Government in the New Testament Church

Previous

Next

The History Index

Theology

Home Page

Contact me

The New Testament does not contain a manual on Church Government or Leadership. There is no evidence that Jesus ever gave instructions on how the Church should be organised. Certainly there are no references to Popes, Cardinals, Princes of the Church, Archbishops or Vicars. The only references to Christian Priests are in the sense that the whole Church is called to be a Kingdom of Priests - a Royal Priesthood. This is sometimes now referred to as "The Priesthood of All Believers".

However, this does not mean that the early Church was devoid of leadership. It is evident in the Acts of the Apostles that some, if not all, of the Apostles ( 1 ) had leadership roles. In Acts 1:20-21 we find Peter discussing the replacement for Judas Iscariot. He quotes Psalm 109:8, "May another take his place of leadership". It is evident that the Apostles  were regarded as leaders. In the description of the early Church at the end of Acts Ch. 2 we find that the believers, "devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching". In Acts Ch. 6 we read that the Twelve felt the need to appoint others to serve in practical matters in order to release the twelve to concentrate on "the ministry of the word".

Many people believe that the seven men appointed on this occasion were the first Deacons. The word, "deacon" means "servant". The words "diakonia"(diakonia) or "diakonein" (diakonein) are both used in the first two verses of Acts Ch. 6. In this instance diakonia refers to the action of serving or distribution rather than the office but it does seem to me a reasonable suggestion that those chosen to serve in this capacity would be called "deacons".

As the Church spread further from its original centre in Jerusalem, it was obviously necessary to appoint local leaders for the Apostles could not be everywhere. So we find in Acts 14:23 that "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in every church." This was not the invention of the two missionaries for in Acts 11:27-30 we discover that the Jerusalem Church already had elders. The concept of elders had, apparently, come to the Church naturally from their Jewish roots. We find that, in earlier chapters of Acts, there are five references to Jewish elders, usually in combination with "rulers", "teachers of the law [lawyers]" or "chief priests". In Acts 5:21 the Sanhedrin is referred to as "the full assembly of the elders of Israel".

So we find the primitive Church being led by Apostles, Elders (Presbyters) and Deacons - the latter apparently in administrative roles. When Paul ( 2 ) writes to Timothy about the appointment of Church leaders he uses a different word. 1 Tim. 3:1 says, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer he desires a noble task." The word here, correctly rendered as "overseer" is from the Greek " episkopoV " (episkopos), which transliterates into our word "bishop". Indeed the AV (KJV) actually translates it as bishop. Some might suggest that we have here a new development - a new layer of an emerging hierarchy. However, the New Testament does not attest to that idea. In Acts 20:17-37 we are told that Paul sent for the elders ( presbuterouV ) of the Church. He explained that he had to leave them and gave them some final instructions. In v28 he says, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers ( episkopouV ). It is evident, then, that Paul regarded the office of elder or presbyter to be synonymous with that of overseer or bishop.

How, then, should we regard Paul's reference to a "five-fold ministry" (Eph. 4:11), of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? Are these, in some way, separate from elders and, if so, where do they fit? There can be no certainty about this but I should like to suggest that, whereas "elder" and "overseer" are general terms used to denote those in spiritual leadership; apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are specific words describing different roles of eldership. For example, Timothy was evidently an overseer whose role seems to have been mainly pastoral, yet Paul urges him to "do the work of an evangelist". (2 Tim. 4:5)

It would seem from a careful study of the New Testament that the primitive Church had no strong central office, but that the churches were autonomous but interdependant. It seems that each local church would have had a plurality of elders, each with different giftings. The Apostles, among whom was numbered Paul ( 3 ), appear to have had the general respect of the churches but do not appear to have made any attempt to "lord it over them." There is no evidence that Peter considered himself to be the leading apostle and, though he was evidently in Rome for some time, there is no evidence that he led the church there and certainly no reason to refer to him as "the first Pope".

The office of deacon, while not directly involved in "spiritual" leadership, was not considered to be inferior for the qualifications for this office are as strict as those for an overseer (1 Tim. 3:8f). It seems likely that, in many cases, those who proved themselves as deacons later exercised eldership roles (perhaps this was true of Stephen and Phillip?) There is no evidence that deacons were appointed for a limited time as now has become the norm in some churches.

So it seems, from what we can glean from the New Testament records, that the Church of the New Testament was united by love and brotherhood rather than by a central government. Each local assembly was autonomous and led by a plurality of elders and deacons. The original apostles were respected because of their personal knowledge of Jesus, but they were not regarded as infallible ( 4 ). When a serious problem threatened the unity of the whole Church, the leaders came together to find a solution (Acts 15). Beyond these facts it is difficult to discover much about Church government in the first century A.D.