PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH (PART II)

In this article my purpose is simple; to demonstrate from the word of God that the authority to lead the church of God is the dual mandate of both the church body herself and her duly elected leaders. We will try to make a biblical case that both regenerated church members and leaders are sanctioned by God to rule over the kingdom of heaven on earth which is the church. How the two governing authorities dovetail into one another is the subject of much debate. However the biblical support for both entities being vested with authority is, in my mind, abundantly evident.

First let us look at the authority given the church. Now when I say ‘church’ I am defining it in a very specific way. Church means the organized, covenantal assembly of converted, active, and invested Christians who come together ‘to proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.’ It is this church that has been given authority to rule in the local congregation. The authority of the local church begins by examining the concept of priesthood. The priesthood was the Old Testament office that God anointed to rule over the spiritual life of the nation Israel. According to the New Testament the equivalent of the Old Testament priesthood in this present age would be all born again believers who dwell in God’s New Covenant Nation, the church. The priesthood of all believers has long been a cherished Protestant distinctive. And indeed the New Testament clearly teaches this. Peter, speaking to believers scattered across Asia Minor says, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). John in writing to the suffering believers of the late first century says the same, “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood and He made us into a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Rev 1:4b-5). This is important, for if the New Testament writers see believers as the priests of the New Covenant nation then it would behoove us to try to understand what the role of priests were in the Old Covenant in order to determine what might be their role today. We turn, then, to the 18th chapter of Numbers where the role of the priests is summarized. Two Hebrew words describe the functions of the priests in ancient Israel. The first word found in verse 8 mishmaret (מִשְׁמֶרֶת) is a noun that means ‘keeper’. In verse 3 we find the same function described by the verb form of this noun, shamar (שָׁמַר) which means to keep. The ESV best catches the thrust of this verse, “They shall keep guard over you.” That is to say, the priests were assigned to guard the tabernacle precincts in order to ensure no unholy thing would enter. The priests were the Old Covenant security guards. The second word is abad (עָבַד) which means to work or to serve. In addition to guarding, the priests were to work or serve the Lord in the Tabernacle/Temple precincts. They labored hard to maintain the sanctity of the sacrificial system. In other words they kept the unholy out and maintained the holy within. Not accidentally the same two Hebrew words are used to describe Adam and Eve’s responsibilities in the garden. Genesis 2:15 reads, “Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it (work) and tend it (keep).” Adam and Eve were the first priests in creation working and keeping God’s sacred spot.

As we take this forward into the New Covenant, we can assume that similar functions will be delegated to God’s New Covenant priests. What then do the priests of the New Covenant cultivate and tend? There are no physical borders to protect, no specific grounds to till. We must apply these priestly functions to the spiritual nature of the New Covenant. Thus we might say that ‘priests’ today are tasked with protecting the borders of the church in keeping out all things that are a threat to the her well-being and by laboring within the church’s ‘borders’ to build up its residents. Both of these functions have as their common goal to further the kingdom of God here on earth. Thus we would argue that church members have the responsibility to keep the church from being tainted by outside defilement and to strengthen the church by a variety of means on the inside.

Not only are members of the church the new priesthood but they are also accorded the privilege of holding the keys to the kingdom. Ultimately Jesus holds the keys to everything including the unseen realm of Hades and death (Rev 1:18, cp Psalm 68:20). As to His work here on earth, Christ turns over the control of those keys to His church. This transfer is found in that classic section of Matthew 16. In verse 16, Peter, the representative apostle, had just made a stunning statement about the Messiahship of Jesus. In response, Jesus acknowledges that this truth came directly from God. He goes on to rename Simon Bar-Jonah Peter (rock) because the church he would help establish would be built upon a rock. Whether the ‘rock’ is Peter himself or the confession Peter had just made is highly disputed. Since the pronouns are in the singular, it seems correct to say that Peter is being singled out. But we ask, “Is Peter to be the sole rock of the church or is he representative of the other apostles who will corporately serve the function of the rock?” However this verse is interpreted, the next statement in verse 19 is the one salient to our discussion. “And I will give you (sg) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (sg) bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you (sg) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Jesus, because He is going away, is turning over the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the disciples. But what our those keys? Keys open and shut doors. We know that Jesus has authority to open or close the door of life and the door of death so it seems likely that these keys have something to do with conferring life and death on others. To say it another way, Jesus is giving to the church the keys over life and death which is wrapped up in the gospel. To say it another way, the church is given a key that either invites people into life or consigns them to death depending on how they respond to the message. In other words the church holds the key that validates or invalidates those who have eternal life. This reminds us of a similar story in Isaiah 22:15-23 where a man named Eliakim will replace Shebna as the steward over the house of David. As steward, Eliakim will be the one who determines who will enter the inner circle of the king and who will remain outside. All this is to say that the keys to the kingdom have been turned over to church who through the preaching of the gospel determines who will enter the kingdom and who will not. The one who guards the gate into the congregation of the faithful is the priest. In a similar manner the church, the New Covenant Priesthood, is the guardian of the kingdom of heaven on earth. And when the verdict demanded by the gospel sounds on earth it reverberates in the same way in heaven.

