This Page may take a minute to load on a slow server  BACK TO: INDEX OF BIBLE NOTES

The contention is that there is no authority in the word of God for an oversight meeting. Furthermore I have stated that it is a sectional meeting which does two things:

1 It sets up a class of believer above the others

2 It totally spoils the picture of the church which is His body.

Now before endeavouring to support my contention I have kept in mind the absolute rules for interpreting the Bible.

1. There must be more than one direct reference in the scripture for a course of action to be taken

2. The scriptures are all sufficient

3. Human reasoning is, and always will be wrong

4. Rightly divide the word of truth.

We have chosen to show that the commonly accepted reasons for an oversight meeting are not sustainable from scripture, and secondly that the scriptures must be the only authority acceptable. we have felt that to rebut what we consider to be error first, and then give scriptural reasons for my stand is the more graphic way to handle this paper.

The commonly quoted authority for an oversight meeting is Acts 15. I do not believe that this is correct, and it just seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the actual events which took place at that time. In addition, the particular dispensation, and time in that dispensation is completely ignored. Let us look at chapter 15 and see.

First of all it is important to note that the events leading up to the meetings in Jerusalem were preceded by certain events in Antioch. Soon after Paul and Barnabas had returned from their journey, and recounted their experiences to the believers in that city certain men from Judea began to teach that circumcision was necessary for salvation which caused dissension and disputation.

disputation with them THEY determined that Paul and Them being those from Judea

Barnabas and certain others of THEM, should go up to Jerusalem hem being church members

Apart from the dissension mentioned above we must take special notice of two words in the verse, "THEY determined", and others "of THEM." Now just who is they and them? By simple study of the context "THEY" are the disciples in Acts 14:28, who constituted the church at Antioch and who determined to send Paul and Barnabas. The "THEM" are certain individual members of that church.

Now we should look at the translation by J N Darby "A commotion therefore having taken place, and no small discussion on the part of Paul and Barnabas against them, they arranged that Paul and Barnabas and certain others..."

Now how did they arrive at the conclusion of such an important question? Did they call an oversight meeting and make the decision? They did no such thing; "THEY determined", that is the church! Does that mean to say those who were charged with the responsibility of the member’s welfare did not function? it does not! Those who were qualified as elders would have advised as to the Holy Spirit led course of action, and because they had the confidence of the believers their advice was accepted. It was a church decision.

And being brought on (propempo) to send on ones way

their way by the church (ekklesia) gathered out ones;

We have not looked at the end of the verse as it does not connect with our subject of oversight meetings, but the first part certainly does. Let us take note of the fact that there was a great deal of debate and discussion going on in the church in Antioch. In all this there is not one word about an oversight meeting to handle or control the matter.

That is very, very enlightening as according to our modern day interpretation of the Word there most certainly would have been. Rather than a meeting of a select few we find that the church came to a decision to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them. Rather than an oversight meeting we find the church, we repeat, the church acting, "They therefore, having been sent on their way by the assembly..." verse 3. JND NT. May we include an aside; there is no evidence in the whole New Testament where any authority has been delegated to any member or group of members to make decisions on behalf of a local church. Gifts and functions there may be, which are precisely spelled out, but delegated authority, no! Jesus Christ is Lord and Head.

This verse is straight forward and easy to understand, but notice the order in which they are received:

1. Of the church

2. Of the apostles

3. Of the elders

This is God's order; the church is first and foremost, after that the members. First is that which represents "the church which is His body". Therefore the order in the scripture is logical, first the body, and then the members. It is fair to say members should not be more prominent than the body irrespective of their function.

Circumcision and legalism rise again as a contentious issue. It had happened in Antioch, and now it was a problem in Jerusalem.

Before we go to verse 6 we must, of absolute necessity, determine why the believers in Antioch took their problem to Jerusalem. Why did they not sort out their own problem? One might say that Antioch was not a strong church. Not true! they were an enlightened church with gift and an ability to determine the mind of God.

