A.S.K.
P.O. Box 25000
Portland OR 97225 0990  USA
Telephone - 503 292 4352      FAX - 503 292 4351
E-mail: Compuserve - 76516,3662  -  AOL - ASKSSM
Copyright (c) A.S.K.

THE DIVINE MANDATE
FOR HUMAN GOVERNMENT

by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.

What kind of government is the best for human societies, whether those
societies are political states or ecclesiastical institutions? The Bible
has some revealing answers to this question and they are very different
from what most people imagine today. If there was ever a time in history
when mankind needs the basic knowledge of the Holy Scriptures about this
important subject, it is now. The world needs to know what is "the
Divine Mandate for Human Government."

The matter of government is important to human society. It involves the
manner in which responsible and intelligent members of the world and
local communities regulate their conduct in relationship with others. We
live in a world in which all people ought to relate successfully to
their fellow human beings in a happy and harmonious way. This takes
effort -- lots of it. When the activities of two or more individuals
become interrelated, common sense should tell the normal human being
that he is obligated to express good etiquette and fairness in his
behavioral approaches to others. The welfare of all should take a prime
role in each person's mind. If this were done as a social obligation for
the common good of society, such a thing could be called an exercise in
good government -- whether that government is a political state or an
ecclesiastical institution.

     This simply means that people should be actively cooperating with
other members of society to see that the well-being of all is
maintained. This does not mean that the total privacy of any individual
(or his family or associates) should be denied. Indeed, real happiness
and a feeling of worth and satisfaction can only be afforded to people
when each individual is able to do as he or she pleases -- as long as
those individual liberties do not impinge upon the rights and freedoms
of all other members of society. Personal freedom in all matters of life
should not only be tolerated, it should be encouraged. But, no one
should be injured (in any way) by the actions of any other person.

     To insure the liberties of all, a regulatory system of government
is essential which exists for the benefit of all society without harm to
any citizen. It should be a system agreed to by all. This could be
achieved if people would practice the "Golden Rule" as stated by Christ:
"Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you."

     The fact is, though, we are nowhere near experiencing such a
government on earth. Even in the best societies, it seems that
government must have a coercive element associated with it. This is
because most humans have to be forced into having a cooperative attitude
with others -- whether in our local, national or world communities. If,
on the other hand, every person on earth would practice the biblical
principle of love to others, no government of a compulsive nature would
ever be necessary.

     The best government is one that is cooperative and non-compulsive.
This is government that provides public services in which people in the
community of their own free will participate in activities for the
betterment of all -- for example, they cooperate in building roads and
in providing necessary community services. These are always essential,
even in a biblical society which is dominated by love. But this is not
the type of government that is possible on a grand scale today because
humans are not willing to voluntarily love others in the community,
nation or throughout the world. This is why even the best of governments
today (especially involving large numbers of people) have to have an
element of compulsion in their governing. This is unfortunate, but until
God's form of government is established on earth and in the universe,
this is the type we are saddled with.

How Much Government? 
                                    
It has been said that the less government that is needed to control
people, the better the society must be. This is true and biblical. The
apostle Paul said that laws (that is, compulsive laws) were made for
"the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, etc." (I Timothy 1:9). No
such laws would ever be required if people would refrain from injuring
others. None of us, however, performs such a purity of conduct. This
means that all societies -- at the present time -- need some kind of
compulsive governmental regulations in political states to control the
wrongs which seem to dominate the actions of our human natures. But what
kind of government is the best?

     For those who cherish the teachings of the biblical revelation,
they would naturally ask: What is "the Divine Mandate for Human
Government"? The mandate of God is really summed up very well by the
apostle Paul. He said that the basis of all government and law is love
-- real  and practical love  (Romans 13:8). When love among humans is
exercised to the full, there will be no need of any compulsive laws. In
a word, love is the principal ingredient of the mandate of God in regard
to proper government. Love stands supreme and is the chief attribute of
the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 13:13).

     Let us now look at the historic principles of divine government
which the Bible says represent the best type of civilized societies that
can be found among humans. When those fundamentals are understood, they
can bring into proper focus all that needs to be adopted in any
governmental system -- whether that government is secular or
ecclesiastical. These principles can be universally applied in the
governments of any modern state or nation.

The Primal Old Testament Government
                                    
Hardly a subject has been more misinterpreted than that concerning the
style of government sanctioned by the teachings of the Old Testament.
Almost all people (even theologians) have wrongly accepted the
hierarchical organization of rulership as the Old Testament ideal. Such
a hierarchical government would be an absolute monarchy -- that is, a
kingdom. It is common for biblical students to imagine that a kingdom is
the best form of government and the one sanctioned by God himself.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, we have statements in
the Book of Samuel that the consideration of a kingdom for the
government of men on earth was utterly detestable to God. The government
that God has approved from the beginning of Genesis to the Book of
Revelation is that called the patriarchal system -- the rule of the
family, with a father at its head.

     Starting with Genesis 12, it is recorded that God selected one man
to be in a special relationship to him. That man was Abram (later called
Abraham). He and his family were chosen to be the visible means through
which the world could witness the essential methods by which God deals
with mankind (Genesis 12:1-3). The government under which Abraham lived
was the patriarchal type. This meant that Abraham, as the father of the
family, was the ruler, priest, arbiter, provider and the sole human
authority in the caring and loving of his family.

     In such a mode of management there were few laws which were
codified (that we have record of) in order to govern the patriarchal
family. There were simple standards of conduct among members of the
society which were understood by most of the nomadic tribes of the
Middle East as pertaining to the regulation of the family environment.
Obviously, there had to be cooperation from all the family members in
order that the well-being and protection of the group could be
maintained. There was the sense of family loyalty and fraternal
responsibilities among all members of the family.

     The principal ingredient in this Abrahamic type of government that
caused it to work was the love that Abraham (or any father) had for his
family and the love that the family had for the father in providing the
protection and concern that the group needed. Granted, nothing can be
perfect in any human society -- even the patriarchal one. This is
because Abraham and his family had human weaknesses. Abraham's biggest
problem in his family relationship was the fact that he was living with
three women under one roof and he had children by each of them.
Arguments between Sarah and Hagar caused him to exile his son Ishmael
from the family association (Genesis 21:8-20) and he was later compelled
to banish his six children by his concubine (later, wife) Keturah
because Isaac could not get along with them (Genesis 25:1-6).

     Had Abraham a monogamous relationship within the family, the
patriarchal system would have had the necessary basis for a harmonious
environment. It is this type of government system that represents the
ideal as far as God is concerned. And while it is usually not recognized
by modern professors of government, it is possible for a patriarchal
government to exist in a family even if the family amounts to millions
-- or even billions of members. Actually, in the New Testament we find
that even Christ insisted that such a father/children relationship (the
patriarchal one) is the government which must be reckoned as ideal (John
17:11).

     This is the kind of relationship that Christ had with the Father.
And, as we will later show in this research study, the government of
God's ekklesia (rendered "church" in the King James Version) is really a
patriarchal one with the Father as the Supreme Head and Christ as the
firstborn Son (as Head of the Body) and with all of us reckoned as being
in Christ with the same status as Christ himself (Ephesians 2:6). In a
word, the "government of God" is the "family of God" showing forth its
harmonious and loving inter-relationships among all the members of the
family.

     We are thus shown that the ideal form of government is the
patriarchal and the divine mandate for human government (as well as
God's mandate even for his divine government) rests in this form of
communal society. God even intended this type of government to regulate
society within the nation of Israel during their exodus from Egypt and
also during their national existence in the Land of Canaan. God fully
expected this governmental system to work for the nation of Israel even
though their population was great in number. Let us now look at what
happened once the nation of Israel came into existence.

