031. Chapter 27: The Government of the Church, and Particularly the Commissioning of Ministers
------------ CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN ------------ The Government of the Church, and Particularly the Commissioning of Ministers No kingdom, republic, home, or society can exist without order. This is also true for the church. God is a God of order, and it is His will that all things be done honestly and orderly. The Lord Jesus is the only and all-sufficient Head of the church -- her only Lord, only Master, only Bridegroom, only Mediator, and only Foundation. Since the Lord Jesus is very God, He does not need the help of men to gather and govern His church. As it is the Lord’s common way, however, to govern and direct all things mediately, thereby manifesting His wisdom and goodness, the Lord Jesus likewise does all His work in His church by the agency of men. For this purpose He has appointed shepherds, teachers, elders, governing bodies, ministers, etc., to serve in His church. The Pope: Neither the Head of the Church, nor the Successor of Peter
Popery insists that Christ governs His entire church by means of a vice-regent, that is, the pope, and that this viceregent governs all matters. Popery maintains that the Lord Jesus had appointed Peter to be the general head of the church upon earth; that Peter established his chair in Rome; and that he has been general bishop there for twenty-five years. They also maintain that the pope is his successor; that is, he has taken the place of Peter in the papal chair, and likewise as the general head of the church. They also consider him to have the authority to appoint vice-regents, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, prelates, priests, etc. These ranks have been arranged in a hierarchical order, all being inferior to the pope’s rank. All of this is a subtle fabrication which is extra-biblical and contrary to the Word of God.
First, there is not one text in Scripture which states that the supreme authority in the church has been or would be vested in one person. The various offices are mentioned, but never as if the one were inferior to the other, nor that all offices would be subordinate to one person. We thus reject this entire construction.
Secondly, Scripture expressly forbids all lording of one office over the other. “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. ... But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve” (Luke 22:25-26). “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3). Even the high priest of the Old Testament had no dominion whatsoever over the other priests (even though one may not draw a parallel from this to the New Testament, since they were types of Christ). His rank was the highest, but this did not pertain to jurisdiction. Thus, there must be no head in the church other than Christ.
Thirdly, whatever has been said concerning Peter in the above is both outside of and contrary to Scripture. Where is it written that Peter was appointed to be the head of the church and all the other apostles, and that he gave them any commands and ordinances? Where do we read that the apostles acknowledged him as such and have subordinated themselves under him? This is obviously nowhere to be found. Neither in the Bible nor in true accounts of the history of early times do we find any reference that Peter has ever been in Rome, has been bishop there, or that he functioned as general bishop over all the churches founded by the other apostles. We thus reject all this as belonging to the realm of fables.
Fourthly, it is evident from God’s Word that all the apostles were of equal rank with Peter and vice versa.
(1) The Lord Jesus sent them forth with the very same words, giving them all the very same commission. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19); “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. ... Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).
(2) All apostles were equally and in like manner qualified for their office on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).
(3) They all conducted themselves in identical fashion in their ministry, as for instance, in the election of another apostle (Acts 1:23). Paul was not sent to Peter, but to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, to inquire about a certain question (Acts 15:2). The apostles sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and at the ecclesiastical assembly the opinion of James rather than of Peter was followed (Acts 15:7-29). Paul declared that he “was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5), and James is mentioned ahead of Peter in Galatians 2:9. The apostles divided their tasks among each other, and Peter was entrusted with the ministry of the circumcision and Paul with the ministry of uncircumcision, that is, the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11. Paul rebuked Peter concerning his error (Galatians 2:11), and Peter did not esteem himself higher than the others, calling himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1).
Fifthly, we deny that the pope is a successor to Peter. Let this be proven, for where is this written? Even if Peter had been the head of the church (which he was not), this would only have pertained to himself. Where is it written that he had authority to transfer this position to another person? Where is it written that he transferred this office to the bishop of Rome rather than to the bishop of Antioch, who was one of the primary bishops prior to the year 606 A.D. Peter did visit Antioch (Galatians 2:11), but we read nowhere that he had been in Rome. Furthermore, even if Peter had been in Rome and had been bishop there, the one who followed him was nevertheless not the head of the church, which is the point in question. It is known from history that every locality initially had its own bishop. Subsequent to this, however, ambition crept in whereby one locality brought other localities within its sphere of influence. There were nevertheless many bishops who neither had submitted nor were willing to submit to each other. Subsequently, the church was divided among four bishops, one not being superior to the other, even though envy prompted the one to accuse the other of being the antichrist. Finally, after the Western empire had been destroyed, and the power of the bishop of Rome increased, the Eastern emperors flattered the patriarch or bishop of Rome in order to include the Western empire again under their jurisdiction. This culminated in the Eastern emperor Phocas appointing the bishop of Rome as general bishop in the year 606, ordering the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria to be subordinate to him. Where is the reference here to succession? These matters neither pertain to Peter nor to any other bishop of Rome prior to the year 606! Furthermore, even if the first bishops of Rome succeeded Peter, such is not the case with the pope. A good ancestor can have a heretic as one of his descendants, and wherever truth ceases to be present, succession likewise terminates. The pope dos not adhere to the doctrine of Peter, but opposes it, as we have demonstrated in nearly every chapter of this book. The pope’s lifestyle is also not identical to Peter’s. Where do we read of Peter having a triple crown beset with diamonds? He said, “Silver and gold have I none” (Acts 3:6). Where do we read of Peter having a purple robe, chariots and horses, a gestatorial chair for vain show, and purple-robed cardinals who carried him? When did he ever allow his feet to be kissed? Which kings did Peter either appoint or depose? To which kings did Peter grant the proprietorship of certain countries? There is therefore no resemblance with Peter at all, unless it would be pertaining to his confession, “I know not the man.” Finally, since the pope is the antichrist, as we have demonstrated in chapter 24, it is evident that the pope is not Peter’s successor.
