The  Bioi-­‐Narrative  Witness  of  the  Luke-­‐Acts  Sequence  in  Church  Polity:  a  Presbyterian  Primer  Christopher  L.  Mabee  #620558  

TEDS,  Columbus  Extension:  NT  5100-­‐53  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles:    Dr.  Joshua  W.  Jipp  

    There   is   much   that   has   been   gained   by   the   church   from   thoughtfully   engaging   the  

biographical-­‐narrative  witness  of  Luke-­‐Acts.    For  all  churches,  that  hold  the  Bible  in  high  

esteem,  have  used  it  as  a  paradigm  for  their  governance,  which  is  the  purpose  of  this  work.    

However,  at  the  outset,   it  seems  right  to  me  to  acknowledge  that  my  own  natural,  sinful,  

tendency   is   to   take   what   I   find   in   sacred   Scripture   and   use   it   to   advocate   my   own  

presuppositions.1    This  eisegetical  method,  or  reading  into  Scripture  that  which  we  believe  

at  the  outset  of  its  study,  undermines  the  true  exegetical  intensions  of  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  

and  the  power  of  Jesus  Christ   in  the  inaugurated  kingdom  of  God,   in  rightly  handling  the  

Word.     Therefore,   before   I   conclude   regarding   what   model(s)   seem   to   be   advocated  

through  the  transformative  witness  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  emissaries,  as  reported  in  the  

historical  narrative  of  Luke-­‐Acts,  I  must  first  engage  in  a  discussion  about  how  we  rightly  

come   to   a   ‘theology’   of   this   section   of   Scripture   based   on   genre   and   authorial   intent.    

Following   an   intimate   appraisal   of   the   Scriptural   witness   of   Luke-­‐Acts,   and   my  

interpretation  of   it,   I  will   then,   as   a  means  of   comparison,  broadly   review   the  history  of  

church  polity  from  the  late  first  century  to  the  present,  and  offer  a  critique  of  Presbyterian  

polity  with  practical  reflection  in  a  21st  century  context.  

Getting  our  Bearing:    The  Theology  of  the  Luke-­Acts  Sequence  

  To  render  a  proper  theology  of  the  Luke–Acts  sequence  the  kerygmatic  intention  of  the  

author  must  be  embodied  in  the  reader  as  to  explicate  the  epistemological,  existential,  and  

theological  claims  that  the  bioi-­‐narrative  makes.2    In  simpler  terms,  in  order  to  get  to  the  

Holy  Spirit’s   intended  and  transformative  meaning  of  the  text,  we  must  holistically  enter  

into  the  world  of  Jesus,  and  the  first  century  church,  and  become  part  of  its  storyline.    But  

before  we   access   its   pages,   in   an   attempt   to   discern   its   prescriptive  witness   for   church  

governance,  we  must  first  review  its  construct  and  genre.      

                                                                                                               1  We  are  all  guilty  of  eisegesis  to  some  degree  and  use  the  Scriptures,  ‘Much  like  a  drunk  uses  a  lamp  post,  more  for  support  than  illumination’.    Paraphrasing  the  Scottish  poet  Andrew  Lang,  see  Helm,  David,  Contextualization,  in  Expositional  Preaching,  Crossway,  Wheaton,  Illinois,  60187,  2014,  pg.24.  2  Paraphrased  from,  Jipp,  Joshua  W.,  The  Beginnings  of  a  Theology  of  Luke-­Acts:    Divine  Activity  and  Human  Response,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Interpretation  8.1,  2014,  pg.  23.  

 

  2  

  At  the  outset  of  a  study  of  the  book  of  Acts  we  need  first  understand  that  it  is  written  as  

a  sequence,  and  as  such  should  be  read  with,  and  in  light  of,  a  knowledge  of  the  author’s  

first  book,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (Luke  1:1-­‐4  cf.  Acts  1:1).    While  there  is  not  time  here  to  go  

into  all  the  supportive  details  of  this  supposition,  we  will  assume  that  the  author  of  both  

Luke   and   Acts   is   Paul’s   traveling   companion,   Luke,   the   physician   (see   1st   person   plural  

statements  in  Acts  16:10-­‐12;  20:6-­‐16;  21:1-­‐17;  27:1-­‐8,  16,  20,  26,  37  and  28:1,  11,  15  and  

Colossians  4:14;  2  Timothy  4:11).      

  The  Gospel  of  Luke   is  biographical   in   scope;   it   is   a  historical  narrative  account  of   the  

birth,   life,  ministry,   death   and   resurrection   of   Jesus   Christ,   the   protagonist   of   the   story.    

While   it   is   appropriate   to   call   Luke’s  Gospel   account,   a   ‘biography’,   it   is  more  precise   to  

understand  it  as  an  ancient,  theological,  historical  biography  (bioi)  in  genre,  which  affects  

our   reading   and   comprehension   of   it.3     The   Gospels   are   ‘bioi   plus’   or,   ‘eschatological,  

kerygmatic,  biblical,  historical  biographies’  in  which  we  find  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  as  

fulfillment  of  the  promised  return  of  the  reign  of  the  kingdom  of  God.4,5  This  sui  generis  is  

transformative   in   its   witness   as   the   reader   enters   into   the   storyline   and   attempts   to  

emulate  and  embody  the  main  character,   Jesus.    To  understand  the  text   is  to  understand  

oneself  before  the  text.    The  implication  is  that  the  reader  of  the  Gospel  does  not  submit  

the  meaning  of  the  text  to  their  own  preconceived  and  finite  capacity  of  understanding,  but  

lets  himself  or  herself  be  exposed   to   the   text   in  order   to  receive   the   ‘thing’  of   the   text—

Jesus  Christ.6    This  requires  the  reader  to  put  aside  their  presuppositional  worldview  and  

enter  the  world  and  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  God  man,  in  the  inaugurated  kingdom  of  

God  and  be  transformed.                                                                                                                        

3  There  are  four  main  ways  in  which  understanding  the  Gospels  as  ancient,  theological,  historical  biographies  should  affect  our  reading.    They  are  bioi  or  ancient  biographies  that:  1.  Mix  chronological  and  topical  elements  unexpectedly;  2.  Value  interested,  involved  witnesses  and  were  written  for  polemical,  apologetic  and  hortatory  reasons;  3.    Present  their  protagonist  as  one  to  be  emulated  and  4.  Are  written  as  instruments  of  transformation.    ‘The  crucial  difference  between  ancient  and  modern  biographies  is  why  we  often  refer  to  the  Greco-­‐Roman  biographies  as  bioi,  to  help  maintain  this  difference  and  prevent  confusion.’    Pennington,  Jonathan  T.,  What  are  the  Gospels?  In  Reading  the  Gospels  Wisely:  a  Narrative  and  Theological  Introduction,  Baker  Academic,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  49516,  2012,  pg  31.  4  Ibid,  pg.  34-­‐35.  5  What  then  are  the  Gospels?    They  are  the  theological,  historical,  and  aretological  (virtue  forming)  biographical  narratives  that  retell  the  story  and  proclaim  the  significance  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  restorer  of  God’s  kingdom.    Strauss,  Mark,  Four  Portraits,  One  Jesus:    An  Introduction  to  Jesus  and  the  Gospels,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  49516,  pg.  27-­‐29.  6  Paraphrased  from  Ricoeur,  P.,  Philosophical  Hermeneutics,  30.  

 

  3  

  What  then  are  some  of  the  particulars  that  characterize  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke?    

The   Jesus   of   Luke’s   Gospel   is   the   salvific,   eschatological,   Davidic   King   who   came   to  

‘proclaim  the  good  news/εὐαγγελίζω’ of  the  kingdom  of  God.    Ten  times  this  verb  appears  

in   Luke’s  Gospel,   spanning   the   entire   book.     The   verb   is   noted   at   the   outset   of   John   the  

Baptist’  ministry,  as  his  sentinel  proclaims  God’s  impending  visitation  through  Jesus  (Luke  

3:18).    At  the  beginning  of  Jesus  Christ’  earthly  ministry,  after  paraphrasing  Isaiah  61:1-­‐2,  

58:6  and  Leviticus  25:10  (Luke  4:18-­‐19)   in   the  synagogue   in  Nazareth,  He  authenticates  

His  identity  as  the  Messiah  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  Scriptures  quoted  (Luke  4:21).    In  this  

way,   Luke   frames   Jesus   ministry   as   the   Spirit-­‐empowered,   joy-­‐bringing,   burden-­‐lifting,  

captive-­‐freeing  message  that  ‘the  favorable  year  of  the  Lord’  has  come—the  restoration  of  

God’s  ways  and  reign  on  earth.7    Later  on,  after  going  down  to  Capernaum,  Jesus  states,  ‘it  

is   necessary   for   me   to   preach   the   good   news   of   the   kingdom   of   God   to   the   other  

towns/ταῖς   έτέραις  πόλεσιν   εὐαγγελίσασθαί   με   δεῖ   τἠν  βασιλείαν   τοῦ   θεοῦ   (Luke  4:43).    

This   theme   is  programmatic   for  Luke  and  carried   forward   into   the  developing  church   in  

his  second  volume,  Acts.    To  Luke,  it  was  necessary  for  Jesus  to  come,  minister,  proclaim,  

be   crucified   and  be   raised   from  death.    His   use   of   δεῖ/it   is   necessary,   emphasizes  God’s  

sovereignty   in  all  of   redemptive  history   including   the  suffering  and  passion  of   Jesus  and  

the  hardships  and  sacrifices  of  His   subsequent   representatives   in   the  book  of  Acts.8  The  

theme  of  the  proclamation  of  the  inaugurated  kingdom  of  God  is  pervasive  throughout  his  

Gospel   through   the   words   of   Jesus,   and   as   we   will   see,   throughout   the   book   of   Acts,  

following   His   ascension   and   the   pouring   out   of   the   Holy   Spirit,   through   His   emissaries.    

Therefore,  to  rightly  read  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and,  subsequently,  his  sequential  writing  in  

the  book  of  Acts,   this  kingdom  reality  with   Jesus  Christ  as   the  reigning  king  must  be   the  

cornerstone  of  our  transformation.      

