Eldership Business Meeting - nbgreenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
Another *play* depicting the insitituional *church*. I'm going to start putting *nb* on my posts so those who wish to delete may do so without opening. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Setting: The church chapel Characters: Men of the "What's happening Now Church."
Enter Bro. Elder #1: "Now that all the men are here I will speak for the Eldership and say...welcome. We are glad you could attend our meeting. We like to have these meetings every now and then that we might get your input before we made our decisions on the matter at hand."
Bro. MilkToast: "Thank you for inviting us to your meeting. We know you have a heavy load as you work to run this Church."
Bro. Elder #2: "Thank you, Bro. MilkToast. Yes, it is a tiring job. But the H.S. appointed us and we must let Him guide us."
Bro. Elder #1: "Brethren, we have drawn up plans for a new family center. The cost is outrageous but we have decided to build, because in this culture if we are going to increase our number and have the money to run the Lord's business we just must keep up with the denominations. They are drawing large crowds with their beautiful facilities. Of course, this will call for a big increase in contributions. The Brotherhood has found that the pledging system is very successful, whereby each member makes a pledge for a certain amount of money for a year. Pledging will cause the members to remember each week to fulfill their promise to increase their giving to the Lord."
Bro. Concern: "Bro. Elders, I am not sure we should draw people to us with beautiful facilities. It appears from the scriptures that people were drawn to Jesus through the teaching of the gospel of Christ, then as Christ added them to His body they became one with the Christians."
Bro. Elder #3: "Now Bro. Concern, times have changed. Our culture is not as simple as that of the first century. Ours is more complicated. It was much easier to get people to listen back then. We have decided if we can get people to attend church then we can teach them the gospel. If they are not here how can they be taught?"
Bro. Concern: "But, Bro. Elder, the scriptures tell of how the gospel was taken to the sinners, such as individuals telling those they came in contact with about Jesus. Then men of God went out into the world and preached Jesus. Jesus said *go* and you are saying *come?*"
Bro. MilkToast: "Bro. Concern, you are concerned about many things. God appointed this Eldership and we are required to obey them. If we disobey the Eldership we are disobeying God."
Bro. Elder #!: "Thank you, Bro. MilkToast. You "hold up the hands" of your Eldership."
Bro. Elder #4: "Lets get to the main purpose of this meeting. The Eldership wants suggestions on how the members can be motivated to give more of their money back to God. Our members are not giving as much as they should. They must be made to realize they are to *give till it hurts*."
Bro. Frisky: "Oh, I have an idea. Why don't we give incentives for the member to pledge. Those who do we could give badges. My company designs badges and I could get the Church a 10% discount. The wording on the badges could read, "I am a pledger for the Lord."
Bro. Elder #5: Bro. Frisky, what a wonderful idea. As the pledgers wear their badges they will encourage those who do not pledge to fulfill their obligation to the Lord, as well."
Bro. MeToo: And I might add that those who fulfill their pledges for a year could be given a beautiful certificate to hang on their wall for all to see. This is so exciting, brethren."
Bro. Concern: "Excuse me! But I'm having trouble following this reasoning, brethren. Scriptures tell us not to let the right hand know what the left had giveth."
Bro. MilkToast: "There you go again, Bro. Concern...rocking the boat. Why do you always have to cause unrest? In every meeting we have you always find fault with what is proposed. If you would spend more time studying the Bible instead of complaining you would know that *hand stuff* is talking individual....not Church."
Bro. Concern: "I don't mean to cause unrest among brethren but don't we claim to speak where the Bible speaks? If the money collected on Sunday becomes the Lord's money shouldn't we be more careful how that money is spent?"
Bro. Elder #1: "Well, the meeting is over. We have had a profitable time together. BTW work will start on the new facility next week. Thank you for your input. The Eldership will take your proposals into consideration in our next Staff meeting, as we make our decisions. Bro. Concern, will you remain a few minutes for a private meeting with the Eldership?"
OOPS!!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< BTW did you all know the *Eldership* concept is not in scripture? Nelta
-- Anonymous, January 14, 2000
Alright Nelta....Here is your chance to convert us.....In light of what you just said.... please exegete the following verses.....
Acts 14:23 ......"Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them IN EACH CHURCH."
Titus 1:5 ....."The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out was was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you."
I Timothy 5:17 ....."The elders who DIRECT THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH well are WORTHY OF DOUBLE HONOR, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." (I really need your help on this one.)
Hebrews 13:17 ....."Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. OBEY them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be no advantage to you."
Like I said Nelta.....here is your chance to set us all straight. We all take these scriptures seriously and literally. So.... please exegete correctly so that we may not be in error.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Nelta.....You are doing it again.......you are avoiding answering direct questions that concern the Scriptures.
This makes now the third time you have asked me to "place the Scriptures where my mouth is".....and three times I have and you have refused to explain the Scriptures to us.
My friend.....you are in serious trouble with God. Why?? Because when given the opportunity to help people come to a conclusion of Scripture that you feel is the right one......you refuse to do it. In other words....you claim to have the truth.....but will not teach it.
I'm giving you one more chance Nelta....please....exegete the Scriptures I gave you and show us all where we are wrong. If you really care about us.....you will do this.
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Alright Mark......Now what do you believe???....cause to be honest....that article did nothing to aid the discussion.
In fact, follow his logic all the way through....we ought to have a conregational form of church govt....where everytime we need to buy new toilet paper....we have a vote....cause..."we's all equals."
His Greek lesson.....was even less helpful.
For one.....everyone who stands for the authority of the N.T. eldership understands that authority "is not their own." The authority was given to them by Christ and is only held as long as they follow the word. An elder that stands by a "thus said the Lord"....has authority.....one who says, "Because I say so".....needs to be removed.
The ideal that because people rejected the apostles authority does not take away from the fact that they still had authority. Good grief....the world always has and always will have rebels. Just because someone rejects a police officers authority by leading him on a highway chase does not take away from the officers authority. The officer doesn't pull up and say..."Alright Mr. Winstead....you were able to outrun me for 50 miles....I therefore have no authority to arrest you."
The fact is that the elders are to be the "overseers of the affairs of the church." That requires authority. Sometimes sin needs to be rebuked....and disciplined. That requires authority. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made. That requires authority.
I'll be honest....I'd be afraid to attend the church if the man that wrote that article was in charge. Sounds to me like a place ripe for division, false teaching, and problems galore.
Give me a church with men grounded in the truth.....with backbone to make decisions....even when those decisions are not popular.
-- Anonymous, January 18, 2000
Thank You.....Thank You....Thank You....Thank You......Brother Lee!!!!Now that......I understand.
-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000
One historical clarification Mark....The RCC heirarchy is actually an apostate form of the collegiate eldership of the N.T. It did not start in a vacuum.
The "Board Meeting" may have come from the RCC, with a little bit of good ole' American politics....but the concept of the collegiate eldership comes only from the N.T.
-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000
Mark....You had me until points #4 & #5.
That's where we will differ.
And....yes....we would have to start a whole new thread into a dicussion of "pneumatology."
I do want to thank you very much for clearing the waters. Seriously.....I appreciate it. At least I know where you are coming from now.
Thanks again!
-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000
I liked the satire. It points out a lot of things I have seen in many congregations.
But you blew it when you slipped in the last remark...not in scripture? Hello? You should have quit while you were ahead!
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
I didn't say *elders* were not in the Bible. I said the *Eldership* was not. They didn't bind together in the N.T. and make themselves into a *ship* where they ran something.
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Nelta: Was just wondering "out loud"......is there any correlation to the fact that you refuse to see that God appointed elders (men) to sheppard the church & the fact that you don't think men have any respect for women & their opinions when it comes to spiritual matters? Seems like a pattern developing here to me....just wondering. Would be curious to your answer. Thanks-- Kathy C. ><>
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Also, as the good brother Danny >>Danny who?
pointed out- the elder "ship" is a biblical concept in fact more biblical than congregational voting or boards.>>
Not more biblical, but in the same class as.... Nelta
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Okay, Nelta. Here's your chance. We're waiting. Here's a Bible incase you don't have one handy.
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Nelta, Please tell me you do not teach English. You responded to Duane.."I didn't say *elders* were not in the Bible. I said the *eldership* was not."
"Ship" is a suffix meaning "Something made of, as in membership (Total members)" (Websters) or in this case eldership (Total elders). In other words elders and eldership is the exact same thing.
