Biblical Governance

The Council of Nicea [Fresco in Sistine Salon, Vatican]

A few months ago, I was asked to draft a constitution for a new church for a group of people who had left a Baptist church. The constitution had the following provisions as checks and balances:

1. The Elders were to be elected by the Congregation.


2. One third of the Elders were to retire each year but they could put their names forward for re-election. This gave opportunity for fresh blood to be introduced but also gave Elders a reason to pause and reflect if they still had God's mandate for them to continue.


3. The Elders were responsible for annually reviewing the performance of the Minister.


4. The Minister was responsible for submitting an annual plan and budget for approval before the Elders.


5. Major Transactions: Any financial commitment valued at greater than half of the church's total assets or $100,000 (which ever was the lesser) would require an ordinary resolution at a Members' meeting.


6. The Elders were required to report back to the Congregation and to hold a forum to discuss the church's business every six months. Once at the Annual General Meeting and six months later at a Business Meeting.

Since they had recently worshipped at a Baptist church I assumed that voting would be an accepted practice amongst them. After reading the first draft, I was surprised that the new minister was strongly opposed to voting for Elders. I pointed out that the Greek word for "appoint" used in Acts, in the context of selecting Elders, was "Cheirotoneo" (G5500) could be translated as "a show of hands". Interestingly, I notice that in the ESV, Cheirotoneo is the only word translated as "appointed" in connection to Elders. He looked it up and said he felt it could be construed as a "laying on of hands."  Plato had used the word in the context of selecting Senators for the Athenian Parliament, and it would be difficult to imagine that they would tolerate anything but a vote. He replied that "God has gathered these people around me, and I will not allow anything that will put my ministry at risk. I'm not happy." 

Being a new church, I said the new members might be unfamiliar with each other, so interim Elders could be selected and then elections could be held, say, six months later. I spoke with another church member, who would later become one of the Elders about the matter and his reply was "we have been together for some weeks now, before you came along. If you do not like the way it is, then you don't have to come."

At the next church meeting, he proceeded to announce his selection of Elders based on "what God had told him."

Afterwards I approached one of the elders and advised him now that an eldership had been selected, it was appropriate for me to end my involvement in the development of the constitution.

Later I had the opportunity to review the final constitution and I see that they retained about half the text of the original document. However when it came to the checks and balances they replaced the before mentioned provisions with:

1. The Elders will be appointed by the Minister.


2. Their position as Elders will be for life and their tenure may only cease if they bring the church into disrepute, resign or die.


3. The Minister's relationship with the church is not one of employment but does not go on to define it further.


4. The requirement for an annual plan or budget was removed.


5. The requirement for member approval for major transactions was removed.


6. Business meetings could be requested by the congregation but must have the Elders' unanimous approval.


7. Special General Meetings could also be requested but must also have the Elders' unanimous approval.

Its interesting to note that Berakhot 55a, based on Exodus 35.30, also teaches that the consent of the governed is required in selecting communal leadership.


There is, however, another aspect which modernity assigns to legitimate leadership, particularly in Western democracies -- that is, leaders can only govern with the consent of the governed. This very principle is found in the Talmud:

"Rabbi Issac said: 'We do not appoint a communal leader unless the community is consulted,' as it is said, 'See the Lord has called by name, Betzalel.' (Exo 35.30) The Holy One said to Moses: 'Moses is Betzalel acceptable to you?' Moses said: 'Master of the Universe, if he is acceptable to You, he is certainly acceptable to me.' God said to Moses: 'Even so, go and ask them (i.e. Bnei Yisrael,... to get their consent)' Moses went and asked them: 'Is Betzalel acceptable to you?' They said to him, 'If he is acceptable to the Holy One and to you, he is acceptable to us.' (Berakhot 55a).

Obviously, the people's consent, if it is to be meaningful, must be both voluntary and knowing. Both Moses and Betzalel had to make full disclosure of their activities to obtain and maintain the people's consent -- even the approval of God is not sufficient. [Source: Goldrich, K S (2004). Parashat
Vayakhel-Pekudei Ha Hodesh.]




In the Mishnah, Peah 8.7, more than one person must handle public funds and distribution must be handled by a minimum of three. Yuma 38a suggests that transparency is a key factor in handling public funds and teaches that any appearance of impropriety should be avoided.

It is naive in the extreme to establish Christian churches and organisations without adequate provisions against the Evil Inclination.

Why is church governance relevant at all to the congregation, one may ask? Isn't it enough for the congregation to feel that they are being well shepherded and taught?

Divine Invitation v One Law

FFOZ has published a paper on their latest position on Torah Observance and Gentiles [1]. They have stepped back from their "One Law" stance and adopted a new theory which they have named "Divine Invitation". In their view Divine Invitation is more scripturally defensible than the One Law Doctrine.

Their arguments against the One-Law are built around Paul's opposition to circumcision, Jewish identity theft and disunity.

The question of the status of Gentile believers in the kingdom of God is a common thread to all the arguments. Addressing this question may present a way around the difficulty.

Paul seemed reluctant for Gentile Believers to undergo physical circumcision (see Galatians 5.3) , but did that mean they were not to be circumcised at all? In Colossians 2.11-12 Paul declares that Gentile believers have indeed been circumcised and baptised thus fulfilling the two requisite Rituals required for becoming a proselyte.

If all Gentile Believers are Proselytes then Numbers 15.15-16 applies and One Law is thereby established.

If then a Gentile Believer becomes Torah Observant, wouldn't they outwardly begin to bear some resemblance to Jewish culture which traditionally has had the same goal?