The Nation of Israel
                                    
After the time of Abraham, his family steadily grew into a nation of
people in the land of Egypt. Under the leadership of Moses they were led
out of bondage and became a nation among all the other peoples of the
world. Does this mean that a new type of government became essential for
regulating the lives of the people? Some have imagined that Moses, at
Mount Sinai, had to establish a form of aristocratic and hierarchical
government with a strict authority exercised from the top down -- and
that this was to be the ideal government once Israel became a nation.
This is not true! The reason this is misunderstood is because Jethro
(the father in law of Moses) recommended to Moses a hierarchical
judicial organization for the management of affairs in Israel. True, but
there was a reason for it.

                     The Old Testament Misunderstood
                                    
Churches who presently wish to rule their members with a rod of iron
normally refer to the example of Jethro in their attempt to provide
approval for their hierarchical programs.  Jethro told Moses to organize
a judicial system over the Israelites by appointing men "to be rulers of
thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of
tens" (Exodus 18:21). "So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in
law, and did all that he said" (verse 24).

It is assumed by many people that God approved of this pyramidical
policy suggested by Jethro as the ideal type of government to govern
God's people in a perpetual sense. But this is not the case. What Jethro
did was to establish a military type of government and judicial system
for Israel for the purpose of conquering the Land of Canaan. This was
for national security reasons. After all, Israel had just had a major
battle with the Amalekites, which they would have lost had it not been
for the direct intervention of God (Exodus 17:8-16). This is one of the
reasons Jethro suggested to Moses that a highly organized hierarchical
system be established. Truly, that is what Israel then required because
they needed a united military effort to maintain discipline in the
wilderness and finally to conquer the Canaanite nations in Palestine.

            Hierarchical Government Not Perpetuated in Israel
                                    
Moses ruled the military forces of the Israelites in a highly
disciplined way for forty years in the wilderness. He commanded Israel
as chief executive officer during that period. But just before Moses'
death, he handed over that power to Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9). Joshua
became commander-in-chief of Israel's military forces. This type of
autocratic power was very necessary to enable the Promised Land to be
conquered from the Canaanites. But as soon as the land was generally
secured, the central executive control over Israel (as an army command)
became unnecessary and Joshua knew it. "And the land had rest from war"
(Joshua 14:15). Joshua then divided the inheritance and rulership among
the various tribes. He handed power over to numerous elders, leaders,
judges, and administrators (Joshua 23:2-4). Soon afterwards Joshua died.
Now notice one very important point. Joshua did not transfer the
executive power which had been shared by him and Moses to anyone else.
Since the land had now been generally pacified, Joshua saw no need for a
hierarchical, pyramidical form of government as a military nation needed
in time of war. Joshua put the government into the hands of local elders
-- called in Scripture the elders of the gate. Those elders are
mentioned as having lived after the death of Joshua (Judges 2:6,7).
Joshua determined that Israel no longer needed a militaristic discipline
with an autocratic leadership. Power was then concentrated among the
many elders scattered over the land. The priests and elders were given
authority to settle controversies between Israelites, but not to rule as
supreme political rulers.

                        The Period of the Judges
                                    
This period of three hundred years is normally denigrated by some. It is
looked on as a time of general instability in Israel. The tribes were
disunited, often bickering with one another and they were susceptible to
the servitude of their various Gentile neighbors. There was no real
central government to govern the people. But this is exactly the form of
administration that Joshua left for the people of Israel. He was
responsible for it, and he considered it God's government.

Though this type of rulership let a man be his own master within
reasonable limits, some people often criticize this government structure
as being too loose and disheveled. However, this need not have been the
case at all if the local elders of the cities would have exercised their
full authority to maintain law and order. But in the period of the
Judges, the local leaders failed to perform their expected duties.
Heathenism increased. Lawlessness became widespread. Servitude's by
various Gentile neighbors became common-place. Still, God raised up
particular men, designated as "deliverers," "saviors," or "judges" to
maintain a society which could reasonably protect Israel from overt
ills. Yet the Israelites, after so many years under this form of
government (with multitudes of local elders and occasional judges raised
up in times of emergencies), began to hold the government in disdain
that was given them by Joshua.

                         Israel Demanded a King
                                    
The last national judge in Israel was Samuel. The people criticized him
when he set up his two sons to follow in his footsteps. And true enough,
Samuel's sons  were "after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted
judgment" (I Samuel 8:3). The Bible, however, nowhere says the real
problem was the system of local government that Israel had been under.
The trouble rested with the men assigned to be their rulers.

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to
Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons
walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us LIKE ALL THE
NATIONS [like the Gentiles]" (I Samuel 8:4,5).

The Gentiles were noted for their hierarchical systems of rule. Israel
had used such a system in times of national emergency such as the exodus
period and when Joshua was conquering Canaan (and at other times of
military need), but a continual use of such a government was not
necessary. Still, Israel wanted to be "like all the nations" (verse 5)
and to adopt the Gentile methods of exercising government.

"But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to
judge us" (I Samuel 8:6).

"And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken
unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they
have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me that I should not
reign over them" (I Samuel 8:6,7).

Now notice one point very carefully. The government which existed from
the death of Joshua to Samuel, though often criticized by people today,
and finally chided by the Israelites themselves, was the type of
government designed by God under which he wished his people to live. It
was an expanded program of patriarchal government. God was not at all
pleased when they wanted to adopt the Gentile method of governing
Israel, though he reluctantly allowed them to have their way.

"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel [God's
spokesman]; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we
also may be like the nations" (I Samuel 8:19,20).

God looked on their desire for a kingdom headed by a man as rebellion to
him. Samuel said that God was going to judge them severely with
disasters (which finally began to occur) "that ye may perceive and see
that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the
Lord, IN ASKING FOR A KING" (I Samuel 12:17). Yahweh then showed his
displeasure. He sent great thunders and rains and the people began to
fear. They then said to Samuel: "Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy
God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, TO
ASK US A KING" (I Samuel 12:19).

     True enough, God allowed Israel to adopt Gentile ways and he
finally put a king over them, but he did so in blazing anger at their
rebellion against him. And his displeasure never abated. Even as late as
the eighth century B.C. (some 400 years later -- and after the reign of
righteous king David had come and gone) God was still complaining at
their rebellion in desiring a kingdom headed by a man, rather than the
rule of God directly. Look at Hosea 13:9-11.

"O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself: but in me is thine help, I will
be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?
and thy judges of whom thou saidest, Give me a king and princes [in the
time of Samuel]. I gave thee a king IN MINE ANGER, and I took him away
in my wrath."

Though God put up with the kingship in Israel, he never expressed a full
approval of it. His appraisal of the kingdom was: "They have rejected
me, that I should not reign over them" (I Samuel 8:7). And while it is
true that David and some later kings were men after God's own heart, God
was still angry in the days of Hosea (many years after David), that
Israel was bent on kingship. God did, however, give David a promise that
his kingdom would be continued and that a righteous king would one day
emerge who would be a proper ruler.

"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou [David] shalt sleep with thy
fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of
thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom" (II Samuel 7:12).

Some may have thought this prophecy (and all the other similar ones)
pertained to Solomon, but later scriptures show the king was the
Immanuel (God With Us) who would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). He
would be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). This king, a son of David,
would be God himself in the flesh. "There shall come forth a rod out of
the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah
11:1). When Israel accepts this king, who has his origin from the
Davidic line, Israel will be returning to the type of government they
experienced before they adopted the Gentile method of having a human
king.