Even though we have sufficiently exposed the entire system of popery for what it is in regard to its authority over the clergy and its hierarchal structure, all being subject to one pope, we nevertheless shall respond to three objections by which popery seeks to prove the headship of Peter. However, these will be of no avail to them.
Objection #1: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). They say that Christ here makes an extraordinary promise to Peter upon his glorious confession, this promise being that Christ would build His church upon him. Peter therefore of necessity must be the chief of all the apostles and the head of the church.
Answer (1) The promise here made to Peter by Christ is that He indeed was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that He would therefore not build his church upon a sandy foundation, but rather upon Himself as the immovable Petra, that is, rock. He would make this foundation so solid and immovable, that all the subtlety and power of Satan would not be able to prevail against her, and that therefore Peter also had no reason to fear, but would also certainly be kept and established. Upon this he could reflect with comfort after he had denied Him thrice; and not only he, but also all the other apostles who were present, as well as all who cherish the preservation of themselves and of the church. He should therefore not be offended when he would observe that Christ died on the cross, and when he would encounter many adversities in his office as apostle. This is the literal meaning of these words. It is thus evident that there is no reference whatsoever to the supreme headship of Peter.
(2) Petros (Peter) and Petra are clearly distinguished here, just as these two words are distinct in their original meaning. Petros refers to a stone, a pebble, or a brick. Petra refers to rock layer, or a rocky mountain formation upon which one would build a house. Such houses are so immovable and strong that they can withstand storms, torrential rains, and floods, which is not true of those which are merely built upon sand (cf. Matthew 7:24-27). The Lord Jesus here refers to Peter as Petra, making an allusion to his name as the Lord Jesus generally did in His parables which are recorded in the gospels. From Petros He proceeds to Himself, calling Himself Petra, having previously been promised by that name. “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste” (Isaiah 28:16). “The stone which the builders refused” (Psalms 118:22). In the New Testament these texts are applied to Christ. It is therefore also stated concerning Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4, “For they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Christ is likewise called Petra in Romans 9:33, where we read, “... rock (Petra) of offence” (cf. 1 Peter 2:7).
(a) Christ is called Petra in God’s Word, however, and this name Petra is never attributed to Peter.
(b) The endings of the words petros and petra are different. The one noun is masculine, and the other feminine.
(c) The conjunction which is placed between the two words indicates that the subsequent word petra has a different meaning from the previous word petros. It is therefore not stated that the church will be built upon Peter, an apostle, but upon Christ, the spiritual Petra.
(3) What is stated concerning this petra cannot be said of Peter; namely, that the church would be built upon him, and that therefore, being built upon this petra, the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Is the church built upon a man? Is she immovable because of a man? Is everyone called to put his trust in a man, and to make flesh his arm and strength? A curse is pronounced upon such in Jeremiah 17:5. Those who, having hearts of stone, wish to put their trust in a pope -- in a man whose heart is as hard as a rock -- will with him not escape the curse. “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:7). Christ is the foundation, the only foundation upon which the church is built. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). This was the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. They were not the foundation themselves, but they laid this foundation by preaching Christ, “Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:20-21). The apostles, and thus also James, Cephas, and John, were eminent supporters of this congregation which was built upon Christ. For this reason they are called “pillars” (Galatians 2:9). Therefore Peter is not the petra, that is, the foundation upon which the church is built, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who endures forever, is omnipotent, and preserves Peter and the church from apostasy, causing her to remain unmovable against all the attacks of the devil. The name “Cephas,” as Peter is called in Galatians 2:9, is not a derivative of the Greek Word kephale (=head), but rather of the Syrian word kepha (=stone), which was the language Christ and the apostles used, as was generally true of all the Jews at that time.
Objection #2: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).
Answer (1) The word “key” does not refer to sovereign power, for it is undeniably true that Christ alone possesses such power. “I ... have the keys of hell and of death” (Revelation 1:18). Rather, it refers to ministerial authority, whereby a servant of God is thus authorized to open the door to those whom Christ has commanded to give entrance, and to close the door for those whom Christ has commanded to keep out or cast out. This means to proclaim the forgiveness of sin to repentant sinners in Christ’s Name, and to declare to the unrepentant, in Christ’s Name and on Christ’s behalf, that they still are and remain in their sins. It is this authority with which Peter is here vested by Christ. Who can even produce a semblance of evidence that Peter had supreme authority over the apostles and was the head of the church? He who is said to be servant, is by the same declaration said not to be a lord, master, and head.
