as sons d. Younger women as daughters B. PAUL PROVIDES EXAMPLES... 1. As a father to a son (Timothy) - 1Ti 1:2,18; 2Ti 1:2; 2:1; Ph 2:19-22 2. As one brother to another (Epaphroditus) - Php 2:25 3. As a son to a mother (the mother of Rufus) - Ro 16:13 4. In teaching on family duties - Ep 6:1-4 a. Like obedient children, we should show honor to our older brethren b. Like loving fathers, tender treatment should be shown to younger brethren C. ESPECIALLY WHERE CORRECTION IS NEEDED... 1. In our text, Paul instructs Timothy on how to exhort a. When instructive criticism was necessary b. When there is to be caution against "rebuke" (an otherwise natural inclination) 1) Lit., to strike upon, beat upon - Thayer 2) To chastise with words, to chide, upbraid, rebuke - ibid. 2. This can make quite a difference in handling differences a. We would be gentle with one another - cf. Ga 6:1 b. As David wanted for his son Absalom - cf. 2Sa 18:5 [Not only is being the family of God a blessing in the best of times, it can also help when things are not going well; it can smooth the rough times in our relationships! Finally, a few thoughts on how...] III. WE CAN DEVELOP A STRONG SENSE OF FAMILY A. LEARNING BY EXAMPLE... 1. Children of loving families are more likely to produce loving families 2. As children of God, we can learn "family values" from our Father and Elder Brother a. From God we learn what love is - 1Jn 4:9 b. From Jesus we learn how to love one another - 1Jn 3:16; Jn 13:34 3. Thus we are better prepared to love another a. When we meditate upon the love of God b. When we dwell in the love of the Father and the Son - Jn 14:21; 15:9-10 B. THROUGH SHARED EXPERIENCES... 1. For a relationship to exist requires shared experiences 2. It was shared experiences that bonded Paul and his brethren at Philippi - Php 1:3-8 3. Take advantage of opportunities to be with your brethren, and the sense of family will grow! C. THROUGH PURITY OF CONDUCT... 1. Nothing destroys a sense of family like sin a. Impure conduct caused Amnon to hate his sister Tamar - cf. 2Sa 13:15 b. Impure conduct caused Absalom to hate his brother Amnon - cf. 2Sa 13:22 2. In our text, Paul cautioned Timothy about his conduct toward younger sisters a. "younger as sisters, with all purity" - 1Ti 5:2 b. He "was to indulge in no word, or look, or action, which could by any possibility be construed as manifesting an improper state of feeling." - Barnes 3. Improper conduct between brothers and sisters in Christ: a. Has devastated many congregations b. Destroys any sense of family 4. Thus all would do well to heed a later admonition by Paul - cf. 2Ti 2:22 a. "Flee also youthful lusts" b. "Pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" CONCLUSION 1. One of the greatest blessings of being a Christian is being in the family of God... a. To have God as your Father, Jesus as your Elder Brother b. To have an unlimited supply of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters 2. But to fully experience this blessing, we must treat one another like family... a. In our love for one another b. In our correction of one another May we reap the fullest benefit of membership in the family of God, by heeding Paul's admonition to Timothy...!
8/27/18
"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY" Family Matters (5:1-2) by Mark Copeland
Is Baptism a Symbol? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1232
Is Baptism a Symbol?
by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
The design of water baptism in the New Testament is unquestionably to allow for the sinner’s sins to be removed by the blood of Jesus. This purpose is variously described as “to be saved” (Mark 16:16), “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27), to “enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), to “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), to place one “into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13) and “into Christ” (Romans 6:3). These are parallel expressions that pinpoint the same design.
In an effort to avoid the clear import of such verses, some theologians have concocted the notion that water baptism is a post-salvation action that follows the forgiveness of sins. Christendom, almost in its entirety, insists that remission of sin is imparted to the sinner at the very moment the sinner “believes” (i.e., accepts Jesus as personal Savior). This reception of Christ is an internal, mostly intellectual/mental decision in which the individual makes a genuine commitment to receive Jesus as Lord.
In his book How To Be Born Again, Billy Graham articulated the viewpoint espoused by the bulk of Christendom: “All you have to do to be born again is to repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” (1977, p. 156). He stated further: “Faith is trust, an act of commitment, in which I open the door of my heart to Him” (p. 160); “It means a single, individual relinquishment of mind and heart toward the one person, Jesus Christ” (p. 161); “Conversion occurs when we repent and place our faith in Christ” (p. 162). Near the close of his book, Graham summarized the prevailing view of when forgiveness occurs:
Make it happen now. …If you are willing to repent for your sins and to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you can do it now. At this moment you can either bow your head or get on your knees and say this little prayer which I have used with thousands of persons on every continent: O God, I acknowledge that I have sinned against You. I am sorry for my sins. I am willing to turn from my sins. I openly receive and acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Savior. I confess Him as Lord. From this moment on I want to live for Him and serve Him. In Jesus’ name. Amen. …If you are willing to make this decision and have received Jesus Christ as your own Lord and Savior, then you have become a child of God in whom Jesus Christ dwells. …You are born again (pp. 168-169, emp. in orig.).