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
My earlier comments that were stated, they were cut and pasted to another thread, but here is a comment that is relavant to the topic, since I got off the topic before.Nelta, I think Kathy has hit on something here. Since you cannot back up your statements about the eldership... perhaps it is due to something else. But, at any rate please elaborate further on your understanding of the scriptures. Where do you get the notion that the Eldership is wrong. Jenny Gabbard stated that the "Elders" and the "Ship" mean the same. So what is your point other than trying to discredit what the Bible teaches concerning the governing authority of the elders over the local church. Are we all wrong in your view?
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Lets get something straight, Duane. If I am required to answer everyone on this list when they respond, then forget it. I won't do that. It shows up very soon the difference in who is rude and sarcastic and those who show the fruits of the Spirit in discussion. I answered your post this morning. If you have something else you want me to reply to say so and I will do my best. There are certain ones in this forum whom I do not read nor respond to. If that is breaking a forum rule just say so. I didn't read that in the *rules* for the forum.Now if YOU want to question me on my beliefs then do so.
Nelta
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
OK, would you please tell me how you understand the following verses.....Acts 14:23 ......"Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them IN EACH CHURCH."
Titus 1:5 ....."The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out was was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you."
I Timothy 5:17 ....."The elders who DIRECT THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH well are WORTHY OF DOUBLE HONOR, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." (I really need your help on this one.)
Hebrews 13:17 ....."Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. OBEY them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be no advantage to you."
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Yes, I will get back with you on this later, Duane, and thanks for asking.Nelta
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
Nelta: In an honest attempt at "begging your pardon", every time in various threads I have asked you specifically certain questions pertaining to what you had stated in a post. These questions were out of an HONEST inquiry & not of a rhetorical bent. I am attempting to find answers from you in order that I can understand your view point better. In this case,I am truly wondering if there is a correlation on your view that there is an "inherent" disrespect towards women when discussing spiritual matters. Now if you choose not to acknowledge this, well then I'll simply have to rely on personal assumptions. Of course that not being an optimum perspective of you but hey, the ball's in your court". SINCERELY; Kathy C. ><>
-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000
From http://www.webcom.com/hchp/leader.html :Leadership and Authority
by Hal Miller
Christians these days seem to have a problem with the issue of authority. Husbands are to have authority over their wives, or, depending on the teacher, any man over all women. Various teachers and pastors claim authority over their listeners or congregations. Disciplers or shepherds claim authority over their "sheep." I have heard dozens of teachings and read dozens of books about who has authority over whom, and I have been to dozens of conferences at which the question was asked, "Yes, but who has authority?" Seems to be a problem.
Authority is not power. Power, the brute ability to force another person against their will, is shared by both the cop and the robber. Yet only the cop has authority: the morally legitimate ability to compel another, backed by force if need be.
For the most part, we transfer this common notion of authority directly into discussions of authority in the church. And if a person has a dictatorial vision of how authority should operate, the same vision takes shape in the church. If a person has a managerial vision of authority, the church ends up being administered as if it were a corporation. The list could go on, but the point is clear: our tendency is to begin with the idea of authority that we feel comfortable with and transfer it into the church.
Yet none of these transfers are adequate, for authority in the church is different from every other authority we know, if what Jesus said makes any difference.
JESUS' DISTURBING TEACHING on authority for his followers contrasts them with every other society. The kings of the Gentiles, he said, lord it over their subjects, and twist this rule to appear good by calling themselves "benefactors". They exercise their power, and try (more or less successfully) to make people think that it is for their own good. But it should never be so in the church; rather, the one who leads is a servant and the one who rules is as the youngest (Luke 22:24-27).
Secular authority can and will exercise dominating force to ensure obedience. But leaders in the church are to be genuine servants. As such, their leadership is based solely in truth and trust. Let me expand on this a bit.
Leaders in the church are leaders precisely because they are servants, not in pious rhetoric but in deed. When someone truly lives a life of serving others, meeting their needs, and acting for their good, others begin to trust them. But if they are
doing things for selfish motives or because they love power, you distrust them, even though what they do may appear to be serving you. Leadership in the body is based precisely on the trust that comes from a life of true service. More on this later.
THE NEW TESTAMENT has things to say about leadership in the church and about spiritual authority. But oddly enough, given the magnitude of our present debates about leadership and spiritual authority, it has very little to say about a link between the two. That is, though the scriptures are concerned about both leadership and spiritual authority, they are strangely silent about leaders having spiritual authority or spiritual authority flowing from leaders. This silence, it turns out, is quite significant.
The New Testament uses two words which correspond to different aspects of what we mean by "authority." The first, dunamis, is usually (and rightly) translated as "power." This word is less important for us because though power may be associated with some kinds of authority, it also can exist without authority. A robber with a gun has power but not authority over others.
Even though it will not exactly answer our question, it will still be worthwhile to look at who has dunamis-power-in the New Testament. If you take a walk through a concordance, you will find that the following possess power: God, Jesus, the Spirit, and also angels, demons, principalities and powers. Human beings may be energized by them. The ministry of the gospel, the miracles of the apostles, and the lives of believers are all conditioned on the power of God. Yet, strikingly, the New Testament never recognizes human beings with "power" in their own right-power always comes to people from elsewhere.
Things become even more interesting when we turn to the other Greek word relevant to spiritual authority: exousia. This word is usually translated as "power" or "authority" and is the closest equivalent (in both denotation and connotation) to our English word "authority." The New Testament's list of those who have exousia is basically the same as those who have dunamis: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels and demons. But now, the list can also be extended to humans who are not merely energized by other's authority but have authority themselves.
Thus, kings have authority to rule (Rom. 13:1-2) and Jesus' disciples have authority over diseases and spirits (e.g., Matt. 10:1). Furthermore, believers are said to have authority over various aspects of their lives: their possessions (Acts 5:4), and eating, drinking, and being married (1Cor. 9:4-5).
What is interesting here is that the New Testament does not know anything about one believer having "authority" over another. We have plenty of authority over things, and even over spirits, but never over other Christians. Given the present debates about spiritual authority and leadership, that should be surprising. Kings have authority over their subjects; Paul had authority from the high priest to persecute the church (Acts 9:14, 26:10-12). But those are from outside the church. In the church, one believer is never spoken of as having exousia over another, regardless of their position or prestige.
With the exception, that is, of 2Cor. 10:8 and 13:10. In these texts Paul speaks of himself having "authority to build up, not tear down". But this exception is really more a proof of the rule than a problem when you take two things into account.
First, by his own admission, Paul is speaking "as a fool" in this section of his letter, whereas he studiously avoids claiming authority over others when he speaks "soberly."
Second, the context of the letter is one characterized by persuasion. The profound significance of this will become clear in due course. Paul spills a great deal of ink trying to persuade the Corinthians to listen to him. If he "had authority" over them, in the sense we usually think of it, why did he bother? Why not just give the orders and be done with it? Before we answer that, we should notice that Paul seems to lack authority-in our everyday sense of the word-even when he is "asserting" it. Now this should caution us against thinking of leaders as having authority merely on the basis of two sentences in 2 Corinthians.
NOW LOOK AT things from the other side. Rather than asking who has authority in the New Testament, we should ask its opposite, whom should one obey? The answer here is interesting, too. If you examine the usage of hupakouo, which is the Greek equivalent of "obey," you will find that we ought to obey God, the Gospel (Rom. 10:16), and the teaching of the apostles (Phi. 2:12, 2Th. 3:14). Children are to obey their parents and servants their masters (Eph 6.1, 5). Are believers to "obey" church leaders? If they are, the New Testament doesn't say so.
But not so fast-what about the text in Hebrews 13:17 which says "obey your leaders?" This text is interesting, because it gives us an insight into the positive side of the New Testament's understanding of leadership. Up to now I have emphasized the negative-that they do not have spiritual authority in the usual sense, and believers are not told to obey them. In spite of all this, the New Testament insists that there are recognizable leaders in a local body and that their existence and ministry are important to the health of the body.
What is this clue in Hebrews 13:17. If you examine the verb translated "obey" in this text, you will find it to be a form of the word peitho which means "persuade." In the form used here (the middle-passive) it means something like "let yourself be persuaded by" or "have confidence in." Now that's helpful. Believers are to let themselves be persuaded by their leaders.
Leaders are to be accorded a certain respect which lends their words more weight than they have in and of themselves. And the rest of the church should be biased in favor of listening to what they say. We are to allow ourselves to be persuaded by our
leaders-not to obey them mindlessly but to enter into discussion with them while being biased toward what they are saying. So now we understand that it was significant that Paul's statements in 2 Corinthians were in a context of persuasion. He was trying to persuade them to let themselves be persuaded by him.
