The phrase in Acts 14:23 translates, “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” We have given much attention in other posts regarding the improper translation of the word “church” for the Greek “ekklesia.” We will not repeat, here. Our point of emphasis is to answer the argument that “every church” implies that each church was appointed their own elder and no other office is so described.
The passage under question does imply more than one and that elders (plural) were appointed in each of them. The same point could be said of Titus 1:5 as there was more than one city on the island of Crete. Combining both passages reveals that elders were to be appointed in every city in which the called-out lived. In other words, reading “every church” in our English translations of Acts 14:23 means every community that had saints living in it. Since our Greek word “ekklesia” equates to people and shepherds are to feed the sheep who are among them, we have ekklesias from the standpoint of having brethren living in different cities.
This is supported by Paul’s statement to Titus, who was left in Crete to set in order the things lacking and appoint elders in “every city.” We might have expected Paul to say, “every church” here. Whether you write, “every ekklesia,” as in Acts 14 or “every city,” you are simply referring to the class of people known as the “called-out” or “saints” living in a particular location. A shepherd living in a particular city has an opportunity and responsibility to care for the sheep who live among him. Like Paul, he would be seen “coming in and going out” of that city, indicating where he is residing and working (cf. Acts 9:28). Nothing in this language necessarily implies a local church organization.
In God’s timing (cf. “fullness of time”), He sent forth his Son, who would later send his apostles. They, in turn, could confer some spiritual gift to the saints with the idea that their work of service would be fulfilled. Their work, of course, would be with and among people and cities where people live. The Bible is full of references to their work in the cities. There is a huge difference between “city” and “congregation”. Although, even in the largest towns, the Christian community is always spoken of as one “called out.” There may have been many different gatherings in one city, but it is always referenced in the singular. For example, we read of ‘the ekklesia at Corinth”. When speaking of a region, he writes of “the called-out ones of Galatia.” Thus, brethren were being divided by cities and regions, not congregations (cf. Acts 9:31, Rev. 1:4, “the seven ekklesias in Asia”).
This pattern starts with Jesus’ practice. Luke 4:43 reads, “But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” Repeatedly, the movement of disciples going from city to city is emphasized (cf. Matthew 10:23 23:34, Luke 13:22, Acts 14:21). The same pattern is seen with evangelists’ and shepherds’ work in the cities. For example, Paul sent Titus to the island of Crete to ordain elders in every city. The word “city” and “ekklesia” (poorly translated, “church”) are used interchangeably in Acts 14. In Acts 14:23, Paul appoints elders in every ekklesia. Each of these cities was locations where they had gone to preach, and now had saints living in them. To identify the phrase “every ekklesia,” look at the context. Acts 14:19-23 reads,
But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe. After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations, we must enter the kingdom of God.” When they had appointed elders for them in every ekklesia, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
They went to these cities to strengthen the souls of the disciples and appointed elders for them in every ekklesia/city, i.e., Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. These represent God’s people, the called out, that lived in those cities. We see the making of disciples and the appointment of elders in each of these cities.
In referring to saints from a certain city, it is always in the singular like “the called out of God in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:1). We never read of the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, or any other city. If the city is mentioned, ekklesia will always be in the singular. This is true even though there may be several households where brethren are host to others in their homes. The households did not represent local church organizations. All of these brethren living in Corinth were addressed as the “ekklesia of God in Corinth.” As already suggested, the word defines a definite class of people and what separates them is not the congregational affiliation, but their city affiliation. In other words, that which defines the disciples is the city in which they live, not the congregation of which they have become members. The word translated “church” in Acts 14 is a reference to the disciples who lived in these four cities. Later in the same chapter, when returning to Antioch of Syria, we find this statement, “When they had arrived and gathered the “called out” together, they began to report all …” (Acts 14:27). The reference to the ekklesia (translated, church) is a reference to the “disciples” who lived in Antioch. They were the called out body of Christ who had come into a saved condition but who also lived in Antioch.
This body of saved people in a city can and do gather together but the physical gathering of these disciples is not inherent in Paul’s use of the word “ekklesia”. So, the idea of a physical assembly, which is the secular use of the word, is not inherent in Paul’s use. It is common for the Holy Spirit to use secular words as a figure of spiritual realities. This text is a demonstration that a physical assembly is not inherent in the word, ekklesia. It would seem redundant to speak of gathering the assembly, if assembly included a physical gathering, already. Paul is referring here to physically gathering the spiritual assembly of saints rather than physically gathering a physically assembled. To force the need and demand of congregational oversight, we must force a situation in which the saints are corralled or congregated for oversight. Yet, the language of these texts of Scripture shows that ekklesia is a reference to disciples who are represented as living in different cities rather than congregations.