Mr. Graham leaves no doubt as to his view of when forgiveness of sins occurs, and that it occurs before and without water baptism.
Another popular Christian writer, Max Lucado, expressed the same viewpoint in his book, He Did This Just for You:
Would you let him save you? This is the most important decision you will ever make. Why don’t you give your heart to him right now? Admit your need. Agree with his work. Accep t his gift. Go to God in prayer and tell him, I am a sinner in need of grace. I believe that Jesus died for me on the cross. I accept your offer of salvation. It’s a simple prayer with eternal results (2000, p. 50, italics and emp. in orig.).
Lucado then followed this statement with a “response page” that provided the reader with the opportunity to make the decision that he (Lucado) had just advocated. The page, titled “Your Response,” includes the statement, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. I want him to be the Lord of my life,” and is followed by two blank lines, one for the reader to sign his or her name, and the other to record the date (p. 51).
These two widely recognized figures are sufficient to establish the point: most within Christendom believe that salvation occurs prior to water baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. But if this is the case, what then is the purpose of baptism? Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” That is, since a person already has received the saving grace of God by which sins have been cleansed, baptism serves the purpose of providing an outward demonstration or public declaration that the person has already been saved. The claim is that baptism is a symbol—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith.
Perhaps the reader would be shocked to find that the Bible nowhere articulates this unbiblical—albeit provocative—concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it “sounds biblical,” even when it is not. When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic (versus actual) cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away before he was baptized in water.
The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar militates against the denominational interpretation that so often is placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:
anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”
An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the manner in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (kai)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away.
But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a symbol? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features.
ROMANS 6:3-18
In a context dealing with the power of the Gospel to counteract sin (5:20), Paul addressed the potential misconception that some may form in thinking that the continued indulgence in sin might be justified in order to allow grace to flourish (6:1). When the Romans became Christians, they died to sin (vs. 2). Thus, they should no more have continued a sinful lifestyle, than a physically deceased person could continue living physically. In arguing his point, Paul informed the Romans that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the term “likeness” (and later “form”) to pinpoint this symbolism:
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:3-8).
When the believing, penitent non-Christian allows him or herself to be lowered into the watery grave of baptism, a parallel to Christ’s redemptive work is taking place. Baptism is into Christ’s death because that is where He shed His blood on our behalf. The atoning activity of Christ was achieved in His death, burial, and resurrection. Consequently, the alien sinner taps into that redemptive power in the act of water immersion. The “newness of life” follows—not precedes—baptism (vs. 6). The “old man of sin,” the “body of sin,” is eliminated in the waters of baptism. Being immersed in water— “buried in baptism” (vs. 4)—is equivalent to “you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered” (vs. 17). Only then, i.e., in the act of emulating Jesus’ atonement in the waters of baptism, is one “set free from sin” (vs. 18). To summarize, notice that seven significant achievements occur at the point of water immersion: (1) baptized into Christ; (2) baptized into Christ’s death; (3) newness of life; (4) united in His death; (5) old man/body of sin crucified/done away; (6) no longer slaves of sin; and (7) freed from sin.
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
A second depiction of baptism as a symbol is seen in Paul’s identification of a link between baptism and the Old Testament practice of circumcision. God introduced the rite of circumcision into His covenant relationship with Abraham (Genesis 17:10ff.). This surgical procedure was strictly a physical feature of the Abrahamic covenant sustained by God with the physical descendants of Abraham, i.e., the Israelites. In this sense, it did not pertain ultimately to one’s spiritual standing with God (1 Corinthians 7:19). In contrasting and comparing Christianity with various unacceptable religions and philosophies, Paul used the physical rite of Jewish circumcision as a parallel to water baptism:
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses (Colossians 2:11-14).
One must be very careful to allow the text to express itself with regard to the intended symbolism, refraining from drawing unintended points of comparison. The point that Paul was making is the idea that as skin was cut off in the act of circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism—skin vs. sin!
Paul underscored this meaning by alluding to the fact that baptism in water involves a burial followed by a resurrection—being “raised” (vs. 12). Twelve verses later, he again referred to this rising from the waters of baptism: “If then you were raised with Christ…” (3:1, emp. added). The conclusion is unmistakable: being buried/lowered into the waters of baptism, and then being raised from those waters, is the point at which sin is removed from the sinner—in the same way that flesh was removed from the body in the act of circumcision. In fact, Paul presented precisely the same case to the Colossians that he presented to the Romans. Note carefully the points of comparison in the following chart:
Romans 6 | Colossians 2&3 |
(6:2) “we died” | (3:3) “you died” |
(6:8) “we died with Christ” | (2:20) “you died with Christ” |
(6:4) “buried with Him/baptism” | (2:12) “buried with Him/baptism” |
(6:4) “Christ raised from dead” | (2:12) “raised Him from dead” |
(6:4) “Walk in newness of life” | (3:5) “put to death your members” |
(6:2) “live any longer in it” | (3:7) “when you lived in them” |
(6:4) “Walk in newness of life” | (3:1) “Seek things above” |
Both passages teach that people are dead in sin and lost until they access the benefits of the death of Christ by being buried in water baptism. At that point, a person becomes dead to sin in the mind of God. Coming up out of the waters of baptism is a type of resurrection that signals a change in the way that person now lives life.
