Robert Ewing.Pastor and Elders Letter

Pastor and Elders Letter

FORWARD

To all saints everywhere seeking to enter into God’s divine order for His New Testament church.

Greetings in the most glorious name of all, our Lord Jesus Christ! A dear sister once sang here, "I’d Rather Have Jesus." How that expresses our feelings just now. We’re so glad that you want him and also to furnish Him a true church which would be His habitation. How He must be thrilled with those of such vision! Christ’s Church has more future that anything else on earth. Of course God suffers along with it until it learns to work only through Him, for He can’t use mixed motives. If the Church could have seen all its travail, its long deserts, it may have thought twice. Even so, it would have known that though it be a Rebecca on the camel trail, it would have far surpassed all the glories of Babylon.

First we should say, as always in teaching, we enter with the fear of God. If we encourage you wrongly, we must answer before the judgment seat of Christ which is no light matter. Once (before 1946) I was always eager to prove the other fellow wrong and myself right. I could always find some kind of an answer, but God did something within me and since then it doesn’t matter if I never get proved right, just so God shows the truth. Before 1946 I had seven fat notebooks full of the most confused conclusions. God was merciful and kept me a stutterer. But since then there always is peace and, as least to me, clarity and consistency as to what we see. For example, for several years now it’s very plain to us that the Word shows a "firstfruit" company of overcomers who precede the mass of Christians (Matt. 25:10, Luke 21:36, Phil. 3:11, Heb. 9:28, Rev. 3:10, Rev. 14:4, etc.) Of course prophetical subjects are expected to be understood clearer as we progress and any change has been mostly there.


INTRODUCTION

Many honest hearts question the scripturalness of the pastors as such. They have seen one-man dictatorship, and they wonder if the other extreme would not be better. The conclude, both from experience and their understanding of the Bible, that local church leadership of the Bible, that local church leadership should be invested in elders who are, they say, co-equal in authority. Let us investigate the validity of such a position.

There is such a lack of appreciation for local elders in the church that it is commendable whatever one’s view on them, when they are recognized at all. The elders were the "backbone" of the local churches in Acts, but where are they recognized today? It is rare enough to find churches today where the supernatural gifts of the Spirit operate in balanced order. Yet it is rarer still, in these same churches, to find recognized local elders operating; nor does this mean that each church should make them so conspicuous that they serve more as museum relics than as part of the integral whole. But the very fact that their existence is denied in the average church warrants God to challenge His Church along these lines. And with the challenge comes a need for clear understanding.

Too often we expect that if we read such and such a book, or if only such and such a scholar can teach us, we will have the answer. But may the reader not set his expectation on anything said here, but rather only upon Christ Himself. "My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from Him" (Ps. 62:5). This cannot be overemphasized, for if all of God’s children would to this there would be no division. They would understand what Christ meant when He said that "the Spirit of truth...will guide you into all truth" (Jn. 16:13). If He uses these lines, or any other writings, He still gets the glory and not some author, if our expectation is upon Him only. Truth intellectually learned from man may be erased by man. But that which is learned of Jesus, engraved by the Spirit’s pen, will stand against all man’s logic.

Far too often we have diligently studied deep studies in our secular schools, but when asked to study something in the Word that requires some effort, we pass if off as "too deep" for us. Paul even wrote to the Spirit-filled Hebrews, who had experienced such wonderful blessings as are recorded in Acts, and told them that they still could not eat the meat. Today some literature serves the "milk" purpose and some serves the "meat" purpose. Since this is study material that requires much "chewing," please treat it accordingly; for Christ is coming for a matured bride to who He promises "meat in due season" just prior to His coming (Matt. 24:25).

What in a nutshell, is the New Testament plan for elders? (1) The PLACE of the elder is in the local church (Acts 14:23). (2) The PROOF of it is that it works when practiced (Acts 15). (Notice that problems were not brought before the whole church to decide, but before the elders.) (3) The PROTECTION given by it is seen in Acts 20 where true elders are seen to lead in right paths. (4) The PEACE it gives is seen in the preparations listed to mature an elder (1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1), for if he has harmony in his personal and family life he will impart it. (5) The POWER, or authority, of the elders is seen in their ability to "rule" or "guide" the flock (Heb 13:7, 17, 24). They "must give account" for the sheep. For this cause, (6) the PURPOSE of the elders is to "feed (pastor, shepherd) the flock of God..." willingly, eagerly and becomingly (1 Pet. 5). (7) The PREEMINENCE that the elder plan demands when faithfully carried out is seen in the "crown of glory" they receive, as mentioned by Peter (1 Pet. 5:4) but seen by John (Rev. 4:10).

What is the scope of the elders? This is clearly seen in Acts where we see seven different basic relationships that their role fulfills when in full orbit. (1) That of the ministry of the WORD (accompanied with prayer, inasmuch as the see must have right cultivation to become fruitful)-- Acts 6:4. (2) That of maintaining the church’s testimony before the WORLD, Acts 11:27-30. For what a testimony it was to all when they saw how, through the elder’s ministry, the church lived above the famine and woes of the world that they were going through. (3) That of right relationship to divine AUTHORITY, Acts 14:23. The Greek word for "ordained (appointed)" signifies this action by the setting forth or laying on of the hands of the apostles. (4) There was right relationship to PERSONAL NEED, Acts 15:1-29. For they with the apostles solved problems that threatened the peace of many new converts, that of legalism. (5) There was right relationship with GOD’S PLAN for through their decree the churches became established in the faith and increased in number daily, Acts. 16:4,5. (6) And the right relationship of the elders to the TRINITY -- in this case seen in their ensample, Paul -- is shown in his address to the Ephesian elders in which the three in the Godhead are mentioned about a dozen time, Acts 20. (7) Their right relationship to GLORY is seen in that "they glorified God" when Paul told them at Jerusalem of God’s glorious visitation among the Gentiles, Acts 21:20.

What are all the duties that the elders should practice? The scriptures show seven. They are (1) to give themselves continually in prayer; (2) and to the ministry of the Word (in contrast to the deacons who "serve tables" Acts 6:4); (3) to solve spiritual problems (Acts 15:2); (4) to oversee, feed the flock (Acts 20:28); (5) to impart spiritual gifts by prophecy and laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14); (6) to pray for the sick (Js. 5:14); and (7) to be an example or "pattern" to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). The pattern that God, the weaver, weaves into one life may be long-suffering, or into another boldness, or some other characteristic, for as the wise weaver, He likes variety and contrast.