The other verb used in Hebrews 13.17 reinforces this conclusion. When the text goes on to urge people to submit to leaders, it does not use the garden-variety New Testament word for "submit." The normal word is hupotassomai, which connotes something like placing oneself in an organization under another person.
The word here, however, is different. It is hupeiko, and it occurs only this once in the New Testament. Its connotes not a structure to which one submits, but a battle after which one yields. The image (to transfer it out of the military usage) is one of a serious discussion, an interchange after which one party gives way. This meshes nicely with the notion that we are to let ourselves be persuaded by leaders in the church, rather than meekly submit to them as we might to the existing powers and structures of life.
This all makes sense with the criteria for leadership in the pastoral epistles. There, character is the most important thing about leaders-they should be "respect-able". If they are supposed to be "persuaders", it makes sense that they ought preeminently to be respect-able, because that is the kind of person whose words we are inclined to take very seriously. The kind of respect-ability outlined there lends credibility to the words of leaders, and hence gives us confidence in opening ourselves to being persuaded by them.
WE NEED TO take our ideas of leadership in the church from the New Testament and not from the world. Thus, we should begin not with a worldly concept of authority, but from the biblical idea of "persuaders" and try to flesh that out in our particular situations.
It is true that the one by whom people are persuaded does receive a kind of respect and authority. Yet this is not the authority-to-be-obeyed kind of authority and the mindless submission which characterizes much spiritual authority today.
We have seen that spiritual authority is based on earned trust in leaders. Yet, in the body it is also based on truth. Leaders in the church ought to love the truth and hate being listened to when they don't speak it (and since they are not God, they won't always). Presumably if leaders are wrong in their judgment and yet are seriously concerned to serve, they wouldn't be happy with someone following them in their error.
Furthermore, truth is essential to the persuasiveness of leaders. But persuasion presupposes dialogue; and dialogue requires that active participation of the whole body. A leader who has the personal charisma to persuade people of something untrue, and does so, is demonic. And terrible, too, is a body of believers who follow mindlessly. To be persuaded of a lie is the worst form of bondage. Leaders in the church are bound to the truth and serve it above all in their service of others. And the body of believers is bound to the responsibility of dialogue toward truth.
The necessity of truth, by the way, is the reason why the New Testament emphasizes obeying the gospel or the apostles' teaching, rather than leaders. The trust engendered by service is dangerous if it is not coordinated with a common submission to the truth of the gospel. If truth and trust are not together the basis of leadership in the body, the trust which can be created by service is just another, more subtle form of power-the power we call manipulation.
Genuine Christian leadership, then, is based on truth and trust, not on worldly authority. Leaders in the church are called to respect-able lives of service. Such lives engender the trust of others. Yet leaders as well as the rest of the members of the body are in common subjection to the truth which is in Christ.
-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000
Danny,I will flesh this out later, but let me sketch a response now so I don't look like I am avoiding the questions.
What do I believe? I believe our viewpoint of the eldership, if I am allowed to use that word ;-) has long been tainted by the world -- more generally, our organization is tainted by the world. This is in fact historic: If we look at the Roman Catholic church, it's organization is striking like the Roman Empire that it started under, with a pope instead of an emporer, cardinals and bishops rather than senators and governors and the like, etc. Today, churches follow two basic models, one that looks like a democracy, another like IBM. Elderships often look like a board of directors, with a CEO/President/Pulpit Minister.
So, what model do we follow? Certainly no worldly one, still, in order for us to comprehend, often we need analogies. Perhaps poor analogies, or analogies taken too far, have gotten us into the patterns we follow now. Elders do indeed oversee the church, but does "oversee" mean "lead"? In the corporate board room trap we fall in, "oversee" and "lead" tend to mean the same. Let us look else where for models in order to try to comprehend. Is the coaching staff of a football team the leader, or does leadership come from players on the field? In our old high school clubs, was leadership found in the "overseer", the facilty advisor, or did it come from a subset of students? In both cases, discipline usually came from somewhere besides the leadership. Another example: In a well functioning Boy Scout troop, leadership is to come from among the boys themselves. And in these examples, how were the leaders chosen? In well-functioning organizations, the leaders were usually the hardest workers who had proven themselves -- hmm, somewhat like Matthew 20:20-28, huh?
Now, I need to emphasize that none of these analogies are perfect, but still, they help us shed light on scripture. In the case of the football example, leadership usually comes to those who prove themselves (though some teams might have some sort of vote). Still, their authority is limited, with most authority belonging to a qualified coaching staff. And leadership's authority is typically more by persuasion than by obedience (at least that is so for the last couple of generations). Returning to the football analogy, a leader of the team doesn't order the team to work harder in the weight room or on the practice field -- he typcially uses persuasion. No votes though! Now, if a player skips a workout or practice, it isn't the leader so much to worry about, but the coach.
Danny, I see your points in a round about way. Miller's article does present more of a "one way is not quite right" without filling in details on any better way. That leaves room for us to jump in with the limited ways we may see alternatives. If we happen to imagine a valid alternative, we like the argument, but if all we can see as an alternative is likely disasterous or even dangerous, we don't like the argument.
I will return to this more later. This is just a start.
-- Anonymous, January 18, 2000
Ok, to continue for a bit more here:So, Miller's article makes a point about spiritual authority and leadership being separate, biblically speaking. While scripture doesn't link the two, the question becomes "so, now what?". Does that mean SA and leadership must be separated? I don't believe the scripture implies that by its silence, though Miller seems to try to make that point.
Can an elder be a leader? Certainly, but no scripture states that there is a connection. The elder's biblical role is as a tender to the flock and an example. The elder is a teacher, a counselor, and even has a higher responsibility for correcting and rebuking than the rest of the community/church/congregation (whatever I am allowed to get away with there). The elder's job is more of a caring role than we have traditionally emphasized.
Ephesians 5:2-3 Be shepards of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers-- not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve, not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock
Oversee is the word chosen, not lead; be examples, not lords.
Where does leadership come? If it is not elder, what is it? evangelist, pastor, teacher, apostle? None of those.
I guess one problem we are about to run into now is "what is leadership?". We might be talking past each other unless we pause and define leadership. We have our worldly definitions, but let us pause and discuss what leadership is and isn't before proceeding. I have already made a case that leadership and authority are not the same. I could similarly say that leadership and adminstration are not the same, biblically, for adminstration is listed as a separate spiritual gift in some of Paul's lists.
However we agree it is defined, we must take in account that: 1) The head of the church is Jesus Christ 2) We are led by the Holy Spirit 3) Matthew 20:23-28
So before continuing to respond to Danny, I am going to pause to allow for the Biblical defining of leadership. If there is no constructive discussion, then I will assume no one is serious about continuing this thread. If the consensus is that I am wrong about "oversee" and "lead" be distinguishable concepts, biblically, then I will similarly shut up on this topic.
-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000
After having written a lenthy response to this "nonsense" about the Elders not having any Authority in the church, which I will post soon in response to Nelta's "last word to Deuane questions that he ask of her, In my reasearch I ran accross something written by J. W. Mcgarvey concerning this very subject. I consider it to be very well written and very much to the point and I could not improve upon it in the least. Inasmuch as the challenge to the authority of elders is found here in this thread as well I am pasting a portion of what he has written in this thread. I am aware that many have probably read this but from some of the comments in this thread it is clear that they have forgotten the great scriptural truths that he so capably explained to us. His writing is far superior and his scholarship has no equal by anyone writing or quoted in this forum thus far. I hope that those who are trying to learn and defend the truth about this matter will find it useful and effective. I challenge those of you who are rebelling against the Authority of the Overseers in the church to attemp to answer his arguments! I warn you that you will have to overcome your intense fear of reading more than a paragraph and your aversion to diligent and prolonged study! I now invite your attention to Brother McGarvey's work concerning this subject. It is the kind of work we should be doing in our writing. I pray that God will give us more men of faith who are scolarly and studious in the Word of God to fight against those who are lazy, rebellious, and ignorant!Your Brother in Christ,
E. Lee Saffold
"1. THERE IS SUCH AN OFFICE
After the above preliminary statements, we proceed to inquire, Is there an office in the church called the Eldership? The common English version of the New Testament does not contain the term eldership, but the term presbuterion in the original should be so translated. This uniformity requires; for the adjective presbuteros is uniformly translated elder, and the only rendering of presbuterion which harmonizes with this is eldership. This term should occur three times in the English Testament, twice having reference to the Jewish Sanhedrin, and once to the eldership in the church. Lu. 22:66; Acts 22:5, 1 Ti. 4:14. In this last passage our English version has presbytery, which is the Greek word anglicised, and is the exact equivalent of eldership. The body so styled, as the term itself indicates, was composed of the individual elders of the church referred to. But why should we argue a proposition which is not denied? It is indisputable that there was a body of men in the primitive churches called elders, and that so many of these as were found in one congregation constituted the eldership of that congregation. Individuals have been found who admit all this, and admit that there should be an eldership in the churches of all ages; who also ascribe to the eldership of modern churches the functions which belonged [9] to those in the primitive age; but who deny that the term eldership designates an office, or that elders are properly styled officers. They deny, indeed, the existence of office in the church, and would use the term work where the term office is commonly employed. We regard the distinction as one between words rather than ideas; for one of a body of men, who has any work specially assigned to him by the body, is an officer of that body, in the full import of the term. If, then, we shall, in the course of our investigation, ascertain that the elders of the church are charged with the performance of public duties assigned to them by their brethren, we shall thereby know that they are entitled to the name of officers. If, after this, any shall still prefer not to call them officers, while recognizing all the functions with which they are charged, we care not to have a war about words with such persons.