1 PETER 3:20-22
Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him (1 Peter 3:18-22).
Peter made a powerful point of comparison. The antediluvian people had the opportunity to hear God’s will for their lives. Noah preached to them (2 Peter 2:5), perhaps for over a century (Genesis 6:3). But the day came when God brought the Flood waters upon the Earth, drowning the entire human population with the exception of only eight individuals. Peter noted that those eight people were “saved by (i.e., dia—through) water,” i.e., through the medium of water. In other words, God used water as the dividing line between the lost and the saved. The water was the medium that separated the eight members of Noah’s family from the rest of humanity. He then compared those Flood waters with the water of baptism. The water of baptism is the dividing line that God has designated to distinguish between the lost person and the saved person.
But does that mean that H20 is the cleansing agent? Of course not. Such a conclusion would contradict other clear biblical testimony. Salvation is dependent upon and accomplished by means of the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross: His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Likewise, immersion must be preceded by faith, repentance, and confession of the deity of Christ. But Peter included this very point in his discussion. When one removes the parenthetical material from the verse, the interplay between baptism and Christ’s redemptive activity is clearly seen: “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” “Resurrection” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche in which the part is put in place of the whole. “Resurrection” includes the entire atoning event of Jesus—death, burial, and resurrection. Hence, Peter attributed one’s salvation to Christ’s work on the cross—but the application of this salvific achievement to the sinner occurs at the point of baptism.
CONCLUSION
The Bible is its own best interpreter. It teaches that baptism is, indeed, a symbol. But what does baptism symbolize? It symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the act of “cutting off ” in circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes past forgiveness that was achieved prior to being immersed? The honest exegete is forced to conclude that the Bible nowhere expounds such a notion. The symbolism associated with water baptism further verifies the essentiality of immersion as a mandatory prerequisite to forgiveness. We dare not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6), since it is by Jesus’ words that we will be judged (John 12:48).
REFERENCES
Graham, Billy (1977), How to be Born Again (Waco, TX: Word Books).
Lucado, Max (2000), He did This Just for You (Nashville, TN: Word).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Instrumental Music and the Principle of Authority by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1215
Instrumental Music and the Principle of Authority
by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
Perhaps no other doctrine is emphasized so frequently in scripture as the principle of authority. Yet, perhaps no other doctrine is so discounted, ignored, rejected, or misunderstood. But the Scriptures make clear that, from the beginning of human history, God has required people to structure their behavior based upon His will. We human beings have no right to formulate our own ideas concerning religious truth. We must have God’s approval for everything we do.
Who could successfully deny that current culture is characterized by disrespect for authority? The “do your own thing” mentality that has been so pervasive since the 1960s has resulted in subsequent generations viewing themselves as autonomous (self-governing) with no higher authority than oneself. Authority is seen to reside inherently within the individual. This circumstance is reminiscent of the dark ages of Jewish history (the period of the Judges) when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
COLOSSIANS 3:17: "IN THE NAME OF"
If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that all human beings are under obligation to submit to the authority of God and Christ. Paul articulated this extremely important principle in his letter to the Colossians: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:17). What did the apostle mean by that statement? What is the meaning of the expression “in the name of the Lord”?
Luke corroborated Paul’s statement by providing the answer. Shortly after the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth (Acts 2), the Jewish authorities were extremely upset that the apostles were spreading Christian concepts throughout Jerusalem. So, they hauled Peter and John into their assembly and demanded to know, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” (Acts 4:7). The word “power” (dunamei) bears a close correlation to and relationship with the concept of authority (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 108), and is closely aligned with exousia—the usual word for authority (cf. Luke 4:36; Revelation 17:12-13). W.E. Vine listed both terms under “power” (1966, p. 196). “Authority” (exousia) refers to power, rule, authority, or jurisdiction (cf. Betz, 1976, 2:608)—“the power of authority, the right to exercise power” and “the right to act” (Vine, pp. 152,89,196). It includes the ideas of “absolute power” and “warrant” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 277), as well as “the ‘claim,’ or ‘right,’ or ‘control,’ one has over anything” (Moulton and Milligan, 1982, p. 225). These religious leaders were demanding to know by what authority the apostles were acting. Who was giving them the right to teach what they were teaching? What authoritative source approved or sanctioned their particular actions? Peter’s answer was “by the name of Jesus Christ” (vs. 10). In other words, the apostles had not been advocating their own ideas. They were simply presenting what Jesus had previously authorized and commissioned them to present (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18; 28:18-20). He placed closure on the incident by concluding: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (vs. 12). Salvation may be achieved only by the authority, approval, sanction, and requirements of Christ. No one else on the planet has any right or authorization to extend salvation to anyone.