(2) The other apostles were vested with the same authority: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18); “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). It cannot be refuted that in both of these texts the Lord Jesus addresses all the apostles, vesting them all with this authority. Their position is therefore identical to that of Peter, and it is thus evident that the authority with which Peter is vested is no different from the authority with which all the apostles were vested, and thus the claim of Peter’s supremacy has no validity.
Objection #3: In John 21:15-17 Christ commands Peter three times to feed His sheep. What else is to be concluded but that Peter is the shepherd par excellence, and thus the shepherd of all shepherds?
Answer (1) Such a conclusion must be entirely denied, for there is not the least connection between that which precedes and the conclusion drawn from this.
(2) The divine commission here given to Peter is the commission given to all other apostles -- yes, to all ministers -- in Acts 20:28 to “... feed the church.” This is the necessary consequence of being a shepherd.
(3) Christ is the “chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4), and the “great Shepherd” (Hebrews 13:20). This honor Christ reserves for Himself and consequently He did not appoint Peter as chief shepherd.
Additional Objection: It must be of special significance that Christ commanded Peter three times to feed the sheep.
Answer: Since the word “feed” is not indicative of supremacy but of ministry and does not prove the supremacy of Peter, this is likewise not the thrust of this threefold repetition. It merely points to Peter’s backsliding or regression due to his threefold denial. It was meant as an encouragement for his apostleship of which he had made himself unworthy, so that he would neither be inhibited in the exercise of his office nor abstain from doing so entirely, deeming himself unworthy of this task. In response to his threefold denial there was a threefold restoration.
All of this makes it very evident that Peter neither was a general bishop of the entire church nor had a position of supremacy over the other apostles and over the church. Thus, the pope of Rome is neither a successor of Peter nor the head of the church.
Bishops Have no Authority over Other Ministers
There is another point of contention among Protestants; namely, whether the office of bishop is a different and superior ministration than is the office of the ministry. Consequently, bishops have power and authority over other ministers, and they, with their entire congregations, are thus in subordination to the bishops. Popery answers in the affirmative. During the time of the Reformation, there were bishops in some countries who also had embraced the confession of the truth. However, they did not wish to yield their significant income and prestige. Consequently, they retained their dioceses, and argued that this was not contradictory to the Reformation. Thus, in this area they were in agreement with the sentiments of popery, as is still the case today. We, however, along with the Reformed church, answer the above question negatively. The office of bishop is not a different and superior office to that of minister. This is evident for the following reasons.
First, nowhere does Scripture make a difference between bishops and ministers, nor does it teach that bishops are superior to ministers, or that the latter are subordinate to them. This is particularly so in those texts where reference is made to the ministries of the church (cf. Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 12:28). This has therefore been fabricated apart from God’s Word.
Evasive Argument: The apostles, as well as Timothy and Titus, ordained ministers.
Answer (1) It is not written, however, that they had and exercised power and authority over the ministers which they had ordained.
(2) When in a certain locality there is neither an established church nor a minister, but churches are in the process of being organized, then it is necessary that ministers be supplied from elsewhere, or that believing members of those churches be appointed as ministers. In such fashion the apostles ordained elders from city to city, and Paul thus commissioned Titus that he would likewise ordain others. If some believers were already present in a given locality, election of elders would occur by a show of hands of the congregation; thus we have not the least indication of distinction or supremacy.
Secondly, elders and bishops have one and the same office. Elders are bishops, and bishops are elders. In our language the use of the word “bishop” is equivalent to the use of “elder” (cf. Acts 20:28). There it is written that Paul “called the elders of the church,” whereas in verse 28 these elders are called bishops, “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (bishops)” (Acts 20:28). It should also be noted that in this one city there were several bishops, whereas Roman Catholics maintain that one congregation, yes, various and many congregations together must have but one bishop. This is evident in the following text, “to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1). In this one city and congregation there were several bishops who, along with the deacons, were greeted by him. If there had been other teachers and elders not comprehended in the term “bishops,” he would have mentioned them likewise, for he even makes mention of the deacons, who have a subordinate office. From this it can clearly be deduced that there were but two offices in the congregation: bishops and deacons. It thus follows that the word “bishop” refers to both ministers and elders. This is also confirmed in 1 Timothy 3:1-16 where the apostle teaches what qualities bishops and deacons must have, as well as how they ought to behave themselves, without prescribing any special rules for ministers and elders. This clearly proves that they were considered to be bishops. This is also true in Titus 1:5
Thirdly, all ministers have the same authority in the government of the church and in the use of the keys as has been given to the congregation and the elders (cf. Matthew 18:18; John 20:21-22). No distinction is ever made.
Fourthly, as we have previously indicated, all supremacy and the lording of the one over the other in the church is forbidden by God. We thus conclude that the office of bishop is no different from the office of ministers and elders. The office of bishop in some churches of Reformed persuasion [Note: Since the office of bishop never existed in the Reformed churches in Holland, à Brakel is most likely referring to Reformed churches outside of the Netherlands, the probable reference being to the Anglican church in England.] is nothing other than a remaining claw of the beast, and a remaining vice by which the antichrist has ascended the throne. This is all the more evident considering that he who has been ordained as priest by a bishop in the papacy and has been converted to Reformed religion, is permitted to preach without receiving a new commission. However, they refuse the pulpit to a Reformed minister who has received his commission from a Classis (i.e., equivalent of presbytery) rather than a bishop.