The term eldership means the office of an elder. This assertion will be proved in proving that an elder is an officer. The termination ship appended to the title of an officer, as secretaryship, auditorship, governorship, is indicative of office. But there are some, who deny that the term elder is ever used in the New Testament in an official sense. They hold that it always means older person, and that the eldership of a church consists of the older men of the church. We are now to test the correctness of this assumption, and to determine whether elder is ever used as an official title. It is well known that the term elder is an adjective in the comparative degree, and that its primary [10] meaning is older. When used as a substantive, it means an older person. The same is true of its Greek representative, presbuteros. It is also well known that many words have, in addition to their primary meaning, a technical or official signification. For example, the familiar adjective general is sometimes used as the title of a military officer. Major, greater, is the title of another; and corporal which means pertaining to the body is the title of still another. So the terms secretary, auditor, judge, mate, professor, and many others, have each an official as well as a primary signification. So it may be with the term elder. Whether it is so or not is to be determined, as the same question is determined in reference to these other words, by usage. We will now examine its New Testament usage sufficiently to settle this question. The following statement is made concerning Paul and Barnabas while engaged in their first missionary tour: "When they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts xiv: 23. The term here rendered ordained is cheirotoneo. It is compounded of cheir, the hand, and teino, to stretch forth, and its primary meaning is to stretch forth the hand. But from the fact that bodies of men frequently expressed a choice by an elevation of the hand, it acquired the meaning of to choose or to appoint by an extension of the hand; and finally it came to mean to appoint without reference to the method of appointing. Such is the testimony of scholars, and it is confirmed by the usage of the term. It occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, where it is said of an unnamed brother whom Paul sent to Corinth with Titus, that he "was chosen by the [11] churches." 2 Cor. viii: 19. How the churches choose him, whether by a show of hands or in some other way, is not determined by this term, nor by the context. Another instance of its use is found in Josephus. He represents Alexander Bala, the Syrian King who claimed jurisdiction over Judea, as writing to Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maccabaeus, these words: "We therefore do ordain thee this day high priest of the Jews." Here there was no stretching out the hand, but an appointment to office by a single individual, and through the instrumentality of a letter. Clearer proof of the definition we have given could not be demanded. Substituting this definition for the term ordained in the passage we are considering, we read that Paul and Barnabas "appointed" for them elders in every church. These elders, then, were made such by appointment; but Paul and Barnabas certainly did not make older men by appointment; neither would the passage make complete sense if it read, "They appointed for them men in every church." To complete the sense, it would be necessary to add the office or position to which the older men were appointed. The considerations show that the term is here used not its primary sense, but in a sense which designates position obtained by appointment. But an appointment puts men into office, and elder is therefore the official title conferred by this appointment. The process of appointment will be considered in another part of this treatise. The same conclusion follows from Paul's statement to Titus: "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city." Ti. 1:5. The term here [12] rendered ordain is kathisteeemi, the Greek word most commonly used in both the New Testament and the Greek version of the Old Testament, for appointing to office. It is used to express the appointment of Joseph as governor over Egypt, and of the other officers under him, Gen. xli: 33-34; Acts vii: 10; for the appointment of David as ruler over Israel, 2nd Sam. vi: 21; for the appointment of rulers over household servants, Matt. xxiv: 45; of a judge in civil jurisprudence, Ex. ii: 14; Acts vii: 27; and of Jewish high priests, Heb. v: 1; viii: 3. Now, the fact that this term so frequently expressed the idea of appointment to office does not necessarily prove that it has this meaning in any given passage. Whether it does or not, is to be determined by the context, and we should always try its primary meaning first. Its primary meaning is to set or place locally. It is so used twice in the New Testament, Acts xvii: 5; Jas. iii: 6. But Paul could not mean that Titus was to set elders or place elders in every church. There would be no good sense in such a rendering, and therefore, the secondary sense of the term must be adopted. With the universal consent of scholars and critics, we render it appoint. Titus, then was to appoint elders in every city, and the term elders designates the office to which they were appointed. We shall now regard it as an established fact that the term elder is sometimes used in the New Testament as an official title. In this fact we find further proof of our first proposition, that there is such an office in the church as the eldership. We shall find, as we proceed, still further confirmation of both these conclusions. In the meantime, we must prescribe a rule by which to distinguish between those [13] instances in which the term elder is used in its primary sense and those in which it has its official sense. The law of the context, the first great law for ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous terms, must be our guide. When the context indicates that a comparison as to age is intended by the writer, we must give the term its primary sense of elder; but when the context shows that the persons spoken of sustain an official relation to the church, it must be understood in its official sense. In nearly all instances the distinction is drawn; in a few, the meaning is somewhat uncertain. We shall see and know more of these instances as we proceed further with the discussion. The second title of this office which we shall consider is expressed by the Greek word episcopee, rendered in the English version once bishoprick and once office of a bishop. It is derived from the verb episcopeo, whose primary meaning is to look upon; but in usage it conveys the idea of looking upon with a view to inspection or control. The noun episcopee, therefore, means inspection or oversight; and from the fact that visiting is often done for the purpose of inspection, it is sometimes rendered visitation. The visitations of God were sometimes for good and sometimes for evil to the party visited, and this term is used in both cases. See Lu. xix: 44; Is. x: 3, Septuagint. We have also, from the same root, the masculine noun episcopos which means the man who performs the act designated by episcopeo, and is best represented in English by overseer. The term bishop, by which it is most usually rendered in the common version, is objectionable on two accounts: first, it does not correspond in meaning to the original; [14] second, it conveys a meaning to the mass of readers not attached to the original word. Overseer corresponds to the original, in etymology, and also in current meaning, and it is the only English word which does so. It should, therefore, be adopted into the English version, and into the speech of those who would call bible things by bible names. Now, it is not claimed for either of these substantives that in its primary sense it refers to an office in the church; for primarily, neither has any allusion to the church. But it is claimed that like the term elder, they acquired an appropriated sense, one of them becoming the title of a church officer, and the other the name of his office. The proof of this we will now present; and we beg the reader to remember, lest he grow weary of these apparently useless inquiries, that we are now discoursing upon this subject as though nothing were known of it, and we must therefore take nothing as granted. We happen also to know that there is practical need for this part of our inquiry
3. THE TITLES EXPLAINED 1. The term episcopos, overseer, is used as the equivalent of elder in its official sense. This is clear from the use of the two terms in the 20th chapter of Acts. Luke says, that from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church. Here, according to a rule already established, the elders of the church must mean, not the older men, but those called elders officially. But Paul says to these elders, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holly Spirit has made you overseers." The elders, then, and the overseers in the church at Ephesus were the same persons, and overseers is but another title by which they were known. Moreover, [15] they had been made overseers by the Holy Spirit, which implies that by some process dictated by the Holy Spirit, they had been formally placed in that position. This corresponds to the appointment by which we have seen that persons entered the eldership, and is sufficient to establish the presumption that they were made overseers by the same appointment which made them elders. We have further proof of this use of the term in the epistle to Titus. Paul says, "I left thee in Crete than thou shouldst ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless," &c.; and then adds, "For an overseer must be blameless." Now, the fact that an overseer should be blameless, could be no reason why a blameless person must be ordained elder, unless an elder is the same as an overseer. It is the same as if I should say to a literary society of students, Appoint a President of your society, if any be found acquainted with parliamentary rules; for the chairman of such a society should be acquainted with these rules. Now, in this example, if a person knew nothing more of the word chairman than its etymology would indicate, the man of the chair, he could not fail to see that I used the term as another title for the President of the society. It is equally clear in the case before us, that Paul uses the term overseer as another title for him who is called elder. 