“In the name of ” frequently is used in Scripture as a parallel expression to “by what power/authority.” Hans Bietenhard noted that the formula “in the name of Jesus” means “according to his will and instruction” (1976, 2:654). In Acts 4:7, therefore, “[n]ame and ‘power’…are used parallel to one another” (2:654). Vine said “name” in Colossians 3:17 means “in recognition of the authority of ” (1966, p. 100; cf. Perschbacher, p. 294). Moulton and Milligan said that “name” refers to “the authority of the person” and cited Philippians 2:9 and Hebrews 1:4 as further examples (p. 451). Observe carefully: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth” (Philippians 2:9-10, emp. added; cf. Ephesians 1:21). This is precisely what Jesus claimed for Himself when He issued the “Great Commission” to the apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18, emp. added). Paul’s reference to the name of Jesus was a reference to the authority and jurisdiction of Christ. Jesus’ name being above every name means that His authority transcends all other authority. As Findlay explained: “ ‘The name of the Lord Jesus’ is the expression of his authority as ‘Lord’ ” (Spence and Exell, 1958, p. 155, emp. added). A.T. Robertson cited the use of onoma in Matthew 28:19 as another example where “name” “has the idea of ‘the authority of ’ ” (1934, p. 740).
After Moses presented God’s demands to Pharaoh, he returned to the Lord and complained that Pharaoh’s reaction was retaliatory: “For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has done evil to this people” (Exodus 5:23, emp. added). For Moses to speak in God’s name meant to speak only those things that God wanted said. After healing the lame man, Peter explained to the people: “And His name…has made this man strong” (Acts 3:16, emp. added). He meant that it was Christ’s authority and power that achieved the healing. Likewise, when Paul became annoyed at the condition of the demon possessed slave girl, he declared: “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her” (Acts 16:18, emp. added). He, too, meant that he had Christ’s backing and authorization to do such a thing.
So when Paul stated that everyone is obligated to speak and act “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17), he was indicating that all human conduct must be conformed to the directives of Jesus Christ. Everything a person says or does must have the prior approval and sanction of God. Writing in 1855 from Glasgow, New Testament scholar John Eadie well summarized the thrust of Colossians 3:17: “It…strictly means— by his authority, or generally, in recognition of it. To speak in His name, or to act in His name, is to speak and act not to His honour, but under His sanction and with the conviction of His approval” (1884, 4:249, emp. added).
OLD TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS
This biblical principle has enormous implications. No human being has the right to introduce into religious practice an activity for which the Scriptures provide no approval. We human beings are simply not free in God’s sight to fashion religion and morality according to our own desires. Cain learned that the hard way when he did not offer the precise sacrifice that God had designated (Genesis 4:5-7; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12). The lives of Nadab and Abihu were snuffed out by God because of what they viewed as a minor adjustment in their offering (Leviticus 10:1-2). They were the right boys, at the right time and place, with the right censers, and the right incense—but the wrong fire. This deviation from God’s precise specifications was “unauthorized” (NIV) fire “which He had not commanded them” (NKJV). The change failed to show God as holy and give Him the respect He deserves (Leviticus 10:3).
Saul was rejected by God when he presumed to offer a sacrifice he was not authorized to offer (1 Samuel 13:8-14). He was censured a second time for making slight adjustments in God’s instructions (1 Samuel 15:22-23). He lost His crown and the approval of God. Justifying his adjustments on the grounds that he was merely attempting to be “culturally relevant” would not have altered his status in God’s sight. Uzzah was struck dead simply because he touched the ark of the covenant—though his apparent motive was to protect the ark (2 Samuel 6:6-7). David admitted that they had deserved the Lord’s displeasure because they were not seeking God “after the due order” (1 Chronicles 15:13; cf. Numbers 4:15; 7:9; 10:21). In other words, God had given previous information concerning proper or authorized transportation of the ark, but these instructions were not followed. Their handling of the ark was not done “in the name of the Lord,” in that they did it their way instead of according to the divine prescription.
Notice that these cases involved people who were engaged in religious activities. These people were religious. They were not pagans, skeptics, or atheists. They were attempting to worship the one true God. They were believers! Yet their failure to comform precisely to divine instructions elicited the disapproval of God for the simple reason that their actions were not authorized.
NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS
The New Testament illustrates this principle repeatedly. Authority begins with God. He delegated authority to Jesus (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27). Only Jesus, therefore, has the authority to define and designate the parameters of human behavior in general, and religious practice in particular. Consequently, no human being on Earth has the right to do anything without the prior approval of Christ. John said that those who believe on Christ’s name (i.e., those who accept His authority) have the power or right to become children of God. In other words, faith is a necessary prerequisite that gives a person divine authority to become a child of God. All other human beings, i.e., unbelievers, lack divine sanction to become children of God.
A Roman centurion, an officer who commanded one hundred men, understood the principle of authority. He said to Jesus: “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it” (Matthew 8:9). This centurion recognized that individuals who are subject to the authority of a higher power must receive permission for everything they do. They must conform themselves precisely to the will of their superior.
Even the religious enemies of Jesus understood and acknowledged the principle of authority. One day when Jesus was teaching in the temple, the chief priests and elders confronted Him with this question: “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority” (Matthew 21:23). Commenting on the use of the term “authority” in this passage, Betz noted that the Pharisees used the term exousia to refer to “the power to act which given as of right to anyone by virtue of the position he holds” (1976, p. 601). They were asking, in essence, “Who was it that conferred upon you this authority which you presume to exercise? Was it some earthly ruler, or was it God himself?” (Spence and Exell, 1961, 15:321). Even these religiously warped opponents of our Lord at least grasped correctly the concept that one must have prior approval from a legitimate authoritative source before one can advocate religious viewpoints. As Williams noted: “No one could presume to teach without a proper commission: where was his authorization?” (quoted in Spence and Exell, 1961, 15:320). If Jesus agreed with the majority of religionists today, He would have said, “What do you mean ‘by what authority’? God doesn’t require us to have authority for what we do in religion as long as we do not violate a direct command that forbids it, and as long as one is sincere.”