     The Bible shows that God has never been happy with a kingdom ruled
by humans and Christ made it abundantly clear that his disciples should
not adopt such Gentile ways (Luke 22:25,26).

Israel's Human Kingdom Not Successful

As a concession to Israel's rebelliousness, God allowed them a human
king to govern them for a time. And though some may feel that the
kingdom-type of government of ancient Israel is an ideal which shows the
proper method to rule mankind, one should first look at its historical
results and what God finally did with it.

     When a human king rules absolutely, his philosophies and
life-styles normally influence the people under him to a great extent.
The first kingdom of Israel was a disaster according to the Bible (I
Samuel 15:23,26). And though David was a man after God's own heart, his
son Solomon gave Israel a wretched example with his many women
sacrificing to false deities, etc. God divided the kingdom as a
consequence of Solomon's ways (I Kings 11:1-13). And though on occasion
there arose a few righteous kings after the time of Solomon, there were
also many evil ones such as Ahaz and Manasseh who were as bad or even
worse than the heathen. The examples of the kings of Israel in the time
of Elijah were so heathenish that Elijah came to believe he was the only
worshipper of the true God left in the whole nation (I Kings 19:10).
Some kings led most of the Israelites astray.

     "As the king goes, so goes the nation," is a proverb that seldom
fails. If the king resorts to Baalism, the whole nation usually follows.
If a church leader becomes Laodicean, the whole church under his
absolute authority normally becomes Laodicean. And though dictatorial
leadership can bring a united worship, a standard political philosophy
or a harmonious military discipline in times of national emergency, such
a government can also lead people astray wholesale. This is what
happened time and time again in the kingdoms of Israel because there
were few checks and balances in their regimes.

     The human kingdom which God allowed Israel and Judah to endure
failed to produce proper spiritual results. God became so upset with it
after about 500 years' existence that he totally demolished the kingdom
in the sixth century B.C. with a promise that it would only be
reinstituted at the end of our age. The prophet Ezekiel expressed his
feelings about the termination of the Davidic dynasty in his day and how
it would not be reinstituted until future messianic times.

"And thou profane wicked prince of Israel [Zedekiah]... remove the
diadem [from Zedekiah] and take off the crown... I will overturn,
overturn, overturn [Hebrew: pervert it, pervert it, pervert it] and it
[the crown -- representing the kingdom] shalt be no more [no longer in
existence] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it [the
kingdom] to him" (Ezekiel 21:25-27).

God closed all his dealings with the human kingdom of Israel in the
sixth century B.C. by prophesying a threefold (absolute) overthrow. It
will not be restored until the end of the age. If a human autocracy is
so ideal, as some erroneously imagine, why did God destroy it after only
500 years' existence and has kept Israel from having a human kingdom for
a further 2500 years? Within all these years God has refused to
reinstate it. When Christ's disciples asked him "wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6), Christ said it was not
for them to know the future time when the kingdom would be restored. He
only gave them a command that they should not adopt a hierarchical
government for Christians who comprise the Body of Christ.

"The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that
exercise authority upon them are called benefactors [a common term for
the Roman Emperors]. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest
among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that
doth serve" (Luke 22:25,26).

Is there anything more dogmatic in this plain and simple teaching of
Christ? He stated, without the slightest doubt, that a pyramidical form
of government for his people was completely anathema. However, people
have adopted it on a grand scale today. From the "papal system" found in
Rome to the "apostle system" (or "episcopal system") found in other
hierarchical churches, we witness a widespread rebellion against the
express command of Christ given above.

The Results of Hierarchical Rule

Samuel angrily told Israel the bondage they would have to undergo if
they accepted a human king to fight their battles. "He will appoint him
captains over thousands, and captains over fifties" just like Jethro
told Moses. They would return to a militaristic state. The king (or the
top ruler) would take their sons and daughters to work for him. Their
fields would become his, even the best of the fields, along with the
vineyards and olive orchards. The king would give those lands to
whomever he pleased. He would take a full tithe from them to support the
operations of his kingdom. He would take the best away from them
(leaving them with the worst things to live on), and as a final gesture
of his rule over them they would be his servants (I Samuel 8:10-17). But
that was not all. The king, his princes and officers would truly live
"like kings," having the finest of everything, but the normal Israelite
would be crying out in hardship and be reckoned as being a mere servant
to the aristocrats.

     However, had the Israelites continued with God's direct rulership
(each Israelite having a one-on-one relationship to God himself),
Israelites would maintain their own lands, their own vineyards, their
own animals and they would have kept the vast majority of their produce
for themselves. That's how God wished his people to live. But Israel
chose a kingdom -- the Gentile method of government. They rejected God's
direct rule of government and settled for the rule of men.

Christian Organizations and Hierarchical Systems

Christ clearly commanded Christians not to embrace the Gentile
aristocratic method of government. God was angry with Israel for
adopting this kind of rule in the time of Samuel. Yet there are still
Christian organizations who reject God's method of direct government
(from God to man without human mediators). And the results are very
similar to what Samuel said would happen when Israel went into rebellion
and wanted to be ruled in the Gentile manner.

     Look at what inevitably happens. The leader at the top often lives
"like a king" -- is it not natural for him to do so? The ones next to
the leader live like "princes" and equally become wealthy as he is. It
is rulership from the top down and no one is allowed to question those
over the flock. The people pay great quantities of money (often to the
detriment of their own welfare and families) to support the aristocratic
system which many churches have erroneously adopted. Many lay people go
deep into debt, while those at the top often get richer and richer. The
condition in which God's people can find themselves in such a church is
that of bondage. They become what Samuel told Israel: "Ye shall be his
servants."

     But such a human type of government was held in disdain by God --
though he put up with it for awhile, since Israel demanded its
institution. Yet this is not what God wanted. God's system was that
where "elders" [more than one person] had positions of leadership. While
humans need government to direct them in the flesh, the fully
consecrated "elders of the gate" like those in authority after the time
of Joshua were quite sufficient.

     In most democratic countries (as America and Britain) we have such
elected political "elders" with checks and balances to counter any
attempt for "a king" to rule over us (that is, a king as a dictatorial
aristocrat). [A monarchy that is limited in power, and is a mere
figurehead for ceremonial purposes within a democratic system, is
clearly acceptable because there is no dictatorial authority invested in
such a "monarch."]

     Our modern western-style democracies are in general agreement with
God's biblical principles. Such governments could even be adopted in
congregations of God's people. Our democratic governments are like the
one that Joshua left with Israel. It is the type that God was pleased
with -- because it allowed only God to be king.

     When it can be realized that a "kingdom type" of hierarchical
government is not even sanctioned in the Old Testament as a human ideal,
and since Christ has made it clear that autocratic authority is not to
exist in his assembly of people, what kind of rule is the best? It is
not difficult to determine from the New Testament if one realizes what
the Body of Christ represents to Christ. Let us now note what the New
Testament writers considered the ekklesia to be (the Greek word ekklesia
-- pronounced ek-kle-see-ah -- is usually translated "church" in the
King James Version).

Government in the New Testament

The ordinary Greek word ekklesia (in its purely secular sense) is
defined by the lexicons as "an assembly of citizens called together for
deliberate purposes; a legislative assembly, called to discuss the
affairs of state." The word is used 115 times in the New Testament and
not all the time does it refer to the Body of Christ as we know it. In
fact, three times it is used of the official government assembly at the
city of Ephesus when it met at the time of the riot against Paul and the
other Christians (Acts 19:32,39,41). The riotous mobs were called in
Greek the oklos (verse 33) but the official assembly which had to put
them down and to quell them was called the ekklesia. The ekklesia was
the assembly of citizens who represented their fellow citizens to rule
over the affairs of the city.