2. The term episcopee is used to designate the position occupied by the episcopos or overseers. This is seen in 1 Ti. iii: 1-2. Paul says, "If a man desires episcopee he desires a good work. An episcopos, then, must be blameless," &c. Here it is clear that he who desires episcopee, desires to be episcopos. If episcopos is overseer, then episcopee must be the position of an overseer; and what shall we call this position in [16] English? Mr. Green translates it "a post of oversight," not a bad expression of the meaning. He renders it in the same way in Acts 1:20. "His post of oversight let another take." I prefer the single word overseership, because it is shorter, and corresponds more closely to the correlative term overseer. Whatever be the expression, however, the idea remains the same, and the term designates the office held by an overseer. It is here objected by some, that we should not call the overseership an office, because Paul in this passage expressly calls it a work: "If any man desire the overseership, he desires a good work." Undoubtedly, it is a work; and so is every office in either church or State, unless it be a mere sinecure. The fact that it is a work makes it none the less an office. If the President of the United States were to say, "He who desires a foreign mission desires a heavy work," it would not be inferred from the term work that a foreign mission is not an office. The conclusion thus naturally and necessarily springing from these passages, of Scripture will be confirmed as we proceed to develop the functions of the office. We will find that the elders or overseers of the church are charged with such duties, and entrusted with such authority as makes them officers of the church in the fullest sense of the term. Before leaving this branch of the subject, we must notice another question which has caused confusion in some minds. It has been assumed that the elders constitute a class out of which the overseers are chosen; the elders being the older men of the church, and the overseers the officers. We have already answered this question by showing that the term elders is used in an official sense to designate. [17] the same persons as the overseers. The elders of the church at Ephesus were all embraced in the term overseers; for, as we have seen, the elders, not merely a part of them, had been made overseers. The third and last official title which we shall notice is pastor or shepherd. This term, in the substantive form, is used but once in the New Testament with reference to church officials. It is in the well known passage, Eph. iv: 11, where pastors are enumerated among the gifts bestowed upon the Church by Christ. The evidence that this term designates the overseers or elders, is conclusive, and may be briefly stated. The Greek term for shepherd is poimeen, and the verb poimaino means to do the work of a shepherd. Now, he to whom this verb applies is a shepherd, just as he who sows is a sower, he who reaps is a reaper, he who speaks is a speaker, he who sings is a singer, &c., &c. But Paul exhorts the overseers in Ephesus "to be shepherds to the church." Acts xx: 28; and Peter exhorts the elders of the churches to which he writes, "Be shepherds to the flock of God which is among you," and promise that when the "chief shepherd" shall appear, they shall receive a crown of glory. They then, were shepherds and Christ, the chief shepherd. The, term pastor, the Latin for shepherd, has come into common use from the influence of the Latin version of the Scriptures. There is one all-sufficient reason for preferring our own Anglo-Saxon term shepherd. It is found in the fact that pastor has become perverted by sectarian usage, and designates in popular phraseology, an entirely different office from the one to whom it is applied in the Scriptures. It has become a synonym for a settled preacher, and is [18] often used for the purpose of distinguishing the preacher from those who are Scripturally called the pastors of the church. It will perhaps be impossible to recover the term from this abuse, and therefore, it is better to throw it away. Another good reason for preferring shepherd is, that its primary meaning is familiar to the most illiterate reader, and the metaphor by which the overseer is thus styled is perfectly intelligible to every one; whereas, the term pastor is known to the masses only in its appropriated sense.
4. DUTIES OF THE OFFICE The title of an office is often taken from some characteristic duty belonging to it. Thus the title President is taken from the act of presiding; Secretary from the act of writing; Auditor (hearer) from the act of hearing financial reports. In such cases, the information derived from the title is generally meagre. In some instances, however, offices newly created adopt the titles of previously existing offices which are similar to them; and in such instances the titles carry with them all of their previous significance, except so far as this is modified by the nature of the new office. Thus the term President, which first meant one who presides over an assembly and enforces order in its proceedings, when transferred to the chief officer of a college, and to the chief magistrate of the United States, carried with it the chief part of its previously acquired meaning. Now, it so happens that all the titles by which the Elder of a church is known were adopted from previously existing offices, and brought with them into their new application much of their former [19] significance. That significance will enable us, therefore, to obtain a general idea of the duties of the office, and to better appreciate the more specific statements of the Apostles which will afterwards be considered. The title Elder, which is most frequently used by the Apostles, and which is still the most popular of these titles, obtained an official signification among the Jews long before its adoption into the Christian Church. Originally it designated the older men, or heads of families in Israel, who exercised a patriarchal government over their posterity: See Ex. iv: 29; xix: 7. In the days of Christ it had become the title of the rulers of the Jewish synagogues, and of one of the classes composing the Sanhedrim. Reliable information in reference to the functions of the office among the Jews is quite meagre; but it is sufficient to justify the assertion that those who enjoyed the title exercised authority in some capacity. When it was adopted, therefore, into the Christian Church, it brought with it at least this general idea, that those to whom it was applied were rulers in the church. The exact nature and limits of their authority it could not of course designate. The term episcopos brought with it a more clearly defined significance, and furnishes more definite information in reference to the duties of the office. Among the Athenians it was the title of "magistrates sent out to tributary cities, to organize and govern them." (See Robinson's N. T. Lexicon, and references there given.) Among the Jews it had very much that variety of application which the term overseer now has in English. It is used in the Septuagint for the officers appointed by Josiah to [20] oversee. the workmen engaged in repairing the temple, 2 Ch. xxxiv: 12, 17; for the overseers of workmen employed in rebuilding Jerusalem after the captivity; Ne. xi: 5, 14; for the overseers of the Levites on duty in Jerusalem; Ne. xi: 22; for the overseers of the singers in the temple worship; Ne. xii: 42; and for subordinate civil rulers; Jos. Ant. 10. 4. 2. In all these instances it designates persons who have oversight of the persons for the purpose of directing their labors and securing a faithful performance of the tasks assigned them. Such a word when applied to a class of officers in the Christian Church, necessarily carried with it the significance already attached to it. It indicated, both to Jew and Greek, that the persons so styled were appointed to superintend the affairs of the church, to direct the activities of the members, to see that everything was done that should be done, and that it was done by the right person, at the right time, and in the right way. Anything less than this would be insufficient to justify the title overseer as it was currently employed in that age. The details of the process by which all this was accomplished will appear as we advance. The title Shepherd is still more significant than either of the other two. The Jewish shepherd was at once the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of his flock. Often, like the shepherds to whom the angel announced the glad tidings of great joy, he slept upon the ground beside his sheep at night. Sometimes, when prowling wolves came near to rend and scatter the flock, his courage was put to the test: (Jno. x: 12); and even the lion and the bear in early ages rose up against the brave [21] defender of the sheep. 