But Jesus was not in sympathy with today’s permissive, antinomian spirit. In fact, His response to the Jewish leaders showed that He fully agreed with the principle of authority. He proceeded to show them that His teaching was authorized by the same source that authorized the teaching of John the Immerser. Yet, these hardhearted religious leaders rejected John and, by implication, his source of authority. So neither would they accept Jesus Who received His authority from the same source (i.e., heaven). In any case, both Jesus and His enemies agreed that one must have God’s prior permission for what one advocates in religion.
What did Peter mean when he wrote, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11)? He meant that whatever a person advocates in religion must be found in God’s Word. But everyone knows that baby dedication services, handclapping, instrumental music, choirs, praise teams, the worship of Mary, non-weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, and church raffles are not authorized by God’s Word. Thus, their use violates the principle of authority—failing to “speak as the oracles of God.”
What did Paul mean when he wrote, “...that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6)? He meant that whatever we do in religion, first must be found in the Scriptures. But everyone knows that “sacred drama,” swaying arms, and religious observance of Christmas and Easter are not found in scripture. Their use violates the principle of authority—thinking and going “beyond what is written.”
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SECULAR SOCIETY
Interestingly enough, even secular society acknowledges the principle of authority. The average American citizen will walk into a restaurant and see two doors. The first door has the word “Restrooms” on it, while the second door has the words “Authorized Personnel.” These messages are immediately interpreted to mean that the customer has authority to enter the door that reads “Restrooms,” while he or she is not permitted to enter the other door. In fact, one instantly knows that no authority exists to enter the second door—even though the sign does not explicitly command the customer not to enter the door. The sign does not indicate who may NOT enter. It only specifies who may enter—who has permission or authority to enter. The customer is under obligation to use reasoning powers, and to deduce that he or she has no authority to pass through the second door.
Entering the first door, the customer encounters two additional doors. The first door has a stick figure of a woman on it, while the second door has a stick figure of a man. Once again, the customer is expected to understand that only women are authorized to enter the first door, and only men have permission to pass through the second door— though the word "only" does not appear. People fathom the principle of authority so easily and so thoroughly that they can ascertain what they may or may not do even from pictures—stick figures! But when it comes to the Christian religion and those who wish to broaden the parameters of God’s Word, recognition of the principle of authority is set aside in exchange for irrational, emotional desire to do what one wants to do.
When a person purchases a new vacuum cleaner or a new car, the product comes with a factory warranty. This warranty provides the customer with free repair service for the specified warranty period. However, should a malfunction occur, the customer is instructed to take the product to a “Factory Authorized Representative.” Failure to do so will void the warranty. Does the average person understand the principle of authority in this case? Of course she does. She understands that the manufacturer has given prior approval to a select group of repairpersons that is authorized to repair the product. She understands that she has authority/permission to take the product to any of those places, but that she is not authorized to take the product anywhere else—even though other repair persons are not specifically singled out as unacceptable repair persons.
When a person enters the hospital for surgery, he or she signs a document authorizing the physician to operate on the patient. What would you think of a doctor, whom you have authorized to perform surgery on you, if he were to go out into the waiting room where, say, your child is awaiting your return, and commence to operate on your child? In addition to thinking he may be mentally ill, you would protest his lack of authority for his action. What if he justified his action by insisting that you did not specifically forbid his performing surgery on your loved one? Neither you—nor the medical and legal professions—would put up with such nonsense. Why? Normal people understand and live by the principle of authority. But religion is different. Nonsense and abnormality seem to have become the order of the day.
What if your doctor wrote you a prescription for antibiotics, and you took the prescription to the pharmacist, who then filled the prescription by giving you the antibiotic—laced with strychnine? Upon reading the label, you would immediately protest the pharmacist’s action and demand an explanation. Would the pharmacist be considered in her right mind if she offered as her explanation, “The doctor did not say I was not to give you the poison. I interpreted his silence to be permissive”? What if she insisted: “The doctor’s command neither prescribes nor prohibits strychnine”? Yet proponents of instrumental music insist that “New Testament commands to sing neither prescribe nor prohibit instrumental music.” Their statement is precisely parallel to: “The doctor’s command to give antibiotic neither prescribes nor prohibits strychnine.”
Suppose you send your child to the grocery store to purchase a gallon of 2% milk and a 1 lb. loaf of wheat bread. He returns with a gallon of 2% milk, a 1 lb. loaf of white bread, and a box of Twinkies™. Do you pat him on the head and compliment him for his faithful obedience? Do you praise him for his effort and sincerity? Or do you challenge his behavior as being unauthorized? What if he justifies his actions by insisting that you said nothing about the purchase of white bread and Twinkies? Those who seek to justify instrumental music in worship declare: “You can’t open your Bible and show me where God forbids it.” So what if your child hands you the written note you sent to him and declares: “You can’t open your note and show me where you forbade it.” No, both you and he would know that he had engaged in unauthorized behavior. He did not have your permission to purchase white bread or Twinkies—even though you did not specifically forbid it.
