[120] 10. ORGANISATION OF THE NEW CHURCHES. (XIV 21) THEY RETURNED TO LYSTRA AND TO ICONIUMANDTO ANTIOCH, (22) CONFIRMING THE SOULS OFTHEDISCIPLES, EXHORTING THEM TO CONTINUE INTHEFAITH, AND THAT THROUGH MANY TRIBULATIONS WE MUST ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. (23) AND WHEN THEY HAD APPOINTED FOR THEM ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, AND HAD PRAYED WITH FASTING, THEY COMMENDED THEM TO THE LORD, ON WHOM THEY HAD BELIEVED.

On the return journey the organisation of the newly rounded churches occupied Paul's attention. It is probable that, in his estimation, some definite organisation was implied in the idea of a church; and until the brotherhood in a city was organised, it was not in the strictest sense a church. In this passage we see that the funda- [121] mental part of the Church organisation lay in the appointment of EIders ({presbuteroi}). In XIII 1 we found that there were prophets and teachers in .the Antiochian church; here nothing is said about appointing them, but the reason indubitably is that prophets and teachers required Divine grace, and could not be appointed by men: they were accepted when the grace was found to have been given them.

Paul used the word Bishops ({episkopoi}) as equivalent to Elders. This is specially clear in XX, where he summoned the Ephesian Elders, v. 17, and said to them: "the Holy Spirit hath made you Bishops," verse 28. It is therefore certain that the "Bishops and Deacons"at Philippi (Phil. I 1) are the Elders and Deacons, who were the constituted officials of the Church. The Elders are also to be understood as "the rulers"(proistavmenoi) at Rome and Thessalonica (Rom XII 8, I Thess. V 12). Both terms, Elders and Bishops, occur in the Epistles to Titus and Timothy; but it is plain from Tit. I 5-7 that they are synonymous.

It is clear,therefore, that Paul everywhere instituted Elders in his new Churches; and on our hypothesis as to the accurate and methodical expression of the historian, we are bound to infer that this first case is intended to be typical of the way of appointment followed in all later cases. When Paul directed Titus (I 5) to appoint Elders in each Cretan city, he was doubtless thinking of the same method which he followed here. Unfortunately, the term used (ceirotonhvsante") is by no means certain in meaning; for, though originally it meant to elect by popular vote, yet it came to be used in the sense to appoint or designate (e.g., Acts X 41). But it is not [122] in keeping with our conception of the precise and often pragmatically accurate expression of Luke, that he should in this passage have used the term {cheipotonê:santes}, unless he intended its strict sense. If he did not mean it strictly, the term is fatally ambiguous, where definiteness is specially called for. It must, I think, be allowed that the votes and voice of each congregation were considered; and the term is obviously used in that way by Paul, II Cor. VIII 19.

It is also apparent that a certain influence to be exercised by himself is implied in the instructions given to Titus (I 5); but those instructions seem only to mean that Titus, as a sort of presiding officer, is to instruct the people what conditions the person chosen must satisfy, and perhaps to reject unsuitable candidates. Candidature, perhaps of a merely informal character, is implied in I Tim. III 1; but, of course, if election has any scope at all, candidature goes along with it.

The procedure, then, seems to be not dissimilar to Roman elections of magistrates, in which the presiding magistrate subjected all candidates to a scrutiny as to their qualifications, and had large discretion in rejecting those whom he considered unsuitable.

Finally, it is stated in XX 28 that the Holy Spirit made men Bishops; but this expression is fully satisfied by what may safely be assumed as the final stage of the appointment, viz. the Bishops elect were submitted to the Divine approval at the solemn prayer and fast which accompanied their appointment. This meeting and rite of fasting, which Paul celebrated in each city on his return journey, is to be taken as the form that was to be permanently observed (cp. XIII 3).

[123] These inferences seem to follow naturally from the authorities to whom we have restricted ourselves.

The use of the first person plural in v. 22 is not personal, but general; Paul impressed on them the universal truth that "we Christians"can enter the kingdom of God by no other path than that of suffering. At the same-time the author, by using the first person, associates himself with the principle, not as one of the audience at the time, but as one who strongly realised its truth. This is one of the few personal touches in Acts; and we must gather from it that, at the time when he was writing, the principle was strongly impressed on him by circumstances. I can understand this personal touch, in comparison with the studious suppression of personal feelings and views throughout Acts, in no other way than by supposing that Luke was composing this history during a time of special persecution. On that supposition the expression is luminous; but otherwise it stands in marked contrast to the style of Acts. Now evidence from a different line of reasoning points to the conclusion that Luke was writing this second book of his history under Domitian, the second great persecutor (Ch. XVII).