ELDERS DEFINED

No one will possess their full inheritance if they aren’t sure where the limits of it extend. Perhaps God’s people need to understand the kinds of elders and their limits if they are to possess this area of God’s inheritance for them.

Basically, there are two kinds of elders. Some elders are so by example, and they have a right to counsel, while others have officially been placed in and are ruling elders.

When we approach this subject we are well aware that one can only speak where the Word speaks and can be no more dogmatic than the Word is on any subject. Since the Word is dogmatic that there are elders we can be too. But when it comes to closely defining the kinds of elders, although there is clarity enough in the Word, still there is no need to become dogmatic on this. But the mistake some make is failing to see, as the Pharisees of old, only that which their intellect can see on the surface. God wasn’t so "fundamental" that when He made us, He only made the arteries but left out the lesser ones. No, man shall live by "every word of God" (Luke 4:4), for none is without signification.

We shall see three kinds of counseling elders, or elders who are such by right of example. And we shall see four kinds of ruling elders.



ELDERS BY EXAMPLE

What are the three kinds of elders by example? (1) Although they may never have been officially set in as local elders, some are elders by sheer right of age. "The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness" (Prov. 16:31). Both in Hebrew and Greek (zagen and presbuteros) the meaning of elder is "an aged one, a senior, one advanced in years." Now this automatically brings us to the next kind of elder. (2) For one may not be physically a senior yet, but he may be one spiritually. After all, the word "priest" comes from "presbyter" (elder) and are we not "kings and priests to the Lord? (3) Then there are those who are "fathers" to the Church, whose influence has penetrated far. For to be consistent with the meaning of "elders" we could not exclude real "fathers" that God has raised up who by counsel or example have steered the ship of Zion. Look at Stephen, or in the dark ages at those who, like Count Zinzendorf, "fathered" the weary Church; there are also such today. "For though ye have then thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers" (1 Cor. 4:15).

RULING ELDERS

Next look at the four kinds of ruling elders (not that the others don’t rule by their influence). (1) There are the local elders as set in officially, usually by the apostle. But what is not generally realized is the these must pass through their time of proving before they are "overseers" (or "bishops," for it is the same word, episkopos). Not only is this hinted in 1 Tim. 3:10 but this was clearly practiced in Paul’s ministry. For example, while the qualifications of a bishop (overseer) are, among other things, one who is not a novice or a new convert (1 Tim. 3:6), yet Paul did set new converts in as "elders." For although he had spent some time in Iconium yet later he merely passes through Lystra and Antioch preaching the Word, and upon returning shortly thereafter he appoints "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23). Rather than let no leadership be the case, Paul had confidence in the Christ within the new converts, and in the Holy Spirit to lead the, that He could do this.

(2) Next we come to the overseers or bishops. What actually makes the difference between just and ordinary elder, set in by anointed men, and the bishop? Paul gives the clue in Acts 20:28. For after having called the elders from Ephesus to Miletus he says, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers..." Man may have placed them in as elders but it took the Holy Ghost to make them overseers. See the difference? So while all overseers are elders, not all elders are overseers. Many are called but few are chosen. Neither would it be unlikely that many of these overseers developed into the five offices of Christ (Eph. 4:11). Nor would it be wrong to call these ministers still by the term "elders" since God’s gifts and calling are without repentance of "without retake." In other words "once one was a local elder he graduated into being and elder to the Body of Christ at large.

(3) The ministries of Christ then (Eph. 4:11) are also elders; nor is this inconsistent with scriptures. Note in Acts 15 where it mentions that "the apostles and elder" assembled, it is generally conceded that "elders" included the ministry offices too. Certainly you wouldn’t think, for example, that the prophets would not be there. Any other interpretation, that excludes the including of the ministry offices, would be untenable. The fact that it says "apostles and elders" would not necessarily exclude the former from being "elders" too; for both Peter and John were elders (1 Peter 5:1,2, and III Jn. 1). Some may feel that the contrast of the two words suggests that the apostles may have an even higher range in the Body as elders. If so, that would deal with the next kind of elders.

(4) While these three just mentioned show a graduating into more authority (the five ministries) have a wider range than the local elders, for example), still there is an authority that is peculiar to the apostles, normally assisted by the prophets. The five ministries’ range of authority consists to the Body of Christ, true enough; while there is no greater authority that is experienced; for example, that twelve apostles certainly had authority peculiar to their ministries that just no other ministry would have. Peter had the apostleship to the circumcision as well as authority to use the "key." Of course, they were promised the right to sit on twelve thrones judging Israel, but a glimpse into Paul’s life shows that he had special stewardships. For besides the apostleship to the Gentiles calling, we see that he had special authoritative boundaries in his personal ministry that specifically included special groups. Look at Rom 15:20 and II Cor. 10:13-16, where he deals with this subject. Wherever he had laid the foundation he had special "claims of authority; and we cannot say foundation laying has all passed away. It depends on what is the foundation. If the living Christ and faith, hope, and love, His attributes, are the foundation, then we conclude that yet there must be foundation layers. It is interesting to note that in faith, hope, and love, we are to be "grounded" (Eph. 3:17, Col. 1:23). The word for "grounded" is "themelio" which means "to lay a foundation." Paul makes it clear that the Church apostles (in contrast to the twelve "apostles of the Lamb") were not given until Christ’s ascension and that they are to be here "until we all come in the unity of the faith...unto a perfect man..." (Eph. 4:8, 13).

In prophetically speaking of the apostolic office of Judas, David wrote, "...his bishopric (office) let another take" (Acts 1:20). The Greek word is "episcopen" or oversight, office. This is not something nebulous but rather it has specific boundaries to it. It is a definite charge that one must give account of.

While in one sense we may all be like "ambassadors" yet in a special sense the apostles are too, since "apostle" means "one sent forth (with orders)." Twice Paul referred to his ministry, and those with him, as being ambassadors" (II Cor. 5:20, Eph. 6:20). Could it be significant that the Greek work (presbeuo) for "ambassador" literally means "to be an elder"?