When you place an order at a drive through window of a fast food restaurant, you expect them to conform to your instructions precisely, neither adding to nor subtracting from your order. Suppose at the speaker, you order a Chicken Sandwich Combo on a wheat bun, with waffle fries, and a large Diet Lemonade. You then pull forward to the window and the cashier says, “That will be $435.87,” as she and her co-workers begin handing bag after bag of food to you, bags that contain large quantities of every food item on the menu. You would immediately ask her to stop, and you would insist that you did not order all that food. What would you think if she responded: “You did not order a Chicken Sandwich Combo on a wheat bun, with waffle fries, and a large Diet Lemonade ONLY. You did not forbid us to give you additional food.” You would think this person is either joking—or crazy. The restaurant workers receive authority from you based on what you say to them—not based on what you do not say. You do not give them authority for their actions on the basis of your silence. You authorize them by your words, your instructions, your directions. If they go beyond the parameters of your words—though you do not specifically forbid such actions—they are proceeding without your authority. So it is with our relationship with God and His Word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 5:32; 12:32; Joshua 1:7; Proverbs 30:6). God instructed us to worship Him by singing. He did not instruct us to worship Him by playing. Hence, to worship with instruments is to worship God without His approval.
AUTHORITY FOR EVERYTHING?
But does that mean that we must have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?
Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God’s instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use “gopher wood,” but not authorized to use some other kind of wood (e.g., oak, poplar, or pine). He was authorized to utilize whatever tools and assistance were necessary to comply with God’s command (e.g., hammers, nails, saws, hired help).
Consider the Great Commission. God commanded His emissaries to “Go” (Mark 16:15). The Bible describes with approval inspired preachers going by a variety of means, including by chariot (Acts 8:31), by rope and basket (Acts 9:25), on foot (Acts 14:14), and by ship (Acts 16:11). Gathering together everything in the Scriptures pertaining to this matter, it becomes clear that the mode of transportation was optional. Therefore, the Bible interpreter is forced to conclude that every mode is authorized today (including, for example, television) as long as it does not violate some other biblical principle (e.g., the principle of stewardship).
This process of gathering biblical evidence and drawing only warranted conclusions is divinely mandatory for every human being (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). We are under obligation to weigh the biblical data on every subject, and conclude only what God wants us to conclude. [For concise, definitive analyses of the principle of authority, see Warren, 1975; Deaver, 1987].
The Bible enjoins upon us the act of assembling together for worship (e.g., Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 5:4; 11:17-18; Hebrews 10:25). But it is physically impossible for a plurality of individuals to assemble together without an assembly place. To obey the requirement to assemble, one must assemble somewhere. We have approved instances of the early church assembling together in a third-story room (Acts 20:8-9), in private residences, as well as in non-private settings (1 Corinthians 16:19; 11:22; cf. Acts 20:20). We are forced to conclude that the location is optional and authorized, as long as it does not violate other biblical principles (cf. John 4:21). Hence, the Scriptures authorize church buildings and the necessary furnishings (e.g., carpet, chairs, electricity, air conditioning, lights, restrooms, indoor plumbing, microphones, drinking fountains).
The same may be said of songbooks. Christians are commanded to sing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), and to worship in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:40). God wants us to sing the same song together (as opposed to singing different songs at the same time). Ways to comply with these stipulations would be to use songbooks, sheet music, or projectors that give the entire assembly access to the same song at the same time. Therefore, all such tools are authorized as expedient ways to comply with the command to sing.
Instrumental music in worship is not authorized. While some people may think it qualifies as an expedient—an aid to their singing—it does not. It may drown out their singing, or so overshadow their singing that they think it sounds better, but in actuality a musical instrument merely supplements singing. It is another form of music in the same way that seeing and hearing are two distinct ways of perceiving. Seeing does not aid hearing; it supplements one form of perception/observation with another. Singing with the voice and playing on a mechanical instrument are two separate ways of making music. Singing is authorized because the New Testament enjoins it (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). God has told us He wants us to sing. Instrumental music is not authorized—not because Ephesians and Colossians exclude it or don’t mention it—but because no New Testament passage enjoins it. Nowhere does God inform us that He desires that we play on an instrument to Him. To do so is to “add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6) and to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten when the church is assembled for worship (Matthew 26:29; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20). God wants each worshipper to partake of both the bread and the grape juice. How may this be accomplished? Containers or trays are necessarily required—unless grapes are hand carried to each person who would then squeeze the juice into his or her own mouth. We do have the account of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper and apparently using a single cup. However, the context makes clear that the container was incidental—representing a figure of speech known as “metonymy of the subject,” in which the container is put for the contained (Dungan, 1888, p. 279). The content of the cup—the juice—was what they were to drink, and upon which they were to reflect symbolically. We are forced to conclude that the manner of distribution of the elements of the Lord’s Supper is authorized as optional.
