Radical Disciples – A Remnant Revolution

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

It’s interesting that John the Baptist of all people would ask if Jesus is the coming one (Messiah) or not. Why would he doubt that all of a sudden? Wasn’t it John who saw the Heaven’s open for Him? Wasn’t it John that believed HE that should be baptized by Jesus not the other way around? Wasn’t it John who declared, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. So why all of a sudden did John doubt?

Well, John was in PRISON, he was suffering, going through hardship, and just like John, when trials arise and we find ourselves in the bondage of fear, doubt, or whatever else holds us captive (prison), many also may find themselves questioning their faith. Why, you ask?

Because many “Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Jews/etc” have been sold a lie. But let’s focus soley on CHRISTIANITY as a whole. There is so much division in this one world religion, that it should be obvious, that not everyone has been taught the TRUTH. Perhaps, the TRUTH has been taught with an excess of confusion, lies, and tradition. Interesting enough, the word “Babylon” means “Confusion with Mixture.”

But here we are, Christendom. And in this faith, there are major flaws. A majority have been taught that once they verbally accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior that riches and prosperity will follow. Many “Christians” have been taught, that if they go to church enough times, sow their proper tithe and give their proper offering to the Lord, which they pay of course to their Man made “Church”, that God will open up the heavens and pour out his blessings. They believe when they say a few choice words “Jesus be my Lord and Savior” that their troubles will go away. But that is not the case.

We need to do more than believe on the LITERAL NAME of Jesus (Yeshua) – We need to believe on his NATURE/TRUTH – Which is what the meaning of the word “name” is. It is not just saying “Jesus be my Lord and Savior” it is becoming ONE with the TRUTH that is CHRIST.

This is why JOHN began to doubt when troubles came. He believed in the literal Man Jesus, as do I, but that doesn’t free him, it is only the BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE of the CHRIST WITHIN that frees us from the prison of life’s trials and torments.

The reason, many “Christians” today suffer, and doubt, is because their faith is not built on the ROCK (Christ/Truth), but on sand (people’s beliefs and traditions).

They, like John, know Jesus after THE FLESH and not after the SPIRIT. They believe their salvation comes from declaring their worship to a man from thousands of years ago, that will come again, a man that is in a galaxy know as heaven, far, far, away. They do not know the TRUTH of CHRIST WITHIN. That Christ has never left, nor forsaken us… So, when the storms beat them down, they start to doubt. They scream, “I thought things were supposed to be easy! Where is that promise land? Why are my kids still on drugs, why am I still sick, why am I broke, why, why, why, I thought YOU were supposed to make everything better… ARE YOU THE CHRIST OR AREN’T YOU?”

Why wouldn’t they question their faith and have doubts in salvation? If they have been told, do this and do that, and God will abundantly give to you.

Many have been taught by ”Blind Guides” that God doesn’t want them to suffer, that sickness is for the unbeliever, that Jesus and his disciples were loaded/rich and that God wants them to have the same wealth. And when these “followers” find themselves in the “prison” of their trials they find these promises to be empty. And then, when, and if, they question their sandy beliefs they are told by their “Blind guides” it is because of their lack of faith. They don’t see that their whole belief system is corrupt, and based on lies.

What many churches and religions promise today is NOT Christ, they are selling Greed and Lust. Remember it is not ALL churches and denominations in Christianity, there are many wonderful churches, charities, Christian TV shows and stations, preachers, priests, and pastors, who mean well and truly seek the WORD OF GOD… But many, many more do not.

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

For many, they enter Christianity, as one would enter a market to buy a lottery ticket. It has sadly become like spiritual lottery for them. “You got to be IN it (Babylon) to win it.”

Here’s how it goes down. People are going through hard times they may flip through the channels and find preachers making grand promises, meet someone handing out a flyer at the train station, hear a message on the radio, or even have someone dressed up nice come knock at the door. Those that are hurting are looking for the way out. And these blind guides seem to offer a very easy one. Some say, You need to step out in faith and give! That the reason you haven’t experienced abundance is because you haven’t given enough.

Now, for those hurting, this itches their ears real good. It is exactly like the lottery. So they, in their error and greed, GIVE… because they WANT MORE. This has nothing to do with knowing the Lord of Hosts. This has nothing to do with Christ. This is what is wrong with Religion today.

“You have turned my Father’s house into a marketplace”

market

And boy is it. You don’t have to go far to see that MANY are “buying and selling” the sacrifice (Jesus) is many mega churches, events, concerts, conferences, and more. Just like in Jesus’ day.

Revelation 13:17
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Now, not all, try and buy that sacrafice. The WISE VIRGINS were prepared, it was only the FOOLS that went out to purchase the precious oil (wisdom) needed to light the way.

So, the same is true for today, as it was in Jesus’ day.

LET’S COMPARE

The OUTER COURT where they sold doves, oils, sheep, goats, and exchanged money is alive and well today in the FOYER of many mega churches, or conferences. You enter in and as far as the eye can see, there are books, dvd’s, cd’s, oils, tambourines, streamers, key chains, tee shirt, hats, and more, for sale. (Now, look, there is nothing wrong with merchandise and I am not condemning such behavior, but CONDEMING the belief, that ANY OF THESE PRODUCT can bring you closer to God. You are not getting the OIL OF GLADNESS when you purchase “Olive Oil” whose label reads “Oil of Gladness” you are getting a PRODUCT. The problem is, just like in Jesus’s day, most don’t know the difference.

Moving on:

In the INNER COURT the Pharisees always saved the choice seats for the so called “important” people and inside these Churches today, the same is true. Whether those seats are for family, friends, or visiting pastors, celebrities etc… they rope these seats off in many congregations as they did in Jesus’ day and before.

At the ALTAR we see long prayers made as well as those in charge of the service making bold proclamations about how much they tithe and give. The same as Jesus’ day and before.

Matt 6 2Therefore when thou give thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men

Matt 65And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.

bullhorn1

You see, not much has changes at all. The Pharisees are still alive and well today in many “Christian Circles” and they are still making their converts twice the sons of hell (ignorance/suffering) that they are. This is why they rejected Christ. They didn’t understand the TRUTH of the Gospel (good news) nor could they receive it. Because they were baptized INTO DARKNESS which is why they hate the LIGHT.

But when CHRIST is in the midst, these lost SHEEP are brought back into the fold. When, and IF, they HEAR (understand) His Voice (The Truth).

But those, like JOHN who are called LESS than the LEAST in the KINGDOM do not know what is TRUTH or what is LIE when trouble comes. “Are you the Christ?”

Let’s be real, no one wants to suffer. We all want things to go as smoothly as possible. We don’t want difficulty, pain. We don’t want struggle. And, when things don’t go our way, even those like JOHN, who seem so enlightened, and who spend day after day condemning people of their sin, may complain and whine and even doubt their faith.

You see what I am beginning to do here is paint a picture of WHAT kind of believer JOHN the BAPTIST really was. A true Believer never doubts CHRIST.

But JOHN wasn’t a true believer, he was LESS THAN THE LEAST in the KINGDOM. Which means people… He NEVER entered into the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN that was WITHIN HIM. John, like many religious today, are focused on the outward, on the ceremony, fasting, proclaiming, condemning, etc, etc, but when the rubber meets the road, they don’t even know who CHRIST IS.

4Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: 5The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 6And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

The Truth sets us free. Now what you ask, does the TRUTH set us free from? …. The LIE!

You see many of us have been sold this lie of religion. And what this LIE does is it binds us, it traps us, it condemns us, it kills us, and it keeps us IN PRISON, as John. And in this PRISON of the LIES we were force fed it is hard to see the TRUTH. But for those who do, for those who understand the HOPE OF GLORY IS CHRIST IN YOU, not coming OUTSIDE OF YOU on a white horse, you are SET FREE.

Where once you were blind (ignorant) you see (have understanding). You begin to understand the TRUE POTENTIAL that is inside us all, that EVERYTHING is made by the son, for the son, through the son… which “Thou Art That”

“Born not of flesh and blood, but of the SPIRIT.” And as SONS (Children of God) we are set FREE from the LAW OF DEATH that JOHN and his cronies set before us.

“I set before you good (truth) and evil (error) chose this day which you will serve (believe/know/walk in).”

tworoads

Let me explain JOHN the BAPTIST a bit more. He LIVED in the WILDERNESS (the place of temptation/trying) he did not LIVE in the promise land. He ATE WILD (not tame) HONEY and LOCUSTS (destroy the harvest). JOHN is the perfect picture of the RELIGIOUS MINDSET that even CHRIST allowed to be BAPTISED from. Just as many of us did.

We believed that RELIGIOUS was the way to go. We wanted freedom from the world, we wanted to know God… so we went to one we believed would lead us there…. And believe it or not, JOHN as ignorant as he was of the TRUTH (Christ) in his captivity, still was God’s messenger, who prepared the way… HOW, you ask? … Well, isn’t the LAW our schoolmaster that drives us to CHRIST?