OLD TESTAMENT TYPES AND SHADOWS

Anything of importance that God has placed in the New Testament He has already portrayed in the Old Testament by types and shadows. Anyone who wants to throw out the types must also throw out some of the New Testament, for here is where we read that such types are valid (Rom. 15:4, I Cor. 10:11, Col. 2:17, Heb. 8:5, Heb. 9:5, etc.). So, do we find all this in Old Testament types?

Yes, for we find that, besides Israel’s official elders, they had three kinds of counseling elders who by reason of example served as elders. There were (1) elders over cities, (2) elders over family tribes, who were "princes," and (3) "elders" over all Israel (Moses’ seventy, the "Sanhedrin Council"). The latter consisted of "fathers" not just to their respective tribes only, but to all Israel. Later they may have developed into a ruling body, but originally and scripturally they were only to be counselors (Num. 11).

Are the four kinds of ruling elders pictured in the Old Testament? Yes, for we read (Ex. 18:21) that Moses was to place over Israel "...rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all seasons." We are not surprised that God’s heavenly kingdom has four spheres of authority in it (Col. 1:16), or that Satan, who tries to offer his substitutes, has four in his realm (Eph. 6:12)

While God has a wonderful place for the sisters as "helps," "showing of mercy," intercessors, and "members in particular" (I Cor. 12:27), still it is evident that, because of the authority involved, the elders who rule are to be men. For after Paul contrasted the two in I Tim. 2:12, he qualifies the bishop’s office, among other things, as to be possessed by "the husband of one wife" and not "the wife of one husband" (I Tim. 3:2). It is true that "in Christ there is neither male or female" (Gal. 3:28), but it’s obvious from the context that it refers to our position in grace and not to the five ministry offices. Nor does Paul, on the other hand, disqualify the sisters from ministering as "helps," whether publicly or otherwise; allowing such does not usurp authority over the man, and as long as such edifies the Body of Christ. The "Body of Christ" is to minister to itself. It might be noted that there is scriptural ground for women deaconesses should the need so arise. For Phoebe is called "a servant (deaconess it can be rendered) of the church...at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1). And in referring to the deacons’ wives (I Tim. 3:11), the Greek allows also that there could be "deaconesses." Truth is always in balance and is like two sides of a coin. Extremes come when one sees only one side to the exclusion of the other. While some quote I Cor. 14:34,35 and refuse to see the circumstances Paul was dealing with (the wives interrupting by calling to their husbands in the service), while other quote Gal. 3:28, already mentioned, to prove their extreme. Nor is the impression to be left that "helps" are for women only, for the brethren may be helps also (I Cor. 16:15, Rom. 16:3).



"CO-EQUAL ELDERS, NO LEADING PASTOR"

TRUE OR FALSE

Now let us examine the claims of those who challenge the office of pastor as being separate from that of local elders, which they say, are co-equal in authority.

CHRIST’S FIVE FOLD MINISTRIES

The Chief Shepherd, Christ, divided His life’s ministry into that of chief apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher and bishop (Heb. 3:1, I Pet. 2:25). But Luke says that while He was on the earth He merely "...began both to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). This signifies that He, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever is continuing the doing and teaching in His Body, through His ministries, for He never leaves anything unfinished. No wonder that statement was in Acts 1:1, for that particular book shows that His basic five-fold ministries were continued. As chief Apostle, He found empty vessels -- Paul, Barnabas (Acts 14:4), Silvanus, Timothy, Titus (I Thess. 1:1, I Thess. 2:6, II Cor. 8:23) -- and He flowed through their lives as such. As chief Prophet, He found Agabus, and some at Antioch and at Corinth (Acts 11:27, Acts 13:1, I Cor. 14:29) and He continued flowing through them when not obstructed by unbelief. As chief Evangelist, He found Philip (Acts 8). As chief Shepherd or Pastor, He found an humble vessel James, who had been His earthly brother (at least the early church considered James as the shepherd at Jerusalem we will find later -- Acts 15:19, Acts 21:18). As chief Teacher, He found an Apollo through whom He mightily convinced the hearers by the scriptures. And after Christ comes we will see the rest of the story for nowhere in the Word does it say that He has stopped dividing His life and poring it forth. He believes in multiplication; and we might add that He is the chief Helper and when He finds His Priscilla’s and Aquila’s, Mary’s and Phoebe’s, He pours His life through them, and as they respond, He builds His glorious Church.

But there are those who would dismiss, for reasons they consider honets, the pastor from being one of the five-fold ministries of Christ as such. They say that this ministry is "swallowed up" into that of the local overseers. They cite that Eph. 4:11 has "some" before the first four but that the last one does not have a special "some" before it to specifically emphasize it, so wouldn’t there be only four offices then, they conclude. But in so doing they fail to see that if that eliminates one of the five, then the "teacher" office is eliminated, not the pastor’s office. However, some say that the teacher’s and the pastor’s office are synonymous, and we will investigate that claim later.

As a final point that concludes their view they point to two verses where the elders are addressed (Acts 20:28 and I Pet. 5:2), where they are told to "feed (or shepherd, pastor) the church of God." And the assumption is -- and that is where we run into trouble, by our assumptions -- that performing this ministry automatically makes them to be official pastors. Of course they point to the synagogue, with its group of elders, and feel that perhaps the church may be similar in government, and they claim that early church history supports their views.

If this latter be true it is important, for surely those nearest the apostles would, or should know the interpretation on such points. After all, doctrinal points could be quickly misconstrued, but any apostolic practice of the early church (the Lord’s table, for instance), once set in the church, would be slower to be replaced by error. Church government would be no exception. Later though, we will find that such historical claims, if they claim that there was no leading ministry along with the local presbytery, is unfounded; for abundant proof is there to the contrary.

Neither can the synagogue plan be used to support the co-equal elder plan. For there always was a ruler (chief) of the synagogue" as Jairus (Luke 8:41), or Crispus and Sosthenes (Acts 18:8, 17) who directed the activity along with the help of the others.

Is the pastoral office "swallowed up" into that of the local overseers? If so then there was a mistake made in ever placing "pastors" in the list of Eph. 4:11. For the local overseers are, as implied, for the local church. Eph. 4:11, to be consistent with the whole book, deals with the whole Body of Christ. In fact there are twelve pictures of the Church in Ephesians. Also there are gifts of Christ (the "He" of "He gave" is an emphatic "He" signifying that it is to be emphasized). In other words any man can’t just desire one of these five offices and, by fulfilling special qualifications, expect to possess it. But on the contrary, referring to that of the overseer, we read, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop (overseer), he desireth a good work " (I Tim. 3:1).