CONCLUSION
Every single facet of our behavior, in and out of worship, may be determined in the same way. God so requires. He expects us to give heed to His Word, studying it carefully and consistently in order to know how to live life in harmony with His will. For true Christianity to be practiced, we must be true to God’s directions. We must be faithful to the book. Indeed, for Jesus to be the “Lord of my life” 24-7, I must ascertain His will in every decision of my life. Hezekiah “did what was good and right and true before the Lord his God” (2 Chronicles 31:20). To what do the words “good,” “right,” and “true” refer? The next verse explains: “And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, in the law and in the commandment, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart” (2 Chronicles 31:32). Hezekiah was faithful to God, doing what was good, right, and true—in the sense that he obeyed precisely the law and commandment of God, and did so from the heart (cf. John 4:24).
Many churches that claim to be Christian have introduced into their belief and practice all sorts of activities, programs, and practices that have no basis in scripture—i.e., no indication from God that He approves. Upon what basis are these innovations justified? “Well, it meets our needs”; “It gets more people involved”; “It brings in lots of people”; “It generates enthusiasm”; “It allows us to get things done”; “We really like it”; “It stimulates interest”; “It keeps our young people’s attention”; “It creates a warm, accepting environment”; "it is a good mission strategy." It is absolutely incredible that so many Christians could drift so far from biblical moorings. However, their failure to recognize the principle of Bible authority will not exempt them from God’s disfavor (1 Samuel 13:13).
When all is said and done, when we’ve gone through all the rationalizing as to why we do what we choose to do in religion, we still are faced with whether what we do is, in fact, in accordance with God’s instructions. By definition, being faithful to God entails conformity to divine directives—right doing (1 John 3:7; Acts 10:35). When one “transgresses (i.e., goes ahead), and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9), he becomes unfaithful and removes himself from the benefits of God’s grace (2 Peter 2:20-22; Hebrews 10:26-31; Galatians 5:4). Remaining within the grace and favor of God is dependent upon our compliance with the all-important, God-ordained principle of authority.
Must we conform ourselves to the name of Christ? That is, in order to be saved, must I have His prior approval, His sanction, His authorization, for everything I do in religion? Listen to Peter: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Betz, Otto (1976), “exousia,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Bietenhard, Hans (1976), “onoma,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Deaver, Roy (1987), Ascertaining Bible Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Eadie, John (1884), A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1982 reprint), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Perschbacher, Wesley, ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell, eds. (1958 reprint), “Colossians,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell, eds. (1961 reprint), “St. Matthew,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Warren, Thomas B. (1975), When Is An “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Elders, Bishops, and Pastors by Trevor Bowen
http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/elders.html
Elders, Bishops, and Pastors
Characteristics of the Church
Introduction
Unfortunately missing in many congregations, elders are one of the most important and ignored offices of a local church. Acting as the spiritual leaders of the local church, the primary work of the elders is to oversee and guide the congregation.
Referenced in the Bible as "elders", "bishops", "pastors" and "presbyters", they carry the heavy responsibility of "watching out for your souls, as those who must give account"(Hebrews 13:17). Since the Bible lays such a heavy responsibility on their shoulders, it should be important to us to examine the Bible teaching regarding the office of elder.
Qualifications of an Elder
What is required for someone to be an elder? Two passages in the New Testament provide a list of qualifications for elders (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). But, can we modify these qualifications? What if someone is really good and meets all of the qualifications except one or two? Please notice how the apostle Paul begins the list of qualifications: "A bishop must be blameless, ..." (I Timothy 3:2). Since a bishop, or elder (the names are used interchangeably in the Bible), "must be" these things, then we do not have the liberty to modify the list in any way. To do otherwise would be in direct rebellion of God's will - "a bishop must be...". The qualifications from these two passages are summarized in the following list:
- blameless
- husband of one wife
- temperate, self-controlled
- sober-minded
- just
- holy
- of good behavior
- hospitable
- able to teach
- knowledgeable and holding fast to sound doctrine that he may be able to both exhort and convict those in contradiction with Bible
- not given to wine
- not violent
- not quick-tempered
- not greedy for money
- not self-willed
- hospitable
- lover of what is good
- gentle
- not quarrelsome
- not covetous
- having faithful children not accused of of dissipation or insubordination
- rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
- not a novice
- have a good testimony of those outside the church
From these qualifications it is evident that an elder will be a mature Christian, exemplary in all areas of the Christian's life. Although circumstances may pressure us into overlooking some of these qualifications, we should remember that these requirements arise from God's wisdom, authority, and command - not man's.
Work of an Elder
This list of qualifications provides a good indicator of what the work of an elder will be, but we should look at other Bible scriptures to find out exactly what is the work and role of an elder.
The apostle Peter, who was also an elder, admonished elders in their work to:
"The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." I Peter 5:1-3
From this passage we learn that elders are to serve as "overseers" for the "flock" among them. Therefore, elders are in an office with some authority to oversee the "flock", or local congregation, of which they are "among" and a member. Also, elders are limited to overseeing the flock "among them". They cannot oversee the affairs of other congregations, and correspondingly, neither can outside organizations intrude and oversee the affairs of the local congregation. This passage reserves that authority for the elders. So, what is the extent of this authority to oversee? Can elders determine matters of faith for their members?
