Apostles and EldersElders were local men appointed to oversee affairs in the local church. Their sphere of office was limited by the locality. An elder in Ephesus was not an elder in Smyrna, and an elder in Smyrna was not an elder in Ephesus. In Scripture there are no local apostles, nor are there any extra-local elders; all elders are local, and all apostles are extra-local. The Word of God nowhere speaks of apostles managing the affairs of a local church, and it nowhere speaks of elders managing the affairs of several local churches. The apostles were the ministers of all the churches, but they had control of none; the elders were confined to one church and they controlled affairs in that one. The duty of apostles was to found churches. Once a church was established, all responsibility was handed over to the local elders, and from that day the apostles exercised no control whatever in its affairs. All management was in the hands of the elders, and if they thought right they could even refuse an apostle entry into their church. Should such a thing occur, the apostle would have no authority to insist on being received, since all local authority had already passed from his hands into the hands of the elders.
How did Paul deal with the adulterous believer in Corinth? He did not just notify the church that he had excommunicated the man. The utmost he could do was to instruct its members regarding the seriousness of the situation and seek to admonish them to remove the wicked person from their midst (1 Cor. 5.13). If the church was right spiritually they would pay attention to Paul, but if they disregarded his exhortations, whilst they would be wrong spiritually, they would not be wrong legally. In the event of their despising his counsel, Paul could only bring his spiritual authority to bear on the situation. In the Name of the Lord Jesus he could “deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (verse 5). He had no official authority to discipline him, but he had spiritual authority to deal with the case. He had his spiritual “rod.”
The affairs of the local church are entirely independent of the apostles. Once elders have been appointed, all control passes into their hands, and whilst thereafter an apostle may still instruct and persuade, he can never interfere. But this did not hinder Paul from speaking authoritatively to the Corinthians. Even a casual reader will notice how authoritative his statements were in both epistles. It was quite within his province to pass judgment where doctrinal and moral questions were concerned, and when Paul did so he was most emphatic; but the actual enforcing of such judgments was outside his province and entirely a matter for the local church.
An apostle can deal with the disorders of a church whenever his advice and counsel are sought, as was the case with Paul and the church in Corinth. It was because of their enquiries that he could say to them, “And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come” (1 Cor. 11.34). But the point to note here is that “the rest” of the matters which Paul intended to “set in order” on his arrival in Corinth were to be attended to in the same way as those he had dealt with in his Epistle, and they were dealt with doctrinally. In like manner as he had instructed them concerning certain affairs there, so he would instruct them concerning the remaining matters on his arrival; but the Corinthians themselves, not Paul, were the ones who would have to deal with the situation.
Since Peter and John were apostles, how did it come about that they were elders of the church in Jerusalem? (1 Pet. 5.1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). They were elders as well as apostles because they were not only responsible for the Work in different places, but also for the church in their own place. When they went out they ministered in the capacity of apostles, bearing the responsibility of the Work in other parts; when they returned home they performed the duties of elders, bearing the responsibility of the local church. (Only such apostles as are not itinerating much could be elders of the church in their own locality.) When Peter and John were away from their own church they were apostles, when they returned they were elders. It was not on the ground of their being apostles that they were elders in Jerusalem; they were elders there solely on the ground of their being local men of greater spiritual maturity than their brethren.
There is no precedent in Scripture for a visiting apostle to settle down as elder in any church he visits; but, provided circumstances permit of his being frequently at home, he could be an elder in his own locality, on the ground of his being a local brother. If the local character of the churches of God is to be preserved, then the extra-local character of the apostles must also be preserved.
Paul was sent out from Antioch and he founded a church in Ephesus. We know he did not hold the office of elder in any church, but it would have been possible for him to be an elder in Antioch, not in Ephesus. He spent three years in Ephesus, but he worked there in the capacity of an apostle, not an elder, i.e. he assumed no responsibility and exercised no authority in local affairs, but simply devoted himself to his apostolic ministry. Let us note carefully that there are no elders in the universal Church and no apostles in the local church.