So we see, in one sense of the word, that the source of origin is different between the "pastor" of Eph. 4:11 and that of the "bishop (overseer)" of I Tim. 3:1. The same Christ, who in choosing the twelve, "calleth unto Him whom HE would" (Mk. 3:13) is still calling the "gifts of Christ" of Eph. 4:11, including the pastor. But on the other hand, understanding that I Tim. 3:1 literally says "If any man stretches his arms..." towards the office of the overseer, we see that sanctified desire in his source of origin. Not that God hasn’t also indirectly put that desire within him, of course, but still the line between the two is clearly drawn.

"But," one may ask, "haven’t we read that the overseers are to ‘feed (shepherd or pastor) the church of God’?" This is true, but for several reasons this would not necessarily make them official pastors. For Paul exorted the Colossians to teach, and the Corinthians were told that they may all prophesy, but would that make them all official teachers and prophets? I Cor. 12:29, 30 is the answer; it would be the same logic used if we insisted that the overseeing elders were all official pastors. Error is always based on assumption and it is easy to see that it is mere assumption to claim that the elders, due to their work, are in the pastoral office of Eph. 4:11. Since the Word clearly states that the pastor is a definite gift of Christ, this is no assumption.


PASTOR AND TEACHER

Another assumption, already mentioned, is that the pastor and the teacher are the same office. That they are close in affinity is recognized; this is seen in their close connection in Eph. 4:11. If we insist that Eph. 4:11 says that they are one, aren’t we stepping out of clearcut scriptural facts into speculation again? In the first place, they come from different root words. The Greek word for pastor, "poimen," comes from an old classical Greek word for teacher, "didaskalos," comes from the word "to learn." They both have different scopes. A shepherd, who commands leadership, appeals to the will of the individual, while the teacher appeals more to one’s intellect. There is a difference in their ministry, as seen in Spirit filled experience. It is a good thing that the Spirit wrote Acts instead of the average "fundamental" Bible scholars of today. They would have left out Acts since it deals with experience and practice which set forth precedents for the Church to follow. Paul shows that it is just as scriptural to follow his practice as it was to follow his word, by Phil 4:9, which, along with I Cor. 14:33 shows that rest and peace are the proof of divine order. There is ample testimony but not ample time to illustrate what is meant. One example is this: a young man was greatly concerned because he felt "out of place" as a pastor. Although he was consecrated and could dwell in the Word by the hour, yet practical pastoral ministry was foreign to him. When he learned that his calling was to be a teacher he entered into that and immediately had rest.

Some of us who have been privileged to "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" have heard many prophecies calling various ones into their office. Especially has the Spirit set teachers and pastors into their callings. Those who have prophesied have had proven ministries. Since these prophecies agree with the Word, I for one would fear to call the Holy Spirit a liar. One objection is that prophecies vary according to the particular doctrinal beliefs of the group that they are given in. This is not true, however, if they come through proven ministries. Personally, I have seen my father on more than one occasion share his own opinions on a subject and turn around and prophesy the very opposite, because he allowed the Spirit to be in ascendancy over the mind. Were it otherwise then there would be a Calvinistic "Holy Spirit" and someone else would have an Armenian one. And while sometimes as in Corinth, when spiritual babes, who have returned back into soulish living, operate certain gifts in the flesh, the prophets themselves are to act as a sifter (I Cor. 14:29, I Thess. 5:20:21).

Before anyone dogmatically concludes that Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5:1 "proves" that the local elders are the only pastors, they should ask themselves this question: "Now that we have seen that there are elders to the body at large (as the ministries of Christ), is there any way of proving that the term "elders," in both instances, does not include them also?" When Peter addressed the elders, admonishing them to "feed (pastor, shepherd) the flock of God which is among you," could it not also be true here? For Peter was addressing elders in a general area (I Peter 1:1 and not in one local church. These could include literal pastors if this be the case. Nor could we say that such could not be the case in Ephesians, if, as some historians claim, that "the church at Ephesus" included many flocks scattered across that great town. There could be many pastors, such as are listed in Eph. 4:11, along with the local elders who scripturally, and collectively, could constitute the Ephesus presbytery that Paul addressed that day.

Another objection is that the lack of mention of the word "pastor" as referring to an office, warrants the dismissal of such. Even one time is proof, if that one time is clear. However, as has already been mentioned, the "some" that precedes the first four of the five offices seen in Eph. 4:11 denotes, in the original, special emphasis or recognition of that office. And since "some" precedes the word "pastors," we can assuredly say that scripturally it is clear that there must be such an office. However, the word for pastor, "poimen," is mentioned nineteen times in contrast to the word for "evangelist," which is mentioned only three times. So that if any should be eliminated, it should be the evangelist. However, the argument is that the word "poimen," shepherd, is used most exclusively for Christ more than for man. We have already seen where Christ has poured out His ministry life into men, so that if He were the "chief Shepherd (pastor)" (I Peter 5:4), that would mean that now there must be many shepherd-pastors. But because the evangelist’s calling is to obvious, it is never the evangelist’s office at stake. The only two times (other than Eph. 4:11) that the "evangelist" is mentioned, Acts 21:8 and II Tim. 4:5, could also be dismissed by a critic as something incidental, just "one who announces good tidings," which, he could say, is true of all of us. But if "evangelist" is recognized as a ministry gift of Christ, then we must recognize "pastor" as such. The Spanish Bible, in Ps. 23 (as in Jn. 10) says, "The Lord is my pastor." We have not discussed at length the pastor’s duties since there are many verses that contrast true and false shepherds, and in so doing picture his ministry (Ez. 34, Zech. 11:6, Ps. 23, etc.).

If we are to throw away the pastoral office, as such, because we think it lacks mention, then, if we are consistent, let us also throw away "In my Father’s house ...", "Go... baptizing them in the name of..." the trinity, and also even the name "Calvary," for all these are mentioned just once in the scriptures. Or if we are to say that the pastoral office is merely part of the local elders, then, by this same type of logic, would the word of wisdom and knowledge gifts be "swallowed up" into the mere "Spirit of revelation" (Eph. 1:17)?