To answer this question, please recall that it was the apostles to whom Jesus gave the power to determine matters of faith through inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John13:20; Matthew16:19; 18:18) . Therefore, elders cannot override the commands of the apostles who spoke in Christ's stead - by virtue of the lack of the authority of their office and the fact that elders today are also uninspired. This is probably the meaning of the statement from I Peter when he commanded them not to be "as lords over those entrusted to you". Elders cannot make decisions of faith for their members without "lording over them" (Acts 5:29). But, in all other matters we find that members of the church are to observe the following:
"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13:17
In this passage we see the primary emphasis of their oversight. Are they to be concerned with building maintenance, budgets, etc.? The answer is "somewhat", but only where it affects their responsibility to "watch out for your souls". It is the spiritual health of a church with which an elder is most concerned. This is further evidenced by the qualifications which state that elders must be capable to "both exhort and convict those who contradict" (Titus 1:9-11; Acts 20:27-29). Therefore, part of watching out for souls is protecting the congregation from false doctrine as well as providing teaching that is profitable to their spiritual growth. However, please notice that elders do not counter false teachers through intimidation or sheer fierceness, but they stop false teachers by teaching "sound doctrine" so that even the false teacher is "convicted" of his error and "exhorted" to follow truth (Titus 1:9-11).
Elder, Bishop, Pastor, or Presbyter?
Finally, questions often arise about the many names that the Bible uses to reference elders, which include "elder", "bishop", "pastor", and "presbyter". Many denominations and churches practice having an "overseeing preacher" who shepherds the flock and is called a "pastor". Other denominations select someone to rule over the elders within a district and call him a "bishop". Some may continue building an elaborate hierarchy, creating offices that are not even found in the Bible at all, such as cardinal, pope, etc. However, the confusion can be resolved by returning to the Bible as a standard and implementing offices that are found only in the Bible and charging them with their proper Biblical mission and work. Given this goal, let us consider, "What does the standard say?"
When we compile all of the verses that use these references, we learn that the Bible actually uses all of these words interchangeably - they refer to one and the same office! Please note the following examples of this synonymous use:
- Bishop = Elder
- Elder = Overseer (Bishop) = Shepherd
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you - if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless ..." Titus 1:5-7
"From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: ... 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made youoverseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.' " Acts 20:17, 28
The word for overseer is actually the same word that is translated "bishop" in other places. Please also see I Peter 5:1-5 for similar usage.
So, why all of the different names? Well, each name actually indicated something about either the character of the elder or his responsibilities. The word "elder" indicating his relative age and the maturity that should have come with it. "Overseers" denotes the responsibility to "oversee" and watch out for the congregation, and it comes from the Greek word episkopos which is also translated "bishop" in many places (I Timothy 3:2).
What about "pastor" and "presbyter"? To answer this question we have to look back to our list of all the spiritual offices found in Ephesians4:11: apostles, prophets, evangelists,pastors, and teachers . We have already discussed the offices of apostle and evangelist. Prophets are those who were not apostles but taught the gospel through inspiration, revealing the mind of God. Teachers also taught the gospel, but without the benefit of direct inspiration. This leaves only one office to assign between our two remaining offices of elder and deacon. We may eliminate "deacon" from this assignment, because the context of Ephesians 4:11 details the spiritual offices that were bestowed upon the church to promote its spiritual growth. Since the office of deacon is more of a physically centered office (Acts 6:1-4), it is understandably not included in the list found in. Although it is not considered a spiritual office or role, it is still considered as an office (Philippians 1:2; I Timothy 3:8-13).
Therefore, "pastors" (used only this one time here in the entire Bible) should be considered synonymous with the office of elder. This is reinforced by looking at the original word for pastor, which was poimen. This word meant "a shepherd" and was identical to the words for "shepherd" in other passages for elders that commanded them to "shepherd, or tend the flock of God" (except the other passages are the verb form of the same word - Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:1-5 ). The Greek word for "presbytery", found only once in I Timothy 4:14, meant "a body of elders". Therefore, one member of this body of elders could be called a "presbyter", although this label is never found in the New Testament.
Consequently, the words "bishop", "elder", "pastor", and "presbyter" all refer to the same office.
Conclusion
The office of elder is one of the most important but least appreciated offices. It is essential that we appoint qualified elders in each of local churches. Paul described a church without elders as having "things that are lacking" (Titus 1:5). This can be easily appreciated when we consider the need for faithful and sound spiritual leadership in every congregation. Moreover, we have learned that the office of elder is primarily a spiritual office that is responsible to "watch out for your souls"and to "shepherd, or pastor, the flock".
Because of the interchangeable nature of the references and by the process of elimination, we have also found that:
Elder = Bishop = Pastor (Shepherd) = Presbyter = Overseer
Each of these varying references were used because they denoted a certain aspect of the elder's character or work that was in central to the context.
Therefore, let us be diligent to assign this Bible office with qualified men, dismiss unqualified men from scriptural offices, and remove unscriptural offices from our churches; lest, we be found "adding to" or "taking away" from the will of the Lord.
Next: Deacons
Trevor Bowen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)