                                                                                                               7  ‘The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  has  anointed  me  to  proclaim  the  good  news  to  the  poor.    He  has  sent  me  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  those  who  are  oppressed,  to  proclaim  the  year  of  the  Lord’s  favor’  (Luke  4:18-­‐19  cf.  Isaiah  61:1-­‐2;  58:6  and  Leviticus  25:10),  idem  (reference  2),  pg.  14.    8  This  theme  of  God’s  sovereignty  is  carried  over  in  the  book  of  Acts  where  δεῖ  is  used  an  additional  22  times.    In  Luke’s  Gospel  the  word  is  used  18  times.    See  Thompson,  Alan  J.,  Living  ‘between  the  times’:    the  kingdom  of  God,  in:  The  Acts  of  the  Risen  Lord  Jesus,  Inter  Varsity  Press,  USA,  Downers  Grove,  Illinois  60515,  2011,  pg.  30.  

 

  4  

  The  book  of  Acts,  in  contrast,  while  historical  narrative  in  genre,  is  not  biographical,  per  

se,  of   Jesus’   life  on  earth   (with   the  exception  of  Acts  1:1-­‐11).9     So  how  are  we   to  derive  

meaning   from   this   narrative-­‐discourse   genre   and   employ   it   prescriptively   to   govern   the  

church?    Some  have  attempted  to  use  any  description  found  in  its  pages  as  a  prescription  

for  church  governance.    Others  have  suggested   that   the  entire  book   is  descriptive  of   the  

early  church  and  the  authorial  intent  for  prescription  should  be  limited  to  those  narrative  

themes  repeated  or  emphasized  rhetorically.10    While  this  paradigm  may  be  expedient  for  

church  management  in  the  21st  century  it  fails  to  fully  recognize  the  power  of  Jesus  Christ  

through   His   Spirit   in   the   inaugurated   kingdom   of   God   which   is   transformative   of   the  

regenerate   reader   of   Acts   as   he   enters   its  world   and   pours   through   the   pages.     For   the  

main  subject  matter  of  the  book  of  Acts  is  God,  who  is  not  silent,  but  who  has  intervened    

covenantally   in  history  to   fulfill   the  promises  he  made  to  Abraham,  Moses  and  David   for  

the  salvation  of  the  world.    In  this  way,  the  historical  narrative  of  Acts  makes  a  ‘totalizing  

claim  on  every  reader’  and  immerses  them  into  the  world  of  which  they  read,  demanding  

decision,  action  and  tranformation.11    For  the  book  of  Acts,  as  biblical,  historical  narrative,  

makes  meaning  when  the  reader  enters  into  a  dialogue  with  the  text  and  responds  to  its  

discourse   by   reflecting   on   the   ‘fit’   between   his   world   and   the   world   projected   by   the  

text.12      

  Broadly   speaking   then,   the   book  of  Acts   is   to   be   interpreted   through   a   framework  of  

covenantal  fulfillment  and  inaugurated  eschatology.13    That  is,  Luke’s  intention  is  to  teach  

us   about   the   kingdom   of   God,   which   was   inaugurated   through   King   Jesus   at   His  

                                                                                                               9  This  statement  is  only  partially  true  as  the  book  of  Acts  continues  the  redemptive  storyline  of  Jesus  Christ’  salvific  rule  and  direction  in  the  inaugurated  kingdom  of  God  from  heaven,  which  began,  for  the  author  of  Luke-­‐Acts,  in  the  Messiah’s  early  ministry  (Acts  1:1-­‐11).    In  this  way,  the  book  of  Acts  is  a  bioi  historical  narrative  in  genre,  and  could  perhaps  be  more  precisely  titled,  ‘The  Acts  of  the  Risen  Lord  Jesus’.    Ibid,  pg.  19-­‐20,49.  10  There  are  a  number  of  rhetorical  methods  which  Luke  uses  to  emphasize  the  activity  of  the  early  church  by  repetition:    patterns  or  parallelism  (Peter  and  Paul),  summary  statements  (Acts  2:47;  6:7;  9:31;12:24;  16:5;19:20;  28:30-­‐31),  narration  of  major  events  (Cornelius,  Acts  10-­‐11;  the  Jerusalem  Council,  15:7-­‐9;  Saul’s  conversion,  9:1-­‐31,  22:1-­‐21,  26:12-­‐18;  the  sharing  of  resources,  2:42-­‐47,  4:32-­‐37;  terms  such  as,  temple,  name,  teaching,  our  fathers;  frames  and  inclusios  (kingdom  referents,  Acts  1:3,6  and  28:23,31);  and  contrasting  themes,  etc.    Ibid,  Introduction,  pg.26-­‐27.    11  Root,  Michael,  The  Narrative  Structure  of  Soteriology,  in  Why  Narrative?  Readings  in  Narrative  Theology,  Wipf  &  Stock,  Eugene,  Oregon,  1997,  pg.  266.  12  Ibid,  reference  2,  pg.  23-­‐44.  13  Ibid,  reference  8,  The  promise  of  the  Father:    the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  pg.125.  

 

  5  

resurrection  and  ascension,  and  further  manifested  through  the  power  and  ministry  of  the  

Holy   Spirit   in   the   people   of   God.     Throughout   the   book   of   Acts,   the   narrative   tells   the  

informed  reader  that   Jesus  Christ   is  reigning  in  His  kingdom  from  the  right  hand  of  God.    

He   directs,   as   He   builds   His   kingdom   and   church,   between   His   ascension   and   return,  

through  the  Holy  Spirit  who  indwells  His  people,  empowering  them  to  proclaim  the  truth  

of   the  Gospel   and   to   ‘act’   to   restore   and   reconcile   Israel   and   the  world   to  God.     Thus,   a  

theological  engagement  of  the  text  (Luke-­‐Acts),  that  witnesses  to  divine  acts  that  claim  to  

define  our   life,   and  even   that  of  all  of  human  history,   cannot   remain  at   the   level  of  pure  

description  but  must,  rather,  demonstrate  how  God’s  acts  have  reconfigured  our  lives  and  

world.     For   the   text   invites   its   readers   to   undergo   a   mental   and   dispositional  

transformation,  whereby   their  narrative  world   is   realigned  with   the   things   that  God  has  

done  and  prescribes.14  

Jesus  Christ  Governs  His  Inaugurated  Kingdom:    Luke-­Acts  as  Historical  Narrative        

  As   we   have   seen,   the   Luke-­‐Acts   sequence   is   a   bioi-­‐historical   narrative   about   the  

sovereign  activity  of  God  in  the  ministry,  resurrection  and  subsequent  superintendence  of  

Jesus   Christ,   through  His   emissaries,   in   the   eschatological,   inaugurated   kingdom  of   God.    

From  the  outset  of  his  Gospel  writing,  Luke  makes  clear  that  God  is   in  control  of  history.    

To  Luke,  God  is  the  keeper  of  His  covenantal  promises  to  our  fathers  and  has  visited  and  

redeemed  His  people  in  the  way  of  peace  and  salvation  through  Jesus  (Mary’s  Magnificat  ,  

Luke  1:46-­‐55  cf.  Zechariah’s  Benedictus,  Luke  1:68-­‐79).15    Jesus  remains  in  control  of  the  

                                                                                                               14  Jipp,  Joshua  W.,  The  Beginnings  of  a  Theology  of  Luke-­Acts:    Divine  Activity  and  Human  Response,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Interpretation  8.1  (2014),  pg.  23-­‐44.    This  should  be  required  reading  for  this  course.  15  From  the  beginning  to  end  of  his  corpus,  Luke  view  of  all  of  redemptive  history,  and  God’s  special  revelation  to  His  people,  is  covenantal  in  framework.    So  what  is  Luke  referring  to?    In  an  attempt  to  be  brief,  in  Covenant  Theology,  there  are  3  covenants.    The  first  is  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  between  the  Godhead  before  the  beginning  of  time  in  which  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  plan  to  create,  redeem  and  adopt  a  people,  as  a  bride,  for  Christ  (Ephesians  1:3-­‐14).    The  Father  plans,  the  Son  promises  to  become  incarnate,  live  a  sinless  life,  and  suffer  punishment  and  death  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  His  people  as  He  is  vindicated  at  the  0create  in  the  heart  of  man  faith  (cf.  John  15:26  for  double  procession).    The  Covenant  of  Works  was  between  God  and  Adam  and  Eve  and  their  posterity.    In  it,  God  promised  them  life  to  the  fullest,  and  communion  with  Him,  if  they  would  not  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  for  if  they  did  they  would  surely  die  (Genesis  1:16-­‐17  cf.  Hosea  6:7).  Following  their  disobedience,  having  then  made  themselves  incapable  of  life  by  that  covenant,  God,  knowing  beforehand  in  his  transcendence  that  Adam  and  Eve  would  be  deceived  and  fall,  was  pleased  to  condescend  to  make  a  second  covenant  with  mankind  commonly  known  as  the  Covenant  of  Grace  (Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  WCF,  chapter  7,  Christian  Education  &  Publications,  2007,  pg.30-­‐31).    In  this  covenant,  God  sets  forth  to  redeem  His  people  from  their  sin  through  the  blood  of  the  God  man,  Jesus  Christ,  His  son.    This  is  first  exposited  in  Scripture  in  the  Protoevangelium  

 

  6  

events   of   the   church   following   His   ascension   to   the   right   hand   of   the   Father,   but   the  

faithful  Christians  participate  in  the  execution  of  His  plan  by  the  power  of  the  indwelling  

Spirit.16    But  we  also  see  tacit  evidence  of  the  sovereignty  of  God,  after  Jesus’  ascension  and  

yet  prior  to  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  description  of  Judas’  apostolic  replacement  

through  the  casting  of  lots  (see  Matthias  in  Acts  1:20-­‐26  cf.  Luke  22:30;  Psalm  69:23  and  

109:8).     Throughout   the   book   of   Acts,   Luke   explicitly   states   or   implies   the   sovereign  

control   of   the   Godhead   in   the   activities,   outcomes,   building   and   governance   of   the  

developing  church  of  Jesus  Christ.    The  physical  and  metaphysical  manifestations  of  Christ’  

reign   in   His   inaugurated   kingdom,   and   the   requisite,   continued,   programmatic  

proclamation  of   the  Gospel  and  empowerment  by   the  Holy  Spirit  of  His   representatives,  

are   lives   transformed   and  worldviews   changed   (Acts   2:42-­‐47;   4:32-­‐37;   8:35-­‐38;   9:1-­‐31;  

10:44-­‐48;   13:48;   16:14-­‐15;   16:32-­‐35;   17:34;   19:17-­‐20).     But   this   redemption   and  

restoration   for   the  believing  church  does  not  go  without  conflict,  both   from  without  and  

from   within.     However,   Jesus   Christ   continues   to   ‘Act’,   on   behalf   of   the   church,   and  