Objection #1: The high priest in the Old Testament was ranked above the other priests and Levites. The twentyfour priestly orders also each had a chief priest, who were the head priests. Consequently, also in the New Testament a bishop has a different and superior office than does a minister and an elder, and they must thus be in subordination to the bishops.
Answer (1) From this conclusion it must necessarily follow that there must be one bishop both over them and over the entire church on earth. Since they contradict this, their conclusion of necessity unravels, for their conclusion implies more than they are willing to admit.
(2) These ministrations (or services) were performed by different orders; the one, however, had no dominion over the other. This is likewise the case today as far as ministers, elders, and deacons are concerned.
(3) One may not make the ceremonial worship binding for the New Testament, since all ceremonial ministry and offices have been abolished.
Objection #2: The seven congregations in Asia each had but one angel, and thus there is one bishop which has authority over other ministers.
Answer (1) How does one prove that there was more than one minister in each congregation?
(2) Allow that there were more ministers, yet it is not proven that the one to whom the letter was sent had a higher position than the others, and that the other ministers were subject to him. In Paul’s time there were several who simultaneously served as bishops in Ephesus (Acts 20:17-18). Consequently, the one angel of the congregation of Ephesus was neither the only bishop, nor had he authority over the other bishops. From this we can draw a conclusion about the other churches.
(3) One cannot use the word “angel” to designate one minister as being superior to another, since they all are messengers who have been given and appointed by God (cf. Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 12:28). It is also true that every minister is an angel, that is, messenger (cf. Malachi 2:7).
(4) The letters pertained to the congregation itself; the initial address, however, was to one of the ministers or to the entire council of elders, this being the manner whereby the letter would be made known to the congregation.
Objection #3: Timothy and Titus were bishops who had authority over other ministers whom they had ordained and over whom they had to exercise judgment. Consequently the office of bishop is a different and superior office.
Answer (1) It is not written anywhere that they had authority over other ministers, which is the issue at hand. This we deny, as no proof for this is to be found anywhere in the world.
(2) They ordained other ministers from city to city since these churches still had to be organized. In such cases it was consistent with their office that ministers who were best situated for this should supply such localities with ministers.
(3) The fact that Timothy receives the injunction not to receive an accusation against an elder but before two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19), does not imply supremacy. Furthermore, those of equal rank may not receive an accusation against another but before two or three witnesses. An entire consistory, Classis, or Synod must act likewise. Were Timothy to render judgment concerning an accused elder, then this does not imply that he would do so by himself. Even Paul, when using the keys of God’s kingdom to excommunicate an incestuous person, did so by assembling the congregation for this purpose (1 Corinthians 5:4). This therefore does not yield any proof for ecclesiastical government by bishops. We do not object to one or several ministers being appointed to watch over the life, doctrine, and ecclesiastical labors of other ministers. However, let there be no lording of the one over the other.
Thus we have observed that the government of the church is neither vested in one who is the head over all others, nor ought the church to be governed by bishops exercising authority over other ministers via whom they would govern various congregations. Rather, all ministers are of the same rank. The one is not inferior in his office to the other. As equals they must work together in all things.
We shall now proceed to indicate which offices God has instituted in His church. In doing so we shall consider the calling to these offices and the labors related to them.
Some offices are extraordinary, which God uses in special seasons and circumstances in the church. These are the offices of apostles, evangelists, and prophets. The Lord used these offices in the first days of the New Testament era. Even though the Spirit of prophecy still reveals future events to some individuals (something which can readily be denied by those who have had no opportunity to be acquainted with this), such revelations are then merely intended for those to whom they are given. They are accompanied with such a sense of the presence of God that such persons know them to be neither imaginary nor subtle deceptions of Satan, but that it is God Himself who reveals future events to them. Since such matters do not pertain to any doctrinal points, however, they are consequently also not binding upon others. Therefore, one does not sin in leaving such revelations for what they are. However, such revelations seldom become known to many.
We shall here discuss the ordinary offices, which are the ministers, elders, and deacons. Sometimes this number is reduced to two: the office of elder, which includes ruling and teaching elders, and deacons; or ruling elders and deacons only (cf. Php 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-8). Everyone will readily admit that there must be instruction for both young and old, that worship services must be conducted to hear God’s Word and to give expression to the unity of the congregation, that such services must be conducted orderly, and that those who conduct themselves in an ungodly manner during the worship services, that is, who are drunk and behave themselves in an unbecoming manner, may not be admitted or retained as members of the congregation. Since church government and the public ministry of the Word are a necessity, the question must be asked whether individuals must be sent forth for this purpose, and whether anyone may engage herein who has a desire for it and considers himself qualified for such a task. If a commission is necessary, it must be asked whether such a commission originates in man (thus being merely a human commission), or whether such a commission has its origin in God, which is executed by the church, and thus is a divine commission. We shall first discuss the divine commission of ministers -- the pastors and teachers. The Necessity of a Divine Commission for the Ministry of the Word Question: Is a divine commission necessary for the office of minister?