7And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

Now this is the best part, when we take the whole story in context a mystery begins to unfold before our eyes. We realize what it is exactly that Jesus is trying to tell those about JOHN. What Jesus is trying to tell us about THE RELIGIOUS MINDSET.

Like I wrote earlier, today, many preachers, NOT ALL, but many are “itching the ears” of their blind and abused flock. They make all these promises, but life for 99.9 percent of them only gets worse. Because now, they have the same troubles, the same trials, the same sickness and death, but before RELIGION they didn’t feel so bad about having a drink, or dating, or whatever else they did without condemnation before hearing JOHNS VOICE “REPENT, REPENT”

Paul said, “I was alive once before the LAW came and then I DIED”

You see before bad religion gets its hooks in us and convinces us we are sinners damned for eternal torture, life was alright. But after JOHN baptizes you, you find a ton of guilt, shame, and rules and regulations heaped up on top of your already screwed up life. You find you are more bound than ever.
“ARE YOU THE CHRIST, OR WHAT?”

Well, why wouldn’t you worry. You were sold a line of DUNG. Which is what PAUL called everything RELIGION taught him, and he was the KING OF RELIGION.

Religion teaches, do this, do that, and you’ll be blessed, have faith. However, in Christ there is a humbling. That RELIGIOUS man needs to be put to death.

His HEAD (authority) needs to be chopped off, as JOHN’S head was, for CHRIST’S true ministry to begin!

So now Jesus speaks to the multitude and he says. “PEOPLE what exactly was it that you ran into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”

When we wanted to learn the Truth? Did we expect to learn ONE TRUTH that is unbending, uncompromising, and firm? Did we expect to walk the straight and narrow path that is so very hard to find that few shall find it? Did we expect to be taught by ONE TEACHER who says THIS IS THE TRUTH and there is no BENDING IT, there is no SWAYING from it, there is no OTHER WAY then this way?

And what is the WIND this REED sways from… DOCTRINE. We can’t be tossed to and fro without WIND OF DOCTRINES. Take a second to look up how many denominations there are in Christianity today… Yet there is ONE SPIRIT, ONE TRUTH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD THAT IS IN ALL!

Did we expect that we could believe what we want and throw away what we didn’t? Did we expect that AS CHRIST SUFFERED SO MUST WE? Did we remember that the SERVANT IS NOT ABOVE HIS MASTER and if they HATED HIM THEY WLL HATE US? Did we expect to be PERSECUTED, HATED, ACCUSED, TORMENTED, AND MADE HUMBLE? …

OR did we expect TO SEE A REED SHAKEN BY THE WIND?

The walk that God has prepared for his elect is NOT an easy one. It is meant to break us down and humble us. It may even be a road of pain and suffering, but it most definitely is a road of PERSERVERANCE and TRUST. It is designed to get you to love the most horrible of people and to forgive the most foul of crimes. This straight and narrow path is NOT one that we can veer off from time to time, because the WIND is blowing in another direction. And believe me, the TRUTH is not popular today. The ANTICHRIST/Man’s EGOCENTRIC system is popular today.

We saw how many turned away from Christ when the going got tough, or how many called him a heretic when he explained…

“Eat my FLESH and DRINK my BLOOD” or you can’t have the kingdom.

The reason? Because they believe in the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of scripture and not the ALLEGORICAL REVELATION of God’s word through scripture and experience.

You see to EAT SOMETHING, means you ASSIMILATE IT (become ONE with it) If you eat and APPLE, the APPLE soon BECOMES YOU.

This is what CHRIST was teaching, this is a great truth. TO EAT the Flesh and Drink the BLOOD of Christ is to allow the Flesh and Blood of Christ to become YOUR FLESH AND BLOOD.

“That day you shall know that I am in the FATHER, the FATHER in ME, and I in you” ==== We are ONE in CHRIST. There is no SEPERATION in Christ.

You don’t, and can’t, SEE (understand) Christ as being something far away from you, when THE AUTHORITY of the RELIGIOUS man is severed, you see CHRIST IN YOU, AS YOU, WITH YOU, FOR YOU, BY YOU, IS YOU!

“Know you not that you are the BODY OF CHRIST” “Until Christ be Formed In you” “It is No Longer I that Live, But Christ”

8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.

Did you come out into the wilderness to find a set of COMFORTABLE BELIEFS? Did you expect to receive riches and luxury? Did you expect to inherit literal riches, or to inherit the TREASURE OF THE TRUTH that you are IN FACT a CHILD OF GOD?

Indeed, most of us went out into the wilderness for a better life. We wanted an easier walk, a bigger house, better car, no more money problems, no more family problems, better health… WE WANTED TO LEARN ABOUT COMFORTABLE THINGS! And when that doesn’t happen, if we are of the MINDSET that is JOHN (RELIGIOUS LAW), we doubt.

But here was John’s problem to begin with. He was LOOKING outside himself for a SAVIOR. But the SAVIOR is not found without, but within.

Where we ARE the SAVIOR IS, “Greater is HE that is IN me, than HE that is of the WORLD (carnal man’s ego)”

Christ asks us and important question, “WHAT IS IT that we went out to see?” What do we want? Do we want the TRUTH? Or do we want what the LIES the WORLD is offering?

JOHN represents the LAW and the PROPHETS. These TWO WITNESSES do indeed come before Christ. Many of the SONS OF GOD will first humbly allow themselves to be baptized by this RELIGIOUS SYSTEM know as JOHN. (The Law and Prophets) these are the tutors and governors we are under until the time appointed by the Father. Than we, like CHRIST are driven deeper into the wilderness and we are TEMPTED… But IN CHRIST we overcome. And JOHN is not CHRIST, JOHN offers death, Christ offers life… He may be THE GREATEST AMONG MEN… BUT MAN is A LIAR!

11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Sure John is the GREATEST AMONG MEN. And the GREATEST MAN doubts the TRUTH. The GREATEST of MEN doesn’t even know CHRIST to begin with. The GREATEST OF MEN, still END UP IN PRISON. Until, the authority of the GREATEST OF MEN (liars) end.

Religion is NOT THE WAY. Religion simply sets the stage and prepares the WAY. The Law and the Prophets are the first TEACHER that we ARE subject to. And, like Salome’s Mother we grow tired of hearing the Law and Prophets tell us WHAT SINNERS WE ARE! John is our taskmaster, the one meant to bring us to Christ, to bring us to A NEW AND BETTER WAY!

Now I know what your thinking. Are you saying John is somehow NOT HOLY? Well, that is not what I’m saying it is what CHRIST JESUS SAID.

“He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

Christ tells us that the LAW AND PROPHETS are the LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

And do you know who Jesus also says is the least in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Matthew 5:19, ANYONE who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says the LEAST IN THE KINGDOM are those that say FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW and THEY THEMSELVES CANT DO IT! That in a nutshell is who JOHN is, a hypocrite and a liar. The RELIGIOUS SYSTEM is as the field that is filled with dead mans bones… But praise God all it needs is Christ to breath LIFE back into them all.

12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

And the days of JOHNS are still here. They still teach DO THIS AND DO THAT and CANT DO IT THEMSELVES!

This is why the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN has suffered violence UNTIL CHRIST!

Finding out what the Kingdom of Heaven is makes it easy to understand this scripture more clearly. For the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT EAT OR DRINK. It is not a life of LUXURY AND PARTYING. It is RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY in the HOLY GHOST!

The Kingdom of Heaven is a PLACE OF REST in GODS SPIRIT! And when we were under the influence of the LAW AND PROPHETS that Peace, Righteousness and JOY was STRANGLED AWAY.

Jesus compares the prisoners of BAD RELIGION as children screaming “Look at all I have done and you haven’t given me anything, I’m still hurting, I’m still broke, ” They cry “Look at our tears, I’m crying because of how hard my life is and YOUR NOT HELPING ME!”

But now it is time to put away childish things and move unto maturity. We will never be free, nor will we know the TRUTH of who we are, until the HEAD OF JOHN is cut off!

We have to stop condemning ourselves, we have to stop condemning others, when we ourselves can’t get it together. We have to stop expecting an easy ride and stop worrying if the Truth doesn’t line up with what everyone else believes. We have to STOP ACTING LIKE CHILDREN crying WHY HAVENT YOU DONE ANYTHING FOR US LORD!

Today is a new day, it is the Last day! It is the Day of the Lord!

A Day that is terrible and great indeed. There may be suffering and pain. But without pressure a DIAMOND would never be formed. Without the winepress the Wine would never become a SPIRIT. Without the trials in our lives we would not grow strong AT ALL!