                                                                                                               (Genesis  3:15)  and  is  a  continuous  theme  throughout  the  remainder  of  special  revelation.    Therefore,  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  (Genesis  12,15,17;  Exodus  2:24;  6:4-­‐5),  Mosaic/Sinaitic  Covenant,  (Exodus  19-­‐24  and  Deuteronomy),  Davidic  Covenant,  (2  Samuel  7:12-­‐23  cf.  Paul  in  Antioch  Pisidia,  Acts  13:26-­‐41)  and  New  Covenant/καινή  διαθήκη,  (Luke  22:20;  Hebrews  9:15-­‐28  cf.  Jeremiah  30:22;  31:31-­‐33;  32:38;  Ezekiel  14:11;  34:30;  36:28;  37:23,27,  etc)  are  all,  accordingly  then,  not  disparate  covenantal  themes,  promises  or  testaments,  but  part  of  the  unified  Covenant  of  Grace  (I  found  Dr.  Vos  ‘  dichotomization  helpful:  Covenant  of  Works—pre-­‐redemptive  special  revelation  and  Covenant  of  Grace—redemptive  special  revelation,  see  Vos,  Geerhardus  in  Biblical  Theology:  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Banner  of  Truth  Trust,  2007,  pg.23-­‐25  and  Glossary).    God  ties  these  together,  for  our  edification  and  encouragement,  in  the  book  of  Acts,  through  Peter’s  Sermon  and  discourse  on  Solomon’s  portico  (Acts  2:14-­‐36  and  3:14-­‐26,  respectively);  Stephen’s  speech  before  the  council  (Acts  7:2-­‐53  cf.  Deuteronomy  18:15-­‐18),  Paul’s  speech  at  Antioch  Pididia  (Acts  13:16-­‐41,  see  especially  v.  17  and  26  for  references  to  Abraham,  and  the  whole  passage  itself  as  an  obvious  correlation  with  the  Davidic  and  Mosaic  covenants),  Paul  before  Felix  (Acts  24:14-­‐15),  Paul  before  Agrippa  II  (Acts  26:6-­‐29  cf.  Luke  24:26-­‐27,  45-­‐48)  and  Paul  in  Rome  (Acts  28:23-­‐31).    While  Luke  in  Acts  13:16-­‐41,  perhaps  the  most  detailed  passage  in  this  regard,  does  not  cite  any  of  the  fore  mentioned  covenantal  proof  texts,  the  Psalms  and  major  and  minor  prophets,  which  are  quoted  in  this  passage,  are  robust  in  their  witness  of  Jesus  as  the  coming  Messiah,  as  God  had  promised  in  His  Covenant  of  Grace  (see  also  Luke  24:27;  Acts  7:52;  8:35;  24:14-­‐15;  26:22-­‐23  and  Acts  13:23,27,32  cf.  Psalm  2:7,  Isaiah  55:3,  Psalm  16:10,  Isaiah  29:14  and  Habbakuk  1:5,  in  the  sequence  of  Paul’s  speech  in  the  passage  in  Acts  13).  16  We  observe  a  continuum  of  God’s  sovereign  control  over  the  events  of  redemptive  history  as  Luke  transitions  from  Jesus’  crucifixion  to  His  resurrection  and  subsequent  reign  following  His  ascension.  For  example,  Jesus  predicts  his  reign  from  the  right  hand  of  God,  Luke  22:69;  Jesus  commissions  the  disciples  as  witnesses  to  proclaim  repentance  and  release  from  sin,  Luke  24:47-­‐49;  Jesus  continues  what  he  ‘began’  (continuous  aspect  in  Greek)  in  the  kingdom  during  His  ministry  (Acts  1:1-­‐3);  predicts  the  coming  of  His  promised  power  in  the  Spirit  (Acts  1:5);  baptizes  His  representatives  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  (Acts  2:4)  and  converses  about  His  covenantal  fulfillment  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  purpose  of  the  Spirit’s  outpouring  (Peter’s  sermon,  Acts  2:14-­‐36).  

 

  7  

intervene   through   the   illumination   and   empowerment   of   the   Holy   Spirit   in   His   chosen  

people  and  through  their  prayers.17      

  Jesus  continues  to  guide  and  direct  the  building  of  the  church  through  the  selection  and  

empowerment  of  His  emissaries  or  officers,  with  His  Spirit,  to  carry  on  the  proclamation  of  

the  Gospel  in  both  Word  and  deed,  defending  and  building  His  church  over  time.18    Time  

and   again,   we   see   this   alternating   pattern   of   external   and   internal   conflict   as   the  

proclamation   of   the   Gospel   goes   out   with   power.       But   as   the   narrative-­‐discourse  

continues,   we   begin   to   encounter   particular   narratives   that   seem   to   more   directly  

converse  with  prescriptive  patterns  that  God  uses  to  indirectly  manage  the  conflicts  at  the  

local,  regional  and  national  level.      

  In  Acts   6:1-­‐7  we   find   the   first   evidence   of   the   election   of   church   officers.19    We  have  

previous  evidence  of  apostolic  election,  as  we  have  seen,  however,  the  explicit  criteria  for  

this  office  render  it  closed  to  new  membership,  given  the  characteristics  that  are  listed  in  

Acts  1:20-­‐26.    It  is  important  to  note  here  that  while  the  ‘seven’  Greek  men  were  chosen  by  

the   common   disciples   of   the   church,   they   were   ordained   and   commissioned   by   the  

apostles,  and  in  that  way  affirmed  by  Christ.    This  ‘ground  up’  process  gives  all  the  saints  a  

voice   in   the   direction   of   the   church   and   provides   a  model   for   church   polity   and   officer  

election.    The  ‘praying  and  laying  on  of  their  hands’  signifies  to  me  more  than  simply  being  

convinced   to   ‘serve   tables/  διακονεῖν  τραπέζαισ   ’.20    According   to  many,   the  selection  of  

                                                                                                               17  For  example,  see  the  narrative-­‐discourse  of  Peter  and  John  before  the  council  and  the  prayer  for  boldness  in  Acts  4  (external  conflict);  the  Ananias  and  Sapphira  in  Acts  5  (internal  conflict);  the  healing  and  restoration  of  the  peoples  and  jealous  responses  of  the  council/Sanhedrin  in  Acts  5:12-­‐42  (external)  and  the  choosing  of  the  seven  Greek  deacons  in  Acts  6  (internal),  etc.  18For  Jesus  directly  chose,  called  and  commissioned  the  12  apostles  (Luke  6:12-­‐16  cf.  Luke  9:1-­‐2;  Luke  24:47-­‐49),  and  indirectly  through  the  indwelling  Spirit,  Matthias  (Acts  1:20-­‐26  cf.  Luke  22:30),  the  7  officers  of  the  church  through  the  apostles  (Acts  6:1-­‐7),  Saul  (Acts  9:1-­‐31  cf.  22:1-­‐21;  26:12-­‐18)  and  Barnabas  (Acts  13:2-­‐3),  the  elders  of  the  church  (Acts  11:30;  14:22-­‐23  cf.  20:17-­‐35)  and  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch  (Acts  13:1-­‐3).  19  I  believe  that  this  passage  is  descriptive  of  the  election  of  the  diaconate.    At  the  request  of  the  apostles  the  church  disciples  elected  seven  Greeks  to  ‘serve  tables’  (διακονεῖν  τραπέζαισ)  in  lieu  of  the  apostles  (Acts  6:2).    While  the  use  of  the  noun  for  ‘ministry/service’  in  this  passage  (διακονία,  Acts  6:4)  seems  to  be  generic  for  any  service,  the  present,  active,  infinitive  use  of  the  verb  διακονέω in  Acts  6:2  is  the  same  verb  used  in  1  Timothy  3:10,13  for  those  that  serve  or  are  to  serve  as  deacons.      20  The  difference  here  seems  to  be  that  the  seven  are  officially  commissioned  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  (Acts  6:6)  which  makes  simple  service  (διακονία)  unlikely.    The  laying  on  of  hands  is  use  5  times  in  Acts,  in  3  ways:    commissioning  to  a  ministry  (Acts  6:1-­‐6;  13:3),  healing  (Acts  9:17)  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  (Acts  8:18;  9:17;  19:6).  

 

  8  

the   seven   Greek  men   in   Acts   6:1-­‐7   is   instructive   for   distinguishing   between   the   role   of  

elders,  for  prayer  and  the  ministry  or  service  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  of  deacons,  for  

waiting  on   tables.     Thus,   it  may  be   assumed  by   this  passage   that   the   elders  of   the   early  

church  gave  attention  to  the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  church,  whereas  deacons  occupied  

themselves  with  the  practical  tasks  and  physical  concerns  of  the  church  (cf.  Paul’s  farewell  

address   to   the  Ephesian  elders   in  Acts  20:17-­‐35  where  he  uses  his   life  as  an  example   to  

model  for  the  elders/overseers  in  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  whole  council  of  God  

and  shepherding  the  flock,  but  provides  no  reference  to  waiting  on  tables).    Although  the  

noun  for  ‘service’/διακονία  and  the  verb  ‘to  serve’/διακονεῖν  appear  in  the  text  of  Acts  6:1-­‐

7,  as  the  narrative  of  Acts  unfolds,  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  role  of  the  first  ‘deacons’  was  

solely   one   of  waiting   on  widows   and   tables   (see   Stephen’s  ministry   in   Acts   6:8-­‐15;   and  

Phillip’s   evangelistic   ministry   in   Acts   8:4-­‐40   cf.   21:8).     Furthermore,   Jesus   says   to   His  

apostles  in  Luke  22:27,  εἰμι  ώς  ό  διακονῶν  /I  am  among  you  as  the  one  who  serves.    Does  

that  make  Jesus  a  deacon?    Is  Jesus  speaking  parabolically  or  are  our  Lord’s  comments  to  

be   taken   literally   (cf.   Luke   24:30   for   the   Lord   serving   tables   to   the   two   on   the   road   to  

Emmaus)?  Because  regenerate,  yet  sinful,  man  is  incapable  of  comprehensively  attending  

to  the  saints  as  individuals,  as  our  Lord  commands,  God  provides  for  His  church  two  sets  of  

multiple   officers   in   order   to   properly   service   the  Word   and   prayer   and   attend   to   their  

physical  needs.    This  appears  to  be  the  witness  of  Acts.    For  as  we  move  on  in  the  narrative,  

we  see  explicit  evidence  of  the  local  church  appointing  elders  (Acts  14:22-­‐23).    Therefore  

to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  see  that  the  church  manages  these  ‘many,  necessary  

tribulations’   immediately,   decisively   and   encouragingly   through   the   selection   of   elders,  

under  the  direct  superintendence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.21        

  As  the  narrative  of  the  early  church  continues  and  its  development  over  time  unfolds,  

we   see   that   in   the   ‘church’   in   Ephesus   there   were   multiple   elders/πρεσβυτέρους,   also  

called,   or   referred   to   as,   overseers/ἐπισκόπους,   (Acts   20:17   cf.   20:28).     How   are   these  

officers  of  the  church  similar,  or  different  from,  each  other,  or  the  office  described  in  Acts  

6:1-­‐7,  and  what  can  we  say  about  their  characteristics  and  office,  based  on  Paul’s  farewell                                                                                                                  

21  ὄτι  διἀ  πολλῶν  θλιψεων  δεῖ  ήμᾶς  εἰσελθεῖν  εἰς  τἠν  Βασιλεἰαν  τοῦ  θεοῦ…..κατ᾽ἐκκλησἰαν  πρεσβυτἐπους  (Acts  14:22-­‐23).    We  do  not  see  the  election  or  appointment  of  a  Bishop  as  a  means  of  managing  the  necessary  tribulations  that  the  church  is  promised  which  is  to  be  contrasted  with  Ignatius’  actions  (cf.  references  32-­‐34  and  page  12  of  this  manuscript).