Answer: Socinians and others answer negatively; however, we answer affirmatively. The need for a divine commission is first of all evident from several clear texts.
(1) “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:19-20). One cannot maintain that this divine commission is intended for the apostles only and thus not for others, for this is a commission pertaining to doctrine and the administration of the sacraments. As long as this labor continues to be performed within the church, there must also be a commission unto this task. We know, however, that these labors must always continue in the church. They were not meant to cease at the conclusion of the apostolic age -- which is therefore also true for this commission. Added to this is the promise of the Lord Jesus to remain with His church until the end of the world. This promise could not have pertained to the apostles only, for they would not live that long. It thus pertains to the ministry and its related commission.
(2) This is also evident from Ephesians 4:11, “And he gave some, apostles ... and some, pastors and teachers.” As you can observe, Christ has given pastors and teachers as well as apostles “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12). Wherever this ministry functions, ministers will also be sent forth. We also read that “God hath set some in the church, first apostles ... thirdly teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28). God has therefore appointed ministers as well as apostles. This is likewise expressed in Acts 20:28, where we read, “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”
(3) Consider also Romans 10:15, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” It is as much as being stated that no one can or may preach without being sent. One cannot evade the issue here by saying that Paul only referred to his time period, for such a limitation is nowhere to be found. The time frame is immaterial both then and now, for the matters and their conjunction remain the same in essence. By the manner in which he graduates from one matter to the next, he also shows that no one, either then or now, may preach without a divine commission. Both now and then it is one’s duty to call upon God, which is likewise true for all the other duties which he mentions successively. How can one call upon God without faith, believe without hearing, hear without preaching, and preach without a commission? All the interrelated components precedent to being commissioned are true for all ages. This is therefore true for the last component as well, without which, according to the apostle, the others are rendered null and void.
Secondly, this is also evident from God’s dealings in both the Old and New Testaments. God called and commissioned the tribe of Levi instead of the firstborn whom, prior to this, the Lord had separated to His service. He chose Aaron and his descendants to minister in the priest’s office. The apostle states concerning this, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). One of the tasks of the priest was to teach, a task which had to be performed as God’s ambassador. “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). Sharp threats are issued to those who run without a divine commission. “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied” (Jeremiah 23:21). Likewise no one in the New Testament preached without having been divinely commissioned to do so. The apostles present these credentials at the beginning of their letters, and they in turn commissioned others. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23); “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Timothy 4:14); “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Timothy 5:22); “... that thou shouldest ... ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). From this we conclude that all who have ever preached were commissioned to do so. Consequently, a divine commission is also now a prerequisite.
Thirdly, ministers are God’s ambassadors. “For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7); “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). An ambassador cannot do anything but what he is commissioned to do, and he thus speaks on behalf of his Lord.
Objection #1: It is everyone’s duty to teach, and he who has been given some abilities is obligated to use them. Everyone must endeavor to prophesy (1 Corinthians 14:39).
Answer: It is everyone’s duty to do so privately. It does not follow, however, that everyone ought to do so publicly. Even if someone has the ability to govern, may he therefore ascend the throne and rule? The analogy applies here as well.
Objection #2: “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). Every believer participated in this, and thus a divine commission is not a prerequisite for the office of the ministry.
Answer (1) There were also elders, evangelists, and deacons among those dispersed believers, for one as well as the other was dispersed. Among them was also Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8) who had an extraordinary revelation and commission (Acts 8:29) and was also authorized to baptize (vs. 38).
(2) Everyone of these dispersed members declared the Word individually, the one to this person, and the other to another person. They thus did what everyone is called to do privately. There is no mention at all, however, of either the public ministry or the administration of the sacraments.
Objection #3: In 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 it is related how all members of the congregation were permitted to speak. “When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” (vs. 26). No special commission is therefore needed to preach.
Answer (1) It can at once be observed that the reference here is to assemblies where the extraordinary unction of the Holy Spirit was present. The apostle here gives direction how everyone ought to conduct himself in the use of these extraordinary gifts. It must be obvious, however, that one may not draw a conclusion from the extraordinary to the ordinary.
(2) The reference is here to prophets who are instructed to speak in an orderly sequence. (3) In private meetings where there is discussion, everyone may contribute. Thus there is nothing in this text negating the need for a divine commission for ministers. Objection #4: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things, and ye need not that any man teach you” (1 John 2:20
Answer (1) Did these persons make that much progress without instruction? Of course not, and thus they initially were in need of instruction. This of necessity renders the conclusion invalid.
(2) The apostle does not mean to say that they had now attained absolute perfection as far as knowledge was concerned, being beyond all need for instruction. He rather states that they had been illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and by this light they could discern between truth and error, thereby promoting their own progress. Their enjoyment of the Word and its ministry could thus be a fruitful endeavor.