This is why we are told to COUNT IT ALL JOY. When these trials come upon us. This is why we are called BLESSED when we are persecuted, and tormented. Because without it the FRUIT of ETERNITY would never blossom.

We did not go into the wilderness to see a REED SHAKEN BY THE WIND.

We went into the WILDERNESS (our journey to the promise land) to have ETERNAL LIFE. And “THIS IS ETERNAL LIFE”

To know God the FATHER and Christ Jesus that is WITHIN!

Jacob
http://www.JacobIsrael.org
“The Truth Will Change You”

1. At the height of His earthly ministry, Jesus was approached by two
disciples of John the Baptist – Mt 11:1-6
a. John was in prison, and had sent the two disciples to Jesus
b. Perhaps troubled by his own imprisonment, he wanted affirmation
that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Coming One
c. Jesus pointed to His works, and spoke of the blessedness of those not offended because of Him

2. Jesus used this opportunity to tell the multitudes about John the
Baptist – Mt 11:7-10
a. That he was not some easily shaken reed or man in soft clothing,
but a prophet
b. Indeed, he was the prophet foretold by Isaiah and Malachi – Isa
40:3; Mal 3:1; 4:5

3. But then Jesus made two remarkable statements – Mt 11:11
a. First, that no one had been greater than John the Baptist
b. Second, that one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he!

4. It is the second statement that has perplexed many…
a. For the kingdom of heaven is the church that was about to be
established
b. And in the church there are many people who do not seem to
measure up to a man like John the Baptist!

How can any of us be greater than he?

[When we know the answer, it should fill us with humility and
gratitude, and encourage us to greater dedication in our service to the Lord. Before we consider the answer, let’s review…]

I. THE GREATNESS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

A. HE WAS GREAT AS A MAN…
1. Enduring a life of austerity, with voluntary simplicity
– Lk 1:80; Mt 3:4
2. He showed courage before king Herod, condemning his unlawful
marriage – Mt 14:3-4
3. He possessed humility, showing deference at the height of his
own ministry to a New Comer – Jn 1:19-37; 3:22-30

B. HE WAS GREAT AS A PROPHET…
1. His influence brought people throughout Judea into the desert
– Mt 3:1-2,5
2. They were moved to be baptized and confess their sins – Mt 6:6
3. Yet He did not weaken his message to accommodate his audience
– Mt 6:7-8

C. HE WAS GREAT IN PREPARING THE WAY FOR CHRIST…
1. Such was his particular mission – Mt 3:3; 11:9-10
2. And when Jesus came, he pointed people to Him – Jn 1:29,34-36; 3:30,36
a. “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world!”
b. “I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”
c. “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
d. “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life…”

[In light of his mission, and the faithful manner in which he carried
it out, no one had arisen greater than John (not even Moses, Elijah,
etc., though they might be consider “as great as” John).

But again, Jesus says that the least in the kingdom is “greater” than
John. How can that be…?]

II. THE GREATNESS OF THOSE IN THE KINGDOM

A. WE ENJOY GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST…
1. John’s limited knowledge of Christ is implied by his question
– Mt 11:2-3
a. He had not seen what Jesus’ disciples had seen
b. He had not heard what Jesus’ disciples had heard – cf. Mt
13:16-17
2. Through the further teaching of Christ and His apostles…
a. We know the wonderful story of the cross!
b. We know the nature of the kingdom, its establishment, its
future glory!
c. We know “many things” which even Jesus Himself had not
taught His apostles until after the Holy Spirit was sent!
– cf. Jn 16:12-13

Even “he who is least in the kingdom” knows things about Jesus and His church that John did not know!

B. WE ENJOY A GREATER STATION IN THIS LIFE…
1. John was not in the kingdom of heaven (or church) during his
life
a. He proclaimed it was “at hand” – Mt 3:1-2
b. Jesus and His apostles were still preaching it as being
“at hand” – Mt 10:7
c. Jesus would later speak of building His church – Mt 16:18
2. But with the establishment of the church, those who are in
it…
a. Have been translated into the kingdom of God’s Son – Co
1:13; cf. Re 1:9
b. Have been made a royal priesthood and holy nation – 1 Pe
2:9

John lived under the Old Covenant; even “he who is least in
the kingdom” lives under the New Covenant with its better
sacrifice, hope, and promises – He 7:9; 8:6

C. WE ENJOY GREATER PRIVILEGES…
1. John certainly enjoyed wonderful privileges
a. He was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb – Lk
1:15
b. Who certainly helped him fulfill his mission
2. But Jesus offers things which John did not have; e.g…
a. A gift (or measure) of the Spirit that was not given until
after Jesus was glorified – Jn 7:37-39
1) Something other than inspiration or miraculous powers,
for many had enjoyed that before Jesus was glorified
(ascended to heaven)
2) Because of the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost,
all who are saved have experienced “the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” – Tit 3:5-7
3) John was born of woman, but those in the kingdom are
“born of the Spirit”! – cf. Jn 3:5
a) We therefore receive “the gift of the Spirit” – Ac
2:38
b) A gift that helps deliver one from the power of sin
– cf. Ro 8:11-13
c) A gift not enjoyed by those under the Old Covenant
– cf. Ro 7:14-8:4
b. The fellowship of the church, the body of Christ – Ro 12:5
1) Remember that John spent his life in the desert, and
then in prison
2) He did not enjoy the blessings of fellowship available
to the “least” in the kingdom
3) As promised by Jesus, we have a “hundred-fold” family
members in this life, something John never had – Mk 10:
28-30
— Many other privileges peculiar to the New Covenant could be
mentioned, all of which are enjoyed today by “he who is
least in the kingdom”!

1. In at least three ways, then, we are “greater” than John the
Baptist…
a. In our knowledge of Jesus Christ
b. In our station of life by being in Christ
c. In our privileges offered by Jesus Christ

2. As per J. W. McGarvey: “We find from this passage that all true
greatness arises from association, relation and contact with Jesus
Christ” (The Fourfold Gospel)
a. As the forerunner of Christ, John was as great as any other
teacher, prophet, priest, lawgiver, and king
b. As the beneficiaries of Christ, even the least of those in His
kingdom are greater than he

3. Should this not fill us with humility, gratitude, and a desire to
greater service?
a. That Jesus would bestow such great blessings upon us?
b. That we ought to be more dedicated in our service to Christ?
1) Producing the fruit of the Spirit in our lives
2) Nurturing and enjoying the fellowship of the family of God
3) Proclaiming the gospel of Christ and the kingdom in its
fullness

If John was so faithful in that which is less, should we not be more
diligent when we have that which is more?

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be
required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they
will ask the more.” (Lk 12:48)

It is those who radically sold out to Christ and obeying all that He has taught us that shall walk in the “Greater” as Jesus proclaims in Matt 11:11. Those who lives are but that of a bond-servant, sold out to their God in the humble walk He call us too.

Are you radical enough to be the “Least of these”?

Between the Kingdom of Christ and Wacky Land, By Ken Cluck

As we look at scripture and the commands to obey the traditions of the apostles, knowing where to draw the line is just as confusing as it is important. Years ago, in the Army, during DMZ patrols in Korea, we were warned about the Demarcation Line, the actual border between North and South Korea. The signs on this line were in English and Korean on the south side and English and Chinese on the north side. We were told stories of patrols thinking they were on the wrong side of the border because the North Koreans had turned the signs around. Units that didn’t take time to verify their position could run across the border into what they thought was safety, only to find themselves taking North Korean fire on the wrong side of the border. The same applies to New Testament practice. Knowing what side of the line is binding tradition and what side of the line is simply cultural norm is just as important as knowing the safe side of an international border. It is very easy to find ourselves “majoring on the minors” and off into dangerous territory.

Recently, I attended a house church conference in which the New Testament model was being presented to denominational and church leaders. During the final session in which apostolic tradition and its binding nature were being expounded one person asked about the holy kiss. “If meeting in homes, Lord’s Supper as a meal, servant leadership, consensus decisions and interactive meetings were all binding parts of apostolic tradition, why isn’t greeting each other with the holy kiss also binding? This question threw us all for a loop and, considering the other questions this person asked, it was easy to chock it up to contentiousness. But after thinking about it I saw it as an important question, just the sort of question that I had to answer for myself when studying house church.

My own search for God’s model for church was on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana. For over a century efforts to reach these people were thwarted because being a Christian was equated with acting, speaking and dressing like a white person. I began to wonder what church would look like if Christ had come to the Cheyenne: the Church and Christianity devoid of anything that was simply European and Middle Eastern culture. What parts of his church model would be binding even if they started in other regions and cultures? Such things as clothing, greetings, marital ceremonies, furnishings and home styles are cultural. Accepted practices of one culture when planted among different people, in different locations, speaking different languages, can be problematic. For example, in the days of Paul, dining was done on a triclinium, three couches around a small table. Diners would lean on their left elbows and lift food to their mouths with their right hands. Is this room arrangement binding? Was it ever? Perhaps the room arrangement is not, but what about reclining to eat? How about utensils? The fork had not been invented, so are we forbidden by apostolic traditions from using forks or even chopsticks? These questions may seem petty or that I am picking on some, but I wrestled with them during my search and I have met others who ask the same questions. They must be answered.