1 Sam. xvii: 34-36. He did not drive them to water and to pasturage; but he called his own sheep by name, so familiar was he with every one of them, and he led them out, and went before them, and the sheep followed him, for they knew his voice. Jno. x: 3, 4. A relation so authoritative and at the same time so tender as this could not fail to find a place in the poetry of Hebrew prophets, and the parables of the Son of God. David's poetic eye detects the likeness between the shepherd's care of his flock and the care of God for Israel, and most beautifully does he give expression to it in lines familiar to every household, and admired in every land: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want, He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his names' sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Ps. xxiii. The same beautiful image is employed by Isaiah, when with prophetic eye he sees the great Persian king gathering together the scattered sheep of Israel in distant Babylon, and sending them back from their long captivity. He exclaims in the name of the Lord, "Cyrus is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasures; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid." xlv 28. But he sings a still sweeter note in [22] the same strain, when he foresees the life and labors of the Son of God, and exclaims, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." xl: 11. The Saviour himself re-echoes the sentiment, and says, "I am the good shepherd," "I know my sheep, and am know by mine." "I lay down my life for the sheep." Jno. x: 14, 15. Even the less poetic Paul is touched by the beautiful metaphor, and makes a prayer to "the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of sheep," (Heb. xiii: 20); while Peter says to his brethren, "Ye were as sheep going astray; but now are returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet. ii: 25. A word thus highly exalted by the pens of prophets, and even by the lips of Jesus, almost appears too sacred to represent the relation and responsibilities of an uninspired laborer in the cause of God. But even before the church came into existence it had been consecrated to this usage, and was a favorite term with the later prophets by which to designate the religious leaders of Israel. Jeremiah pronounces a woe upon the shepherds of his day who destroyed and scattered Israel, and predicts the time when God would bring the sheep again to their folds, and set up shepherds over them who would be real shepherds to them. Jer. xxiii: 1-4. The connection shows that the prediction has reference to the Christian age. Ezekiel speaks in the same strain, and in almost the identical thoughts of Jeremiah, except that in contrast with the unfaithful shepherds of his age, he says: "I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall [23] feed them, he shall be their shepherd." Ez. xxiv: 1-23. With such a history, the word shepherd came into the terminology of the church with a most clearly defined secondary meaning. When applied as a title in the church it necessarily represented its subject as the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of the members of the church. When Paul and Peter, therefore, exhorted the elders to be shepherds to the flock of God, all these important and tender relations were indicated by the word. We have already taken notice of that general conception of the duties assigned the eldership, which is derived from the title applied to the office. In the confirmation of the conclusions drawn from this and overseer are enjoined upon the elder by express command. In two distinct passages already quoted, (Acts xx: 28; 1 Pet. v: 2) the elders are exhorted to be shepherds to the church. This exhortation, or rather this apostolic command, has fain d to make its due impression on the English reader, because of the very inadequate translation of poimaino in the common version. It occurs eleven times, and is seven times rendered feed, and four times rule. When connected with church work it is uniformly rendered feed. No doubt the translators intended by this rendering to make their version intelligible to their uneducated readers in England and Scotland, where very little is known of a shepherd's work except feeding the sheep through the long winters. But this attempt at adaptation has led to serious misapprehension; for even to this day, and in America as well as in Great Britain, the term feed in these passages has been [24] understood by the masses as a metaphor for public teaching, and the whole work here enjoined is supposed to be accomplished when a suitable address is delivered to the saints on the Lord's day. Many an elder has imagined that the chief part of his work is accomplished when he has called together the flock once a week, or it may be once a month, and give them their regular supply of food, even when the food is given is nothing better than empty husks. And many an evangelist, miscalling himself a pastor, has labored under the same mistake. Let it be noted, then, and never be forgotten, that the term employed in these passages expressed the entire work of a shepherd, of which feeding was very seldom even a part in the country where this use of the term originated. The shepherds of Judea, and those of Asia Minor, pastured their sheep throughout the entire year. Their duty was to guide them from place to place to protect them from wild beast, and to keep them from straying; but not to feed them. The Apostle Paul leaves us in no doubt as to his own use of the term in question; for after the general command, "Be shepherds to the church," he proceeds to distribute the idea by adding these words: "For I know this, that after my departure shall ravenous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch; and remember that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts xx: 28-31. Here, continuing the metaphor of the flock, he forewarns the shepherds against ravenous wolves, who can be no other than teachers of error who would come into Ephesus from abroad, such, for example, as those [25] who had already infested the Galatian churches; (Gal. i: 6-7; v: 12;) and he commands them to watch. He also predicts that men of their own number, like unruly rams of the flock, would rise up, speaking perverse things, and seeking to lead away disciples after them. The shepherds were to watch against these also, and as they saw symptoms of such movements, within, they were to "warn every one, night and day," as Paul had done. Here, then, are two specifications under the generic idea of acting the shepherd, and they are strictly analogous to the work of the literal shepherd. It is made the duty of the eldership, first, to protect the congregation against false teachers from abroad; second, to guard carefully against the influence of schismatics within the congregation; third, to keep watch both within and without, like a shepherd night and day watching his flock, so as to be ready to act on the first appearance of danger from either direction. The first of these duties is again emphasized in the epistle to Titus, where Paul requires that elders shall be able, by sound teaching, both to exhort and convict the gainsayers, and adds: "For there are many vain and unruly talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped." Ti. i: 9-11. The duty of watchfulness is also mentioned again, and in a manner which shows most impressively its supreme importance. Paul says, "Obey them who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." Heb. xiii: 17. From these words it appears that the object of the watching enjoined, is not merely to keep out false [26] teaching and to suppress incipient schism, but to do these in order to save souls from being lost. That priceless treasure for which Jesus laid down his life is at stake, and the elders of each church, like the shepherds of each flock, must give account to the owner of the flock for every soul that is lost. The task of Jacob, concerning which he said to Laban, "That which was torn of beast I brought not to thee, I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night," is a true symbol of the task assigned the shepherds of the Church of God. Well might they all exclaim, "Who is sufficient for these things?" The duty of "taking oversight" is enjoined upon the elders in express terms, and the expression is used as the equivalent of acting the shepherd. Peter says, "Be shepherds to the flock, taking the oversight thereof." 1 Pet. v: 2. The essential thought in overseership, that of ruling, is frequently enjoined. Paul says to Timothy, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor." 1 Ti. v: 17. The Greek word here rendered rule is proisteemi, the etymological meaning of which is to stand or place one object before another. But the fact that rulers stand before their subjects, with all the eyes of the latter looking to them for direction, led to the established usage of this term in the sense of ruling. It is so defined in the lexicons, and so used in both classic and Hellenistic Greek. It expresses the rule of a father over his family, 1 Ti. iii: 4-5, 12; of a deputy over a district, 1 Mac. v: 15; of a King over his subjects, Jos. Ant. viii: 1, 2, 3, and of the elders over the church, 1 Ti. v: 17; 1 Thess. v: 12; Ro. xii: 5-8. By use of still another Greek word, Paul [27] expresses in the epistle to the Hebrews the same general idea of ruling. He says: (13: 7), "Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God," again, (verse 17), "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account," &c.; and again, (verse 24), "Salute them who have the rule over you." The term here employed heegeomai, means primarily, to lead. When applied to the mind it means to think or suppose, because in this mental act the mind is lead to a conclusion. See Acts xxvi: 2; Phil. ii: 3-6; et al. But the present participle of this verb came to be used in the sense of ruler, because a ruler is one who leads, sometimes, indeed, it means a leader in the sense of a chief man, as when Silas and Judas are called "chief men among the brethren." Acts xv: 22. When the idea of ruling is expressed by it, the fact is indicated in the context: e. g., Pharaoh made Joseph "ruler (heegoumenon) over Egypt," (Acts vii: 10), where the expression "over Egypt" indicates the relation of authority. So, in the second of the three examples under discussion, the terms obey and submit yourselves show that the relation of authority is expressed, and that the rendering of the participle should be rulers, or "them who have ruled." Another duty of the eldership, distinct from the preceding, is that of teaching. By a mistake already mentioned, this duty has been supposed by many to be the chief work indicated by the term pastor or shepherd; but in the only place where the latter term occurs in the common version in its appropriated sense pastors are distinguished from teachers. "He gave some, apostles and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers." The [28] distinction here evidently made between pastors and teachers, does not imply that they are always different persons; for as one person might be both a prophet and an evangelist, so, for the same reason, he might be both a pastor and a teacher. But the distinction made shows that one might be a teacher and not a pastor. From other passages, however, we know that all pastors or shepherds, in addition to what is implied in this title, are also teachers. In the statement of their qualifications, Paul says that they must be "apt to teach," 1 Ti. iii: 2; and that they should be "able, by sound teaching, both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers;" Ti. i: 9. That they should be able to teach, necessarily implies the duty of teaching.