     The meaning of the word ekklesia originated within the concepts of
cooperation between free people to govern themselves. The word denotes
an opposite meaning to dictatorship. Its meaning is diametrically
contrary to the principle of episcopal church hierarchy so often seen in
Christian denominations today. The ekklesia was actually the official
congress of the city, made up of its citizens, which was periodically
convened to run its political and government affairs. Up-standing
citizens of the Greek cities were elected to represent the ekklesia as a
corporate body of citizens.

     The early ekklesia was something akin to the Town Hall Meetings
that were formerly popular in the New England part of the United States.
And this is the basic connotation of the term that the New Testament
writers employed to describe the divine ekklesia of God. Indeed, this is
the very reason that Christ and the apostles chose the word ekklesia to
designate the Body of Christ because the word denoted a non-hierarchical
institution.

     The use of the word ekklesia shows that Christ's people are a body
of people who are all equal with one another in political status, yet
they share in the government of the organization. True enough, leaders
could emerge in such an association of peoples, but the leaders are to
be elected by the group to supervise the wishes of the group and with
the approval of the group itself. Using the word ekklesia to designate
the assembly of God's people shows that the leaders were in no way
dictators, popes, or "ordained ministers" who did not answer to the
people.

     As a matter of fact, the reason that the word "church" became a
substitute in the King James Version for the Greek word ekklesia
(meaning "gathering" or "congregation") is attributed to the demands of
King James himself. The king (in his orders to the translators of the
King James Version) stated that nothing could be translated in his Bible
that would disturb the teachings of the Church of England. While most
earlier translations into English rendered the word ekklesia with the
proper word "congregation," King James ordered that his version have the
word "church" (Lange's Commentary, Matthew, p.293). Since King James
himself was the legal head of the Church of England, he did not want the
common people to think that they had any authority whatever in the
running of ecclesiastical affairs. Thus he ordered the word ekklesia to
be translated "church." This gave him an easier task in ruling his
"church" without any intervention of the "congregation." The word that
King James demanded actually comes from an early Celtic and Germanic
word which referred to their early heathen sites. It does not mean
"belonging to the Lord" as guessed by some theologians.

Leaders of the Congregation

When any group of people come together there must be order in the
assembly (I Corinthians 14:33) and there should be leaders to direct
their affairs. In the time of the Judges (right after the death of
Joshua), Israel was provided with the "elders of the gate" to oversee
all its governmental affairs. Such overseers were also allowed in the
New Testament ekklesia (I Timothy 3). Actually, it was expected that
such leaders would emerge to help the assemblies have order within the
group and to supply teachers for instruction in the Bible (I Timothy
3:2). These "elders" were furnished to the Body of Christ to give
edification to the group. They were not there to rule with autocratic
power. They were there to serve!

"And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till
we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-14).

These overseers were designed to help the saints in growing into
spiritual maturity. The fact that the overseers had various functionary
titles does not mean they had "ranks." Rather, they were types of
operations, administrations or functions. The concern for rank (and its
natural corollary, status and power) comes partly from one's desire for
bureaucracy, which tends to dehumanize personal relationships. The one
major point of anger among the apostles of Christ concerned this very
question of rank. The mother of John went to Jesus and asked that her
two sons sit on his right and left in the kingdom (Matthew 20:20,21).
"And then the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the
two brethren" (verse 24). Then Christ answered the apostles by saying
that none of them should be in authority above the other. I will once
again quote the classic scripture of Christ in which he condemned
autocratic government.

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,
and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not
be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your
minister [Greek: servant]; And whoever will be chief among you, let him
be your servant" (Matthew 20:25-27).

Peter said virtually the same thing about Christian leaders.

"Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof,
not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready
mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to
the flock" (I Peter 5:2,3).

Overseers were ordered by Christ and the New Testament apostles not to
be rulers in an aristocratic sense. If apostleship were rank alone, this
strongly implies rulership and lordship over the flock. But Peter said
this should not be. Even though the King James Version of Hebrews says
to remember the ministers "which have the rule over you" (Hebrews
13:7,17,24), the Greek words really mean "those who are leading or
guiding you." Ministers are leaders -- but they are leaders who are
servants, not aristocratic lords or commanders of the flock as King
James in A.D.1611 wanted his "rulers" to be reckoned. But Christ's
leaders were simply to look after the welfare of the ekklesia by giving
them encouragement to maintain proper doctrinal beliefs and to teach the
proper principles of the biblical revelation. In no way are they to be
"lords" over the people. While King James in his version wanted his
ministers to be designated "masters" (James 3:1), the Greek actually
meant "teachers."

     And though the original apostles did have special commissions in
presenting the Christian message to the world and to the members of the
ekklesia (John 20:21-23), those apostolic powers ceased with the deaths
of the early apostles. It is impossible for anyone since the first
century to be considered an "apostle" with the same powers as the
original apostles. There were three requirements that had to be met for
anyone to be an apostle. 1) Each candidate had to have been baptized by
John the Baptist and to have been a personal witness of Christ as a
resurrected being (Acts 1:20-22). 2) Each had to have seen Christ in a
personal sense (I Corinthians 9:1). And 3), outstanding miracles must
have been associated with his ministry as a witness to his apostleship
(II Corinthians 12:12).

     The early apostles met all these requirements for "apostleship,"
including the apostle Paul. But there is not a person today who can
legitimately claim to have an apostolic function (let alone "rank"). The
only apostles that the modern ekklesia of Christ needs are the original
apostles (with their writings in the New Testament to guide us) and the
single Apostle in heaven who is Christ Jesus (Hebrews 3:1). The ekklesia
needs no others.

Leaders Have No Spiritual Hierarchical Ranks

It can easily be shown from prime examples in the New Testament that the
leaders of Christ's ekklesias have no special eminence over the other
members of the ekklesia. Let us notice these important illustrations.

     First, the ekklesia is identified in the New Testament as being
"the Body of Christ." It is compared to a single body with one head (I
Corinthians 12:12-31). That head is Christ. No man, no board of men, not
even the whole body of the ekklesia   itself is the head. The body has
many members: two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes; but it has only
one head. And it is that head which governs all. When the arms move, the
fingers stretch, the mouth yawns, those members get their orders from
the one head. And each member though attached to the body is independent
of the other members. The right arm is certainly independent of the left
arm, and so it is with all the other members. As with any physical
"body," it is the brain (the head) which communicates directly with each
member of the body through the nervous system. There can be no
pyramidical government in Paul's illustration in which he likens the
ekklesia to a human body. In fact, the very opposite is shown since
there is direct rule from the head to even the smallest member of the
body. Thus, all members of the ekklesia of God are to be governed
directly from the head. And that head is Jesus Christ.

     There is a second point showing direct government from Christ to
each person in the ekklesia without intermediaries. Peter spoke of the
priesthood of all believers.

"You also, as lively [living] stones, are built up a spiritual house, an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ." Also, you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an
holy nation, a peculiar [Greek: special possession]" (I Peter 2:5,9).

While in the Old Testament the people of Israel had to go through the
ordained priesthood of Aaron and through the temple sacrifices to
approach God in a religious sense, but now, each member of the Body of
Christ has the priestly privilege of direct access to God and it belongs
to everyone (Hebrews 10:19; Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18). All of us --
both minister and layperson alike -- are called upon to offer spiritual
sacrifices of praise and prayer (I Peter 2:5). "For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy
2:5). There is nothing pyramidical in this association -- it is a
one-on-one relationship. No longer does any distinct priestly class or
caste mediate between God and man.