Anyone accepting house church as the New Testament model has probably accepted the binding nature of apostolic tradition found in the following scriptures:

1 Corinthians 11:2NIV, “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings (traditions), just as I passed them on to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15NIV, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Another passage, equally beneficial, is Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians to follow the practices accepted among the other churches:

1 Corinthians 14:36-38NIV, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this he himself will be ignored.”

This last one should not be confused with the Catholic doctrine that Mother Church has the power to define doctrine and salvific belief. This is recognition that the Corinthians are part of the universal church, not the whole of it. Neither are the previous two verses an apology of the false doctrine in which the long held practices of the church are seen as equal to scripture. The traditions spoken of are the accepted standard practices of the churches. They were modeled by the apostles and the earliest churches and their practice is to continue.

So how do these apostolic traditions and cultural practices interact? How do we know where the line is? The line becomes much more obvious when we look into what practices defined them. For example greeting with a kiss was practiced by many of the ancient cultures but in many others a kiss would be highly offensive. The point for us to take from it is that we greet each other as family. A kiss was a greeting of kin, it showed either true family or a what is called a fictitious kin relationship—unrelated people seeing each other as brethren because of their group identity (Jews, Christians and many other groups for example). It is important to take away from this, not the method of greeting, but the familial identity—to greet each other as true brothers and sisters rather than as strangers. If I find myself in a cultural setting where a kiss is the accepted greeting among brethren then a kiss is appropriate, but if I find myself in a setting where a kiss is going to offend, cause discomfort and divide then I should greet in another way.

In a society where garments similar to apostolic times is the norm, wearing such would be appropriate, but preaching on main street dressed like John the Baptist would not be. It would do more harm than good because the way it is delivered and the package through which it comes is as important as the words we use. Hudson Taylor was despised by older English missionaries but loved by the Chinese for his practice of wearing Chinese clothing. Sadhu Sundar Singh, when called to preach throughout India, Nepal and Tibet clothed himself in the traditional saffron robes of an itinerant holy man to open the people to his message. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:20f, speaks of practicing similarly: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.”

If a practice of the early church is defining then it is binding. If it is not defining then liberty is the rule. The early church meeting was meant to be an interactive time where everyone contributed, within certain limitations, to mutually edify one another. To take this away redefines the purpose of the meeting. The Lord’s Supper was a full meal shared among the body to demonstrate certain facts of the Lord’s first advent, current presence and promised return. To strip away all but a swig of juice and a crumb of cracker is to change its purpose and to hide these beautiful demonstrations. Servant leadership shows the priesthood of the believer—every believer serving God and ministering to a lost, hurting world. To take this away and impose an authoritarian structure with clergy over the laity is to redefine church leadership and rob God’s people of a gift second only to salvation—universal coequal priesthood.

Greeting with a kiss, how we dress, reclining to eat, and what we eat rather than defining us are reflections of culture. These can be weighed and utilized or laid aside as the local body sees fit. What is important to keep in mind about is that we are to treat each other as family, that we are attired appropriately to our culture and that we value times of fellowship together with a meal.

Servant Leadership

Just as Christianity influenced the Roman Empire, the Greco-Roman world also affected the course of Christianity. Citing pagan influences on early Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette–renowned church historian and professor of Christian missions–states that the Roman concepts of power and rule corrupted the organization and life of the early churches. He observes that “the Church was being interpenetrated by ideals which were quite contrary to the Gospel, especially the conception and use of power which were in stark contrast to the kind exhibited in the life and teaching of Jesus and in the cross and the resurrection.” This, Latourette goes on to say, proved to be “the menace which was most nearly disastrous” to Christianity.

I believe it is more accurate to say that the conceptual and structural changes that occurred within the church during the early centuries of Christianity proved to be disastrous. Christianity, the humblest of all faiths, degenerated into the most power-hungry and hierarchical religion on earth. After Emperor Constantine elevated Christianity to legal religious status in A.D. 312, the once-persecuted Christians fiercely persecuted all their opposition. An unscriptural clerical and priestly caste arose that was consumed by the quest for power, position, and authority. Even Roman emperors had a guiding hand in the development of Christian churches. The pristine character of the New Testament church community was lost.

When we read the Gospels, however, we see that the principles of brotherly community, love, humility, and servanthood are at the very heart of Christ’s teaching. Unfortunately, like many of the early Christians, we have been slow to understand these great virtues and especially slow to apply them to church structure and leadership style.

New Testament, Christlike elders are to be servant leaders, not rulers or dictators. God doesn’t want His people to be used by petty, self-serving tyrants. Elders are to choose a life of service on behalf of others. Like the servant Christ, they are to sacrifice their time and energy for the good of others. Only elders who are loving, humble servants can genuinely manifest the incomparable life of Jesus Christ to their congregations and a watching world.

A group of elders, however, can become a self-serving, autocratic leadership body. Thus Peter, using the same terminology as Jesus, warns the Asian elders against abusive, lordly leadership: “. . . nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3). Peter also charges the elders, as well as everyone else in the congregation, to clothe themselves in humility just as Jesus clothed Himself in humility: “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5b). With similar concern, Paul reminds the Ephesian elders of his example of humility. In Acts 20:19, he describes his manner of “serving the Lord with all humility” and implies that they, too, must serve the Lord in the same manner. Because of pride’s lurking temptation, a new Christian should not be an elder: “And not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6).

In addition to shepherding others with a servant spirit, the elders must humbly and lovingly relate to one another. They must be able to patiently build consensus, compromise, persuade, listen, handle disagreement, forgive, receive rebuke and correction, confess sin, and appreciate the wisdom and perspective of others–even those with whom they disagree. They must be able to submit to one another, speak kindly and gently to one another, be patient with their fellow colleagues, defer to one another, and speak their minds openly in truth and love. Stronger and more gifted elders must not use their giftedness, as talented people sometimes do, to force their own way by threatening to leave the church and take their followers with them. Such selfishness creates ugly, carnal power struggles that endanger the unity and peace of the entire congregation.

The humble-servant character of the eldership doesn’t imply, however, an absence of authority. The New Testament terms that describe the elders’ position and work–“God’s stewards,” “overseers,” “shepherd,” “leading”–imply authority as well as responsibility. Peter could not have warned the Asian elders against “lording it over those allotted to your charge” (1 Peter 5:3) if they had no authority. As shepherds of the church, elders have been given the authority to lead and protect the local church (Acts 20:28-31). The key issue is the attitude in which elders exercise that authority.

Following the biblical model, elders must not wield the authority given to them in a heavy-handed way. They must not use manipulative tactics, play power games, or be arrogant and aloof. They must never think that they are unanswerable to their fellow brethren or to God. Elders must not be authoritarian, which is incompatible with humble servanthood. When we consider Paul’s example and that of our Lord’s, we must agree that biblical elders do not dictate; they direct. True elders do not command the consciences of their brethren but appeal to their brethren to faithfully follow God’s Word. Out of love, true elders suffer and bear the brunt of difficult people and problems so that the lambs are not bruised. The elders bear the misunderstandings and sins of other people so that the assembly may live in peace. They lose sleep so that others may rest. They make great personal sacrifices of time and energy for the welfare of others. They see themselves as men under authority. They depend on God for wisdom and help, not on their own power and cleverness. They face the false teachers’ fierce attacks. They guard the community’s liberty and freedom in Christ so that the saints are encouraged to develop their gifts, to mature, and to serve one another.

In summary, using Paul’s great love chapter, we can say that a servant elder “is patient . . . kind . . . not jealous; . . . [a servant elder] does not brag . . . [a servant elder] is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly . . . does not seek [his] . . . own . . . [a servant elder]is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; [a servant elder] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR PASTORAL LEADERSHIP BY THE PLURALITY OF ELDERS

Christians who profess the Bible to be God’s infallible, all-sufficient Word agree that they must establish their church practices and doctrines on the teachings of the Bible. Many contemporary scholars say, however, that the New Testament is ambiguous or silent regarding the topic of church government and conclude that no one can insist upon a biblical model of church government (by elders or anyone else) for all churches because the Bible doesn’t. George Eldon Ladd, author of A Theology of the New Testament and former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, expresses this view most concisely: “It appears likely that there was no normative pattern of church government in the apostolic age, and that the organizational structure of the church is no essential element in the theology of the church.” Although this is a widely held view among scholars today, it must be challenged because it simply does not fit biblical evidence.

