What does the Bible say about ordination?

Yet some have professed to see it in Acts 14:23; "When they had ordained (or chosen, as seems better) them elders in every church." But this proves not that the church, but that they (i.e., Paul and Barnabas) chose the elders. Some argue from the etymology; but usage, not etymology, is the only safe guide. The word (χειροτονέω) meant originally to stretch out the hand. Hence, it was applied to voting in this manner, and by an easy transition to choosing without reference to the manner. Thus in Acts 10:41 the same word, compounded with a preposition, is applied to God's choice, where the notion of the church's voting is of course excluded. When it was a question of a gracious and prudent use of tables, or the like, as in Acts 6 and 2 Cor. 8:19, the assembly, or assemblies, did choose; though even in Acts, if the multitude of the disciples looked out seven faithful men, it was the apostles who appointed them over their business. In short, when God imparts a gift, He chooses; when the church gives what she can, she may employ what instrument seems to her fitting. As she cannot bestow a ministerial gift, neither ought she to choose, but to receive all those whom God has given for her good.

But here take note of another part of their service — the confirmation of the souls of those who had already believed. It is not simply bringing souls in, and then leaving them to other people; the apostles would stablish them in the faith as they were taught. But this was not all. "When they had ordained them." Let me take the liberty of saying that "ordained" is a very misleading term, which conveys an ecclesiastical idea without any warrant whatever. Not that "ordained" is an interpolation here as in the first chapter of Acts, but certainly the meaning given is fictitious. The true force of the phrase is simply this, "they chose them elders." In more ways than one it is important; because, as a simple choice takes away "ordination," and with it that mysterious ritual which the greater bodies like, so on the other hand the apostles' choosing for them elders takes away all that gives self-importance to the little churches. For it is neither the smaller bodies choosing for themselves, nor an imposing authority vested in their great rivals, but a choice exercised by apostles; that is, they chose for the disciples "elders in every church."

I am well aware that persons of respectability have not been wanting who have tried to make out that the Greek word means that the apostles chose them by taking the sense of the assembly. But this is mere etymological trifling. There is not the slightest warrant for it in the usage of scripture. It is not requisite for a man to be a scholar in order to reject the thought as false. Thus the word "them" refutes it for any intelligent reader of the English Bible. It is not merely that apostles chose. If it be said that the people must have chosen for them to ordain, the answer is, that the people did not choose at all. This is proved by the simple declaration that the apostles chose for the disciples. Such is the way to fill up the sentence — "They chose them elders." To make out the meaning of what Presbyterians or Congregationalists have contended for, it should have been said that they chose by them, or some phrase meaning that they chose by the votes of the assembly. Here there is no ground whatever for such a sense, but on the contrary that the apostles chose elders for the rest. "They chose them elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, commending them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

Hence one sees the mistake such as Calvin make when they talk of "ordaining pastors." For "pastors and teachers" the apostle treats in Eph. 4:11 as Christ's gift for the perfecting of the saints. Ordination there was where either government or even service in external things was the object, and the only lawful authority descended from Christ through the apostles whom He chose (or apostolic delegates, such as Timothy or Titus, specially commissioned to act for an apostle in this respect) to appoint the bishops or elders and the deacons.

No doubt apostles hold an unique place. They stand the first in point of gifts (χαρίσματα, 1 Cor. 12; δόματα, Eph. 4); but they were also the chief of appointed authorities with title to appoint subordinate authorities in the Lord's name. Hence they, and they only, are seen in scripture appointing presbyters and deacons, either directly or through an authorized deputy in a given sphere like Titus. Never is such a fact heard of as a presbyter ordaining a presbyter or a deacon. It destroys the whole principle of authority descending from above as stated in scripture; but, whatever else may or must go, scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35).

Thus these elders were bishops, or overseers. It is from the word presbuteros, an elder, that the formula of presbyterianism has come — the presbyter was an elder. How did the elder in Scripture become a bishop or overseer? The fact of his being an elderly man was not enough, save, perhaps among the Jewish Assemblies (see 1 Peter 5:2-5). He was put in the official position of the eldership by an apostle, or an apostolic delegate, such as Timothy or Titus, and in that position he was certainly "ordained" as an elder. In Philippi, where everything was in beautiful order, the apostle says in his address to that company, "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Everything was in order then, and what was the office of a bishop or overseer — episkopos? To overlook or have oversight. There were many necessary qualifications, but they were very simple. They must be blameless, "the husband of one wife." Polygamy was common then — Paul says, he must have but one wife. For an elder to have more dependent upon him, as might easily have been the case with many converted from heathenism, would be an occasion of scandal. He was to be "vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker." It seems strange now that such injunctions should be necessary, but the Assembly had only been lately formed, and these people were brought out from heathendom, where all sorts of abominations went on. He was to be "one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity" (ver. 4). If his own house were not in order, he was not fit to rule in God's house. Again, "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil" (ver. 6). One young in the truth might get puffed up with the position and place.

To exercise ministry in the Word, it needed no apostolic authorisation. Ministers of the Word are gifts from the ascended Christ to men (Eph.4:11,12), and are set in the assembly by God Himself (1 Cor.12:28), who has in that chapter given us, as it were, the table of precedence in the assembly of all who are called to minister to those within it. [23] On the other hand, to fill an office as that of an elder or a deacon, apostolic authority, direct or indirect, was required (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). So the Apostles told the assembly to select the men "whom we may appoint over this business." We should mark the "we" here. It spoke of an authority which none of the company save the Apostles could exercise. The seven selected men set before the Twelve, they prayed and laid their hands on them - an act expressive of their recognition of the duties these were called to discharge, and surely of fellowship with them in it. Here we have the first ordination in the Christian Church - an ordination, we would repeat, not to preach, but to discharge the office of serving tables. In prayer and in the ministry of the Word the Apostles would continue. The serving of tables the seven selected men were to undertake.