     The priestly functions of the Old Testament are transferred, as far
as they can be transferred, to the whole body of believers, each of
which had an inalienable right of direct access to God through Christ
alone. The New Testament also makes it clear that there is no special
sanctity attached to a ministry which is not also ascribed to the
ordinary believer. Indeed, no human mediation is represented in the New
Testament as necessary when a person seeks the forgiveness of sins or
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, or in his appeal for God's blessings.

     The ministry, as we will observe in another section of this study,
is placed within the Christian ekklesia to assist God's people in
gaining the knowledge of God and his faith, but nowhere is the ministry
found to be indispensable to the member in reaching God's favor. The
ministry is to show that the members are, themselves, a holy priesthood
with privileges of direct access to God through Christ. All God's people
are priests of God and no other mediators are needed. Indeed, any human
intermediaries are spiritually ruinous to the ekklesia. "For there is
one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I
Timothy 2:5).

     A third point concerning government in the ekklesia is the fact
that each and every Christian represents a temple of the Eternal God.
All in the Body of Christ collectively are called the temple of God
(Ephesians 2:21), but each Christian separately is also reckoned a
distinct and holy temple. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (I Corinthians 3:16).

     Now let us conceive of a problem. Can we imagine one temple of God
rivaling another temple of God for position and power? Which one is the
best temple? Are they not all the same temple? God's Spirit is one --
there are not several Holy Spirits. So each Christian has the indwelling
of God's Spirit and he or she is a temple as holy as is any other
temple. Each of those individual temples united together with all other
Christians form the grand temple of God -- the Body of Christ. There can
be no class distinctions or various positions of rank in such a temple.

     The fourth point concerning government in God's ekklesia is that
which concerns the family. God is called our Father and Jesus Christ is
our elder brother. Even the primal government of God on earth was
patriarchal -- like the one involving Abraham and his family. This is
the ideal government from the divine point of view. In fact, Christ is
the firstborn of God the Father (Romans 8:29) and to the firstborn
belonged the birthright, which included the head-ship of the family
(under the father) and a double portion of his father's property.

     Christians are now acknowledged as full children of the Father
(Galatians 4:5,6) and brethren of Christ (Romans 12:1). However, there
is only one real firstborn who has rulership over all the other brothers
and sisters, and that is Jesus Christ himself. All the rest of the
brothers and sisters are alike without distinction before the Father.
And, as a matter of fact, all Christians who are members of the divine
family are actually considered firstborn children (Hebrews 12:23). In
that verse the word "firstborn" is plural and shows that all in the Body
of Christ are a congregation of firstborn children. Though Christ is the
actual firstborn, all Christians are reckoned by the Father as equal
heirs to inherit all that the actual firstborn inherits, and all without
distinction of class, rank or sex (Colossians 1:18 with Ephesians
3:5,6).

     The ekklesia, then, is a brotherhood of firstborn children (I Peter
2:17). And what kind of government or association should exist between
brothers and sisters on this earth while the Father and the actual
Firstborn are in Heaven? The Scripture is clear: "Be kindly affectioned
one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another"
(Romans 12:10). "But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write
unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another" (I
Thessalonians 4:9). We are all one family.

     Christians are all equal brothers and sisters in God's sight. When
one feels he has to beseech a fellow member to do right, it should be
done as to a brother who is one's equal (I Thessalonians 4:1). When one
has to exhort, do it also as a brother (II Corinthians 9:5). When one
has to admonish, do it as one who is a member of the common (and divine)
family (II Thessalonians 3:15). When one shows love, do it with the
"unfeigned love of the brethren" (I Peter 1:22). In fact, the scriptural
teaching is that we should love, respect, and honor our fellow brethren
so much that, if necessary, "we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren" (I John 3:16).

     There should be no class distinctions among brothers and sisters.
As James says in the Phillips translation:

"Suppose one man comes into your meeting well-dressed and with a gold
ring on his finger, and another man, obviously poor, arrives in shabby
clothes. If you pay special attention to the well-dressed man by saying,
`Please sit here -- it's an excellent seat,' and say to the poor man,
`You stand over there, please, or if you must sit, sit on the floor,'
doesn't that prove that you are making class-distinctions in your mind,
and setting yourselves up to assess a man's quality? -- a very bad
thing" (James 2:2-4).

If all Christians are reckoned as firstborn brothers and sisters in one
family, class distinctions are not possible.

     In having a family type of love for all the members of the Body of
Christ, there would be minimal government needed. After all, the head of
the family (the Father) and the actual firstborn (Christ) are the only
legitimate rulers within the family -- and they are both in heaven. All
of us are reckoned as being equal brothers and sisters (having firstborn
status) and without any other distinctive ranks among us.

     Indeed, each member of the ekklesia is reckoned by God the Father
as presently sitting in heaven (through our attachment to Christ) on the
very right hand of the Father himself. Read Ephesians 2:6 where our
authority is given. If men want to assume the ranks of apostles, popes,
priests, or ordained ministers of God to rule over humans, then we can
pull "rank on them" because all of us are presently sitting in a much
higher position than they, and they answer to us!

Is Central Government Recommended in the New Testament?

Does the New Testament command that there should be a strong central
government in the Body of Christ in which rests supreme power to decide
on issues of money allocations, appointments of leaders and to judge on
matters of doctrine? The simple answer is, no! The New Testament doesn't
even conceive of these matters as being issues. If it were so important
that these factors were necessary (as some think today) surely the
apostles would have said something in support of a strong central
government for the ekklesia. But the New Testament says nothing about
it.

     What it does reveal is that there was no central government which
controlled money allotments, appointments of offices and control over
doctrine. Anyone should realize that real organizational power comes to
those who control the money, those who can appoint offices and those who
have a singular authority to decide doctrine or what the group is to
believe.

     Some church leaders have imagined that the apostolic authorities in
Jerusalem did possess those factors of power. But let us look at the New
Testament to see if this is so.

     The first point to consider is money. Is there the slightest hint
anywhere in the New Testament that money in the form of tithes or
offerings was sent to the Jerusalem assembly as though it were a
headquarters to receive such things? Certainly NOT! As a matter of fact,
tithing was never a means by which the Christian ekklesia was financed.
It would have been biblically illegal for Christians to pay the biblical
tithe to the apostles or other officials in the ekklesia. Modern
churches have gone far astray regarding tithing. See my study "The
Tithing Dilemma" where this is explained.

     And too, were all salaries for the ministers and other
officeholders paid from Jerusalem? Again, no! There is not one
scriptural verse to suggest it. The logistics problem that would have
emerged in such a scheme would have been insurmountable. Even the paying
of salaries for ministers scattered over the Roman Empire would have
been an impossible task. Actually, the control of money had to be of a
local nature within the scattered ekklesias.

     True, Paul on at least one occasion did take "a certain
contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem" (Romans 15:26).
But those monies were not tithes or offerings. They were alms. The
Jerusalem ekklesia had members who were so poor at that particular time
that others in Jerusalem were unable to help them with their
necessities. Instead of showing a centralized money pool centered at
Jerusalem, the need of this contribution of alms proves that little
money was going to Jerusalem in a regular way.

     The second point concerns the appointment of officials to supervise
the affairs of the various ekklesias. Here again, where is there a verse
in the Bible to show that all the ministers had to be approved from
Jerusalem? There is none! In fact, Paul makes a major point that he was
appointed to his apostleship not by any man or any group of men. He was
ordained directly by Christ. Look at the Book of Galatians.

"Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ)"
(1:1). "For I neither received it [the Gospel] of man, neither was I
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12).

Paul did not get his authority to teach from anyone at Jerusalem. There
was no "headquarters church" to Paul.

"I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to
them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned
again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see
Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I
none, save James the Lord's brother" (1:16-19).

Paul made no appearance before the other apostles at Jerusalem or to any
other officials of the ekklesia in Judaea to gain an authority to
preach. Paul avoided Jerusalem.

"And I was unknown by face unto the ekklesias of Judaea which were in
Christ" (1:22). "Then fourteen years after, I went up again to
Jerusalem" (2:1).

All of this discourse by Paul is a deliberate attempt to show his
nonreliance on Jerusalem or the Jerusalem apostles for any authorization
to do his work. He was not ordained by any man (verse 1). He showed his
lack of allegiance to Jerusalem when he bypassed it in going to Arabia.
Then on his way back to Damascus, he bypassed the city again, feeling no
constraint to appear there. Then for three years he never made any
attempt to go to Jerusalem though he lived only a short 150 miles from
the city. After the three years he finally went to the capital. Did he
go to Jerusalem to have Peter ordain him? No, it was only "to see
Peter." No ordination from the Jerusalem ekklesia was thought necessary
by Paul, because Paul had already been ordained by Christ three years
before.

     And most remarkably, Paul, as recorded in the Book of Galatians,
never went to the Jerusalem ekklesia on the Sabbath to preach, he never
participated in any of their activities, nor did he think it useful to
have a conference with any of the apostles at Jerusalem save a single
meeting with James, the brother of Jesus (verses 19,22). He finally
returned to Tarsus in Asia Minor and expressed no interest in
communicating personally with those in Jerusalem for a period of
fourteen more years. Does all of this show Paul's deep interest in
Jerusalem in central government matters? In no way! What it does
demonstrate is Paul's complete independence of Jerusalem in his teaching
activities.

What About Doctrine?

While the first factor in the execution of power within an organization
or a group involves the control of money, the second is the regulation
of office appointments, the third is that of determining doctrine (or
what the association of peoples are committed to believe and teach).
Since some feel that Jerusalem had supreme power in all these matters,
let us look at the New Testament evidence concerning this. Did Jerusalem
have control over all issues of doctrine? The Bible shows not at all! No
men have control over doctrinal issues.

     We find in the Galatian letter that "certain came from James" to
Antioch (Galatians 2:12). These representatives of James stirred up no
little dissension among the brethren at Antioch. It was over a matter of
doctrine -- whether to accept the Jewish teaching of separation between
Jew and Gentile. James still accepted the doctrine. Peter, who knew
better, was even swayed to accept it. Even Barnabas was "carried away
with their dissimulation" (Galatians 2:13).

     Now, whose doctrine was going to prevail? Should it be the doctrine
of separation held by James, Peter and Barnabas and those of Jerusalem,
or would it be the doctrinal principles being preached by Paul? We are
not told who prevailed that particular day, but the facts of later
history suggest that it was Paul. When Paul had truth on his side, he
went diametrically contrary to the Jerusalem apostles in what they
taught and even rebuked them for their erroneous opinions.

     There is another point of doctrine which Jerusalem felt necessary
to suggest to the Gentiles which was completely reversed by the apostle
Paul when a subsequent revelation or experience showed it was not
necessary. It concerned the decree that the Gentiles were to "abstain
from meats offered to idols" (Acts 15:29). This decree was thought to be
a necessary requirement for all Gentiles, and this was long believed by
the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 21:25). But Paul, some few years after the
original decree was given -- which he, himself, helped to draft --
reversed its application to the Corinthians. Paul had a new revelation
from Christ Jesus.

"Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
knowledge.... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some
with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered
unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat
commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better;
neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any
means this liberty of yours become as stumbling blocks to them that are
weak" (I Corinthians 8:1,7-9).

Now some may say that Paul was not going against the original decree but
was only explaining it. If this is so, then the original decree meant
nothing at all unless it would have been fully explained at first --
which it wasn't. The decree said "abstain from meats offered unto idols"
but Paul said "neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat
not, are we the worse." Jerusalem said "Don't!" Paul said "Go ahead!"
And in case some may think Jerusalem itself changed the original decree
because of Paul's new teaching, James was still teaching (after Paul
wrote to the Corinthians) that the Gentiles should "keep themselves from
things offered to idols" (Acts 21:25).

     So, in the very matters which could indicate that Jerusalem was the
supreme authority as a centralized government agency to regulate the
Body of Christ (that is, the control over money, the appointment of
offices and the final judge of doctrine), we find in all cases that
Jerusalem exercised no such authority. And though Christian people
everywhere before A.D.70 showed a respect for the Jerusalem ekklesia and
the apostles who were there because of their long experience with
Christ, their maturity and their wisdom, there was no autocratic
government in evidence with all power invested in Jerusalem. It was not
the Jerusalem below that controlled the Body of Christ on earth, but
rather, it was the Jerusalem in heaven (Galatians 4:26).

Congregational Action Even at Jerusalem

It must be remembered that the Bible shows that each Christian is a
free, equal member of the family of God. All are a part of a single
family and each is a member of a brotherly priesthood (I Peter 2:17).
The illustrations given in the New Testament reveal that each member of
the family has the divine prerogative of being heard on matters
affecting the ekklesia. After all, each one has God's Holy Spirit and
each represents his own temple of God which makes up the greater, single
temple of God called the Body of Christ. This collective importance is
seen even in the business of the Jerusalem ekklesia. Let us recall Acts
15 where the matters about circumcision and the Gentiles were discussed
at Jerusalem. In regard to this, Paul and Barnabas felt they should go
to Jerusalem to discuss the rite of circumcision. When they got there
the whole ekklesia received them:

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the
ekklesia, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all the
things that God had done with them" (Acts 15:4).

After Paul and Barnabas spoke, Peter then related what God had done in
the matter of Cornelius (Acts 10) and that Cornelius (a Roman centurion)
was converted without circumcision. It was then shown how many miracles
and wonders had been done among the uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:12).

     After all this, James quoted the words of the prophets that God was
going to call out a people from among the Gentiles (Acts 15:17). Then
James said: "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God" (Acts 15:19).

     The word "sentence" is from the Greek word meaning "judgment" and
many translations render it that way. But lest it be thought to mean a
judgment coming from a supreme judge sitting on his bench, it should be
noted that the final judgment was not made by James alone. The whole
context of Acts 15, and especially verse 28, shows that the judgment was
a group affair: "For it seems good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28).

     It was all those assembled at Jerusalem who gave the final
directions -- not James alone. Indeed, even when James said, "my
judgment is," the language strongly suggests that it was like our own
English expression "in my judgment," which actually means "in my
opinion." That this is the real intention of James is echoed by various
translations:

Moffatt says: "In my opinion." The Twentieth Century: "I am therefore of
opinion." The Amplified: "Therefore it is my opinion." Rieu: "So I
propose."

What we see in Acts 15:19 is an opinion given by the leading elder in
the Jerusalem ekklesia. He was proposing the adoption of allowances to
the Gentiles because all the evidences showed that God had already
judged that they should be released from the need to be circumcised and
keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:28).