In its major features, local church leadership (or government) by the plurality of elders is plainly and amply set forth by the New Testament writers. J. Alec Motyer, former principal of Trinity College in Bristol, England, captures the true spirit of the New Testament when he writes, ” . . . it is not as much as hinted in the New Testament that the church would ever need–or indeed should ever want or tolerate–any other local leadership than that of the eldership group.”

Not only does the New Testament record the existence of elders in numerous churches, it also gives instruction about elders and to elders. In fact, the New Testament offers more instruction regarding elders than it does regarding such important church subjects such as the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day, baptism, and spiritual gifts. When you consider the New Testament’s characteristic avoidance of detailed regulation and church procedures (when it is compared to the Old Testament), the attention given to elders is amazing. “This is why,” writes Jon Zens, editor of the journal Searching Together, “we need to seriously consider the doctrine of eldership; it jumps out at us from the pages of the New Testament, yet it has fallen into disrepute and is not being practiced as a whole in local churches.”

A Consistent, New Testament Pattern

To hear some scholars speak, you would think that the Bible doesn’t say one word about church elders or church government. But that is not true. The New Testament records evidence of pastoral oversight by a council of elders in nearly all the first churches. These local churches were spread over a wide geographical and culturally diverse area–from Jerusalem to Rome.

Examples of Eldership: Consider, as recorded in the New Testament, the consistent pattern of plural leadership by elders that existed among the first Christian churches.
·Elders are found in the churches of Judea and the surrounding area (Acts 11:30; James 5:14, 15).

·Elders governed the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21).

·Among the Pauline churches, leadership by the plurality of elders was established in the churches in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:20-23); in the church in Ephesus (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 5:17-25); in the church in Philippi (Phil. 1:1); and in the churches on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5).

According to the well-traveled letter of 1 Peter, elders existed in churches throughout northwestern Asia Minor: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1).
There are strong indications that elders existed in churches in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:12) and Rome (Heb. 13:17).

Instruction About Elders: Not only does the New Testament provide examples of elder-led churches, it includes explicit instructions to churches about how to care for, protect, discipline, select, restore, and call the elders. The apostles intended these instructions to be obeyed, and they should be regarded as normative teaching for all Christian churches at all times.

James instructs those who are sick to call for the elders of the church (James 5:14).
Paul instructs the Ephesian church to financially support elders who labor “at preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17, 18).
Paul instructs the local church about protecting elders from false accusation, disciplining elders who sin, and restoring fallen elders (1 Tim. 5:19-22).
Paul instructs the church regarding the proper qualifications for eldership (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
To the church in Ephesus, Paul states that anyone who desires to be an elder desires a “fine work” (1 Tim. 3:1).
Paul instructs the church to examine the qualifications of prospective elders (1 Tim. 3:10; 5:24, 25).
Peter instructs the young men of the church to submit to church elders (1 Peter 5:5).
Paul teaches that elders are the household stewards, leaders, instructors, and teachers of the local church (Titus 1:7, 9; 1 Thess. 5:12;).

Instruction and Exhortation to Elders: Besides giving instruction to churches about elders, Paul, Peter, and James give these instructions directly to elders:

James tells elders to pray for the sick and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord (James 5:14).
Peter directly charges elders to willingly pastor and oversee the local congregation (1 Peter 5:1, 2).
Peter warns elders not to be too domineering (1 Peter 5:3).
Peter promises elders that when the Lord Jesus returns they will receive “the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:4).
Peter exhorts elders to be clothed in humility (1 Peter 5:5).
Paul reminds the Ephesians elders that the Holy Spirit placed them in the church to be overseers and pastor the church of God (Acts 20:28).
Paul exhorts elders to guard the church from false teachers (Acts 20:28) and to be alert to the constant threat of false doctrine (Acts 20:31).
Paul reminds elders to work hard, help the needy, and be generous like the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:35).

Promotes the True Nature of the New Testament-Style Local Church

The local church’s structure of government makes a profound statement about the nature of the local church and its philosophy of ministry. The local church is not an undefined mass of people; it is a particular group of people that has a unique character, mission, and purpose. I am convinced that the elder structure of government best harmonizes with and promotes the true nature of the local church as revealed in the New Testament. We will consider four ways in which the elder structure of government complements the nature and theology of the local church.

The Church Is a Close-knit Family of Brothers and Sisters: Of the different New Testament terms used to describe the nature of the church–the body, the bride, the temple, the flock–the one most frequently used is the family, particularly the fraternal aspect of the family–brothers and sisters. Robert Banks, a prominent leader in the worldwide, home-church movement, makes this observation in his book, Paul’s Idea of Community:

Although in recent years Paul’s metaphors for community have been subjected to quite intense study, especially his description of it as a “body,” his application to it of “household” or “family” terminology has all too often been overlooked or only mentioned in passing.

Banks further comments on the frequency and significance of these familial expressions:

So numerous are these, and so frequently do they appear, that the comparison of the Christian community with a “family” must be regarded as the most significant metaphorical usage of all…. More than any of the other images utilized by Paul, it reveals the essence of his thinking about community.

The local Christian church, then, is to be a close-knit family of brothers and sisters. Brotherliness also provided a key guiding principle for the management of relationships between Christians (Rom. 14:15,21; 1 Cor. 6:8; 8:11-13; 2 Thess. 3:14,15; Philem. 15,16; James 4:11). Jesus insisted that His followers were true brothers and sisters and that none among them should act like the rabbis of His day who elevated themselves above their fellow countrymen:

“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matt. 23:5-8; italics added).

In complete obedience to Christ’s teaching on humility and brotherhood, the first Christians resisted special titles, sacred clothing, chief seats, and lordly terminology to highlight their community leaders. They also chose an appropriate leadership structure for their local congregations–leadership by a council of elders. The first Christians found within their biblical heritage a structure of government that was compatible with their new, spiritual family and their theological beliefs. Israel was a great family, composed of many individual families. The nation found leadership by a plurality of elders to be a suitable form of self-government that provided fair representation to its members. The same is true of the local Christian church. The elder structure of government suits an extended family organization like the local church. It allows any brother in the community who desires it and qualifies for it to share fully in the leadership of the community.

The Church Is a Nonclerical Community: The local church is not only an intimate, loving family of redeemed brothers and sisters, it is a nonclerical family. Unlike Israel, which was divided into sacred priestly members and lay members, the first-century, Christian church was a people’s movement. The distinguishing mark of Christianity was not found in a clerical hierarchy but in the fact that God’s Spirit came to dwell within ordinary, common people and that through them the Spirit manifested Jesus’ life to the believing community and the world.

It is an immensely profound truth that no special priestly or clerical class that is distinct from the whole people of God appears in the New Testament. Under the new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ, every member of the church of Jesus Christ is a holy saint, a royal priest, and a Spirit-gifted member of the body of Christ. Paul teaches that a wide diversity of gifts and services exists within the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), but he says absolutely nothing about a mystical gap between sacred clergy and common laity. If it exists, surely something as fundamental to the Church as a clergy-laity division should at least be mentioned in the New Testament. The New Testament, however, stresses the oneness of the people of God (Eph. 2:13-19) and the dismantling of the sacred-secular concept that existed between priest and people under the old covenant (1 Peter 2:5-10; Rev. 1:6).

Clericalism does not represent biblical, apostolic Christianity. Indeed, the real error to be contended with is not simply that one man provides leadership for the congregation, but that one person in the holy brotherhood has been sacralized apart from the brotherhood to an unscriptural status. In practice, the ordained clergyman–the minister, the reverend–is the Protestant priest.

Biblical eldership cannot exist in an environment of clericalism. Paul’s employment of the elder structure of government for the local church is clear, practical evidence against clericalism because the eldership is nonclerical in nature. The elders are always viewed in the Bible as “elders of the people” or “elders of the congregation,” never “elders of God.” The elders represent the people as leading members from among the people.

When establishing churches, Paul never ordains a priest or cleric to perform the church’s ministry. When he establishes a church, he leaves behind a council of elders chosen from among the believers to jointly oversee the local community (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Obviously that was all he believed that a local church needed. Since the local congregation of his day was composed of saints, priests, and Spirit-empowered servants, and since Christ was present with each congregation through the person of the Holy Spirit, none of the traditional, religious trappings such as sacred sites, sacred buildings, or sacred personnel (priests, clerics, or holy men) were needed. Nor could such be tolerated. To meet the need for community leadership and protection, Paul provides the nonclerical, elder structure of government–a form of government that would not demean the lordship of Christ over His people or the glorious status of a priestly, saintly body of people in which every member ministered.