Before we can understand just why the church in Antioch sent members to Jerusalem we must have a sound knowledge of related doctrine. There are three major reasons why the believes sent their folk to Jerusalem:

1. The scriptures were incomplete

2. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets

3. The answer to that problem was not known at that time.

The Old Testament did not contain New Testament doctrine, and in the period between the day of Pentecost and the completion of the New Testament one of the gifts given by the risen Head was the gift of a prophet. A prophet being one who, in this case, relayed the mind of God to the church members. In the case above there was obviously no written or perhaps prophetic communication from God regarding this particular problem. It is therefore only natural the believers in Antioch would have confidence in the apostles and the older brethren in the faith at Jerusalem. It was to them that they looked.

  Go to Top of Page

We know the statement of God concerning the church in His Word, "and are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets", Eph 2:20. So being led by the Holy Spirit the believers in Antioch went to the apostles in Jerusalem, who were the foundation of the church in local testimony. Note all the doctrinal epistles were written by the apostles together with Paul.

Quite obviously the mind of God was not known to either the apostles or prophets when this problem first arose. They definitely did not have the mind of God on this most vexing matter so they waited on God.

"The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter", Acts 15:6. That seems simple enough, but unfortunately most readers of this passage do not consider the whole context because, apart from the subject under discussion, we find verse 6, 12, and 22 are linked thus giving the context of the passage. Let us cite them:

Verse 6: is quoted above. "then all the MULTITUDE kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them". Acts.15.12 , "Then it pleased the apostles and elders, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas...".Acts.15.22

The sequence of events as recorded in this 15th chapter of Acts is as follows:

1. Paul and Barnabas reported the dispute at Antioch and a similar dispute broke out in Jerusalem.

2. The apostles and elders met to consider this matter

3. Peter makes a pronouncement about circumcision and the law

4. Then all the MULTITUDE kept silence

5. Barnabas and Paul relate their missionary experiences

6. James makes a further pronouncement

7. The apostles, elders, and the whole church make a decision.

1. The prominent points from the context are that there were three different kinds of believers recognised by their gift from the Lord, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The first is Apostles, the second elders, and the third the church of which the first two were a part.

2. The Apostles and elders met to consider the vexatious matter. Now there is absolutely no evidence that they met on their own, but rather that the whole church was at the discussion.

3. As led by the Holy Spirit two apostles Peter and James made doctrinal pronouncements, and

4. The apostles, elders and the church made the decision to communicate to other assemblies.

Very simply those gifted to be the foundation of the church, the apostles and prophets discovered the mind of God. This doctrine was communicated to the church, and accepted by them in exactly the same way we do the written mind of God. They heard it, we read it.

The weight of evidence would seem to indicate that these discussions took place when gathered with the church. Let us note:

1. In verse 4 Paul and Barnabas gave a report to the whole church including the apostles and elders.

2. When the multitude kept silent; what multitude?

3. In the ultimate the church makes the decision without doubt on the teaching and advice from the loved and trusted apostles and elders.

  Go to Top of Page

Now the Greek word for multitude (plethos) with the article may indicate that the multitude could include only the apostles and elders. One thing is certain the dispute with the legalist would be common knowledge among the brethren. Even allowing for the multitude to be apostles and elders only, there is absolutely no evidence to prove they met on their own. It was not a dissension to be hidden from view, as it affected all.

Without doubt we have established the reason for the coming together in chapter 15:6; which was to discover the mind of God. There was no revelation given, God had not spoken on the matter up to this point, and there is no other reason for the coming together. Nowhere else do we read of convened meetings of elders in all the New Testament. Now there must be sufficient reason for that.

Should anyone wish to cite Acts 20 as warrant for an oversight meeting we will heartily agree provided the one calling the meeting is an apostle as Paul was. As for Acts 21 it is simply a record of the apostle's movement, and not in the wildest stretch of imagination could it be construed to mean that an oversight meeting was convened to hear the apostle. No more need be said on this matter.

Now we come to the scriptural principle of "no scripture is of private interpretation" 2 Pet.1:20, which literally means no single scripture solves itself. That is you CAN NOT make a doctrine out of one verse. No scripture stands alone, and we thank God for that otherwise we would have chaos.