     But this did not end the matter. When the whole context of Acts is
taken into account, after hearing James' opinion or proposal, Luke said:
"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia, to
send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas"
(Acts 12:22). All the apostles, all the elders, and all in the ekklesia
were involved in the dispatch. Indeed, the phrase rendered "then pleased
it" by the King James Version can be translated from the Greek as "it
was voted" (Interpreter's Bible, Acts, p.205). Lange's Commentary says
the Greek word edoke in verses 22 and 25 "frequently occurs, in classic
Greek, in the formal resolutions of a senate, a popular assembly, or
other body invested with authority" (Acts, p.387).

     What we find at the conference of the apostles and the ekklesia at
Jerusalem is that "the whole ekklesia" agreed on approving the
resolutions. This was not voting in the sense that each member made up
his own mind on what should be done. They were not seeking their own
wills. Only when they saw the evidences of the Holy Spirit did they
recognize God's will in the matter and then they all agreed ("voted")
that God's will be carried out. However, it was not a one-man decision.
The whole ekklesia was involved.

Binding and Loosing

This subject has been misunderstood in a very profound way. However, if
one would simply read the basic context of Christ's teaching about
"binding and loosing" within the Christian ekklesia, no problems in
comprehension would arise. The fact is, "binding and loosing" only
involves the matter of discipline among members of an ecclesiastical
group. It has nothing to do with the determination of what doctrines the
Body of Christ should believe. Read Matthew 18:15-20 in its entirety and
the whole question can be cleared up. It is simply this: if a member in
any ecclesiastical fellowship has something against another member, the
one who feels he has been wronged should go to the other member and try
to work out the problem. If one is not satisfied that the dispute has
been resolved, then the plaintiff has the right to get one or two other
members to judge the situation between him and the other member. If this
secondary action does not resolve the differences, then, as a final
resort, the whole of the fellowship group should hear the case. The
matter then becomes a group affair.

     This means that all the assembled group (located in one's
community) should be asked to judge the grievance between the two
parties. When the totality of the group come to an equitable decision in
the case, God will then bind in heaven what the whole congregation has
bound on earth -- or, if the collective ekklesia agrees to loose the
plaintiff or defendant from the accusations, God will also loose the
person as his heavenly judgment.

     The matter of "binding and loosing" is as simple as that. Indeed,
even if a congregation were only composed of "two or three" people
(Matthew 18:20), the same rule applies. Certainly, "binding and loosing"
has nothing to do with the establishment of doctrines or originating new
beliefs. It only concerns a fellowship discipline among members of the
ekklesia over matters involving the ordinary affairs of life. Paul
taught that people who do not wish to accept the standards of fellowship
in the local ekklesia should still be reckoned as brethren even though
they are no longer a part of the group (II Thessalonians 3:14,15),
unless of course the persons turn their backs on Christ entirely. But by
no means does the Scripture give sanction that some select ministers
have the power to "bind and loose" anything they wish on members of the
Body of Christ. Such a concept is entirely alien to the teachings of
Christ Jesus on matters of authority.

All the Ekklesia Took Part in Teaching

The Apostle Paul taught that all members of the Christian ekklesia could
participate in affairs of the group, but he did not believe that
confusion should reign among the assembled members. He did not feel that
all should speak at the same meeting. But all of them could have their
say at proper times. "If therefore the whole ekklesia be come together
into one place, and all speak with languages, and there come in those
that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"
(I Corinthians 14:23).

     Paul demanded an orderly speaking schedule for those of the
congregation who wanted to recite a psalm, to teach a doctrine, read a
language of the scripture [Hebrew or Aramaic], or give an interpretation
from a scriptural language [from the Hebrew or Aramaic]. Paul even
allowed a member to give what he believed to be a revelation from God (I
Corinthians 14:26). Yet Paul said that no more than two or three of the
congregation should speak on prophetic matters; two or three to give
recitations from the original scriptural languages; or two or three to
provide doctrinal interpretations based on the original languages of the
Scripture (I Corinthians 14:27-31). This shows that Paul permitted from
six to nine members of the congregation to speak during an assembled
session of Christians, but he insisted that they do so in a prescribed
order and without confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). This is pure
congregational participation in action.

     As a matter of interest, let me now ask a question. How many
churches or denominations today permit six to nine members of the
congregation to take leading parts in church services? It would be rare
to see such "congregational" actions in most modern churches. The
majority of churches today have "ordained" ministers, priests or
hierarchical leaders doing all the official transactions in their church
services. The common procedures today differ remarkably from what the
apostle Paul ordained in the first century ekklesia.

     The apostle Paul tells us in First Corinthians 14 that the whole of
the congregation had the chance to participate in the worship of God and
in the teaching of others in the group. Under no circumstances was this
service of the ekklesia under the control of a select group of ministers
who were the only ones "authorized" to speak and to tell the group what
"headquarters" had ordained for their welfare. Paul showed that everyone
in the congregation had the right to speak his mind. He only demanded
that each one do so in an orderly and decent manner.

     Again, this example of scripture proves that a hierarchical or
aristocratic type of government within the Body of Christ was totally
foreign to those who lived in New Testament times. The authority in the
early ekklesia was completely congregational in its method of operation.
Indeed, that is the very meaning of the word "ekklesia" as understood by
those in the New Testament period. And though there were overseers who
were appointed by the group to see that things were done decently and in
order (I Timothy 3:1-7), no one in the group was ever denied the freedom
to express a personal opinion before the ekklesia. All that the apostle
Paul demanded was that everything "be done decently and in order" (I
Corinthians 14:40).

The Ekklesias of the Christian Community

Christian ekklesias which had their origination within the New Testament
period usually began their existence in a very small and humble way.
Most were begun in the homes of individuals. Take for example the
ekklesia at Rome. When Paul wrote to them, the congregation was meeting
in the house of Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:4,5). Then when
Priscilla and Aquila moved to western Asia Minor, this married couple
presided over "the ekklesia that is in their house" (I Corinthians
16:19). The early ekklesias of Christ could have as few as two or three
people in them. Only at times when the various ekklesias in a given area
wanted to meet together were the assemblies larger. Most early ekklesias
were conducted in homes. Philemon was told to minister "to the ekklesia
in thy house" (Philemon 2).

     These references of Paul show that twenty-five years after the
beginning of the Christian ekklesia at Jerusalem, people were still
meeting in the homes of individuals. And, by the way, any meeting of
Christian people (whether in a home, at a river-side, in a rented hall
or in a building owned by a local group of Christians) was known as an
ekklesia. All our meetings that we conduct at A.S.K. are reckoned by the
New Testament standard as being meetings of the ekklesia. All the
activities of A.S.K. in teaching the Bible to those who make up the Body
of Christ would be reckoned by the apostle Paul as procedural affairs of
the ekklesia. Though all of us who are "associates" of A.S.K. are
scattered around the world, we all represent the ekklesia of God.

     One thing must be kept clearly in mind. There is no central
headquarters of the ekklesia on earth today, and there never should be.
There was none in New Testament times. Jerusalem was certainly not a
headquarters ekklesia. Did all the early Christians send their money to
Jerusalem for the upkeep of those community ekklesias found in the homes
of people scattered over the Roman and Parthian worlds? Did Priscilla,
Aquila and Philemon wait for their salaries to come from Jerusalem? Did
they have their ministerial functions approved by authorities in the
Jerusalem ekklesia? Were the scattered ekklesias organized like an army
or a civil state as Jethro admonished Moses to organize the physical
nation of Israel in the wilderness? Of course not! The ekklesias of God
were not to be set up to fight physical wars on earth.