 

  9  

address   to   the   Ephesian   elders   (Acts   20:17-­‐35),   in   particular,   and   the   book   of   Acts,   in  

general?    Was  the  fact  that  there  was  more  than  one  elder,  ‘the  elders  of  the  church/τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους   τῆς   ἐκκλησίας’   (Acts   20:17),   illustrative   that   there   was   more   than   one  

church  which  constituted  the  entire  ‘church’  in  Ephesus,  with  one  elder  per  church,  or  are  

we  to  conclude  that  there  was  more  than  one  elder  in  each  of  the  churches  which  together  

constituted   the   ‘church’?     This   paradigm  of   church   oversight   had   precedence,   in   the  NT  

church  and  the  book  of  Acts,  and  was  likely  learned  from  the  church  in  Judah  (Acts  11:30  

cf.   11:22   for   multiple   elders/τοῦς   πρεσβυτέρους   in   the   ‘church’   in   Jerusalem/τῆς  

ἐκκλησίας   τῆς   οὒσης   ἐν   Ἰερουσαλἠμ).     Paul   states,   in   this   passage,   that   he   taught   the  

elders/overseers  both  in  public  and  from  houses  (ύμᾶς  σημοσἰᾳ  κατ᾽οἲκους,  Acts  20:20).    

Therefore,   it   seems   likely   that   the   ‘church’/   τῆς   ἐκκλησίας  was   really   the   entire   visible  

church   with   all   its   constituent   assemblies   (Acts   20:17),   as   it   appears   to   have   been   in  

Jerusalem   (Acts   11:22).     This   might   have   included   both   synagogues,   public   places   of  

worship,  and  small  house  churches.    Within  them,  there  would  have  been  elders  chosen  by  

either   Paul   and/or   his   companions   or   chosen  by   the   local   congregations/ἐκκλησίας   and  

committed/anointed   by   the   Holy   Spirit   (this   can   be   stated   with   some   certainty   if   the  

paradigm  Paul  established  on  the  way  back  to  Antioch  Syria,  through  the  churches  he  had  

previously   visited   during   his   first   missionary   journey,   continued   during   his   3   years   in  

Ephesus  and  Asia  minor,   cf.  Acts  14:23  with  20:28;   this   is  a   logical  assumption  since  we  

find   no   explicit   or   implied   referents   to   the   contrary   in   Paul’s   subsequent   missionary  

journeys).     This  matter   is   of   no   small   significance.     Not   only   does   the   narrative   in   this  

passage   provide   for   us   the   basic   unit   of   the   church   of   our   Lord   Jesus   Christ   (local  

congregation   under   the   governance   of   a   body   of   locally   elected   elders/overseers   with  

Jesus  Christ  as   the  head),  but  Paul’s   farewell  speech   to   the  Ephesian  elders   inculcates   to  

the   ‘church’   the  necessity  of   regional  meetings  of  elders  brought   together  as  a  group   for  

unity,   community   and   governance⎯presbytery   (cf.   Acts   6:2-­‐6;   13:1-­‐3   and   21:18-­‐26   for  

other  similar  regional  meetings  of  the  church).22    These  regional  meetings  were  similar  to  

                                                                                                               22  Others  have  affirmed  my  position  here:    for  example,  see  Bannerman,  James.    The  Church  of  Christ,  2  vols.  Edinburgh:  T.  &T.  Clark,  1868,  pg.329;  McPherson,  John.  Presbyterianism,  Edinburgh:  T.  &T.  Clark,  n.d.,  pg.126-­‐7  and  Cannada,  Robert  C.  and  Williamson,  W.  Jack.    The  Historic  Polity  of  the  PCA,  A  Press,  Greenville,  SC,  1997,  pg.10-­‐29.  

 

  10  

the   larger,  national  meeting  of   the  apostles  and  elders  we  encounter   in  Luke’s  narrative  

account   of   the   Jerusalem   Council   in   Acts   15:1-­‐35.     While   the   purpose   of   this   ‘general  

assembly’  of   the   leaders  of   the  church  appears   to  have  been  to  discuss,  and  manage,   the  

doctrinal   dissension   caused   by   a   misapprehension   of   the   law   and   circumcision,   it’s  

ultimate  goal  was   to  encourage  and  build  up   the  different   factions  of   the   church   so   that  

they   could   remain   in   communion   with   God,   and   each   other,   and   continue   in   the  

proclamation  of  the  Gospel.23    In  this  manner,  likewise,  the  regional  meeting  of  the  elders  

of   Ephesus   in  Miletus   served   a   similar   function.     The   term   used   for   the   office,   whether  

elder   or   overseer   (πρεσβυτέρος   or   ἐπισκόπος),   is   of   less   importance   than   the  

transformative  witness  of  this  narrative  for  the  necessity  of  more  than  one  officer  in  every  

‘church’  (it  is  possible  that  there  was  only  1  elder  at  some  churches  and  multiple  elders  in  

the   ‘church’   as   a  whole).  Moreover,   the   repetitiveness   of   these   ‘regional’  meetings,   seen  

again  here   in  Paul’s   speech   to   the  elders   in  Miletus,   emphasizes   their   importance   in   the  

early  church  and  provides  a  model  for  church  governance  today.      

  Now   that   I   have  discussed   the   elder,   in   terms  of   church  governance   in   the   context  of  

their  pervasiveness,  multiplicity,  and  assemblies,  I  will  attempt  to  discuss  the  similarities  

between  the  elder  and  overseer,  as  to  office,  as  well  as  what  we  can  glean  from  the  book  of  

Acts   as   to   their   particular   personal   characteristics.     While   the   protestant   church,  

denominationally,  appears  to  use  different  names  for  the  elder/πρεσβυτέρος  in  different  

contexts,  the  office,   is   largely  one  and  the  same.24    This   leads  us  to  attempt  to  determine  

what  is  the  gender  of  the  elder  in  the  book  of  Acts  and  how  are  they  to  be  set  apart  from                                                                                                                  

23  The  Jerusalem  Council  was  the  first  general  assembly  of  the  officers  of  the  church  to  govern.    ‘The  apostles  and  elders  were  gathered  together  to  consider  this  matter.    And  after  there  had  been  much  debate…For  it  has  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us  to  lay  on  you  no  greater  burden  that  these  requirements’  (Acts  15:6-­‐7,  28).    For  evidence  of  the  dissemination  of  the  recommendations  of  the  assembly  through  the  letter  see  Acts  21:25.  24  Luke  uses  each  of  these  terms  once,  elders/πρεσβυτέρους  (Acts  20:17)  and  overseers/ἐπισκόπους  (Acts  20:28)  in  Acts  20:17-­‐35.    In  the  context  of  this  passage,  Paul  is  giving  a  speech  to  ‘the  elders’,  which  Luke  states  at  the  outset  of  the  passage.    Paul  then  refers  to  the  same  group  of  elders,  he  is  addressing  throughout  the  passage,  as  overseers  prior  to  describing  the  job  description  of  their  office.    Luke  tells  us  that  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  has  made  them  overseers,  to  tend  like  a  shepherd  for  the  church  of  God/ποιμαίνειν  τἠω  ἐκκλεσίαν  τοῦ  θεοῦ.    But  this  cannot  mean  that  they  are  only  to  care  for  and  tend  to,  in  a  service  oriented  way,  as  in  the  preceding  verse  Paul  makes  perfectly  clear  that  in  order  to  truly  be  caring  for  the  flock  (shepherding/  ποιμαίνειν)  and  proclaim  the  kingdom  of  God,  one  must  not  shrink  from  preaching  the  whole  council  of  God.    Thus,  it  is  my  conclusion  that  the  term  elder  and  overseer  are  more  similar  than  disparate  in  the  book  of  Acts  and  while  they  have  taken  on  different  roles  in  denominational  protestant  Christianity,  pertaining  to  church  governance,  their  office  in  purpose  is  the  same,  to  shepherd  the  flock  and  preach  the  whole  counsel  of  God.  

 

  11  

other  disciples   in  terms  of   their  requisite  characteristics?    This  passage   in  Acts  20  never  

explicitly   tells   us   these   things,   but   I   think   we   can   determine   the   voice   of   Luke   in   his  

narrative   as   to   ‘who’   the   elders   of   the   early   church  were,   and  what   they  were   like.     In  

chapter   6   of   Acts,   Luke   describes   the   characteristics   of   those   of  which   the   church   is   to  

select  to  ‘serve  tables’.    They  are  to  be  men,  of  good  repute,  full  of  the  Spirit  and  wisdom  

(Acts  6:2-­‐6).    While  I  recognize  that  it  is  a  matter  of  some  controversy,  I  believe  that  this  

passage  represents  the  first  description  of  the  election  of  diaconates.    Whether  or  not  one  

affirms  or  denies  this  as  truth,  what  we  can  say  with  certainty  is  that  Acts  6:2-­‐6  provides  

for   us   a   Lukan  paradigm   for   the   election   of   important   servants   of   the   church   (from   the  

congregation  up),  as  well  as,  a  view  of  the  requisite  personal  characteristics  of  those  to  be  

appointed.     As   such,   it   would   be   inconsistent,   at   best,   to   assume   that   the   choosing   of  

elders/overseers  would  be  substantially  different,  given  the  significance  of  their  role  and  

purpose   in   the   church   (for   potential   support   of   the   apostolic   choosing   of   elders   and  

hierarchical   church   governance   one   could   cite   Acts   14:23,   although   this   verse   could   be  

rendered   in   support   of   Congregationalism  or   Presbyterianism,   as  well).     The   only   other  

passage  in  the  book  of  Acts,  prior  to  Acts  20  and  the  quotations  therein,  that  uses  the  term  

elder,  is  found  in  Acts  11:30.25    This  passage  simply  mentions,  by  inference,  that  there  are  

elders  in  the  church  in  Jerusalem/Judea.    Therefore,  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  book  of  Acts  

supports   the   election   of  multiple   elders/overseers   by   the   local   church.     They   are   to   be  

men,  of  good  repute,  full  of  the  Spirit  and  wisdom  and  to  be  ordained  through  prayer  and  

the   laying  on  of  hands  by  previously   installed  elders  after  being  chosen  and  anointed  by  

the  Holy  Spirit.    