Today we have the word of God in totality. Nothing can be added nor can anything be taken away. There is not, and never will be a situation when elders will have to come together to wait on God to reveal his mind. He has done that, and that finally is His Word. It may be wrongly argued that elders should come together to study the word to arrive at a conclusion. This they should have already known, if they were true elders, by previously studying the Word of God. There are many other pretexts used without scriptural warrant for elders to meet. For those who thus contend, where is your scripture? "To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them", Isa. 8:20.

Some objections have been stated above. First we do not have to wait for God's mind to be revealed to us as they did in Acts. You will note in chapter 15 there were still prophets, but in Peter's epistles prophets have been replaced by teachers. Why is this? because we have the word of God. Really that should be the end of the matter.

The following phrase epitomises pride in relation to elders, "I am on the oversight". This phrase breathes the sulphuric fumes of the pit. It signifies that the one making the statement has absolutely no idea or remote understanding of what oversight means. One will discover that this person has been elected to the Board of the Assembly to run it. Another phrase equally abhorrent is, "we are running this assembly", which is usually the retort when the "so called oversight" is questioned about unscriptural practices. The terrible fact about such a statement is that it is absolutely true. Such ones ARE running the assembly and the Head, the Lord Himself has been replaced. Words fail to describe the magnitude of this sin. It strikes at the very person of the Lord Jesus Christ. It expresses two sentiments:

1. We will not have this man to rule over us: arrogance, and

2. A total disregard for His word or even existence: anarchy.

We, in the assemblies, would absolutely deny with all our vigour that our oversight was elected. Lets be serious, to say that, one must be joking. The very first inkling that a new member on the board has graced the scene is that an announcement is made, "so and so" is now on the oversight. Now let us examine how "so and so" got there, he was elected by the existing oversight. One may deny vigorously that there was an election, well what else is it? but election to a board by a minority which has absolute power. Their own, not the Lord’s. Now the absolute power also may be denied, but if so, the real facts have been ignored.

  Go to Top of Page

It does not take many years for the social club, for that is what so many fine assemblies have descended to, to have created a society where peer pressure is paramount. Conform or else!

Further let us examine what actually happens, a decision is made and it may be unscriptural. Well just question it! Before you know what has happened you are up before the Board to give account. We need go no further as some of us have been through this mill. The power exercised is not spiritual but carnal, that is certain.

In the case of sin which may lead to excommunication, Mat.18, clearly spells out the procedure. Individual rectification, or if there is no reconciliation, then 2 or 3 witnesses (obviously elders), if no reconciliation then tell the church. Nowhere does it say that evil details (1 Cor.5) are to be put before the church, which would be sin in itself, but the recommendation of the Elders is sufficient for the putting away BY THE CHURCH.

An overseer is one when he does the work. That should be obvious! Well one would have thought so, but because of the great declension and departure from the word it is apparently not obvious. If the assembly is spiritual then what about a gainsayer? Is he brought up before the Board? No he is not! Those who are indeed elders are able to convince and convict the gainsayer. What would you say if during the preaching of the word you saw a known troublemaker get up and run out of the assembly under conviction? One might even conclude that God, through His word, convicted the gainsayer, and the power of the word applied did the work. Unfortunately there may be rare occasions when the trouble maker is brought before the assembly, not the Board.

What would you say about the brother who was always accessible and easy to approach, and had ready answers to your every problem? What would you think a man who, in his teaching, edified you and drew you closer to the Lord? What would you think of the man at the slightest hint of your personal trouble came immediately to help? If he continually set the christian example, walked worthily, and his life tallied with the scripture? If he was aged and experienced, would you call him an elder? One thinks most assuredly you would.

The point being made is that the elder must first qualify in life and walk, and second he must have demonstrated power in ministry, with the other qualification in Titus 1. I believe in my notes "The Marks of a New Testament Assembly" I have covered this subject.

3017JEG23/6/93

  Go to Top of Page

BACK TO: INDEX OF BIBLE NOTES