FFOZ have been repelled by One Law because of the disunity it creates between believers. There is no doubt that the Torah itself has a sanctifying effect. It is a sword that divides. Rather than discarding One Law perhaps the problem is an inappropriate application of Galatians 6.1.

[1] Michael, B and Lancaster D T (2009). Messiah Journal. Issue 101. pp 46-70

Were Gentile believers meant to observe the Torah?

Bereans Online has a really good discussion about the relationship between ethnically Jewish believers and Gentile believers within the kingdom of God. The discussion is within the context of an examination of a new theory called "Divine Invitation Theology."

This new teaching reasons that because the Apostles would have seen the issue through the lens of the LXX, they would have not considered the believing Gentile in the same category as the ger as mentioned in the Torah. Hence, this new teaching claims that none of the Torah passages that refer to gerim apply to today’s believing Gentiles.

Key texts used by this new teaching:

As for the assembly of, there shall be one statute for Jews and for the proselyte, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as a Jew is, so shall the proselyte be before HaShem. There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for Jews and for the proselyte who sojourns with you. Numbers 15:15-16 (paraphrased)

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1 NKJV

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5

Bereans Online responds:

This new teaching introduces several anachronisms into the discussion. It also pretends to know the way that the Apostles “read” the Scriptures – denying the power of the Holy Spirit to clearly communicate through His eternal word in their native language: Hebrew. If the Apostles were biased to accept what this new teaching contends was the First Century practice of proselytism by the LXX, then that very position undermines their subsequent rulings as extra-biblical, and having no authority for the believer then or now.

While the Septuagint (LXX) is invaluable to our understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as First Century Greek, using it the way that this new teaching does is anachronistic. It takes the usage of the word “proselutos” as it was used in a time after the First Century and projects it back into the days of the Apostles – and then even further back to the time of the translating of the LXX (270 BCE). This ignores the history and etymology of the Greek word “proselutos.”

During the reign of the King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (of Selucid Egypt), around 270 BCE, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Traditionally, this translation was made by seventy [LXX] Jewish scholars.

The translators of the Septuagint considered the context of each usage of the word ger [stranger, sojourner] to consider if it was referring to a covenant member or a pagan. When the context dictated that the reference was to a Gentile covenant member, they translated ger into the Greek word proselutos. It is from this word that we get the English word “proselyte.” Much
confusion has arisen because of the character that this word acquired after the translating of the Septuagint. When the Septuagint was written, this Greek word was found nowhere else. The word seems to have come into existence solely for the purposes of the Septuagint translators – and its usage is not divinely inspired. It was the translators’ paraphrase.

The Greek adjective proselutos comes from pros [toward] and erxomai [to come or go]. In other words, “to come over toward.” This usage started as a way to describe those covenant members who were not members of the covenant community of Israel by birth. This usage eventually redefined the word. It started off as a way to identify those Gentiles who “crossed over” to side with the God of Israel and to live with Israel in the covenant community (to “come near” is Temple language).

It was only later that the word came to mean “those who formally converted” to another religion. The important distinction is that the word was not used in the Septuagint because it implied formal conversion, but rather because it described the actual way that such people could be distinguished: namely, that they had drawn near to Israel to participate in the worship of the One True God. It is anachronistic to read the Septuagint usage of the word proselutos and the present meaning of “proselyte” back into the usage at the time of the translating of the Septuagint. To assume that the Apostles did not correctly read and use the Hebrew text is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in helping them rule correctly regarding Gentiles.

Normative Judaism has this same usage of the word “ger.” Many English translations that are used in normative Judaism translate the word “ger” as “proselyte.” For instance, the Stone Chumash translates Leviticus 19:34 in this way:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a – Stone Chumash

If the word ger was translated consistently, it would read:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were a proselyte in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a

This is obviously a case of writing a theology into the text as opposed to allowing the text to frame our teaching. This is a fundamental principle in Bible study: the text informs us, we do not inform the text. The Bereans of Acts 17 practiced exegesis (meaning from the text), not eisegesis (meaning into the text). Eisegesis is something used by experimental theologies.

There is no Scriptural basis for “ritual conversion” or to become a proselyte. The Scriptures speak against those who would seek to gain some sort of “Jewish identity” by undergoing this man-made ritual. Beloved, it is a man-made tradition that says that a man or woman can become a Jew by undergoing a ceremony – it is not the Torah.

When this new teaching promotes the idea that the Apostles fell into the trap of allowing the practice of ritual conversion to twist their understanding of Scripture, it is a great concern. If, as this new teaching asserts, the Apostles read the passages pertaining to gerim and their covenant obligations and were influenced by a much later understanding of the Greek word “proselutos” then it is proof that their teaching of Acts 15 and 21 is in error, and is only included in the Apostolic Scriptures to give us an account of how they made that error. While we do not consider this to be the case, we are steadfast in our understanding that G-d’s Word is immutable. It does not change meaning as the culture or language around it changes. It means precisely today, what it meant in the ancient past – and it will mean the same for all of eternity.

This idea of ritual conversion through circumcision to become a Jew has created considerable confusion for Christians. To become an ethnic Jew is unnecessary for Salvation, for Salvation is by faith alone. As part of that faith, one should become faithful to God's commandments, and if one is moved by the Spirit to do so, the Gentile believer may undergo circumcision.

Sometimes circumcision is mentioned in the bible as part of the commandments, at other times, the writer intends the ritual conversion to become a Jew. How can the reader tell the difference?