We have thus observed that a divine commission is necessary for the ministry. We shall now proceed to consider the particulars of this commission. The Elements of the Internal Call to the Ministry This commission is both internal and external. An extraordinary, divine declaration is not an element of this internal commission. God does not do this, or does so only on very rare occasions, and thus one need not wait for this. There are other matters by which one may be assured of his internal calling. To these belong, first of all, a knowledge of the office. One must know what it means to be a servant of Christ, to be the mouth of the Lord, to proclaim that great gospel, to teach ignorant men the way of salvation, to be instrumental in delivering men from the devil, and to lead them to Christ. One must know that it consists in comforting those who mourn, stirring up the indolent, bringing back those who have strayed, exposing hypocrites and temporal believers to themselves, defending the truth against error, rebuking the ungodly, helping to keep out or expelling from the church those who lead offensive lives, and adorning the church, so that by the holiness of those who profess the truth she would bring glory to Christ. One must know that it consists in being an example and in being able to give an account of the souls entrusted to him. How can he who is neither thoroughly acquainted with these matters, nor perceives the weightiness of it all, nor takes this to heart, have intentions to be faithful? All of this must be known, considered, and experienced in order to be conscious of one’s calling.
Secondly, there must be some knowledge of one’s aptitude for this work. A fundamental knowledge of divine truths and thus being satisfied with a speculative knowledge of these is not sufficient. Rather, one must experience the power of these truths in his own heart, having been converted thereby. He will thus be able to speak from his own experience. He must also have the aptitude to clearly express his thoughts, and must have a voice which is capable of being heard by others. Even though the most qualified person must say, “Who is sufficient for these things” (2 Corinthians 2:16), one must nevertheless be conscious of some aptitude. Shortly we shall consider this aptitude more comprehensively.
Thirdly, there must be an extraordinary love a) for Christ and a desire to make Him known; b) for the church to present her as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2), and to cause her to shine forth with light and holiness to the honor of God; c) for the souls of the unconverted to snatch them from the fire, as well as of the converted to strengthen, comfort, and continually provide them with spiritual food.
Fourthly, one must be willing to deny all that is of the world, such as honor, material goods -- yes, even life itself. If someone is of low social status and wishes to become someone of renown or to acquire material goods by way of the ministry, his objective is entirely wrong. He would be much happier as a shoemaker, for in my opinion there is no man more abominable than an unregenerate minister who uses the holy things of God to his own advantage.
Fifthly, there must be a great desire for this work (1 Timothy 3:1). There must be continual stirrings to give oneself to the Lord by way of this work, and there must be a concern about whether or not one is called. There must be anxiety when ulterior motives are perceived in the heart which in turn causes one to entertain the thought to refrain from this work; or when the heaviness of the task, and a sense of inability causes one to look up against this work, engendering a desire to be relieved from this work, as with Moses and Jeremiah. The stirrings will nevertheless persist and overcome the objections. This in turn will give him more liberty before the Lord and he will find himself more willing than beforehand because by the objections he will have a clearer view of the motives of his heart. Then his heart does not condemn him, but rather convinces him of his sincerity in this matter. By these and similar arguments one can ascertain his internal calling. We shall now proceed to consider the external calling. The Elements of the External Call to the Ministry The external calling also is not extraordinary in nature. This was true only for the prophets and the apostles. This occurred either entirely immediately, or concurrent with certain means. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:2-3). When we speak of the normal, external calling, then this call does not proceed from God by means of the government, but from God by means of the church. When a church needs to be established in a certain country, and all means are lacking to obtain ministers who are divinely commissioned, then the church, which is vested with the primary authority to call, is authorized to call some qualified men from her midst for this great work and to initiate them into service, even though ordination by way of the laying on of hands cannot transpire. The church always retains this authority to call, even when she is established. No one may challenge this or remove this authority from her. To make use of Jus Patronatus in an established church is an abominable practice. No one may force himself into the church by such means if he expects God’s blessing upon himself and upon his ministry.
Even though the ordination is performed by divinely commissioned ministers, the external calling nevertheless pertains to the congregation which calls ministers either by every brother casting his vote (which is still customary in some churches in the Netherlands), or by means of the elders, for:
(1) the elders represent the congregation;
(2) the church does not exist for the elders, but the elders for the church -- they are not lords of the church, but rather her servants (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:5
(3) the congregation is obligated to give heed to their doctrine and life, must examine the spirits whether they are of God (1 John 4:1), and must be on guard against false prophets and are not to hear or follow them (John 10:27);
(4) the congregation elected two, of whom one would be chosen by the casting of the lot (Acts 1:23). The entire congregation chose seven deacons (Acts 6:3
Within an established church (which has the primary prerogative to call), one can readily distinguish between: the commission to the ministry, the call from and unto a particular church, and ordination in her midst. The commission occurs in the presence of many elders gathered either at the classical or synodical level. There must first be a careful examination of life, doctrine, and ability of those who present themselves to serve Christ in His church. “The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2); “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Timothy 5:22); “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless” (1 Timothy 3:10).
Upon this examination follows the commission, authorizing them in the name of Christ to preach, to administer the sacraments, to exercise discipline, and to perform whatever pertains to the pastoral office.