The  Governance  of  the  Church:    a  Broad  Overview  From  Christ  to  Today:  

  Now   that   I  have  engaged   in  a  discussion   regarding   the  particular  witness  of   the  bioi-­‐

narrative  of   the  Luke-­‐Acts   sequence   in   the  development  of   church  polity,   as   a  means   to  

compare,   I  will   broadly   review   the  post-­‐apostolic   references  of   its   progression   from   the  

late  first  century  to  the  present  day.  

                                                                                                               25  We  do  encounter  the  word  πρεσβὐτεροι  in  Acts  21:18  for  the  elders  in  the  Jerusalem  church  with  James,  πρεσβυτἐροις  in  Acts  23:14  in  the  context  of  the  Sanhedrin,  πρεσβυτἐρων  in  Acts  24:1  when  Ananias  goes  down  to  Caesarea  for  Paul’s  examination  before  Felix  and  πρεσβὐτεροι  in  Acts  25:15  when  Festus  presents  the  group  that  accuses  Paul  to  Agrippa  II.  

 

  12  

  The   early   church  was   governed   by   a   two-­‐tiered   system   featuring   elders/bishops   and  

deacons   in   plurality.26     Clement   of   Rome   referred   to   the   apostolic   practice   of   choosing  

church  leaders  as  being  in  line  with  Isaiah  60:17-­‐18a  LXX,    ‘I  will  appoint  their  bishops  in  

righteousness  and  their  deacons  in  faith  (καἰ  δώσω  τοὐς  ᾶρχοντάς  σου  ἐν  εἰρήνῃ,  καἰ  τοὐς  

ἐπισκόπους  σου  ἐν  δικαιοσύνῃ)’.27    In  the  late  first  century,  the  Didache  gave  instructions  

to  Christians  to  ‘appoint  for  yourselves  bishops  and  deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord.28    About  

the   same   time,   Polycarp   encouraged   the   Philippian   church   to   be   ‘obedient   to   the  

presbyters   and   deacons   as   to   God   and   Christ.29     While   these   early   church   witnesses  

support   the   notion   of   a   two-­‐tiered   system  of   governance,   the   distinction   between   these  

two  offices  developed  over  the  course  of  time  and  was  not  initially  clear.    While  the  ante-­‐

Nicene   fathers   of   the   church   continued   in   this   tradition,   no   hard-­‐and-­‐fast   rule   to  

distinguish  the  offices  was  formulated  early  on.30      

  Faced   with   dangerous   heresies   in   the   two-­‐tiered   system,   and   being   confronted   with  

potential  divisions   in  the  church,   Ignatius  of  Antioch  responded  with  a  new,   three-­‐tiered  

system   of   polity.31     In   this   new   system,   he   made   a   distinction   between   the   offices   of  

overseer   and   elders   and   called   for   ‘one   bishop,   together   with   the   presbytery   and   the  

deacons,   my   fellow   servants’   to   lead   the   churches.32     In   the   early   2nd   century   (ca.110),  

while  in  Rome  for  martyrdom,  Ignatius  writes,  ‘For  when  you  are  subject  to  the  bishop  as  

to   Jesus   Christ,   it   is   evident   to   me   that   you   are   living   not   in   accordance   with   human  

standards  but  in  accordance  with  Jesus  Christ….It  is  essential,  therefore,  that  you  continue  

your   current   practice   and   do   nothing   without   the   bishop,   but   be   subject   also   to   the  

                                                                                                               26  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Gregg  Allison  for  his  summary  of  the  history  of  church  governance,  which  I  frequently  referred  to  in  the  preparation  of  this  paper.    Allison,  Gregg  R.  Church  Government  in:  Historical  Theology:  an  Introduction  to  Christian  Doctrine,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan  49530,  2011,  pg.  588-­‐610.  27  Clement  of  Rome,  Letter  of  the  Romans  to  the  Corinthians,  42  (c.96-­‐140),  in  Holmes,  75,  Ante-­‐Nicene  Fathers  (ANF  from  here),  The  Apostolic  Fathers:    Greek  Texts  and  English  Translations,  Baker,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  1999,  1:16.    28  Didache  (the  teaching  of  the  twelve  apostles),  15  (c.70-­‐120),  in  Holmes,  267;  ANF,  7:381.  29  Polycarp,  Letter  to  the  Philippians,  5,  (c.110-­‐140)  in  Holmes,  213;  ANF,  1:34.  30  Ibid,  reference  26,  pg.590.  31  There  is  temporal  overlap  in  these  early  church  father  and  apostolic  witnesses,  that  is,  Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  of  Antioch  were  likely  contemporaries,  as  was  the  apostolic  witness  of  the  Didache,  making  the  chronological  storyline  of  the  development  of  church  governance  uncertain.  32  Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Philadelphians,  4  (c.110-­‐115  ),  in  Holmes,  179;  ANF,  1:81.  

 

  13  

presbytery  as  to  the  apostles  of   Jesus  Christ,  our  hope’.33     It  was  about  this  time  that  the  

universal   church  was   called   ‘Catholic’.34     To   Ignatius,   unity   and  obedience   to   the  bishop  

was   indispensable.     Indeed,   from   this   point   forward,   until   the   reformation,   because   he  

exercised  such  authority,  the  bishop  was  to  be  the  rallying  point  for  all  the  activities  of  the  

church.    As  the  church  developed  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  three-­‐fold  structure  

introduced  by  Ignatius  became  the  standard  government.35    It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  

later   church   fathers  did  not  differentiate   the  office   of   elder   and  overseer  but   seemed   to  

differentiate   the   two   from  deacons (this  notion  seems  to  be   in  agreement  with  Paul  and  

the  NT  witness,   see  Acts  20:17,28;   1  Timothy  3:1-­‐13;  Titus  1:5-­‐7   cf.   σὺν   ὲπισκόποις   καὶ  

διακόνοις   in Philippians   1:1;   Scriptural   referents   mine).36       Origen   was   a   proponent   of  

deaconesses,  as  noted   in  his  oldest  extant  commentary  on  Romans,  appealing   to  Phoebe  

(Romans   16:1-­‐2).37     To   the   church,   at   that   time,   it   was   important   for   woman   to   have  

leadership   roles   and   share   in   the   responsibilities   of   caring   for   the   weak   and   doing  

visitations   to   avoid   bringing   reproach   because   of   the   sexual   scandal   between   the   male  

clergy  and  women.    Thus,  by  the  fourth  century  the  church  had  become  a  highly  organized,  

hierarchical  institution  with  the  responsibilities  of  its  offices  of  bishop,  elder,  deacon,  and  

deaconess  specifically  delineated.      

  The   turning  point  of   this   governing  paradigm  started  at   the  debate  between  Cyprian,  

the  bishop  of  Carthage,  and  Stephen,   the  bishop  of  Rome,  over  the  Novatian  schism.38     It  

                                                                                                               33  Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Trallians,  2  (c.110-­‐115),  In  Holmes,  160-­‐61;  ANF,  1:66-­‐67.  34  ‘Wherever  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  multitude  [of  the  people]  also  be;  even  as,  wherever  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic  Church/ἡ  καθολικὴ  ἐκκλησία’,  Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Smyrnaeans,  in  Angle,  Paul  T.  The  Mysterious  Origins  of  Christianity.  Wheatmark,  Inc.,  2007.  35  Allison,  Gregg  R.  Church  Government  in:  Historical  Theology:  an  Introduction  to  Christian  Doctrine,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan  49530,  2011,  pg.  592.  36  Jerome,  Letter  146,  to  Evangelus,  1-­‐2  (c.366-­‐384),  in:  Nicene  and  Post-­‐Nicene  Fathers  (NPNF  from  here),  Peabody,  Mass.:  Henrickson,  1994.  37  Origen,  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  16:1-­‐2  (c.246),  cited  in  Ruth  Tucker  and  Water  Liefield,  Daughters  of  the  Church,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan  49530,  1987,  pg.106  38  This  debate  largely  began  the  papacy  (the  elevation  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  a  position  of  supremacy  among  other  bishops).    The  Novatian  schism  (254-­‐256)  and  the  later  Donatism  controversy  (303-­‐305)  polemicized  whether  those  that  renounced  their  faith,  under  the  direct  persecution  of  the  respective  Roman  emperors,  should  be  admitted  to  the  Eucharist,  need  to  be  re-­‐baptized  and  be  in  unity  with  the  rest  of  the  church,  etc.    Because  of  these  disagreements  further  dissension  arouse  over  which  bishop  had  the  ultimate  authority  to  make  the  decision  for  the  church  as  a  whole.    Both  Stephen  and  Cyprian  appealed  to  Jesus’  words  to  Peter  in  Matthew  16:15-­‐19  but  they  disagreed  on  it’s  interpretation.    Was  Peter  the  chief  apostle  (Stephen)  or  did  all  the  apostles  have  parity  (Cyprian)?  

 

  14  

took  until  the  ecumenical  council  of  Constantinople  for  the  dispute  to  be  settled.39    While  

there  were   further   disagreements   that   followed,   by   the   time  Gregory   the  Great  was   the  

leader  of  the  church,  the  term  pope  was  applied  almost  exclusively  to  the  Roman  bishop  

(590-­‐604).     This   three-­‐tiered   hierarchical   governance,   with   the   pope   as   the   head,  

continued,  with  little  change  throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  with  two  exceptions.    Following  

the  filioque  (and  from  the  son)  dispute,  which  fractured  the  church  over  the  procession  of  

the  Holy  Spirit  and  power  (1054),  the  greatest  development  of  the  church  during  this  time  

was   the  expansion  of   the  authority  of   the  papacy   in   the  secular  world,  perhaps  reaching  

it’s  zenith  with   Innocent   III   (1198-­‐1216).    These  events   lead   to   the  period  of   the  church  

known  as  the  ‘Great  Schism’  and  found  the  church  almost  hopelessly  divided  (1378-­‐1417).    