5. HOW TO BE EXAMPLES Having pointed out, and stated in general terms, the duties of the office, we now inquire as to the manner in which these duties are performed. We will be led by this inquiry to consider more in detail the duties themselves, seeing that an essential part of every duty is the prescribed method of performing it. Having collected together, and placed in a single group before me, all the Scripture specifications on this subject, I feel constrained to recognize as first of them all, the requirement that elders shall be examples to those over whom they are called to preside. It is not only required of them that they be examples, but being examples is as an essential element in the manner of executing their official duties. Peter exhorts Elders in these words: "Be shepherds to the flock of God which is among you, taking the [29] oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." "Being examples to the flock" is one of the specifications of the manner of taking the oversight. The Apostle Paul indicates the same though, when, in the beginning of his admonitions to the Ephesian Elders, the charge, "Take heed to yourselves" is made to precede the charge, "Take heed to all the flock." Acts xx: 28. He also holds the Elders up to the brethren as an example to be imitated, when he says, "Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their behavior." Heb. xiii: 7. Here faith is considered as to its practical working in the behavior, and the Greek word rendered follow, means, more strictly, imitate. The disciples are required to imitate in behavior the faith of those who rule over them; and thus, indirectly, but most forcibly, these rulers are admonished that their example must be worthy of imitation. It is assumed, indeed, as a fact, the evidence of which should never be in doubt, that an example is actually presented in the lives of the Elders. Jesus teaches the same idea under the figure of a shepherd and his flock. He says of the shepherd, "When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him." (John x: 4.) There is no driving, but constant leading. A Judean shepherd going before his flock and calling them with a voice which they know and always follow, is an inimitably beautiful picture of the chief Shepherd himself, and of all the under shepherds, leading their flocks toward the gates of heaven. That voice never [30] directed to a path which the shepherd himself did not tread; and even if it did the sheep would take no heed to it but ever followed the footsteps of the shepherd. How fearfully important that those footsteps should never vary from the strait and narrow way! These admonitions are expressed in general terms, and cover all the duties of a christian life. To be examples to the flock, to go before and call the flock to follow after, is a present a model not of one but of every virtue. To be worthy of imitation in faith and behavior, is to be free from habits that would be avoided. Shall we be content with the statement of these generalities, or shall we enter into details? Perhaps the Elder who reads this will think that the demands made upon him are sufficiently exacting even in these general terms; but at the risk of exciting his fears, and the further risk of some repetition hereafter, we venture to specify some of the items of behavior which constitute this example. We revert again to Paul's conversation with the Ephesian Elders, and find him committing to them the following charge: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, you yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how be said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts xx: 33-35. Thus the Elders are required, in addition to their labors for the church, to imitate Paul's example, and, by diligent attention to business, help to support the weak. and [31] to exemplify the blessedness of giving. The importance of this is clearly seen in the fact, that Elders must teach the brethren to practice liberality, and must see to the enforcement of the law of God upon the covetous; neither of which is practicable unless they themselves set an example of liberality. For this reason also, in the directions to both Timothy and Titus, Paul prescribes that Elders shall not be "greedy of filthy lucre;" and Peter directs that they shall take the oversight "not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind." They are to keep themselves free from the appearance of sordid motives in their official action, as well as in their secular business. This forbid doing any official duty with a view to promoting business enterprises and equally forbids neglect of duty when the performance of it would involve pecuniary loss. An Elder whose secular business depends upon popular favor is tempted in both these directions. He must keep himself pure and above suspicion. In the second place, the Elder is required to maintain a blameless reputation; 1 Tim. iii: 2; Ti. i: 7. This includes a great deal. He must not be "selfwilled;" for this excites self-will in those with whom he must deal, and causes them to speak evil of him. He must not be "soon angry," for the same reason. And for the additional reason that the moment he becomes angry he loses all his moral power over those whom he is seeking to influence. He must not be "given to wine," for it is disreputable, and will render him powerless in his efforts to control the intemperate. If the Elder drinks a little, his words will be like the idle winds to those who drink much. He must be "a lover of good men," for he will be judged by the company he keeps. He must [32] be "sober", lest his levity should deprive him of weight; "just," lest he be suspected of dishonesty and partiality; "holy," lest his exhortations to holiness appear to be the cant of a hypocrite. All these specifications, and more, are made by the apostles, and the Elder must not content himself a moment without the possession of them all. If any Elder who reads this, after searching carefully into his own life, finds that he is not, in some good degree, setting the example herein described, let him at once either resign his position or amend his ways. It is a fearful thing to be placed in a position the very nature of which proclaims one an example to the church of God, if the example actually exhibited is not a good one. O that the great Shepherd and Overseer of all may guide the under shepherds, and help them to go before their flocks in the unerring pathway of truth and holiness.
6. HOW TO BE SHEPHERDS The titles applied to the Eldership are well chosen, and constitute an exhaustive classification of its duties. When the Elders learn how to be shepherds, how to be overseers, and how to be teachers, they have learned how to discharge all the functions of their office. We propose now to inquire how they may perform those duties which belong to them as shepherds. All the duties of a literal shepherd, as understood by the people who gave the word its religious significance, are embraced in these three: 1. To keep the sheep from straying. 2. To lead them to water and pasturage by day, and back to the fold, when need be, at night. 3. To protect them against [33] all danger by night and by day. The pastoral, or shepherd duties of the Eldership, as the nature of the title shepherd and the apostolic precepts both require, correspond strictly to these three. First then, in order to be a good shepherd, the Elder must exercise the utmost care to prevent individual sheep from straying away from the flock; and when one, as it sometimes will, eludes all vigilance and strays away, he is to be prompt and energetic in going out to search for it and bring it back. Jesus, with special reference to his own work in hunting up the lost sheep of the house of Israel, beautifully illustrates this duty by a parable. He says to those who condemned him for receiving sinners, "What man of you, having a hundred sheep. If he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine, and go after that which is lost till he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders rejoicing; and when he cometh home he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance." What can be the meaning of this parable, unless it be that when a disciple strays away from the path of duty, the very first obligation of the shepherd, rising above all the obligations at that moment due to the faithful brethren is to go and hunt up, and try to win back, the wanderer? He is to leave the ninety and nine, even in the wilderness, and go. If a congregation were assembled on the Lord's day for worship, and the Elders, upon looking over their faces, were to miss one, and ascertain that he was [34] absent in some gay company, or at home in an ill humor, or about to start out for the day on a pleasure excursion, would they be pressing the teaching of this parable too far, should one of them immediately leave the house of God, and go to bring in that person? How much joy it would create among the saints on earth, and among the angels in heaven, if such a thing were done successfully and often! Should any one, however, be unwilling to press the analogy to this extent, he must still admit that the nearest possible approach to this degree of vigilance can alone meet fully the demands of the shepherd's duty. Such reflections make it very painful to look abroad at the well known condition of many congregations--the sheep scattered far and wide through the wilderness, and the shepherds eating and drinking, or asleep on the ground. Oh, that we had some Jeremiah to lift up his voice against the unfaithful shepherds of the flock of God! If such vigilance as we have named is needed in hunting up those who wander away, how much more is needed to prevent such wandering? The good Shepherd will endeavor to have as little of the former work to do as possible, by doing more of the latter. When the disposition of wander is discovered, he will be prompt to counteract it. All this requires constant watchfulness and inquiry on the part of each Elder, and very frequent consultations of the board of Elders. We will speak of the latter more fully at another time. Secondly. We have already spoken sufficiently for the purposes of this treatise, on the second class of the shepherd's duties. To lead the flock whither [35] they should go, by going before, and calling them to follow, is simply to be an example to the flock, as we have stated and endeavored to enforce in a former section. Thirdly. The duty of protecting the church against foes both from within and from without, is not only implied in the title of shepherd, but specifically enjoined by Paul in a passage already cited more than once. He warns the Ephesian Elders that ravenous wolves would come in among them, not sparing the flock; and that schismatics would spring up within, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them; and says to them, "Therefore watch." They must watch, then, against these two dangers, and this makes the Elders the proper guardians of the church against false teachers and schismatics. In order to discharge faithfully this duty, they must scrupulously avoid any action on their own part which would unnecessarily excite faction in the church, and when they find any man showing the slightest disposition to be a factionist, they must bring to bear upon him promptly every good influence which can be devised to prevent the anticipated evil. They must also know every man whom they invite or allow to address the brethren at their stated meetings. They must deny this privilege to every stranger who comes among them unrecommended, and every man whom they know to be a promoter of dissension and a teacher of false doctrine. A very small wolf in sheep's clothing can scatter a large flock of sheep, and a very feeble man in the shape of a Soul-sleeper or Universalist can sometimes disaffect and ruin many souls; and a man who teaches [36] nothing false, but aims at strife and division can often do more harm than a false teacher. With a firmness, then, that knows no yielding, but with a caution and prudence which guards against unjust judgment, must the shepherd watch the door which opens into their folds.