There are other texts in the Bible that support the fact that church members have authority in the church. Let us look at a few texts. First let us review the section on so-called church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-20. The text gives directives on how to deal with a brother who has sinned personally against another brother. The steps are clear. The offended part is to go directly to the offender and seek restoration. If that is met with impenitence than the offended party is to bring along two or three witnesses. If that fails verse 17 says, “And if he refuses to hear them tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Now while we don’t want to put too much weight on this passage as a paradigm for every encounter with a sinning brother, it does seem clear that in matters of dispute where no resolution is forthcoming, the church is to be the final arbiter and judiciary. No mention is made of elders or church leaders. And note, Jesus seems to have the New Testament church in mind else he would have used the word ‘synagogue’ if this applied to a strictly Jewish audience. A similar passage can be found in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 where we do find true church discipline being enacted in a true New Testament context. Here is a man in the assembly who is sleeping with his step mother; “a man has his father’s wife.” In addition the church is puffed up about this. This can only mean that the church was so enamored with grace and tolerance that they refused to deal with open sin that even the world considered inappropriate (vs 1). And so what happens? Are the elders to step in and take control of the situation? Paul says, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, …. deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” The entity that is to make the decision to kick a man out of the fellowship, is the fellowship of believers itself. “When they gather together,” connotes some kind of church meeting. The word is used that way in Acts 4:31, and 11:26, and 14:27. The conclusion is clear; in matters of discipline the church body is to make the determination as to the course of action. Does this include the elders? It probably would, but not exclusively.

In the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 6, another problem has arisen in the body and again the apostle will appeal to the church to address it. The issue is church members suing one another in secular courts. The apostle has two issues with this. His first issue is that those in the congregation are more qualified to judge than those outside. Quoting Jesus, Paul notes that saints will one day judge the world (6:2). If this is true, why then can’t they judge these lesser matters in the congregation? He asks in verse 5 with a note of sarcasm whether or not there is a wise man among the saints who could possibly handle this kind of internal dispute? What Paul does not say is instructive. He doesn’t call on the elders to get involved. Rather he leaves the resolution of these internal conflicts to the church body itself. Of course, Paul’s second issue with the church is more profound. If people are suffering wrongs in the body then wouldn’t it be better to bear those wrongs? Yet if there must be some kind of judgment, then let the church handle it.

Some might argue that there were no elders in Corinth and that is why Paul appeals to the church. But this argument falls to the ground when we look at the Book of Philippians where we know overseers did exist (Phil 1:1). In this church we have yet another conflict. Two solid ladies are fighting over something. But Paul knows about it and does not appeal to the overseers to revolve the dispute. Rather he appeals to a man he calls ‘true companion’ along with a man named Clement to try to reconcile these two ladies. What is important here is that Paul appeals to the church to deal with its own internal issues. In no way does this negate the fact that Paul thought the overseers were useless. But when it came time to resolve church problems, Paul called upon the church body to get involved.

So about about elders or overseers? The Bible also speaks of them having authority in the body. For example in 1 Timothy chapter 3 the apostle lists the qualifications for overseers. In verse 5 he asks, “How can a man watch over the house of God if he does not manage his own family?” Implicit in this comparison is the fact that overseers are supposed to ‘watch over’ the church. Now the word ‘to manage’ is the word used for the Good Samaritan who cared for the wounded man. The elders are to ‘manage’ the house of God as a man manages a man in need of medical help. Another passage that speaks of elder authority is found In Acts chapter 20. Here Paul calls the Ephesian elders to the shores of the Mediterranean and gives them a final exhortation before going on to Jerusalem. In verse 28 he states what seems to be their function in the church at Ephesus, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” The elders were to oversee or watch over and shepherd the sheep. They were to guard them from being damaged by error which might exist within or without the church (vss 29-30). That was their chief function, that was how their authority expressed itself in the body.

Exactly what the authority of the elders looks like and how far it goes will be the topic for the next post. We can point to a few summary statements that capsulize what has been said so far. First, it appears from all the texts about the church and about the elders that each of them have the dual function of guarding attack from the outside and building up on the inside. The specific realms of their authority however seem to divide along the following line. The duty of the congregation is to deal with day to day practical and spiritual church issues which involve members. This is an divinely instituted authority derived from God himself. On the other hand the elders seem to be tasked with a general oversight given to them by the church itself. They are to watch closely for any general threat from the outside and to teach and preach on the inside. However, and this is important, because the church itself constitutes the New Covenant priesthood and because she holds the keys to the kingdom it is fair to say that the church is given direct authority from God to do the work of the kingdom while the elders possess a derived authority, given to them by the church body and symbolized by the laying on of hands. That is, their authority rests upon the consent of the governed. Saying it this way helps clear up the question of how can there be two authorities in the church? The answer is simple. An ultimate authority can easily dwell with a derived authority. It happens all the time in America. We the people elect others to lead us. We the people are the ultimate authority. When elected officials abrogate their duty or simply do a poor job, the people may vote them out and put someone else in. Do the elected officials have authority? Yes but derived from the people. Do the people have authority? And their authority is final. So it seems to be the way God has organized His church.

In our next post we will more closely consider the office of elder or overseer and see exactly what the Scriptures teach about it.