Another point that is used in dismissing the "pastor" as a definite, specific gift is the absence, seemingly, to it in I Cor. 12:28. But "governments," mentioned in the list, would among other things, include pastors and elders, as well as any other similar ministration. Then the objection is that "pastors" must be far inferior to "teachers," for it lists "governments" after "teachers," who are listed thirdly in the list. But Paul is listing them, not in the order of importance, but in the order of Church building (the foundation being laid first, naturally the foundation layers are mentioned first).



SINGLE LEADER -- PLURAL HELP

Notice how strong the principle of single leadership is, of course accompanied by plural help, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. In the tabernacle, which, Paul shows, typifies the Church, we see the above principle, as Aaron led, accompanied by his sons, who in turn led the other priests. Also Moses, with the seventy under him, pictures this. Moses was called six times to the mountain top, not the elders, although they had their place. The fact that Moses was a type of Christ still doesn’t diminish the fact that, in any case, God chose single leadership. Look at Korah, with the other priests. Their complaint was, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" The story of his judgment is in Num. 16. Jude warns about this Korah spirit, inferring that it would be manifest "in the last time" (Jude 11, 18). There was a time, in the early church age, when special warnings were out against the deeds and doctrines of the "Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:5, 15). These were followers of a Nicolas which means "conqueror of the people" and pictures the religious dictatorship wherein the clergy bosses the people and holds them under. Although this extreme is as terrible now as then, yet now the emphasis, in this democratic age of Laodicea, which means "Rights of the People," is against the Korah extreme. For this is an age of lawlessness in which the spirit of the anti-Christ would even creep into the house of the Lord if possible.

Moses prayed for a "shepherd" for Israel after his death, lest Israel be scattered (Num. 27:17).

In the New Testament, we see that the great Church itself is headed by Christ, under whom are twelve apostles, who in turn have ministered to the whole body. And all through Christ’s ministry on earth we see this plan in action. Just as there are some elders who are advanced to be "overseers," so we see that among the twelve there were three (Peter, James, and John) that He could take a little farther than the others. Remember, it is not a case of "one man" leadership, with emphasis upon the "man," but of recognizing Christ, the Shepherd, and His authority, as revealed through that man.

Whatever title Timothy may have had at Ephesus it is obvious that he was pastoring, and that Paul, instead of directly addressing the local elders there, as such, chose to address such important church order directly to a one man leader, Timothy, knowing that he in turn would also pass it on to the other faithful elders and peers (I Tim. 1:3, II Tim. 2:2).

David even recognized the authority in backslidden Saul, for he had learned to look beyond the man. Also David, like Moses in the backside of the desert, had experienced pastoring a flock of sheep, so he could see things from the leader’s viewpoint.

We have already mentioned that the synagogue had its "chief ruler." In harmony with this thought Christ spoke of "the chief seat in the synagogues" (Luke 11:43 literal). While they may, or may not have been the leading overseer, yet Paul recognized the host over the house where the churches were gathered (I Cor. 16:19, Rom 16:23, Col. 4:15, Phm. 2).

In fact, where does the Word do away with one such leading overseer by stating that church government is in the hands only of co-equal elders? So far I haven’t found it. I do read, however, after Paul addressed the bishops and deacons and saints at Philippi, that he addressed someone, a particular "he that ruleth" when he says, "I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women..." (Phil. 4:3, Rom. 12:8). This one had authority to guide existing affairs there. I do read also where Christ shows that authority to rule, instead of being co-equal, always is proportionate to faithfulness, "...because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority..." (Luke 19:17). This is substantiated by I Tim. 5:15 where the elders who rule well (in contrast to those who don’t) are to have double honor.



GOOD SEED -- GOOD FRUIT

If you plant two seeds, one wheat and one tare, and let them grow up, you can see by the end product which is real. Likewise the two seeds, one of the true Word, and the other of man’s intellectual interpretation, can look alike, but the good fruit proves which seed was good. This is not a question of judging any individual for there are good men in all forms of church government. Some dead denominations try to practice the form but deny the power thereof. However it is practiced, and what few churches there are here who do give place for the elders along with the pastor, have, to my knowledge, passed through the prevalent storms. Among all the major Pentecostal groups, the Swedish group ranks first as far as maintaining the ground gained. They are a wonderful example of the local elders plus pastor. Incidentally, I understand that the large Giladelfia church in Stockholm (already being "dwarfed by some of its daughter churches of 10,000) there is an overseer over each group of fifty. Also there is a pastor for each thousand members and one leading pastor. These groups lay great emphasis upon the local elders.



PROVEN BY PRACTICE

What of the practice of the "all elders but no one-leading pastor"? Remember that anything is still theory unless proven by practice. God has so made man that he is practical minded enough that he must see the practicality of something before he identifies himself with it. Perhaps the most noted example of this teaching, besides the "Brethren" assemblies, is a noted author and leader on the mission field. His large book on New Testament Church order has probably swayed more to this teaching than any one other source. With all due respect to the brother, it must be said that when this "no one leader" way is tried in their many churches on the field, it doesn’t stand the test. The missionaries themselves admit the some elder for each particular service must be in charge. While it is true that all my in turn speak, yet the elder is in charge for a given period, and then by rotation; another elder is in charge for his two weeks, or however it may be. Our beloved "Brethren" friends (commonly called "Plymouth Brethren") have a dear place in our hearts, and stand for much truth including "the priesthood of all believers." They deserve much credit. However, they also hold doctrinally that there should be no one leader. Those who attend their various meeting halls claim that they silently admit the "one leader" by their practice, inasmuch as usually a leader emerges in the local group.

In circles that allow the gifts of the Spirit to operate freely we find only a few examples of this type of church government. All that I know are very honest. In fact, some of these, as you well know, have gone through the heat of battle; and our hearts have been knitted together as one with them as we have suffered together for many truths that are not universally accepted as yet. Any reference to their type of government has no reference whatever between our fellowship. We all try to keep our hearts open and expect to end up seeing "eye to eye" (Isa. 52:8) as He gives His understanding. However, as we put the personal element out and view facts for what they are, there has been little encouragement to accept the "no one pastor" teaching for we have seen these repeatedly collapse under pressure. (This is as for government but not as for their own personal steadfastness.) If any refuse to accept one’s practice or works as a fit witness to the Word, he need only to remember that Christ Himself does this in Jn. 5:36. Gamaleil’s advice is still true (Acts 5:38).