To exercise ministry in the Word, it needed no apostolic authorisation. Ministers of the Word are gifts from the ascended Christ to men (Eph. 4:11-12), and are set in the assembly by God Himself (1 Cor. 12:28), who has in that chapter given us, as it were, the table of precedence in the assembly of all who are called to minister to those within it. On the other hand, to fill an office as that of an elder or a deacon, apostolic authority, direct or indirect, was required (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). So the Apostles told the assembly to select the men "whom we may appoint over this business." We should mark the we here. It spoke of an authority which none of the company save the Apostles could exercise. The seven selected men set before the Twelve, they prayed and laid their hands on them — an act expressive of their recognition of the duties these were called to discharge, and surely of fellowship with them in it. Here we have the first ordination in the Christian Church — an ordination, we would repeat, not to preach, but to discharge the office of serving tables. In prayer and in the ministry of the Word the Apostles would continue. The serving of tables the seven selected men were to undertake.

The fact that these servants were authorised by the Apostle to establish elders clearly proves that, in the Apostle's day, there were assemblies in which there were no appointed overseers. They lacked duly appointed elders for want of apostolic authority (direct or indirect) to appoint them. It is plain, then, from Scripture, that there can be no elders officially appointed except by an apostle or his delegates. It would appear that for man to appoint elders or ordain ministers is to act without the warrant of Scripture.

When we come to the next classes of gifts, namely, "evangelists, pastors, and teachers," it is plain that we have these still at work, more or less, in the present broken state; and not confined to these believers or those, but distributed throughout, as the Lord pleases. Men confound ministry with local charges. It may be said, that I have slurred over a part of Scripture — the apostles laying their hands on the elders, etc. With the most entire recollection of it, let me say that elders are not the same thing as ministers. Ministry is the exercise of a gift from Christ; elders were appointed by men, but never except by apostles or apostolic delegates, such as Titus was. How do we stand with reference to that question now? Where are the men who are duly authorized to appoint elders today? Do you know any better than I where they are to be found? Some people, no doubt, pretend to the power of appointment, but the pretension does not make their appointing valid. In civil things, if one man were without full authority to appoint another to be a magistrate, he would run the risk of being punished severely. Is it possible that in the things of God interference with the authority of our Lord is of less moment? It is not, that some sections have apostles and some have not, for no one has them more than another. I do not see that much is gained by assuming to do the work of an apostle, where it is only assumption. It is surely more humble not to pretend to apostolic work, if we are not apostles. We cannot legitimately ordain elders, because we want for it apostolic authority. Is it not most in accordance with the lowliness that becomes us, to abide within the limits of our powers? I do not admit that any one living is entitled to choose elders, or anything else of the sort, because there is neither an apostle nor an apostolic man commissioned by the Lord for the purpose. If men assume to ordain, they should prove their title.

But ministry and eldership are not the same thing; they are almost always confounded, but they differ totally. These two things are found in Scripture: local charges, duly ordained by apostles or their delegates; and ministerial gifts, which never required human authentication. In Scripture, no person was ever chosen to be an apostle, nor called to be a prophet or an evangelist, except by Christ. It was precisely the same with pastors and teachers, as we see in our chapter; and why should it not be the same still? Christ has not vacated His office; and it is His office to call and give pastors, evangelists, teachers, etc. But there is another principle quite distinct from that involved in these gifts, namely, that Christ warranted the apostles to act in the way of authority. In virtue of this, they appointed persons to be elders or deacons, as the case might be. We cannot do what apostles did unless we are clothed with like authority; but we have Christ ever abiding the immediate giver of ministerial gifts: this is always true. Ministry does not and never did depend upon apostles or the Church, but upon Christ; and therefore it cannot lapse. But as the appointment of elders, according to Scripture, hung upon the apostles, and as there are no apostles now, the rightful power to appoint elders is necessarily and evidently at an end. Scripture may intimate the continuance of gift, but not of authority to ordain. Elders, or rather officials, of the various religious bodies abound; but what is their appointment (I do not say their gifts) worth? Let any one that knows the Bible, say whether I am treating fairly this weighty matter according to the word of God.

The question then recurs, What is the true character of ministry according to the word of God? In the first place, it flows from Christ at the right hand of God, as the Head of the Church. He is its source. "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. … And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," etc. (Eph. 4:7-13). This affords us a most important principle. The gifts were not bestowed upon the Church, but upon men for the benefit of the Church. Hence those who have received them are responsible for their exercise, not to the Church, but to the Lord. It is impossible therefore for the Church to appoint pastors and teachers, or any of the gifts named, seeing indeed that the responsibility of the Church is to receive the ministry of every one who has been qualified by the Lord for its edification. Even as the apostolic office of St. Paul, so a gift is "not of men, neither by man" (Gal. 1:1), but it is from the risen Christ.

The question then recurs, What is the true character of ministry according to the word of God? In the first place, it flows from Christ at the right hand of God, as the Head of the Church. He is its source. "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. … And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," etc. (Eph. 4:7-13). This affords us a most important principle. The gifts were not bestowed upon the Church, but upon men for the benefit of the Church. Hence those who have received them are responsible for their exercise, not to the Church, but to the Lord. It is impossible therefore for the Church to appoint pastors and teachers, or any of the gifts named, seeing indeed that the responsibility of the Church is to receive the ministry of every one who has been qualified by the Lord for its edification. Even as the apostolic office of St. Paul, so a gift is "not of men, neither by man" (Gal. 1:1), but it is from the risen Christ.