There are a few examples often cited as evidence that external structures and authorities were established in the scriptures and this is how the church ought to organise itself today. In the following extract from my book, Independent Eldership (Amazon; Grace Publications) I look specifically at how we should read and understand these apparent forms of external authority.
At this point, someone might argue that the Apostles themselves give grounds for external authority… Some will point to the so-called Jerusalem council in defence of external authority. They may also highlight Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in churches in Acts 14 and the instruction for Titus to ‘appoint elders in every town’ (Tit. 1:5) as evidence that the early churches were not self-governing in the way we have described above.
The reason I refer to the ‘so-called’ Jerusalem Council is that it was not really a council in any meaningful sense at all. The meeting in Acts 15 was not a representative meeting of all the regional churches, but a specific meeting between two local churches. The only churches explicitly involved were from Jerusalem and Antioch, and there is no reason to believe any other churches were part of the discussion. Some note that Paul and Barnabas passed through Phoenicia and Samaria on their way to Jerusalem, but Benjamin Merkle points out: ‘There is no mention that the churches in Phoenicia and Samaria sent representatives along with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. After the decree was written, it was to be sent, not only to the church in Antioch, but also the churches in Syria and Cilicia. Again, nowhere do we read that churches from these regions participated in the proceedings.’[1]
Further, the meeting between the two churches was not initiated by the ‘mother church’ in Jerusalem. Rather, Acts 15:1–2 gives us two important details. First, ‘some men came down from Judea’ arguing that circumcision was necessary for salvation. The false gospel that was being spread had come from the region of Jerusalem. So, the reason for the meeting between the two churches was that an issue appeared to have arisen in one of the churches and was now being exported to another. Second, ‘After Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue.’ The meeting was not called by the church in Jerusalem, but initiated by the church in Antioch. The church in Antioch was not summoned by the ‘mother church’, rather those in Antioch initiated a meeting with the church in Jerusalem, as an independent church, to clarify the issues that came from Judea.
We should also note that this was not an ordinary meeting of church leaders. Louis Berkhof – a Presbyterian who believed in external structures – acknowledges this when he says, ‘this council was composed of apostles and elders, and therefore did not constitute a proper example and pattern of a classis or synod in the modern sense of the word.’[2] At this point in time, the Apostles were still involved in helping the church and its elders find their feet. They took a leading role in the meeting and are mentioned first each of the five times ‘the Apostles and elders’ are referred to in Acts 15. As there are no Apostles around today, this is not a repeatable meeting.
Perhaps most notably of all, the decree that is sent to the churches includes non-binding decisions. Robert Stein writes:
The issue at stake, according to Luke, is not justification but rather social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles. The decree does not add a requirement for Gentiles who are seeking salvation. Rather they are directions given by the Spirit (Acts 15:28) which seek to promote sensitivity on the part of Gentile Christians with respect to issues that were especially sensitive to the Jews.[3]
Though the issue (of circumcision being required for salvation) needed to be dealt with in a clear way, at least three of the four additional prohibitions were non-binding pleas for sensitivity.[4] As Darrell Bock puts it, ‘the list is not so much about the law as having a spirit of sensitivity about that which may cause offense… There is a cultural sensitivity here where the issue is not establishing a fixed set of practices but respecting the practices of others and not forcing oneself on another because of such views.’[5] Benjamin Merkle summarises: ‘the decision made by the council that the Gentiles needed to avoid certain foods is best understood, not as a binding decree set by an ecclesiastical authority, but as a plea for sensitivity to the Jewish people.’[6] For these reasons, the so-called Jerusalem Council does not provide a compelling basis for external structures and hierarchical church polity.
Neither should we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in Acts 14:23, nor similarly Paul’s instruction in Titus 1:5, as an external authority imposing elders on local churches. Two examples of appointments happen earlier in Acts and set the pattern for the appointment of leaders. These come in Acts 1 – at the appointment of Matthias – and Acts 6, when the seven are chosen to serve.
In Acts 1:15, we’re told that Peter stood up in front of the 120 members of the Jerusalem Church and explained the need for a replacement Apostle to return their number to twelve following the betrayal and death of Judas Iscariot. Having explained his rationale, Peter gives the qualifications for appointing this new Apostle (1:21–22). We then read in vv23–26:
So they proposed two: Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, know everyone’s hearts; show which of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry that Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias and he was added to the eleven apostles.
Note the repeated use of the word they. Peter did not elect or appoint this Apostle himself. At no point in the passage are the Apostles distinguished from the rest of the 120 gathered together. There is no reason to assume that they refers exclusively to the Apostles here, and it certainly can’t mean just Peter in the singular. This leaves us to conclude that the 120 proposed the two men, the whole congregation then prayed together about it and, through the casting of lots (the last time we read of this as a decision-making tool in the New Testament), the congregation elected Matthias. So, the first leadership appointment we read about in Acts was not imposed on the church by the Apostles, but was a collective decision of the whole congregation in Jerusalem.