This   lead   to   the   conciliar   movement   within   the   Roman   Catholic   Church,   that   was  

characterized  by   the  view   that  general   church  councils,   rather   than   the  papacy,   exercise  

supreme  authority   in  the  church.    Pope  Pius  II  put  an  end  to  this,  short   lived,  movement  

issuing   a   declaration   that  made   appeals   to   general   church   councils   illegitimate,   and   the  

pope  was  back  in  charge.40      

  The  hypocrisy  of  the  accumulation  of  power,  wealth  and  prestige  by  the  church,  under  

this  system,  did  not  go  unnoticed  by  a  remnant  of  devote,  orthodox  Christian  men,  nor  did  

the   eisegesis   of   Scripture,   which   the   Romish   proponents   held   to.     John   Wycliffe,   who  

sought   to   rectify   the  decrepit   state  of   the  church   leadership  by  proposing  an  alternative  

model   focusing  on   ‘the  holiness   of   the  pastor   and   the  wholesomeness   of   his   teaching’.41    

This   focus   led  Wycliffe   to  his  English   translation  of   the  Latin  Vulgate,   increasing  Biblical  

literacy   and   readership,   which   later   on,   under   the   subsequent   leadership   of   John   Hus,  

became  know  to  some  as  the  ‘Morningstar  of  the  Reformation’.    Martin  Luther  entered  the  

storyline  with  his  95  theses  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  at  Wittenberg  (1517)  and  later  

was  formally  tried  and  vindicated  at  the  Diet  of  the  Worms  (1521).    Like  those  before  him,                                                                                                                  

39  The  bishops  of  the  five  major  churches  (Alexandria,  Rome,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  Constantinople)  all  had  a  stake  in  the  discussion.    According  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (381),  ‘The  bishop  of  Constantinople….shall  have  the  prerogative  (primacy)  of  honor  after  the  bishop  of  Rome;  because  Constantinople  is  New  Rome’  in  Council  of  Constantinople,  canon  3,  in  NPNF,  14:178.  40  Pope  Pius  II,  Execrabilis  (January  1460),  in  Bettenson,  150.      41  To  Wycliffe,  the  primacy  of  the  Word  of  God  was  to  exceed  prayer  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  to  an  infinite  degree  (against  Rome  and  its  sacramentalism);  ‘The  spread  of  the  Gospel  has  far  wider  and  more  evident  benefit,  it  is  the  most  precious  activity  of  the  church’.    John  Wycliffe,  On  the  Pastoral  Office,  1.1,  Library  of  Christian  Classics  (LCC  from  here),  14:32.  

 

  15  

Luther’s   main   concern   was   to   distance   the   ‘reformed’   church   congregations   from   the  

Roman   Catholic   structure   and   its   elevation   of   the   pope   as   the   supreme   ruler   over   all  

Christian   churches.     He   described   the   true   church   as   one   with   seven   marks   or  

characteristics  including  the  office  of  ministry.    He  emphasized  that  the  bishops  or  pastors  

were   to  be  called  by  God  and  chosen  by   the  church   (eliminating  Romish  nepotism),  and  

formally  separated   the  church   from  the  secular  state.42    However,  Luther  did  not  offer  a  

developed  doctrine  of  church  government  and  thus   ‘Lutheran’  churches  continued  in  the  

traditional   three-­‐tiered   system   with   the   Bishop   as   the   head,   which   is   how   they   are  

governed  today.  

  John   Calvin   began   a   transformation   of   the   government   of   the   church   in   Geneva,  

Switzerland   in   1536.     He   affirmed   that   God   could   have   chosen   to   rule   directly   over   the  

church,   yet   opted   to   govern   through   ministers   in   order   to   foster   humility,   godliness,  

obedience,   teachability,  mutual   love   and   unity.43    While  Wycliffe,   Hus   and   Luther   ‘put   a  

Bible   in   the   common   man’s   hand’,   Calvin   drew   attention   to   the   Biblical   teaching  

demanding   corporate   worship   and   the   role   of   the   pastor/teacher   in   preaching   and  

teaching  the  truths  of  God’s  word  (critical  text,  Ephesians  4:11).44    Thus,  Calvin  focused  on  

the  pastors  and  teachers  and  the  difference  between  them:  teachers  are  not  put  in  charge  

of  discipline,  or  administering  the  sacraments,  or  warnings  and  exhortations,  but  only  of  

Scriptural   interpretation—to   keep   doctrine   whole   and   pure   among   believers.     But   the  

pastoral   office   includes   all   these   functions  within   itself.     Pastors   are   called   by   God   and  

affirmed   by   the   local   congregation.     Quoting   Calvin,   ‘This   call   of   a   minister   is   lawful  

according  to  the  Word  of  God,  when  those  who  seemed  fit  are  created  by  the  consent  and  

approval  of  the  people;  moreover,  other  pastors  ought  to  preside  over  the  election  in  order  

                                                                                                               42  Differently  exegeting  Luke  22:38,  which  Pope  Boniface  VIII  (1302)  had  used  as  a  crutch  to  claim  papal  superiority  of  church  and  state,  Luther  gave  the  church  over  entirely  to  spiritual  matters  and  responsibilities  and  insisted  it  not  be  formally  concerned  with  matters  of  civil  government  and  disturbingly  mingle  together  ‘the  ecclesiastical  power  and  the  power  of  the  sword’.    See  Martin  Luther,  On  the  Councils  and  the  Church,  in  Luther’s  Works  41:154,  Concordia,  St.  Louis,  1955-­‐1986  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  2.7,  in  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3:59  Harper,  New  York,  1877-­‐1905.  43  John  Calvin,  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion,  (1536,  first  ed.;  1559,  last  ed.),  4.3.1,  in  the  Library  of  Christian  Classics,  2:1053.  44  ‘Many  are  led  either  by  pride,  dislike  or  rivalry  to  the  conviction  that  they  can  profit  enough  from  private  reading  and  meditation;  hence  they  despise  public  assemblies  and  deem  preaching  superfluous’.  Ibid  ,4.1.5  and  4.3.4,  LCC  2:1056.    

 

  16  

that  the  multitude  may  not  go  wrong  either  through  fickleness,  through  evil  intentions,  or  

through   disorder’.45     The   responsibilities   of   the   pastor/teacher   were   to   engage   in  

preaching  of   the  Word  of  God   in  church,  baptizing  people,  conducting  the  Lord’s  supper,  

and  carrying  out  church  discipline.    Calvin  called  this  office  the  bishop,  presbyter,  pastor  

and   minister,   according   to   the   Scriptural   usage,   which   interchanges   these   terms.46    

Therefore,   Calvin’s   teaching   in   his   Institutes   formally   broke   with   the   traditional   three-­‐

tiered,  episcopalian,  hierarchical  system  of  church  governance,  which  had  ruled  the  church  

since  the  late  first  century,  to  form  a  new  system  of  governance.    In  this  system,  there  was  

a  second  office  of  the  diaconate  or  deacon,  which  were  in  charge  of  caring  for  the  poor  and  

sick.47  

  Following  Calvin’s  break   from  Rome  and   the   traditional   three-­‐tiered  system  of  polity,  

the  Westminster  Assembly,  building  on  Calvin’s  work,  produced  an  ecumenical,  reformed  

system  of  governance  and  doctrine  in  an  effort  to  unite  the  Scottish  church  and  the  Church  

of   England.     In   this   system,   the   church   called   for   ‘assemblies   as   are   commonly   called  

synods   or   councils….it   is   their   ministerial   prerogative   to   determine   controversies  

concerning   the   faith   and   cases   of   conscience;   to   set   down   rules   and   directions   for   the  

better   ordering   of   the   public  worship   of   God,   and   government   of  His   church;   to   receive  

complaints   in   cases   of   wrong   administration   and   to   determine   authoritatively   such  

cases’.48    In  this  system  of  governance,  known  today  as  Presbyterianism,  there  is  a  ground  

up  election  of  officers,   starting  with   the   local   congregation,  and   there  are   three   levels  of  

governing  bodies  (local:  presbytery;  regional:  classis;  national:  synod).49    About  the  same  

                                                                                                               45  Ibid,  4.3.15,  LCC,  2:1066.  46  Ibid,  4.3.8,  LCC  2:1060.    Calvin  appealed  to  the  clear  synonymous,  Biblical  usage  of  presbyter/elder  and  episkopos/overseer/bishop  in  Titus  1:5-­‐7  and  Acts  20:17,28.    Calvin  also  cited  Jerome  here,  see  reference  13.  47  Ibid  4.3.9,  LCC,  2:1061.  48  Paraphrased  from  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  (WCF),  chapter  31,  1646.    The  confession  largely  refers,  in  this  chapter  on  governance,  to  Acts  15  and  the  Jerusalem  Council  as  critical  or  proof  texts.    While  the  names  of  the  disparate  levels  of  governance  have  changed  from  the  original  paradigm,  the  model  remains  the  same.    Therefore,  the  general  assembly  has  replaced  the  synod  at  the  national  level,  the  presbytery  has  replaced  the  classis  at  the  regional  level  and  the  session  has  replaced  the  presbytery  at  the  local  level.      All  the  Presbyterian  denominations  in  the  United  States  derive  their  church  polity  from,  and  are  subordinate  to,  to  some  degree,  the  WCF,  of  which  it  is  affirmed  is  potentially  fallible  and  submissive  to  Holy  Scripture  (OPC,  PCA,  EPC,  PCUSA,  from  conservative  to  modern).  49  The  Westminster  Assembly  Directory  for  Church  Government  (1645,  1771),  in  Paradigms  in  Polity:    Classic  Readings  in  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  Church  Government,  ed.  David  W.  Hall  and  Joseph  H.  Hall,  Eerdmans,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  1994,  pg.  263.  

 

  17  

time,  another  system  of   church  government  developed   that   rejected  both   the   traditional  

three-­‐tiered  Episcopalian  system  of  the  Roman  Church  and  the  new,  reformed  protestant  

church.     The   earliest   expression   of   this   system   was   the   Anabaptists’   Schleitheim  

Confession.50     These   were   the   seeds   of   contemporary   congregational   governance.    