Such authorization is not given at the time when the preparatory examinations are administered. Such candidates are not authorized for anything, not even to preach the Word as an ambassador of Christ. For preaching as God’s ambassador and the administration of the sacraments cannot be separated. The Lord Jesus assigns preaching and baptism to the same persons in Matthew 28:19. Such candidates are only permitted, under the supervision of ministers who are situated in the various localities, to exercise their gifts and to let themselves be heard in the vacant congregations. Such an authority is only given to them when they are called by a congregation and are ordained there by a minister appointed for this purpose by the classis. In some localities the above-mentioned authority is given after the preparatory examination has been administered to such candidates, and they are then sent forth into the holy ministry without being aligned with a particular congregation. This commission bestows the authority to proclaim the gospel as an ambassador of Christ and to administer the sacraments, even before one is called by a particular congregation. Such a commission gives one freedom to go from one congregation to another upon the extension of a call. Such a calling I do not deem to be as a new commission, but rather as a request, “Come over, and help us.” Such a call, after having sought the Lord, one may either accept or decline in accordance with what one deems to be most advantageous for the church. Such a commission gives liberty not only to conduct oneself as an ambassador of Christ in one’s own particular congregation, but wherever one may travel; such a commission pertains to the office in general.
I am joyful, and on many occasions it affords me liberty, that I may have such a general commission without limitation to a particular location, which is true for all Frisian candidates. The words of my commission are as follows: ... Itaque per praesentus literas, testatum facimus, nos as dignissimum ministerii munus (quod Deut.s bene vertat) praefatum dominum Wilhelmum à Brakel admisisse, sicut etiam admittimus, in album et ordinem ministrorem Christi recepisse, sicut etiam recpimus eique potestatem dedisse, sicut etiam damus Euangelium ex Dei praescripto pure praedicare, venranda N.T. Sacramenta reverenter adminitrare, claves aperiendi atque claudendi regnum caelorum, ecclesiasticam, scilicet disciplinan prudenter exercere, oniaque, quae ad ecclesiae regimen spectant tum publice, tum privatum perager, prout fidum Christi ministrum decet; etc., which translates as follows: We therefore bear witness by means of these documents that we have admitted the aforesaid Wilhelmus à Brakel into the most worthy office of the ministry (may God cause it to prosper), having likewise admitted and accepted him as belonging to the servants of Christ, also accepting and authorizing him to preach the gospel purely according to God’s precepts, to administer the honorable sacraments of the New Testament, to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven to open and to close; that is, to carefully administer ecclesiastical discipline, and also to engage specifically in all that pertains to the government of the church, both in public and in private, as it behooves a faithful servant of Christ, etc.
Such candidates must be elected by the congregation or her elders according to God’s institution and the good order of the church, and upon such election and calling they may make themselves available, this being the objective of their commission or of their preparatory examination. Having accepted the call, the candidates to whom the preparatory examination have been administered are examined once more. Subsequent to this they are ordained by the laying on of hands (which is in accordance with the examples given in Holy Scripture, and the established tradition of the church) in a specific congregation by a minister appointed by the Classis. This laying on of the hands does not occur, however, when due to a call, someone moves to another congregation. In Friesland there also is no new installation, due to the general commission in use there. The Need for Persons in the Ministry to Examine Themselves
Let every minister consider and reflect before the Lord, examining himself and answering upon the following questions: Have I been sent of God, or did I run myself? Do I know what pertains to this office? Was I convinced that I had some aptitude for this as far as external knowledge is concerned, and am I likewise spiritually acquainted with the experience of regeneration, faith, hope, love, holiness, God’s dealings with the soul, spiritual warfare, and the various conditions of the soul, in order to bring forth old and new things out of the treasure of my heart, to address everyone according to his condition, and particularly to give everyone publicly and privately his portion by way of personal experience, and to speak from heart to heart? Did I have a special love to preach Christ, to be instrumental to the conversion of souls, and to promote the welfare of the church? Was I continually stirred up in my soul to accept this work? Has it been my concern whether or not the Lord has sent me, and have I prayed much in order to know this? Have I at times been desirous not to be engaged in this work, considering the magnitude of this task and my inability? Were those desires to draw back repeatedly conquered by love for this work, or was I frequently put at ease and confirmed in my intention? Have I been troubled by ulterior motives which time and again disappeared by perceiving my sincere motive in the presence of the Lord? Did I perceive a frame of heart by which I was willing to deny myself by parting with material goods, honor, and my life for the Lord Jesus and His church? Or did I only pursue honor and prestige, the acquisition of material goods by which to improve my temporal circumstances, and which, outside of this office, would have been poor and insignificant? Or had I advanced in my studies to such a degree that I of necessity had to proceed? Did I ever really examine myself concerning these matters, or did I merely run without such self-examination?