In Acts 6:1–7, we see something similar in the appointment of the seven chosen to serve. A complaint about the distribution of food arose, and we read in vv2–3 ‘The Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said, “It would not be right for us to give up preaching the word of God to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty.’ So, again, we see the whole church gathered together and, this time articulated even more clearly, the Apostles ask the congregation to select seven men to serve. The matter moved forward because, v5 tells us, ‘This proposal pleased the whole company.’ Once the church had selected the seven men, the Apostles appointed them to serve by praying and laying hands on them. F.F. Bruce says, ‘it was the community as a whole that selected these seven men and presented them to the apostles for their approbation; it was the apostles who installed them in office. This they did by laying their hands on them, after prayer.’[7] David Peterson notes, ‘this should not be understood in terms of postbiblical ideas of ordination’[8] and Darrell Bock agrees that ‘the laying on of hands is strictly symbolic; formal ordination into ministry is a later practice of the church.’[9] In this way, the church community as a whole appointed the seven.
This pattern, established twice in the early chapters of Acts, is significant when it comes to understanding Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. It’s often assumed that Paul and Barnabas chose leaders for the churches in Galatia and then appointed them as elders. This assumption then leads to the inference that Paul and Barnabas – and later Titus and Timothy – are effectively acting as episcopal bishops here. However, based on the pattern established in Acts 1 and Acts 6 for church appointments, it seems more likely that the phrase ‘appointed elders’ in Acts 14:23 and the instruction to ‘appoint elders’ in Titus 1:5 are shorthand for the process outlined in Acts 1 and 6. This is supported by Paul’s instruction to Timothy not to be ‘too quick to appoint anyone as an elder’ (1 Tim. 5:22). These congregations chose men from among themselves and then Paul and Barnabas – and similarly Titus and Timothy – ‘appointed’ these men, that is: they publicly recognised the church’s choice through the laying on of hands. The appointment of elders in the local church is a matter for the local church, congregation.
Clearly, there was an external authority vested in the Apostles themselves. But two things are worth saying. First, as Clifford Pond points out:
There was only one external authority, namely, the Apostles. But even those apostles directed the local churches to deal with their own problems (1 Corinthians 5; Philippians 2:12–13). They did not tell them to wait for an apostle to be present in order to exercise direct authority, nor did they refer them to any other church authority, indeed they urged the churches to act themselves.[10]
Notably, the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 are likewise not directed to any external authorities, not even that of the Apostle John writing the letter, but are addressed directly by the Lord Jesus and assumed to have all that they need within the congregation to act on his instructions to them.
Second, it is clear that Apostles and elders occupy different roles. Whatever else is going on in Acts 15, we can see two distinct groups: Apostles and elders. The Apostles exercised some external authority over the congregations, but elders were responsible for particular local churches. This is significant because the role of Apostle ended with the death of John, the last of the Apostles to die. The only people who ever exercised external authority over local churches were Apostles, and by the second century, there were no more Apostles. If there are no more Apostles, there can be no legitimate external oversight of the church. There is no Apostolic authority because there is no longer an Apostolic function. There is no call for external oversight to defend the gospel once for all delivered to the saints because, as we have seen already, that task has been entrusted to the local church. The authority of the Apostles over all the churches has now been finally enshrined in the New Testament writings. They left elders to have oversight of local churches, and instituted no external structures or authorities to come after them. Indeed, as Clifford Pond notes in relation to the churches in Revelation:
Each church is addressed separately and each church is required to apply the Lord’s instructions under its own leadership. Enough time had elapsed after Pentecost for some synodical or other church structure to be advocated, or a ‘bishop’ to be appointed; but this was not the Lord’s plan for the churches. Each was responsible to him directly.[11]
The local church, then, is to be independent. It is to be answerable directly to Jesus as its head. Local churches are to be free from external authorities and structures as self-governing, independent entities.
[1] Merkle, 40 Questions, p.33
[2] Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, p.591
[3] ‘Jerusalem’ in Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. and Reid, D.G. (Eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 1993, p.471
[4] Even the prohibition on refraining from sexual immorality – which clearly is binding – might well be best understood in the context of ritual laws. Darrell Bock comments: ‘It is quite likely that the prohibition relates especially to attending pagan temples and what goes with them’ in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, Baker Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2007, p.506
[5] Bock, Acts, p.507
[6] Merkle, 40 questions, p.36
[7] Bruce, F.F., The New International Commentary On The New Testament: The Book of Acts, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1988, p.122
[8] Peterson, D., The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Acts of the Apostles, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2009, p.235
[9] Bock, Acts, p.262
[10] Pond, Only Servants, p.23
[11] Ibid., p.24