Separatists  from  around  this  time  fled  from  England,  first  to  Holland  as  doctrinal  discord  

regarding  baptism  proved  too  much  for  the  church  to  remain  ecumenical,  and  ultimately  

the   United   States   on   the   Mayflower   as   pilgrims   (1620).     In   this   two-­‐tiered   system,   the  

ministers   of   the   church   are   not   only   bishops/overseers,   to  whom   the   power   is   given   to  

dispense  both  the  Word  and  sacraments,  but  also  deacons,  men  and  widows,  who  attend  

to  the  affairs  of  the  poor  and  sick  brothers.51    When  they  settled  in  Plymouth,  the  colony  

established  a  formal  Congregationalism  as  their  church  governance.52    Because  the  church  

in  England  was  split,  it  formed  a  new  Episcopalian  form  of  governance,  which  was  three-­‐

tiered,  like  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  not  subservient  to  the  pope.    This  church  and  

form  of  governance  became  known  as  the  Anglican  church  with  it’s  thirty  nine,  reformed  

articles  as  the  church  of  England  developed  a  Protestant  episcopacy.      

  Today,   the   current   Roman   Catholic   Church   remains   largely   unchanged   from   its   pre-­‐

Reformational  state.    The  Anglican  Church  or  Church  of  England,  and  its  Episcopalian  and  

Methodist   Protestant   counterparts   in   the   United   States,   largely   follow   a   three-­‐tiered,  

hierarchical  system  of  top  down  management  and  governance  without  subservience  to  the  

pope.      In  contemporary  Congregationalism,  there  are  a  number  of  both  independent  and  

Baptist  churches  which  follow  the  polity.    In  this  two-­‐tiered  system,  there  is,  often  a  single  

pastor,  with  or  without  elders  and  a  board  of  deacons/deaconesses.    While  the  officers  of  

the  church  are  elected  by  the  local  congregation,  which  is  similar  to  Presbyterianism,  there  

are   no   formal   regional   or   national   governing   authorities   but   simple,   voluntary,   loose  

                                                                                                               50  The  pastor  has  the  responsibilities,  ‘to  read,  admonish  and  teach,  warn,  discipline,  excommunicate  from  the  church,  lead  in  prayer  for  the  advancement  of  all  the  brothers  and  sisters,  serve  communion,  and  in  all  things  see  to  the  care  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  order  that  it  may  be  built  up  and  developed’.    Scleitheim  Confession  (1527),  art.5,  in  Lumpkin,  Baptist  Confessions  of  Faith,  Judson,  Valley  Forge,  1969.  51  Smyth,  John,    A  Short  Confession  of  Faith  in  XX  Articles  (1609),  16,  and  Helwys,  Thomas,    A  Declaration  of  Faith  of  English  People  Remaining  at  Amsterdam  in  Holland  (1611),  21  both  in  Lumpkin,  pg.  101,  121-­‐122.  52  Ibid,  reference  19,  pg.  605.  

 

  18  

associations  amongst  those  of  like  denomination,  which  is  to  be  contrasted  with  all  other  

church  polities  noted.53      

 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  America:  a  21st  Century  Encouragement:  

  Now  that  I  have  humbly  attempted  to  rightly  embody  and  apply  the  special  revelatory  

bioi-­‐narrative   of   the   Luke-­‐Acts   sequence   as   a   witness   unto   church   polity,   reviewed   its  

critical   texts   and   the   witness   of   the   post-­‐apostolic   church,   I   will   briefly   critique   the  

Presbyterian  Church   in  America’s   (PCA)  model  of  polity  as   it   relates   to   these   texts.    The  

PCA  maintains  a  Presbyterian  polity  as  set   forth   in   its  Book  of  Church  Order  (BCO).    We  

hold  the  Protestant  Bible  as  inerrant  and  infallible  and  follow  the  Westminster  standards  

and  larger  and  smaller  catechisms,  as  subservient  to  Holy  Scripture.    Local  church  officers  

include  elders  (teaching  and  ruling)  and  deacons,  which  are  called  by  God,  confirmed  by  

the  local  congregation  of  members  and  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  elders  in  the  

local  body  or  regional  presbytery.    The  teaching  elders  (ordained  ministers/pastors)  and  

the  ruling  elders  make  up  the  session  of  the  local  church  and  govern  and  serve  its  saints  

through  preaching,   teaching,   shepherding,  mission  and  mercy  ministry.    Adhering   to   the  

Southern  tradition  of  the  parity  of  elders,  the  teaching  and  ruling  elders  of  the  church  are  

considered  equals  with  the  pastors  to  be  the  first  among  equals.    The  elected  deacons  of  

the   church   are   not   part   of   the   governing   body,   but   play   a   broader   role   in   the   financial  

management  and  service  of  the  body  of  believers.    The  church  is  governed  at  the  regional  

level   by   a   group   of   elected   local   elders   (presbyters),   which   participate   in   regular,  

scheduled  meetings  of  presbyteries  and  at   the  national   level  by  elected  elders  at  general  

assembly.    The   local  assemblies  own  and  operate   their  own  properties,   in  our  branch  of  

Presbyterianism,   and   while   these   church   congregations   are   self-­‐governing   they   are  

voluntarily  subservient   to   the  regional  and  national  court  systems  (presbyteries/general  

assembly)  in  matters  of  conflict,  management  and  doctrinal  discord.  

  How  then  does  the  PCA,  in  its  governing  Presbyterianism,  compare  to  the  witness  of  the  

Luke-­‐Acts  sequence  and  the  post-­‐apostolic  church?    As  I  have  outlined  in  the  beginning,  it  

is  challenging  for  most  to  come  to  the  texts  of  Luke  monolithically  and  attempt  to  immerse                                                                                                                  

53  Grudem,  Wayne,  Church  Government,  in  Systematic  Theology:  an  Introduction  to  Biblical  Doctrine,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  49530,  1994,  Chapter  47,  pg.  923-­‐937.  

 

  19  

themself  into  the  transformative  worldview  of  its  bioi-­‐narrative  pages  rather  than  use  its  

descriptors  as  a   tool   for  Biblical  political  eisegesis.     I   am  no  exception.    However,   I  have  

tried  to  be  faithful  to  the  authorial  intent  of  Luke  and  limited  my  Scriptural  quotations  to  

those   in   his   corpus   (except   for   those   that   he   explicitly   uses,   or   appeal   to   the   doctrinal  

concepts  he  clearly  exposits).    To  that  end,  I  have  found  the  governance  of  the  PCA  to  be  

thoroughly  Biblical  in  its  structure.    For  the  Luke-­‐Acts  sequence,  and  the  worldview  of  its  

author,   is  one  of  covenant.    To  Luke,   the  Bible’s  entire  storyline   is  one  of   the   triune  God  

‘acting  out’  His  plan  and  keeping  his  promises,   in  His  sovereignty,  to  His  people  for  their  

redemption  and  reconciliation  to  Himself  through  the  God  Man,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  power  

of  the  Holy  Spirit.    God  chose  Jesus,  Abraham,  Moses,  David,  the  apostles,  the  seven  Greek  

men,   Paul   and   Barnabas   and   the   elders   of   His   churches   as   emissaries   to   proclaim   His  

entire   counsel   and   redeem   a   people   for   the   Son,   and   govern   the   saints   in   truth.      

Throughout   the  book  of  Acts  we  see  a  pattern  of  commissioning,  mission,  nurturing  and  

strengthening   of   the   faithful   through   the   appointment   of   multiple   elders   and   finally  

regional  and  national  meetings  of  elected  elders  for  the  accountability,  encouragement  and  

ecumenicity  of  the  ‘church’.    It  is  my  opinion  that  this  normative  pattern  is  prescriptive  of  

church   polity   and   planting;   it   is   the   governance   of   the   PCA.     Our   ground   up   election   of  

multiple  officers  and  emphasized  local  governance  seems  to  mirror  the  witness  of  Luke  in  

the  book  of  Acts.    In  addition,  the  regional  and  national  court  systems  of  our  polity  and  the  

voluntary,   but   tightly   applied,   associations   with   them   protect   the   relative   autonomy   of  

local   assemblies   and   yet   create   a   bottom   up   and   top   down   unity   and   accountability.     It  

should   be   noted   that   the   PCA   does   pursue   looser,   fraternal   relationships  with   similarly  

minded,   reformed   denominations   internationally.     This   connectional   ministry   produces  

humility  within  our  denomination  and  allows  us  to  listen  to,  learn  from  and  partner  with  

the  global   ‘church’  through  this  context.    Broadly  speaking  then,  this  system  has  lead  the  

PCA  to  protect  the  primacy  of  the  inerrant  Word  of  God,  given  unity  to  its  leadership  and  

local   congregations,   provided   all   the   members   a   voice   in   management,   and   fostered  

humbleness  in  international  ecumenicity  in  doctrine  and  mission.    Arguments  against  this  

system,  which  have  been  rendered,  are  that  it  can  result  in  much  formal  litigation  and  that  

the  ultimate  power  of  the  ‘church’  is  too  removed  from  the  laypeople  of  the  church.    Some  

have   also   suggested   that   the   structure   actually   increases   the   probability   of   doctrinal  

 

  20  

heresy  rather  than  decreasing   it.     I  have  found  these  arguments  to  be   impertinent  to  the  

faithfulness  of  our  governance   to   the  witness  of  Luke-­‐Acts.    For  as  we  have  seen,  all   the  

components  of  the  governmental  system  in  the  book  of  Acts,  the  first  century  church,  are  

found  in  the  PCA’s  polity.  

  The  post-­‐apostolic  church,   in  response  to  the  tribulations  that  God  necessitated  in  the  

building  of  His  church  and   inaugurated  kingdom,  changed  from  a  two-­‐tiered  system  to  a  

hierarchical   system   with   a   top   down   control   of   the   church   through   a   bishop   or   pope.    