Balance eliminates the feared "one man dictatorship." The answer to one extreme is not to swing to the other extreme. When God led my father (Glen Ewing) and I to begin pioneering along lines of return to the simple pattern, we were, humanly speaking, very much alone. In all the States or neighboring lands, none of the Spirit-filled groups believed that apostles and prophets, or even the gift of prophecy as we know it now, was even for today. (Prophecy was supposed to have been anointed teaching or preaching.) Although my father had received the Holy Spirit the Jewish Day of Atonement, in 1929 (exactly 50 years before our last Atonement Day in 1979 that began the year of Jubilee), it was in 1946 that God led in these new areas as far as restoration of church government. Different times when foreigners, who could not speak English, would come into our meetings, they would not know for days who the pastor was. Not that, in case of emergency, he wasn’t there to take lead and give direction. But simply because God also showed us the tremendous importance of plural ministry. At Antioch, even though obviously Barnabas was founder and pastor initially of the work, it is also obvious that as it grew, there was peer teamwork among the local leadership as seen in Acts 13:1. Unfortunately, not all of the churches that adhere to a leading pastoral role are so flexible. There is a real danger in some, or even an official group of leaders, of possessing the reins to such an extent that potential ministry is not sufficiently allowed to come forth. And of course, there also will be times when God will definitely lead some particular ministry to come forth stronger than another, just as in a symphony there are times when the director has the cello, or whatever instrument then needed most, to sound forth momentarily over the others. The real leader is the Holy Spirit. And when as all the time that my father pastored, the church was bathed in daily prayer and worship, it becomes easy for the Holy Spirit to direct these specific roles as needed. It is interesting that the word "Compacted" (knit together) in Eph. 4:16 means "to become one to the obscuring of the parts."

Yes, there are two extremes, but the table that has the legs on each side balanced under it is the table you can rest something on. The church that is balanced will have rest.



EARLY CHURCH HISTORY’S WITNESS

Since much has been claimed, by those who see no single pastor as leader, that early church history supports their views, it would be unfair not to look into this area.

Eusibius is called "the father of church history," and is well recognized as authentic by all, and by archaeology too; therefore, we feel we should notice his records. They are complied in Eusibius Ecclesiastical History. He was the bishop of the Ceasarea church and lived when Constantine made Christianity popular. Were we to rely upon his own personal records we may doubt them, but the value of his writings is in that he compiled the records of the earliest church historians, some of whom were Paul’s contemporaries, including Clement, his fellow worker. Reference will be made to page numbers in quoting. "We have only given the names of those whose orthodoxy has descended to us on record" (p. 206), he says. by "orthodoxy" he means churches that had descended straight from the apostles, and the writers or overseers who belonged to those churches.

The word "bishop" in Paul’s day and the days that immediately followed did not have the dictatorial connotation that later developed. Since it simply meant "overseer" it is just as ethical to translate it as such; and we shall translate it as such although the translators for Eusibuis did not. Some feel that the word "elder" particularly refers to the person that is in the office, while "bishop" or "overseer" refers to the office, or in reference to the person only as he is an office-bearer. in other words, they feel it is the more official word. This would not contradict what has already been said concerning the overseers being matured local elders. For any elder set in would be in view to him becoming a full-fledged overseer (as Titus 1:5-7 shows). In Acts 1:20 where the "apostleship" is called a "bishopric" (same word as in I Tim. 3:1) the margin also has "office." While there was a special time when elders were set in, yet there seemed to be no special time when, as overseers, they were set in, but the very qualifications involved cause them to be recognized as such. Of course the pastoral overseer, being in the five offices, no doubt was specifically set in as such, at a given time. And when Eusibius refers to "the overseer" (bishop) of a certain group it is understood that he meant the pastoral overseer in contrast to the others. We know that he doesn’t mean that he is the only elder because he recognized the presbytery in certain churches as well.

Clement (mentioned in Phil. 4:3) quotes an interesting account about John (p. 245). As John addressed one of the pastors who had been appointed he says "...in the presence of the church over which thou dost preside." "Preside" means to "occupy the place of authority, as of a president; to direct proceedings as chief officer; to occupy the leading place."

Hegesippus, an early writer, records that he traveled to the various churches and found that the pastors all spoke the same thing, and records the time when error began to come into Jerusalem and Corinth a little later (pp. 157-8).

He and Clement are among the early writers, quoted by Eusibius, who show that James the Just, earthly brother of Jesus, had oversight of the Jerusalem church committed to him (pp. 43, 49, 75, 76, 96, 131, 289). Clement mentions how that Peter, James, and John had been honored by our Lord who "chose James the Just as overseer of Jerusalem." James was martyred at the Passover before the destruction of Jerusalem, when the believing Jews were divinely led to a town beyond Jordan named Pella (p. 86), where God cared for them.

After the martyrdom of James, and the capture of Jerusalem, which immediately followed, the report is, that those of the apostles and disciples of our Lord, who were yet surviving, came together from all parts with those who were related to our Lord according to the flesh (for the greater part of them were yet living). These consulted together, to determine who it was proper to pronounce worthy of being successor of James. They unanimously declared Simeon the son of Cleophas, of whom mention is made in the sacred volume, as worthy of the episcopal seat (oversight) there. They say he was cousin germane of our Savior, for Hegesippus asserts that "Cleophas was the brother of Joseph" (p. 99). Later at the age of 120 years, Simeon was martyred.

Why should there be prejudice against James as the leading overseer? Christ had personally appeared to James after His resurrection (I Cor. 15:7). Peter and Paul recognized His authority (Acts 21:18, Gal. 1:19, Gal. 2:12). God doesn’t recognize personality but authority, and He recognized James by commissioning Peter to see him (Acts 12:17). (A shepherd must give account for his sheep, and Peter was to let him know that he was safe.) A pastor has authority to "put the finishing touches" on a dispute in the flock. He did, "My sentence is" (Acts 15:19) and it was ended. A shepherd could guide; he did. He authorized the church what to do (v. 20). He wrote "James," the book on practical doing, which would be the natural concern for a pastor.