The Church Is a Humble-Servant Community: I am convinced that one reason the apostles chose the elder system of government was because it enhanced the loving, humble-servant character of the Christian family. The New Testament offers a consistent example of shared leadership as the ideal structure of leadership in a congregation where love, humility, and servanthood are paramount. When it functions properly, shared leadership requires a greater exercise of humble servanthood than does unitary leadership. In order for an eldership to operate effectively, the elders must show mutual regard for one another, submit themselves one to another, patiently wait upon one another, genuinely consider one another’s interests and perspectives, and defer to one another. Eldership, then, enhances brotherly love, humility, mutuality, patience, and loving interdependence–qualities that are to mark the servant church.

Furthermore, shared leadership is often more trying than unitary leadership. It exposes our impatience with one another, our stubborn pride, our bullheadedness, our selfish immaturity, our domineering disposition, our lack of love and understanding of one another, and our prayerlessness. It also shows how underdeveloped and immature we really are in humility, brotherly love, and the true servant spirit. Like the saints at Corinth, we are quick to develop our knowledge and public gifts but slow to mature in love and humility.

I believe that churches today desperately need a revival of love, humility, and the servant spirit. Such a revival must begin with our leaders, and biblical eldership provides the structure through which leaders learn to work together in mutual love and humility. Since the eldership represents a microcosm of the entire church, it provides a living model of loving relationships and servanthood for the entire body. Thus, leadership by a plurality of elders ideally suits the humble-servant church.

The Church Is Under Christ’s Headship: Most important, biblical eldership guards and promotes the preeminence and position of Christ over the local church. Jesus left His disciples with the precious promise that “where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matt. 18:20). Because the apostles knew that Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit, was uniquely present with them as Ruler, Head, Lord, Pastor, Master, Overseer, High Priest, and King, they chose a form of government that reflected this distinctive, fundamental, Christian truth. This truth was not a theoretical idea to the early Christians–it was reality. The first churches were truly Christ centered and Christ dependent. Christ alone provided all they needed in order to be in full fellowship with God and one another. Christ’s person and work was so infinitely great, final, and complete that nothing–even in appearance–could diminish the centrality of His presence among and sufficiency for His people.

So, during the first century no Christian would have dared to take the position or title of sole ruler, overseer, or pastor of the church. We Christians today, however, are so accustomed to speaking of “the pastor” that we do not stop to realize that the New Testament does not. This fact is profoundly significant, and we must not permit our customary practice to shield our minds from this important truth.

There is only one flock and one Pastor (John 10:16), one body and one Head (Col. 1:18), one holy priesthood and one great High Priest (Heb. 4:14ff), one brotherhood and one Elder Brother (Rom. 8:29), one building and one Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:5ff.), one Mediator, and one Lord. Jesus Christ is the “Senior Pastor,” and all others are His undershepherds (1 Peter 5:4).

To symbolize the reality of Christ’s leadership and presence over the local church and its leaders, one church places an empty chair at the table next to the chairman during all elders’ meetings. This is a visual reminder to the elders of Christ’s presence and lordship, of their position as His undershepherds, and of their dependence on Him through prayer and the Word.

Promotes the Protection and Sanctification of Spiritual Leaders

We come now to two, extremely significant reasons for and benefits of pastoral leadership by a council of qualified elders. First, the shared leadership structure of eldership provides necessary accountability protection from the particular sins that plague spiritual leaders. In turn, this protects the spiritual character of the local church and the testimony of the Lord’s name. Second, the eldership structure provides peer relationships to help balance elders’ weaknesses and correct their character, an essential component in the sanctification process of spiritual leaders.

Leadership Accountability: English historian Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Because of our biblical beliefs in the dreadful realities of sin, the curse, Satan, and human depravity, we should understand well why people in positions of power are easily corrupted. In fact, the better we understand the exceeding sinfulness and deceitfulness of sin, the stronger our commitment to accountability will be. The collective leadership of a biblical eldership provides a formal structure for genuine accountability.

Shared, brotherly leadership provides needed restraint concerning such sins as pride, greed, and “playing god.” Earl D. Radmacher, chancellor of a Baptist seminary in America, writes, “Human leaders, even Christian ones, are sinners and they only accomplish God’s will imperfectly. Multiple leaders, therefore, will serve as a ‘check and balance’ on each other and serve as a safeguard against the very human tendency to play God over other people.”

It was never our Lord’s will for one individual to control the local church. The concept of the pastor as the lonely, trained professional–the sacred person presiding over the church who can never really become a part of the congregation–is utterly unscriptural. Not only is this concept unscriptural, it is psychologically and spiritually unhealthy. Radmacher goes on to contrast the deficiencies of a church leadership that is placed primarily in the hands of one pastor to the wholesomeness of leadership when it is shared by multiple pastors:

Laymen . . . are indifferent because they are so busy. They have no time to bother with church matters. Church administration is left, therefore, largely in the hands of the pastor. This is bad for him, and it is bad also for the church. It makes it easier for the minister to build up in himself a dictatorial disposition and to nourish in his heart the love of autocratic power.

It is my conviction that God has provided a hedge against these powerful temptations by the concept of multiple elders. The check and balance that is provided by men of equal authority is most wholesome and helps to bring about the desired attitude expressed by Peter to the plurality of elders: “. . . shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:2,3).”

In addition to providing close accountability, genuine partnership, and peer relationships–the very things most imperial pastors shrink from at all costs–shared leadership provides the local church shepherd with accountability for his work. Church leaders (like all of us) can be lazy, forgetful, fearful, or too busy to fulfill their responsibilities. Thus they need colleagues in ministry to whom they are answerable for their work. Coaches know that athletes who train together push one another to greater achievement. When someone else is running alongside him or her, a runner will push a little harder and go a little faster. The same is true in the Lord’s work. That is one reason why the Lord sent out His disciples in twos.

Peer Relationships:One of the deep joys of my life has been to share the pastoral leadership of a church with a team of dedicated pastor elders. As partners in the work of shepherding God’s precious, blood-bought people, we have sharpened, balanced, comforted, protected, and strengthened one another through nearly every conceivable life situation. I do not hesitate to say that the relationship with my fellow elders has been the most important tool God has used, outside of my marriage relationship, for the spiritual development of my Christian character, leadership abilities, and teaching ministry. The eldership has played a major role in the sanctification process of my Christian life.

Shared leadership can provide a church leader with critically needed recognition of his faults and deficiencies and can help to offset them.. We all have blind spots, eccentricities, and deficiencies. We all have what C. S. Lewis called “a fatal flaw.” We can see these fatal flaws so clearly in others but not in ourselves. These fatal flaws or blind spots distort our judgment. They deceive us. They can even destroy us. This is particularly true of multitalented, charismatic leaders. Blind to their flaws and extreme views, some talented leaders have destroyed themselves because they had no peers who could confront and balance them and, in fact, wanted none.

When a single leader is atop a pyramidal structure of organization, the important balancing of one another’s weaknesses and strengths normally does not occur. Note the strong language Robert Greenleaf, author of the book Servant Leadership, uses to convey his observations:

To be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting. None of us are perfect by ourselves, and all of us need the help and correcting influence of close colleagues. When someone is moved atop a pyramid, that person no longer has colleagues, only subordinates. Even the frankest and bravest of subordinates do not talk with their boss in the same way that they talk with colleagues who are equals, and normal communication patterns become warped.

I believe that traditional, single-church pastors would improve their character and ministry if they had genuine peers to whom they were regularly accountable and with whom they worked jointly.

The Bible speaks of Shared Leadership

Now, shared leadership should not be a new concept to a Bible-reading Christian. Shared leadership is rooted in the Old Testament institution of the elders of Israel and in Jesus’ founding of the apostolate. It is a highly significant but often overlooked fact that our Lord did not appoint one man to lead His church. He personally appointed and trained twelve men. Jesus Christ gave the church plurality of leadership. The Twelve comprised the first leadership council of the church and, in the most exemplary way, jointly led and taught the first Christian community. The Twelve provide a marvelous example of unity, humble brotherly love, and shared leadership structure.

We see that shared leadership is also evidenced by the Seven who were appointed to relieve the Twelve of the responsibility of dispensing funds to the church’s widows (Acts 6:3-6). The Seven were the prototype of later deacons. There is no indication that one of the Seven was the chief and the others were his assistants. As a body of servants, they worked on behalf of the church in Jerusalem. Based on all the evidence we have, the deacons–like the elders–formed a collective leadership council.

Does not the New Testament reveal that the pastoral oversight of many of the first churches was committed to a plurality of elders. This was true of the earliest, Jewish-Christian churches in Jerusalem, Judea, and neighboring countries as well as many of the first Gentile churches. Interestingly enough, Protestants don’t challenge the plurality of deacons in an effort to create a singular deacon, yet many challenge the plurality of elders. It is odd that most Christians have no problem accepting a plurality of deacons but are almost irrationally frightened by a plurality of elders that is far more evident in the New Testament. Despite such fears, a plurality of leadership through a council of elders needs to be preserved just as much as a plurality of deacons.