Arguments  for  this  episcopalian,  three-­‐tiered  system,  are  not  that  it  is  found  in  the  book  of  

Acts,   but   that   it   is   a   natural   outgrowth   of   the   development   of   the   church   and   not  

proscribed  by  the  Scriptures.    While  expedient  for  the  church,  and  originally  intended  as  a  

paradigm  to  counteract  doctrinal  discord  and  heresy,  it  seems  improper  to  me  to  devalue  a  

God  given  normative  pattern  and  manage  oneself  based  solely  on  what  the  Bible  does  not  

proscribe.     We   see   this   remedied   during   the   Reformational   period   through   a   re-­‐

commitment  to  the  inerrancy  of  the  Word  of  God  and  the  witness  of  Luke-­‐Acts  as  a  two-­‐

tiered   system.     Therefore,   it   is   the   view   of   this   author,   that   in   the   21st   century   ‘church’  

today,   the   systems   that   adhere  most   closely   to   the   ‘church’   of  Acts   are   the  Presbyterian  

and  multiple   elder,   Congregationalist   denominations.     In   both   of   these   polities,   we   find  

ground  up  election  of  officers  by  the  members  of  the  church,  multiple  elders  and  deacons  

and   an   emphasis   of   local   control.     As  we   have   seen,   the   first   century   church   over   time  

developed  both  regional  and  national  assemblies  of  elected  elders  that  participated  in  the  

management  of  doctrinal  discord  and  worked  for  the  unity  of  local  congregations.    In  this  

way,   the   polity   of   the   PCA,   to   be   differentiated   from   multi-­‐elder   Congregationalism,   is  

more   faithful   to   the   bioi-­‐narrative   we   have   just   reviewed   and   perhaps   explains   the  

popularity  and  appeal  of  large  national  conference  events  like  the  Gospel  Coaliation  for  the  

Congregationalists  as  it  reveals  a  conscientious  impulse  for  the  connectivity  of  the  church  

embodied  throughout  the  pages  of  Acts  and  yet  lacking  in  their  polity.      

 

Index  of  Scriptural  References  from  Luke-­Acts:  

Luke                     page(s)  1:1-­‐4                   2  1:46-­‐55                   5  1:68-­‐79                   5  

 

  21  

3:18                   3  4:18-­‐19                   3  4:21                   3  4:43                   3  6:12-­‐16                   6  9:1-­‐2                   6  22:20                   6  22:27                   7  22:30                   5,6  22:69                   5  24:26-­‐27                   6  24:27                   6  24:30                   7  24:45-­‐48                   6  24:47-­‐49                   5,6      Acts                   page(s)  1:1                   2,5  1:1-­‐3                   5  1:3,6                   4  1:5                   4,5  1:1-­‐11                   4  1:20-­‐26                   5,6,7  2:4                   5  2:14-­‐36                   5,6  2:42-­‐47                   4,6  2:47                   4  3:14-­‐26                   6  4                     6  4:32-­‐37                   4,6  5                     6  5:12-­‐42                   6  6                     10  6:2                   6,7  6:4                   6  6:2-­‐6                   8,10  6:6                   6  6:7                   4  6:1-­‐7                   6,7,8  6:8-­‐15                   7  7:2-­‐53                   6  8:18                   7  8:35                   6  8:35-­‐38                   6  8:4-­‐40                   7  

 

  22  

9:1-­‐31                   4,6  9:17                   7  9:31                   4  10                     4  10:44-­‐48                   6  11                     4  11:22                   9  11:30                   6,8,10  12:24                   4  13:1-­‐3                   6,7,8  13:2-­‐3                   6  13:16-­‐41                   6  13:23                   6  13:26-­‐41                   6  13:27                   6  13:32                   6  13:48                   6  14:22-­‐23                   6,8,10  15:6-­‐7                   9  15:7-­‐9                   4      15:28                   9  15:1-­‐35                   9  16:5                   4  16:10-­‐12                   2  16:14-­‐15                   6  16:32-­‐35                   6  17:34                   6  19:6                   7  19:17-­‐20                   6  19:20                   4  20                     10  20:6-­‐16                   2  20:17                   7,8,9,11  20:20                   8  20:28                   7,8,9,11  20:17-­‐35                   6,7,8,9  21:8                   8  21:1-­‐17                   2  21:18                   10  21:18-­‐26                   8  21:25                   9  22:1-­‐21                   4,6  23:14                   10  24:1                   11  24:14-­‐15                   6  26:6-­‐19                   6  

 

  23  

26:12-­‐18                   4,6  27:1-­‐8                   2  27:16                   2  27:20                   2  27:26                   2  27:37                   2  28:1                   2  28:11                   2  28:15                   2  28:23                   4  28:23-­‐31                   6  28:30-­‐31                   4                        

 

Bibliography:  

Allison,  Gregg  R.  Church  Government   in:  Historical  Theology:   an   Introduction   to  Christian     Doctrine,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan  49530,  2011,  pg.  588-­‐610.    Angle,  Paul  T.,  Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Smyrnaeans,  in  The  Mysterious  Origins  of  Christianity.     Wheatmark,  Inc.,  2007.    Bannerman,  James.    The  Church  of  Christ,  2  vols.  Edinburgh:  T.  &T.  Clark,  1868,  pg.329.    Battles  F.L,  ed.  McNeil   J.T.,   John  Calvin,  Institutes  of   the  Christian  Religion,   (1536,   first  ed.;     1559,  last  ed.),  4.1.5,  4.3.1,  4.3.4,  4.3.8,  4.3.9,  4.3.15,  in  the  Library  of  Christian  Classics,     2nd  ed.,    Westminster,  Philadephia,  1960,  2:1053-­‐1066.    Bettenson,  H.  and  Maunder,  C.,  Pope  Pius  II,  Execrabilis  (January  1460),  Documents  of  the     Christian  Church,  3rd  ed.,  Oxford  University  Press,  Oxford,  England,  1999,  150.        Cannada,  R.  C.  and  Williamson,  W.  J.,  The  Historic  Polity  of  the  PCA,  A  Press,  Greenville,  SC,     1997,  pg.10-­‐29.    Grudem,  Wayne,  Church   Government,   in   Systematic   Theology:   an   Introduction   to   Biblical     Doctrine,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  49530,  1994,  Chapter  47,  pg.  923-­‐937.    Hall,  D.W.  and  Hall,  J.H.,  The  Westminster  Assembly  Directory  for  Church  Government  (1645,     1771),   in  Paradigms  in  Polity:    Classic  Readings  in  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  Church     Government,  Eerdmans,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  1994,  pg.  263.    Helm,   David,   Contextualization,   in   Expositional   Preaching,   Crossway,   Wheaton,   Illinois,     60187,  2014,  pg.24.    

 

  24  

Holmes,  Michael    W.,   Clement   of   Rome,  Letter   of   the   Romans   to   the   Corinthians,   42   (c.96-­‐   140),  75,  Ante-­‐Nicene  Fathers  (ANF  from  here),  The  Apostolic  Fathers:    Greek  Texts  and     English  Translations,  Baker,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  1999,  1:16.      —Didache  (the  teaching  of  the  twelve  apostles),  15  (c.70-­‐120),  in  Holmes,  267;  ANF,  7:381.    —Polycarp,  Letter  to  the  Philippians,  5,  (c.110-­‐140)  in  Holmes,  213;  ANF,  1:34.    —Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Philadelphians,  4  (c.110-­‐115  ),  in  Holmes,  179;  ANF,  1:81.    —Ignatius,  Letter  to  the  Trallians,  2  (c.110-­‐115),  In  Holmes,  160-­‐61;  ANF,  1:66-­‐67.      Jipp,   Joshua   W.,   The   Beginnings   of   a   Theology   of   Luke-­Acts:     Divine   Activity   and   Human     Response,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Interpretation  8.1,  2014,  pg.  23-­‐44.    Lumpkin,  W.L.,  Scleitheim  Confession  (1527),  art.5,   in  Baptist  Confessions  of  Faith,   Judson,     Valley  Forge,  1969.    —Helwys,   Thomas,    A  Declaration   of   Faith   of   English   People   Remaining   at   Amsterdam   in     Holland  (1611),  pgs.  121-­‐122.    —Smyth,  John,    A  Short  Confession  of  Faith  in  XX  Articles  (1609),  16,  pg.  101.    McPherson,  John.  Presbyterianism,  Edinburgh:  T.  &T.  Clark,  n.d.,  pg.126-­‐7.    Pelikan,   Jaroslav,  et  al.,  Martin  Luther,  On  the  Councils  and   the  Church,   in  Luther’s  Works,     Concordia,  St.  Louis,  1955-­‐1986,  41:154.    Pennington,  Jonathan  T.,  What  are  the  Gospels?  In  Reading  the  Gospels  Wisely:  a  Narrative     and  Theological   Introduction,   Baker  Academic,   Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,   49516,   2012,     pg  31,  34-­‐35.    Ricoeur,  P.,  Philosophical  Hermeneutics,  30.    Roberts   A.   et   al.,   Jerome,   Letter   146,   to   Evangelus,   1-­‐2   (c.366-­‐384),   in:   Nicene   and   Post-­‐   Nicene  Fathers  (NPNF  from  here),  Henrickson,  Peabody,  Mass.,  1994.    —Council  of  Constantinople,  canon  3,  in  NPNF,  14:178.    Root,   Michael,   The   Narrative   Structure   of   Soteriology,   in   Why   Narrative?   Readings   in     Narrative  Theology,  Wipf  &  Stock,  Eugene,  Oregon,  1997,  pg.  266.    Schaff,  Philip,  Augsburg  Confession,   2.7,   in  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3:59  Harper,  New  York,     1877-­‐1905.    

 

  25  

Strauss,   Mark,   Four   Portraits,   One   Jesus:     An   Introduction   to   Jesus   and   the   Gospels,     Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  49516,  pg.  27-­‐29.    The  Book   of   Church  Order   of   the   PCA,   Sixth   Edition,   Christian   Education  &   Publications,     Lawrenceville,  Georgia,  2013,      Thompson,  Alan  J.,  Living  ‘between  the  times’:    the  kingdom  of  God,  in:  The  Acts  of  the  Risen     Lord  Jesus,  Inter  Varsity  Press,  USA,  Downers  Grove,  Illinois  60515,  2011,  pg.  19-­‐20,  30,     49,  125.    Tucker  R.  and  Liefield  W.,  Origen,  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  16:1-­‐2  (c.246),     Daughters  of  the  Church,  Zondervan,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan  49530,  1987,  pg.106.    Vos,   Geerhardus   in   Biblical   Theology:   Old   and   New   Testaments,   Banner   of   Truth   Trust,     2007,  pg.23-­‐25    Westminster   Confession   of   Faith,   WCF,   chapter   7   and   31,   1646,   Christian   Education   &     Publications,    Lawrenceville,  Georgia,  2007,  pgs.  30-­‐31  and  145-­‐147.        Wycliffe,  John,  On  the  Pastoral  Office,  1.1,  Library  of  Christian  Classics,  Westminster,     Philadephia,  PA.,  1960,  14:32.