One of the most difficult things to do is to apply these scriptures in the context in which they ae intended. For example, when adding Titus 1:5 (the ordaining of elders in every city), to Acts 14, we see a clearer picture. Paul and Barnabas went to each of the cities where they had preached and ordained elders in them. This immediately causes raised eye-brows because most would see a problem of city-wide elders which would violate the autonomy of local churches. This conclusion is granted if there is such a thing as a local church organization. However, there can be no violation of local autonomy if there is no local church organization. This is a description of city-wide elders minus the congregational structure. There is no congregational oversight represented, here. The oversight was individual in as much as a shepherd “watched for individual souls” (Hebrews 13:17). Obviously, he watched for souls among him or those living in the same town. This in no way excludes the spiritual guidance of souls who may be visiting or temporarily residing in his town.
Can you imagine the Spirit forming a membership in a human organization with its own staff, meeting house, treasury, elders, and members? What happens when a saint living next door is sick but is not a member of his church. If that disciple living in that city next door to an elder is not a member of the local organization of which the elder is a member, he shouldn’t be called as James 5:14 states. The same scenario prohibits an elder to oversee or shepherd that soul because he is not a member of a particular congregation. To rightly divide the truth, that elder must explain that in order not to violate local autonomy, his neighbor must be advised to go and see another brother on the south side of town who is an elder of “your church.” Does this sound even remotely close to anything you can read in your Bible. Most of us have been so conditioned that we have been living on auto-pilot with presumptions that have no support in the Scriptures.
In summary, two general observations are evident. First, the gifted men were all given to the ekklesia (translated, church), defined in the same consistent way throughout the New Testament – God’s people. Second, we have seen that references to the disciples in a given city are not a reference to a particular local congregation of which they were members, but a particular city in which they lived. They shared that in common and, therefore, had the opportunity for greater fellowship and care for one another. This is not to negate the fellowship of a visiting or traveling brother or sister. According to 2 John and 3 John, saints were given to hospitality by hosting and caring for saints that did not live in their city. I remind the reader that there is no evidence of congregational organizations. The view of congregational oversight is an assumption that remains unproven.
This simple plan is made very complex and problematic when we think in terms of a local church organization that is arranged as one would arrange a business. In that arrangement, there must be a clearly defined division of labor, schedule of work, and those qualified to serve through the organization. Also, there must be a clearly defined membership that helps the shepherds identify the sheep for which they are responsible. This, in turn, requires “placing membership” (something foreign to the Scriptures) so the elders will know for whom they are responsible. Since they perceive their work as overseeing the membership of the organization, they must ensure their members attend faithfully and develop their work of service, especially as it relates to the “public worship services.”
In the first century, if you were a saint, you became one for whom a shepherd would oversee. Whether, apostle, prophet, evangelist, or pastor, the choice to minister to you was not dependent on which church you had joined. It was dependent on opportunity and proximity. If you lived in the same community, the elders could serve you every day. In a church organization, however, you could be neighbors to a shepherd that would not and could not feed you if you placed membership in a different local church organization. He could see you every day but does not have any responsibility for your soul. You would be the responsibility of another set of elders. According to this view, shepherds could have sheep all around them but because Peter’s phrase, “among them” must imply a local church, he would have no responsibility for their spiritual care. The sheep for which they are responsible are those penned in a certain church building at a certain time and have agreed to their rule by placing membership.
Remember, the people of God were identified in New Testament greetings as a particular “called out” class that is associated with a particular town (1Cor. 1:2; 2Cor. 1:1), as households (Romans 16:3-23), however large or small. It matters not how many form a gathering. Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). Two or three is often a quorum in scripture (Matt. 18:16, 1Cor. 14:27,29; 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19, Heb. 10:28). Two or three may be the only “called out” in a city. However few or many, being together was their way of life, instead of meeting at the church building for a church service two or three times a week under the supervisión of an eldership.
However, it is important to note that implementing a change in our practice by meeting in a house does not guarantee a change in our thoughts of “having church”. If we continue to “have church,” while meeting in a home, the institutional concept of church is still present. The only difference is that one church organization meets in a public church building owned by the church organization while the other organization meets in a private home. For this reason, one can think of “house-churches” as another church organization that meets in a house. Experience has shown this to be the norm among house-churches. Christ did not purchase a church institution, nor did he ordain local church organizations. He did not purchase it with his blood. The first step in the right direction is not to meet in homes two or three times a week for church services, but to understand the nature of that called out body made up of individual saints and the fellowship that binds us together.
Further, if you have two church organizations meeting in separate homes and a set of shepherds restricted to the sheep in each of those houses, then each local church organization must respect the local autonomy of each group. The irony of it all is that the root problem that creates the abuse of power, misuse of funds, inappropriate use of “church property,” and division is the existence of a “church organization.” In its absence, the Scriptures just leave us with sheep and shepherds, who have been appointed by apostles and evangelists that have been commissioned to establish an apostolic tradition. Together, they all form a natural bond that describes a fellowship of saints.