After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that received the oversight at Rome. Paul makes mention of him in his epistle from Rome to Timothy, in the address as the close of the epistle, saying, "Eubulus and Pudens, and Linus and Claudia salute thee," (p. 82). The context of that chapter (II Tim. 4) shows that Linus was one of the few who remained faithful to Paul. "Timothy, indeed, is recorded as having received the oversight at Ephesus (en Epheso pariochias)..." Linus whom he mentioned in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been before shown to have been the first after Peter who obtained the oversight at Rome. Clement also, who was appointed the third overseer of this church, is proved by him to have been a fellow - labourer and fellow - soldier with him. Beside, the Areopagite, called Dionysius, whom Luke has recorded in Acts after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus as the first who believed, is mentioned by Dionysius, another of the ancients, and pastor of the church at Corinth, as the first overseer of the church of Athens (pp. 84-85).

While we are mentioning accounts mostly of churches mentioned in the Bible, there are interesting things to note as well. Although Eusibius lived fare enough removed from the original early church that he had succumbed to the a-millenialism that was beginning to sweep the church then, he admits that "most of the ecclesiastical writers" long before him, including the well-known disciples of John, Iraeneus and Papias, stood for the literal millenium after the resurrection, and Christ’s corporeal reign then upon the earth (p. 126).

Another lesson that history can teach us, as recorded by Eusibius, is the fruit of open forum (recorded in "Council of Nice," pp. 7, 8 in E.E.H.). Since the "open forum" intertwines into the fabric of the "no leading pastor" teaching, mention should be made that this means was one chief weapon that furthered rank error which visibly divided the body of Christ. For he records how the famous Arianism began in an open forum in the Alexandrian church during Constantine’s reign, The bishop of the church was afraid that if he suppressed Aruis, one of his elders, from the right to speak freely, despite his rank view, that would not be considered fair. Sometimes he nodded his head in favor of one side, and then in favor of the other side, as Arius spoke. But the sparks soon spread until whole churches were divided, believer set against believer, and the pagans were publicly mocking the bickering Christians and their most profound truths, in their shows. Meanwhile, each group sent representatives to all the other churches until all had made converts and finally the emperor himself had to try to stop it. Of course, this one extreme does not call for the other extreme, but the truth should be given at liberty of expression while the pastor should remember Paul’s exhortation that "he that ruleth (taketh the lead) let him do it with diligence" (Rom. 12:8).

Irenaeus (who lived till 205 A. D.) declared how that all the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues and prophecy, were in the spiritual churches of his day (p. 186). He records also on some early churches. "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, transmitted the office of the overseer to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in his Epistle to Timothy. He was succeeded by Anencletus, and after him Clement held the oversight, the third from the apostles, who, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been connected with them, might be said to have the doctrine of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and what they delivered before his eyes. And not only he, but many others were still left, who had been taught by the apostles" (p. 185).

In referring to the many records, we read "The Holy Spirit also, wrought many wonders as yet through them... As it is impossible for us to give the numbers of individuals that became pastors and evangelists, during the first immediate succession from the apostles in the churches throughout the world, we have only recorded those by name in our history, of whom we have received the traditional account as it is delivered in the various comments on the apostolic doctrine, still extant" (p. 123).

"About this time flourished Polycarp in Asia, an intimate disciple of the apostles, who received the oversight of the church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. At this time, also, Papias was well known as overseer of the church at Hierapolis, a man well-skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures. Ignatius, also, who is celebrated by many even to this day, as the successor of Peter at Antioch, was the second that obtained the oversight office there... When, therefore, he came to Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote one epistle, viz, that to the church of Ephesus, in which he mentions its pastor Onesimus" (pp. 120, 121). This Onesimus whom he wrote, the "pastor" of the Ephesians, was the run-away slave whom Paul returned to Philemon, what grace! This Ignatius is claimed by archaeologists to be the child that Christ blessed. He was a strong exhorter to his generation to cleave unto the apostle’s faith. As he journeyed to his martyrdom joyfully "he exhorted them to adhere firmly to the tradition of the apostles;... Nothing, whether of things visible or invisible, excites my ambition, as long as I can gain Christ" (p. 121), he wrote the pastors of the churches in Magnesia, the Trallians, Troas to those in Philadelphia, and particularly to Polycarp, who was overseer there, whom he designated as an apostolical man and as a good and faithful shepherd (pastor), commends the flock of Antioch to him, requesting him to exercise a diligent oversight of the church... But he was succeeded in the oversight office at Antioch by Heros" (p. 122).

The early pastor and martyr of the Laodiceans was Sagaris, and of the church at Sardis was "...Melito, the blessed eunuch, whose walk and conversation were altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the oversight from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead (p. 208).

"Nero was now in the eighth year of his reign, when Annianus succeeded the apostle and evangelist Mark in the administration of the church at Alexandria. He was a man distinguished for his piety, and admirable in every respect (p. 79; in A. D. 54, p. 474). The Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot, where Clement’s, Ignatius’ and Polycarp’s writings are recorded in full, reflect what has already been shown. For about a dozen times Ignatius mentions "the overseer, presbytery, and deacons." "He that doeth aught without the overseer and presbytery and deacons, this man is not clean in his conscience" (p. 74). He is strongly recommended, he and his letters both, by Polycarp. In fact that is about the extent of personal reference of any kind of Polycarp’s writings (p. 99). Ignites uses the term "the overseer (bishop)" synonymously and interchangeably with "pastor" (pp. 78, 79). As elsewhere in this letter he too repeatedly compares the structure of the local church -- its pastor and presbytery -- with that of the general Church, headed by the Lord and under Him, the apostles (p. 71). He exhorted the Ephesians to continue working harmoniously with their beloved pastor Onesimus. "So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the overseer; which thing also ye do. For your honourable presbytery, which is worthy of God, is attuned to the overseer, even as its strings to a lyre. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung;" then he compares the whole church to a heavenly chorus sung unto God (p. 64).

By way of interest only we digress in this same book to see that the early church chose to meet on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s resurrection, instead of Saturday, and also accepted the Millennium as a fact. This is not only seen in Ignatius’ and Papias’ writings, along with Irenaeus’ (pp. 71, 269), but also in the ancient "Epistle of Barnabas" (p. 152). For along with Clement and the earlier ministers (p. 269), Barnabas compares the six days of creation as picturing six thousand year millennial "days" to be climaxed by Christ’s overthrow of the Lawless One, and then followed by God’s seventh millennial day of rest. "Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead."