The Ekklesias Were Separate Institutions

There is positive proof that the New Testament ekklesias were separate
and independent. Look at the doctrinal differences of the seven
ekklesias in the Book of Revelation. Is there need to rehearse the
differences -- the profound disparities -- that existed between each of
those seven congregations? Remarkably, those diverse groups of
Christians were located a little more than a hundred miles from each
other and were connected by a common mail route. There were hardly any
ekklesias within the Roman Empire which could have had closer relations.
But how different they were!

     What do we find among those seven ekklesias? Was there concord
between the groups? Did they all have a meeting of minds? A common
consent? Was there some central government over them? If there was, why
wasn't it being exercised to bring them into doctrinal harmony? If
Jerusalem was then the headquarters, it was obviously powerless to
control a group of assemblies which existed within a short hundred miles
of each other. Or, if Antioch or Ephesus were the so-called headquarters
of these seven ekklesias (Antioch and Ephesus were located much closer to
the seven ekklesias than Jerusalem), then those two cities were equally
ineffective in controlling them. The truth is, those seven ekklesias
were quite independent of one another. Even Christ's ekklesias today can
differ in points with us at A.S.K., but proper ekklesias believe in
universal reconciliation and that the dead remain dead until Christ's
second advent.

     This illustration of these obvious doctrinal differences within
those seven ekklesias is a reason why those who support the hierarchical
system feel that a strong, central authority with absolute power is
necessary to keep all the assemblies of Christians in unity. The theory
is, with a dictatorial government being enforced upon all the Christian
ekklesias from a headquarters on earth, unanimity could always be
enforced. They would be forced into conformance.

     This is true. Those who demand a central and authoritative
government are correct. It would help secure a common belief. All
doctrines would have to be accepted by all the ekklesias and the
doctrines would have to be authorized by the central headquarters under
penalty of expulsion from the organization should any ekklesia or member
step out of line. This is the way many churches operate today.

     But before we praise this form of ecclesiastical government, let us
be aware of its consequences. What if that central government itself
becomes Laodicean? Then the whole church would become Laodicean. What if
"head-quarters" became like Sardis in its beliefs? Then all the ekkesias
under their control would be forced to be "dead" as Sardis. What if that
central government becomes Thyatiran? Then all the Body of Christ would
find itself accepting the doctrines of that evil woman called Jezebel
who influenced Thyatira. And too, if that central government took the
attitude of the Ephesian ekklesia (as described in the Book of
Revelation), then all the ekklesias within its authority would be forced
to leave their first love as did the Ephesians.

     Autocratic governments can be very dangerous institutions in
jeopardizing the freedoms that all Christians are granted in Christ.
Each Christian is now emancipated in the eyes of God from the rule of
men, but one must vigorously protect his or her own freedoms. "Stand
fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be
not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1).

Autocratic Government Condemned by Christ

Christ gave specific orders concerning the type of government with which
the members of his ekklesia must be ruled. This is the third time that I
am quoting this important command of our Lord in this study, but I do
not apologize for the emphasis. This is because most people (especially
the hierarchical churches and denominations) seem to avoid any reference
to this specific command of Christ to the apostles.

"And he [Christ] said unto them, the kings of the Gentiles [those of
Rome, Parthia, etc.] exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors [a common term for the Roman
Emperors and other government officials]. But you shall not be so: but
he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger: and he that is
chief, as he that serves. For which is greater, he that sits at meat, or
he that serves? Is not he that sits at meat? but I [said our Lord
himself] am among you as he that serves [at tables]" (Luke 22:25-27).

This is a New Testament command from Christ himself. The Romans had
their emperor -- their benefactor -- and their Senate, plus all other
lesser officers, and it was government from the top down. It was plainly
pyramidical and autocratic. And each person in the Empire waited on all
the human authorities which were over him up to the emperor himself. But
Christ said "you shall not do so." Christ came waiting on tables and
serving the men sitting at meat. He was a servant, yet he was their
Chief. And, he commanded the one who was a top human administrator in
the Body of Christ to "be as the younger." This command prohibits
aristocratic offices of rank.

     Some churches, however, have abandoned Christ's explicit teaching
and have adopted the autocratic form of government. They feel that it is
now expedient to do so. But this method of government was not necessary
in the time of Christ and the apostles, and there is no need to adopt it
now. What is remarkable is the fact that the members of Christ's
ekklesia in the first century were in as much of a psychological posture
concerning the expectancy of the Second Advent of Christ and the End of
the Age as the Body of Christ is today. Yet the early ekklesias did not
develop a centralized hierarchy to proclaim the Gospel to all nations.
This was the case even in Asia Minor where the ekklesias in the Book of
Revelation were closely located to one another and where good
communications between them were possible.

The Proper Government for Christianity

The Apostle Paul has recorded the correct type of governmental
relationship that God the Father and Christ have provided for their
human offspring. It is a direct association without any man mediating in
the relationship. Paul made it clear that "there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5).
This is not pyramidical government. The only authorities in religious
matters within the entirety of the universe, as far as each human is
concerned, are the Father and Christ. There is not a human on earth, or
an angelic being in heaven, who stands in the way of that singular and
particular relationship.

     This means that all human "authorities" on earth today, who claim
to be religious leaders, are in complete insubordination to God if they
assume the slightest mediatorialship. Thus, there are no longer any such
ranks as modern "apostles," or those with special "commissions" or
"ordinations" to rule over others in an hierarchical sense, nor are
there any "go-betweens" from mankind to God. There are no modern
"commissions." [See my research study: "The Hoax of Modern Christian
Commissions" where this is explained.]

     The only authority between an individual member of the ekklesia and
the Father in heaven is Jesus Christ -- and Christ alone (I Timothy
2:5). And this is the way it is with every other human on earth. When
people realize the fact of this mature teaching of Paul as regards to
divine government, there need be no more discussion on the issue. Only
those who do not comprehend the New Testament revelation on such things
still insist on human rulers (apostles, priests, popes, bishops,
evangelists, etc.) as being necessary in ruling the ekklesia of God.
This is not only a childish approach being practiced on a wide scale
today, but it is a spiritually ruinous application of human government
that is utterly condemned by Christ Jesus.

The Coming Kingdom of God on Earth

In spite of what we have shown in this study that hierarchical
government is not the ideal, there is still the fact that the Kingdom of
God is prophesied to appear on this earth at the Second Advent of
Christ. Indeed, it is Christ who will be the king of that kingdom and
the twelve apostles will sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel
(Matthew 19:28). Does this not indicate, after all, that the
kingdom-type of government is the best? Yes, but this kingdom of Christ
is ruled very differently than the kingdoms of man.

     What kind of a king will Christ be? After Christ judges the nations
of the world for their evil (Matthew 25:31-46), he will then become the
type of king that he described in Luke 22:25,26. He will come down from
his throne and set a table for his people and serve them (Luke 22:27).
This is what our elder brother Jesus Christ will do for all those he
rules.

     When people of this world finally discover the type of rule that
Christ will exercise (which is really a "family-type" of government with
Christ serving people as his brethren), then people will submit to that
perfect kind of government. It is prophesied that all intelligent life
in the universe will eventually come to the place of confessing Christ
and bowing their knees to him in voluntary reverence (Philippians 2:
10,11). When that time comes -- when all rebellion in the universe has
been overcome by Christ -- then Christ himself will give up his right to
rule (I Corinthians 15:25-28). The only ruler left will be God the
Father. And he will be a Father to all in the universe. This means we
will return to the original patriarchal type of rule that God approves.
But even now, Christians need to adopt those principles of government
(those which guide the family). Those proper principles represent "the
Divine Mandate for Human Government."