Concerning the external calling, ask yourself: How did I arrive in this congregation? Did I flatter the elders of the congregation, thereby soliciting their favor? Did I establish friendships in order to control these friends? Did I give gifts? Did I interact with the worldly members of the church in order that they would impose me upon the congregation? Has money been promised and given in order thus to come to this congregation, and if this was done by friends without my knowledge, did I make restitution after this came to my knowledge? The consideration of these questions can be beneficial for students before they enter the ministry, and can be useful to cause every called minister to be discovered to himself as to whether he has only come to kill and to destroy (John 10:10), or to feed upon himself without fear (Jude 1:12). If someone has become convinced that he has no commission for this lofty office, but rather has forced himself in with unlawful objectives and by unlawful means, let him humble himself before the Lord and let him seek reconciliation in the blood of Christ, and endeavor as yet to be called internally. If he does not do this, however, I advise him to stop, even if he must beg for his bread, for a most dreadful judgment hangs over the heads of such individuals. He will have to pay a high price for the good name and the advantage which he has acquired. If anyone stoops so low that, in order to quiet his conscience, he rejects a calling altogether, and merely views a minister as a hired school teacher, let him be a hireling. However, if anyone is convinced of his commission, let him use this commission to undergird himself in his inability, to engender liberty in the administration of his office, to believingly pray to be qualified, and to patiently exercise trust in all trials which he will encounter in his ministry.
He who is convinced of his divine commission must then also view himself as an ambassador of the Lord Jesus. As such, and with that authority, he must perform all his work, such as preaching, catechizing, the administration of the sacraments, visitation, and the use of the keys of God’s kingdom. This will make him bold and faithful, and he and his work will receive more approbation. Such must be the conduct of all ministers relative to their commission. The Responsibility of Church Members Toward the Internal and External Calling of Ministers
Church members cannot perceive the internal commission of ministers, and therefore it also ought not to be their concern. It is also not their business to examine the external calling of ministers too carefully. When someone has been called by the elders of the congregation, they must acknowledge him to be an ambassador of Christ. If the minister is in reality a Judas, this is a matter pertaining to himself only. Ungodly ministers are ambassadors, even as Judas was, and the congregation must also hear them. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works” (Matthew 23:2-3). If elders, in calling a minister, have been remiss in their conduct, and if they have allowed themselves either by promises or threats to call such a minister, they will be accountable for this. If a minister has been called, if this calling has the approbation of the Classis, and if he has publicly been installed in the congregation, the congregation must acknowledge him as such and must hear him as long as his life is not ungodly and as long as he preaches the truth. The congregation is the happier, however, if she may have a godly minister who was called in the right way and in a godly manner. The impression must nevertheless remain in the congregation -- whether the minister is converted or unconverted, or if his calling was proper or less than proper -- that Christ has sent him by way of ecclesiastical procedure. He must therefore be heard as such, and if his words are in agreement with the Word of God, they must then be received as words spoken in Christ’s Name. They who may thus conduct themselves in all simplicity will be edified by the ministry, and the commission and the qualifications of the minister as an ambassador of Christ who speaks on Christ’s behalf, will make much more impression upon the soul than if one merely views ministers as proponents of truth; or if one focuses on the person instead, thereby easily allowing himself to be offended. A proper consideration of the commission, the qualifications, and the authority of ministers (who not only proclaim beneficial truths but who are ambassadors of Christ), as well as the fact that Christ has deemed the congregation and each individual member worthy of having an ambassador sent to them to speak to them in His Name that which He has commanded them, will have a powerful effect upon the hearts of the members. The ministers must therefore impress this upon the congregation, and the members must instruct each other concerning this, so that everyone may acknowledge and hear the minister as such.
Members must thus be on guard to do nothing whereby the commission of ministers loses its importance. This occurs when the ministry is imitated by someone who, either in his home or in a different location gathers people together, and according to the format of a sermon announces a text, exposits the text, and makes application; or if someone sets forth some touchstones by which (it frightens me to think of it) he declares one to be either spiritually alive or dead. One then runs without being sent, thereby removing the impression concerning the commission of ministers out of the hearts of the people, and thus making the ministry less fruitful. Even if someone is highly talented, being more talented than the best of ministers, and even if it is someone’s objective to edify, and a person is edified by this, then this does not justify such a practice, which generally will do tenfold more damage than good. Such a practice is generally accompanied by pride and self-promotion, frequently resulting in divided sentiments. Frequently the cause of the ungodly is bolstered, or the hearts of the godly are tossed to and fro, disturbed, and saddened by the imprudent propositions of such preachers. I anticipate that such a practice will cause much confusion in the church. Oh, that the Lord would fill such individuals with terror if they are as yet unconverted. If they are converted, that He would then convince them of their error and cause them to cease such activity!
I am not opposed to special gatherings of church members. I despise such ministers who keep godly members from the Lord’s Supper either because they have such special gatherings or because they are opposed to them. I make it my business to encourage members to meet together, since the communion of saints requires this. I am, however, opposed to disorderly assemblies as well as to the practice mentioned. One must not strive for dominance in such assemblies, but each person must have equal input. Such assemblies must be conducted by way of mutual discussions, the reading of a chapter from God’s Word, a mutual exchange of questions and answers (one person may lead to ask the questions), the singing of psalms and spiritual songs together, the reviewing of a sermon, the encouraging and comforting of each other, and praying together. Upon such gatherings the Lord’s blessing would rest, and the Lord Jesus would be present according to His promise. Such gatherings should neither be conducted too frequently nor should they last too long, lest one be blamed for being lazy, squandering his time, and neglecting his household. One must actually demonstrate the contrary to be true. It would be more prudent if one were to have such gatherings during the day rather than at night, especially if men and women gather together.