Space prohibits the sharing further from history, This should show an unbiased view as recorded by man.


CONCLUSION

If the witness of man is too weak, then let us conclude once more with the witness of God’s Holy Word. However, much can be learned from history when the Word is the sifter, as in this case.



LOCAL CHURCH

It is not an assumption to say that the local church should be a replica of the Church at large. The three purposes for the Church at large, and therefore the local church, are (1) propagation (Acts 1:8), (2) habitation (Eph. 2:22), and (3) the revelation of Christ to the world (I Pet. 2:9). Now as regards this last, the local church is the only way that the world can see what the Body of Christ is. All that God has given the Church at large, therefore, should be available to the local church if it is to be a fit example. This does not mean that there will always be the varied five-fold ministries there, but as the church has need for them, they should be available. Nor is it to be expected that the local church should be a replica of the Church and fail to have a single leadership as does the Church? Of course, Christ had twelve under Him, and working with Him, so in that respect it is plural. So the faithful pastoral overseer needs faithful overseers to cooperate with him too. Remember, it is not a case of "one man" leadership except that the man is Christ Who has found an humble vessel to pour forth His pastoral office into and through. In such case, to despise him is to despise the Head Who ministers through Him. Many blessings are promised us if we hold Christ as Head and consequently many curses come if we reject His headship; God forbid! Certainly we are to stand against Diotrepheses. But also notice, lest one mistakenly think that John was against single leadership there, that he commended Demetrius (III John).


SEVEN MESSAGES

Who are the seven "angels" over the churches in Rev. 2 and 3? We know that the word "aggelos" also means "messenger." John the Baptist was an aggelos (Matt. 11:10). John fell at the "angel’s" feet and found him to be a fellow servant in Christ (Rev. 22:6-9). Let us ask ourselves some questions to see who these seven angels are.

(1) Are angels to have the Word written to them or are men? "And to the angel of the church of Sardis write..."

(2) Are angels (who have never sinned) upheld by His right hand of righteousness (and authority)? For these seven angels are pictured by seven stars upheld in His right hand (Rev. 1:20, Rev. 5:1, Ps. 48:10, Isa. 41:10).

(3) Although angels can have authority over fire, wind, etc., would they have authority over Bloodwashed churches and church government, or would men? (As previously stated, they are, like stars, in Christ’s right hand, which speaks of authority -- I Pet. 3:22).

(4) Would angels, whose judgment has not come yet (I Cor. 6:3) be reprimanded for allowing bad conduct in the church, or would men? The Greek grammar bears out that these rebukes are to the individual messengers. "I know the works of you (a singular "you") is the literal rendering.

There are still other considerations too which indicate whose these messengers are. For "stars" usually mean the saints (Dan. 12:3, I Cor. 15:41). Also these are to impart wisdom, in the form of these messengers that they were to convey on to their churches, while angels must learn wisdom from the Church (Eph. 3:10).

Christ says that the children of this world are more prudent than the children of light (Luke 16:8). What big (or small) business would expect to last with several heads? As long as there are Apolloses whose judgment differs from Paul’s (I Cor. 16:12), and Peters who confess that Pauls are hard to be understood, and Barnabases, who after laboring faithfully in the battle with Paul, end up in disputes, does common sense say that there isn’t need of someone at the helm? This ship is about to be thrown upon the rocks, let’s say, unless it makes a sharp turn left. You are there and you’ve followed that charted course and know just which way to steer it. But several others with you, with different plans try to steer it their ways. The ship would be like that one in Acts 27 and fall to pieces. These are days when we are going down the rapids of "Perilous Times" which are getting worse and not better, as far as circumstances go. And if the co-equal authority plan is not of God, there will be plenty of rocks to await it. If God has set in the local pastor then Satan delights, by misconstruing a few verses, to overthrow it. The spirit of anti-Christ attacks God’s government, and this government is not set in the angels but it is set in men. "I’ll have no one over me," some say. The best leaders are those who are the best followers. The pastor’s fit example before the local elders is to therefore better their ministry, as they follow Christ in him. Any teaching that encourages rebellion against divine authority needs to be examined to see what effect it leaves.

That the oriental flock had one leading shepherd is seen clearly enough in Christ’s own words, "the sheep hear his voice," "one shepherd," etc. as shown in John 10.

If the "husbandman... must be first partaker of the fruits" (II Tim. 2:6) then he should taste or experience his own teaching before he gives it out. Also Paul shows us that we are not to blindly receive from just anyone, but to "know of whom thou hast received them" (II Tim. 3:14) and see if they have a ministry that qualifies their message.


FIVE = GRACE AND REDEMPTION

Four is the number of human weakness, and five denotes grace and redemption. Let us neither take one away, nor let us be like the giant with six fingers (I Chon. 20:6) by adding another. Let us leave it just as the Word says it. Just as Elijah waited till the servant went seven times before he saw the little cloud "like a man’s hand," so the Elijahs of today who have waited till this seventh of Laodicean age by faith recognize the cloud of the latter rain. In it the five-fold ministry again is in view. Psalms 68:18 says that due to these ascension gifts, Jehovah God will dwell among us. What humility! What power!

The tabernacle boards -- a picture of the church -- were upheld by five connecting rods. David took five little smooth stones (God get us polished!), all potential weapons, and conquered Goliath. Remember also that the House of Mercy -- what the church should be -- or Bethesda, had five porches. Remember that Christ had five loaves, and two fishes, to break, bless, and give to the multitude.

I can see Christ now as pastor leading His disciples around and going out of the way to get that lost, stray sheep, the woman at the Samaritan well. Then I can see Him as the teacher, "Master" (same word for "teacher") as he sits down and teaches. I can see the great shepherd as He is counting His sheep, in John 17, and giving account of them to the Father. I can see Him as He ascends, pours His great ministry heart out, and now sits on the throne awaiting our counting day as we give account to Him.

I can see Him moved with compassion as He sees His sheep scattered as without a shepherd, and as He is moved that some would allow teachings that would even set aside the proven shepherd. But, now rejoice with me I can see Him as ...

HE IS COMING AGAIN!

Robert Ewing