I am convinced that the underlying reason many Christians fear the plurality of elders is that they don’t really understand the New Testament concept of plural elders or its rich benefits to the local church. New Testament eldership is not, as many think, a high-status, church-board position that is open to any and all who desire membership. On the contrary, an eldership patterned after the New Testament model requires qualified elder candidates to meet specific moral and spiritual qualifications before they serve (1 Tim. 3:1-7).The qualifications of such elder candidates must be publicly examined by the church (1 Tim. 3:10). The elders selected must be publicly installed into office (1 Tim. 5:22; Acts 14:23). They must be motivated and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do their work (Acts 20:28). Finally, they must be acknowledged, loved, and honored by the entire congregation. This honor given by the congregation includes the provision of financial support to elders who are uniquely gifted at preaching and teaching, which allows some elders to serve the church full or part time (1 Tim. 5:17,18). Thus a team of qualified, dedicated, Spirit-placed elders is not a passive, ineffective committee; it is an effective form of leadership structure that greatly benefits the church family.

A Council of Equals: Leadership by a council of elders is a form of government found in nearly every society of the ancient Near East. It was the fundamental, governmental structure of the nation of Israel throughout its Old Testament history (Ex. 3:16; Ezra 10:8). For Israel–a tribal, patriarchal society–the eldership was as basic as the family unit. So when the New Testament records that Paul, a Jew who was thoroughly immersed in the Old Testament and Jewish culture, appointed elders for his newly founded churches (Acts 14:23), it means that he established a council of elders in each local church.

By definition, the elder structure of government is a collective leadership in which each elder shares equally the position, authority, and responsibility of the office. There are different names for this type of leadership structure. More formally it is called collective, corporate, or collegiate leadership. In contemporary terms, it is referred to as multiple church leadership, plurality, shared leadership, or team leadership. I use these terms synonymously throughout this booklet. The opposite of collective leadership is unitary leadership, monarchical rule, or one-man leadership.

First Among a Council of Equals: Leaders Among Leaders: An extremely important but terribly misunderstood aspect of biblical eldership is the principle of “first among equals” (1 Tim. 5:17). Failure to understand this principle has caused some elderships to be tragically ineffective in their pastoral care and leadership. Although elders are to act jointly as a council and share equal authority and responsibility for the leadership of the church, all elders are not equal in their giftedness, biblical knowledge, leadership ability, experience, or dedication. Therefore, those among the elders who are particularly gifted leaders and/or teachers will naturally stand out among the other elders as leaders and teachers within the leadership body. This is what the Romans called primus inter pares, which means “first among equals,” or primi inter pares, which means “first ones among equals.”

The principle of “first among equals” is observed first in our Lord’s dealings with the twelve apostles. Jesus chose and empowered all of them to preach and heal, but He singled out three for special attention–Peter, James, and John (“first ones among equals”). Among the three, as well as among the Twelve, Peter stood out as the most prominent (“first among equals”).

As the natural leader, the chief speaker, and the man of action, Peter challenged, energized, strengthened, and ignited the group. Without Peter, the group would have been less effective. When surrounded by eleven other apostles who were his equals, Peter became stronger, more balanced, and was protected from his impetuous nature and his fears. In spite of his outstanding leadership and speaking abilities, Peter possessed no legal or official rank or title above the other eleven. They were not his subordinates. They were not his staff or team of assistants. He wasn’t the apostles’ “senior pastor.” He was simply first among his equals, by our Lord’s approval.

The “first-among-equals” leadership relationship can also be observed among the Seven who, as we’ve seen, were chosen to relieve the apostles of certain responsibilities (Acts 6). Philip and Stephen stand out as prominent figures among the five other brothers (Acts 6:8-7:60; 8:5-40; 21:8). Yet, as far as the account records, the two held no special title or status above the others.

The concept of “first among equals” is further evidenced by the relationship of Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. They were both apostles, yet Paul was “first among equals” because he was “the chief speaker” and dynamic leader (Acts 13:13; 14:12). Although clearly the more gifted of the two apostles, Paul held no formal ranking over Barnabas; they labored as partners in the work of the gospel. A similar relationship seems to have existed between Paul and Silas, who was also an apostle (1 Thess. 2:6).

Finally, the “first-among-equals” concept is evidenced by the way in which congregations are to honor their elders. Concerning elders within the church in Ephesus, Paul writes, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’ ” (1 Tim. 5:17,18). All elders must be able to teach the Word, but not all of them desire to work fully at preaching and teaching. The local church should properly care for those who are specially gifted in teaching and spend the time to do so. Let us be clear about the fact that it is the spiritual giftedness of the elders that causes the church to grow and prosper spiritually, not just the eldership form of government per se.

This doesn’t mean, however, that elders who are first among their equals do all the thinking and decision making for the group, or that they become the “pastors” while the others are “merely elders.” To call one elder “pastor” and the rest “elders,” or one elder “the clergyman” and the rest “lay elders,” is to act without biblical precedence. To do so will not result in a biblical eldership. It will, at least in practice, create a separate, superior office over the eldership, just as was done during the early second century when the division between “the overseer” and “elders” occurred.

The advantage of the principle of “first among equals” is that it allows for functional, gift-based diversity within the eldership team without creating an official, superior office over fellow elders. Just as the leading apostles, such as Peter and John, bore no special title or formal distinctions from the other apostles, elders who receive double honor form no official class or receive no special title. The elders, then, who labor in the Word and exercise good leadership are, in the words of Scripture, “leading men among the brethren” (Acts 15:22).

Male Leadership

There is much about biblical eldership that offends churchgoing people today: the concept of elders who provide pastoral care, a plurality of pastors, and the idea of so-called “lay” or nonclerical pastor elders. Yet nothing is more objectionable in the minds of many contemporary people than the biblical concept of an all-male eldership. A biblical eldership, however, must be an all-male eldership.

For the Bible-believing Christian, the primary example of male leadership is found in the person of Jesus Christ. The most obvious point is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God, not the daughter of God. His maleness was not an arbitrary matter. It was a theological necessity, absolutely essential to His person and work.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus trained and appointed twelve men whom He called “apostles” (Luke 6:13). Jesus’ choice of an all-male apostolate affirmed the creation order as presented in Genesis 2:18-25. Luke informs us that before choosing the Twelve Jesus spent the entire night in prayer with His Father (Luke 6:12). As the perfect Son, in complete obedience and submission to His Father’s will, Jesus chose twelve males to be His apostles. These men were God the Father’s choice. Jesus’ choice of male apostles was based on divine principles and guidance, not local custom or traditions.

As we’ve seen, the Twelve followed the example of their Lord and Master by appointing seven men, not seven men and women, when they needed to establish an official body of servants to care for the church’s widows and funds (Acts 6:1-6). Thirty years after Christ’s ascension into heaven, Peter wrote to the churches of northwestern Asia Minor and exhorted his Christian sisters to submit to their husbands in the same way the “holy women” of the Old Testament age did (1 Peter 3:5). He also exhorted husbands to care for their wives and reminded them that their wives were fellow heirs “of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). Thus Peter continued to follow His Lord’s example and taught both role distinctions and male-female equality.

The biblical pattern of male leadership continued throughout the New Testament era. Regarding the marriage relationship, Paul could not have stated more pointedly the divine order of the husband-wife relationship. In complete agreement with Peter’s instruction on the wife’s marital submission, Paul teaches that the husband is empowered and commanded to lead in the marriage relationship and that the wife is instructed to submit “as to the Lord.” The following texts speak for themselves:

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22).
“But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:24).
“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church” (Eph. 5:23).
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Col. 3:18).
“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine . . . that they [older women] may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored” (Titus 2:1,4,5).

Just as Paul teaches male headship in the family, he teaches male headship in the local church (1 Tim. 2:8-3:7). Because the family is the basic social unit and the man is the established family authority, we should expect that men would become the elders of the larger church family. Consider Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12: “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” In the same way that every individual family is governed by certain standards of conduct, so the local church family is governed by certain principles of conduct and social arrangement. The letter of 1 Timothy specifically addresses the issue of proper order and behavior of men, women, and elders in the local church family. To his representative in Ephesus, Paul writes, “I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14, 15; italics added).

A major aspect of the church’s social arrangement concerns the behavior of women in the congregation. In the church in Ephesus, as a result of false teaching that may have challenged the validity of traditional gender roles, Christian women were acting contrary to acceptable Christian behavior. In order to counter improper female conduct in the church, Paul restates Christian principles of women’s conduct: “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

First Timothy 2:11-14 should settle the question of women elders. Paul prohibits women from doing two things: (1) teaching the men of the church; and (2) exercising authority over the men.

Note that immediately following his instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, that prohibits women from teaching and leading men, Paul describes the qualifications for those who oversee the local church (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Significantly, the qualifications assume a male subject. Thus the overseer is to be “the husband of one wife” and “one who manages his own household well” (1 Tim. 3:2b,4a). Paul gives no suggestion of women elders in this passage.

Qualified Leadership

In a letter to a young presbyter named Nepotian, dated A. D. 394, Jerome (A.D. 345-419) rebukes the churches of his day for their hypocrisy in showing more concern for the appearance of their church buildings than the careful selection of their church leaders: “Many build churches nowadays; their walls and pillars of glowing marble, their ceilings glittering with gold, their altars studded with jewels. Yet to the choice of Christ’s ministers no heed is paid.”

Multitudes of churches today repeat similar error. Many of them seem oblivious to the biblical requirements for their spiritual leaders as well as to the need for each congregation to properly examine all candidates for leadership qualities in light of biblical standards (1 Tim. 3:10). The most common mistake made by churches that are eager to implement biblical eldership is to appoint biblically unqualified men. Because there is always a need for more shepherds, it is tempting to allow unqualified, unprepared men to assume leadership in the church. This is, however, a time-proven formula for failure. A biblical eldership requires biblically qualified elders.

The overriding concern of the New Testament in relation to church leadership is to ensure that the right kind of men will serve as elders and deacons. The offices of God’s church are not honorary positions bestowed on individuals who have attended church faithfully or who are senior in years. Nor are these offices to be viewed as church-board positions to be filled with good friends, rich donors, or charismatic personalities. Nor are they positions that only graduate seminary students can fill. The church offices–both eldership and deaconship–are open to all men who meet the apostolic, biblical requirements. The New Testament unequivocally emphasizes this. Consider these points:

To the troubled church in Ephesus, Paul insists that a properly constituted, biblical Christian church (1 Tim. 3:14,15) must have qualified, approved elders:

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:1-7; italics added).

Paul, as we’ve seen, also insists that prospective elders and deacons be publicly examined in light of the stated list of qualifications. He writes, “And let these [deacons] also [like the elders] first be tested [examined]; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach” (1 Tim 3:10; cf. 5:24, 25).

When directing Titus in how to organize churches on the island of Crete, Paul reminds him to appoint only morally and spiritually qualified men to be elders. By stating elder qualifications in a letter, Paul establishes a public list that will guide the local church in its choice of elders and empower it to hold its elders accountable:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:5-9; italics added).

When writing to churches scattered throughout northwestern Asia Minor, Peter speaks of the kind of men who should be elders. He exhorts the elders to shepherd the flock “not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2, 3).

It is highly noteworthy that the New Testament provides more instruction concerning the qualifications for eldership than on any other aspect of eldership. Such qualifications are not required of all teachers or evangelists. One person may be gifted as an evangelist and be used of God in that capacity, yet be unqualified to be an elder. An individual may be an evangelist immediately after conversion, but Scripture says that a new convert cannot be an elder (1 Tim. 3:6).

When we speak of the elders’ qualifications, most people think that these qualifications are different than those of the clergy. The New Testament, however, has no separate standards for professional clergy and lay elders. The reason is simple. There aren’t three separate offices–pastor, elders, and deacons–in the New Testament-style local church. There are only two offices–elders and deacons. From the New Testament perspective, any man in the congregation who desires to shepherd the Lord’s people and meets God’s requirements for the office can be a pastor elder.

The scriptural qualifications can be divided into three broad categories relating to moral and spiritual character, abilities, and Spirit-given motivation.

Moral and Spiritual Character: Most of the biblical qualifications relate to each candidate’s moral and spiritual qualities. The first, overarching qualification is that of being “above reproach.” The meaning of “above reproach” is defined by the character qualities that follow the term. In both of Paul’s lists of elder qualifications, the first, specific, character virtue itemized is “the husband of one wife.” This means that each elder must be above reproach in his marital and sexual life.

The other character qualities stress the elder’s integrity, self-control, and spiritual maturity. Since elders govern the church body, each one must be self-controlled in the use of money, alcohol, and the exercise of his pastoral authority. Since each elder is to be a model of Christian living, he must be spiritually devout, righteous, a lover of good, hospitable, and morally above reproach before the non-Christian community. In pastoral work, relationship skills are preeminent. Thus a shepherd elder must be gentle, stable, sound-minded, and uncontentious. An angry, hotheaded man hurts people. So, an elder must not have a dictatorial spirit or be quick-tempered, pugnacious, or self-willed. Finally, an elder must not be a new Christian. He must be a spiritually mature, humble, time-proven disciple of Jesus Christ.

Abilities:Within the lists of elder qualifications, three requirements address the elder’s abilities to perform the task. He must be able to manage his family household well, provide a model of Christian living for others to follow, and be able to teach and defend the faith.

Able to manage his family household well: An elder must be able to manage his family household well. The Scripture states, “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4, 5). The Puritans referred to the family household as the “little church.” This perspective is in keeping with the scriptural reasoning that if a man cannot shepherd his family, he can’t shepherd the extended family of the church. Managing the local church is more like managing a family than managing a business or state. A man may be a successful businessman, a capable public official, a brilliant office manager, or a top military leader but be a terrible church elder or father. Thus a man’s ability to oversee his family household well is a prerequisite for overseeing God’s household.

Able to provide a model for others to follow: An elder must be an example of Christian living that others will want to follow. Peter reminds the Asian elders “to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3b). If a man is not a godly model for others to follow, he cannot be an elder even if he is a good teacher and manager. The greatest way to inspire and influence people for God is through personal example. Character and deeds, not official position or title, is what really influences people for eternity. Today men and women crave authentic examples of true Christianity in action. Who can better provide the week-by-week, long-term examples of family life, business life, and church life than a local-church elder? That is why it is so important that an elder, as a living imitator of Christ, shepherd God’s flock in God’s way.

Able to teach and defend the faith: An elder must be able to teach and defend the faith. It doesn’t matter how successful a man is in his business, how eloquently he speaks, or how intelligent he is. If he isn’t firmly committed to historic, apostolic doctrine and able to instruct people in biblical doctrine, he does not qualify to be a biblical elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9).

The New Testament requires that a pastor elder “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching” (Titus 1:9a). This means that an elder must firmly adhere to orthodox, historic, biblical teaching. “Elders must not,” one commentator says, “be chosen from among those who have been toying with new doctrines.” Since the local church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15b), its leaders must be rock-solid pillars of biblical doctrine or the house will crumble. Since the local church is also a small flock traveling over treacherous terrain that is infested with “savage wolves,” only those shepherds who know the way and see the wolves can lead the flock safely to its destination. An elder, then, must be characterized by doctrinal integrity.

It is essential for an elder to be firmly committed to apostolic, biblical doctrine so “that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9b). This requires that a prospective elder must have applied himself for some years to the reading and study of Scripture, that he can reason intelligently and logically discuss biblical issues, that he has formulated doctrinal beliefs, and that he has the verbal ability and willingness to teach other people. There should be no confusion, then, about what a New Testament elder is called to do. He is to teach and exhort the congregation in sound doctrine and to defend the truth from false teachers. This is the big difference between board elders and pastor elders. New Testament elders are both guardians and teachers of sound, biblical doctrine.

Spirit-given Motivation for the Task: An obvious but not insignificant qualification is the elder’s personal desire to love and care for God’s people. Paul and the first Christians applaud such willingness and created this popular Christian saying: “If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do” (1 Tim. 3:1). Peter, too, insists that an elder must shepherd the flock willingly and voluntarily (1 Peter 5:2). He knew from years of personal experience that someone who views spiritual care as an unwanted obligation cannot fulfill the shepherding task. An elder who serves grudgingly or under constraint is incapable of genuinely caring for people. He will be an unhappy, impatient, guilty, fearful, and ineffective shepherd. Shepherding God’s people through this sin-weary world is far too difficult a task–fraught with too many problems, dangers, and demands–to be entrusted to someone who lacks the will and desire to do the work effectively.

A true desire to lead the family of God is always a Spirit-generated desire. Paul reminds the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit–not the church or the apostles–placed them as overseers in the church to shepherd the flock of God (Acts 20:28). The Spirit called them to shepherd the church and moved them to care for the flock. The Spirit planted the pastoral desire in their hearts. He gave them the compulsion and strength to do the work and also the wisdom and appropriate gifts to care for the flock. The elders were His wise choice to complete the task. In the church of God, it is not man’s will that matters; it is God’s will and arrangement that matter. So, the only men who qualify for eldership are those whom the Holy Spirit gives the motivation and gifts for the task.

A biblical eldership, then, is a biblically qualified team of shepherd leaders. A plurality of unqualified elders provides no significant benefit to the local church. I agree fully with the counsel of Jon Zens, who writes, “Better have no elders than the wrong ones.” The local church must in all earnestness insist on biblically qualified elders, even if such men take years to develop.