-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000
:-) It's been my experience that 90% of my disagreements with well-educated, biblically dedicated people end up coming down to semantics. I don't know if this one would if it continued, but from Lee's posting, it is beginning to look like that to me (maybe not to others, but I don't know anyone else in this thread yet who understands where I am coming from). It is my belief that if we were to take the time to see that we came to a common agreement on the (English) definitions of:
rule/ruler
lead/leader/leadership
authority
adminstrate/manage
head
etc. then the output of our positions, if not our positions themselves, would be hard to distinguish. Since the next phase of this line of discussion, in my opinion, is to hash out the vocabulary, I hesitate to continue -- II Timothy 2:14 is screaming in my mind: "Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." For those who worry about me, let me affirm what I can as far as I can without going to deep into semantics: 1) I believe Jesus is the head of the church, and God the Father has given Him all authority. Jesus is very much in charge, and uses the Holy Spirit to guide the church. 2) Elders do lead, in the sense of "leading by example" and through teaching 3) Elders do rule, in the sense of "correcting, rebuking, and encouragement". 4) Adminstration/management is a gift from God, and may be bestowed to anyone in a church. Elders are not to be charged with adminstration. (This is not to say the elders might not set policy, for instance, they may set up rules for contracts that give members an advantage, but contract negotiations are handled by those gifted in that area). 5) The Holy Spirit may grant "insights about direction" to anyone in the church, not just elders.
-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000
Mark according to your post, you would have us to believe that congregational voting is alright. Further your post would lead us or just me to believe that the Eldership only should attend to just the spiritual attention of the congregation and not the buisness aspect. But, in fact the Eldership does have the spiritual and buisness leadership responsibilities. Nowhere does the congregation have a right to vote in the NT, in fact there is not one reference to voting persay in the NT. One thing I see is that churches tend to be wrong and upside down in their thinking regarding church polity. We tend to let the congregation or a board of deacons have more say so than the God ordained Elders- that is wrong in my humble opinion.
-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000
Interesting that people keep interpreting what I say to mean I support congregational voting. I probably should think a day or so on that one in order to prepare a reply that can be clearly understood without a long semantic debate.On the business end comments, again, this one may be semantics. If it isn't, then I see your position as being that elders then should be full time jobs and supermen to boot. If by business leadership, you mean setting policies, then I have no problem with that, for that goes into the bucket of "oversee". Certainly, all decisions that impact the spiritual should have elder input in significant way. But should elders be burdened with all the details of business? No, I don't believe so -- nothing in scripture suggests that they are to be micromanagers. Day to day matters should not be in the hands of elders, it should be in the hands of those gifted in those areas. I personally have yet to see an elder who meets all the biblical qualifications for an elder and would be the best choice to negiotiate a contract for renting space or buying land. Sure, I have known men who wear the title of elder who can do it, but they were lousy teachers (or simply never taught!) or otherwise should have been disqualified. (Now, someone out there probably does know someone -- I am not saying it is impossible for such a person to exist).
Anyway, again, I bet if we took the time to define "business leadership" we might not disagree. However, it is almost impossible to say, since the bible is silent on much that we consider business. No mention of the church owning property, no talk of hiring and firing, no talk of rentals, no mention of buying office supplies or choosing a carpet color, no talk of which long distance company to use, etc.
Some of these responses, well, do tell me, does anyone but the elders do anything? What don't the elders do?
-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000
Danny,You're welcome. This thread has really sharpened me on this subject, and it has, believe it or not, refined my thinking. As a college friend of mine use to say "that's my opinion, but I reserve the right to change it as my understanding of the facts change" [sometimes "... as a find out more facts"].
I thought there would be those who disagree with the last two, simply because of the disagreement on the modern role of the Spirit (but that has been/probably will be again another thread!). And actually, I probably now should withdraw or reword number 4, because I can't now find the biblical list that included that one (I was thinking it was the Romans 12, but that is translated "leadership" or "governship" in the translations I have access to at the moment -- my memory may simply be failing me). Still, I do believe that God shapes us to be different parts of the body (I Cor. 12), and through gifts, through experience, through natural ability, through education, some are shaped for adminstration, just like God prepares some men to be shepards.
-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000
A few days ago, I said that after thinking carefully about how to express myself, that I would return to the issue of being interpretted as supporting congregational voting.I don't support congregational voting, but I do support what might be called consensus building, and it is these sentiments that might have led me to make statements some have interpretted as supporting congregational voting. For most, what I am talking about isn't a new concept, for when churches pick new elders, often the current elders or a team appointed by the current elders take nominations, do some sort of "background check" and then some sort of period for objection occurs (some congregations might vote at this point, or at least do some sort to "blackball" procedure).
My experience is that most congregations do some sort of consensus building for at least some significant decisions. For example, when a new minister is hired, no vote of the congregation might occur (nor should, especially one with the vote announced)), but elders will quietly poll select members for their opinion. A new building plan might be presented to allow input before final approval by the elders. Similarly for any annual budgets.
That's not to say elders should rule by "polls". Rather, leadership should strive to build consensus, through persuasion, teaching, etc. If elders fail to build consensus, some reconsideration should be done before proceeding, but failure to build consensus should not be a "veto" of an eldership decision. And for some matters, consensus simply doesn't matter, such as rebuking and correcting sin, or isn't needed, such as what office supply company to use.
I hope that clarifies matters to what my opinion/interpretation is.
-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000
Brother Rogers:I appreciate your response. Though you ignored much of what I have said other than my reference to the fact that you do not respect brother McGarvey as demonstrated by your following words.
Lee,
In the past 2000 years, an incredible amount of scholarship has occurred. Martin Luther, a man who probably had less credentials than others of more authority and in positions of more authority, posted his objections and questions to their work. He did not submit to their centuries of scholarship. He disagreed based upon his reading of the word of God. I do not apologize for reading McGarvey's explanation of this topic and coming away amazed at what I perceive to be a reach for "more."
Now I want to be clear that I have no desire to defend Brother McGarvey and absolutely no objection to the questioning of anyone's teaching regardless of how scholarly they may be. For if their teaching does not harmonize with the word of God we must reject it even if we hold them in high regard. But, I do disagree with quoting them completely out of context and making it appear that they have made errors that they did not make. This should not be done to any person whether he is a "scholar" or a simply Christian, as myself, with few scholastic achievements. We shall examine what you have said to see if you have done such to Brother McGarvey. I do not, nor have I ever asked or expected you to apologize for quetioning Brother McGarvey. In fact, this is one thing that has caused me to fell much higher respect for you. For you are willing to compare anyone's teaching with the word of God. Now you are an excellent example for all of us to follow in this regard. I truly admire that characteristic which you demonstrate. I would not have it any other way. I hope that everyone in this forum would follow your example and chech every word stated by anyone with the word of God.
But let us remember that when we do this that we must be fair and honest in our critique. For we search for the truth no matter where that search takes us. If Brother McGarvey has truly made the mistakes that you accuse him of making I would be the very first to agree with you. However, If you are mistaken in your understanding of his words and have taken him out of context and misrepresented him such would be a hinderance to our search for truth. If it turns out that Brother McGarvey's arguments fit squarely with the teaching of the word of God we will come to a better understanding of the truth if we learn such from him.
SO I do not ask anyone to accept anything the Brother Mcgarvey, myself, or anyone else teaches unless it is in complete harmony with the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ who is indeed our Lord, our King and our God. I only ask, however that we be fair, honest, and just in our review and examination of what our Brethren both of the past and the present. Let us not accuse anyone of teaching contrary to the word of God unless we can prove that such is genuinely the case.
I do not believe that you disagree with what I have just said. I sincerely judge that you are one who would do your best to critique any Brother, including myself, fairly and honestly. For that reason I feel confident that if I can show that you have, in fact, misunderstood what Brother McGarvey has said you would appreciate the correction. I say this only if I am correct. I recognize that it is just as possible that I have misunderstood. But I will challenge some of the things you have said only to help us all in our search for truth. I do not do it to defend any person. I do so to clarify the facts so that we can come closer to the truth.
Now, with this in mind, let's examine your judgement concerning Brother Mcgarvey's words. You tell us that you find him adding to the word of God. These are your words:.
I find him to be adding to what I read in the word of God. I don't find "ruler" to be connected to a Jewish shepherd (I doubt Amos saw himself that way - a guide, protector, and even companion perhaps, but ruler?? No.) except when we speak of our Lord, Jesus Christ, a shepherd who also happens to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I find that it's His Lordship that makes Him a ruler, and not His role as shepherd. Based upon that, I don't find that shepherds in the flock of Jesus Christ have any dominion as a ruler would within the body of Christ by implication of being a shepherd, which implication he operates by transference of his beliefs.
Now let us compare what you have said with what Brother McGarvey actually said in the context in which he said it and see if he is in fact guilty of your charge that he has added to the word of God in what he has to say about Shepherds.
I now quote the context in which the words that you claim to be adding to the word of God are found and let our readers judge for themselves if Brother McGarvey in fact adds to the word of God or draws his accurate conclusions from it. His words surrounded by their context were as follows:
"The title Shepherd is still more significant than either of the other two. The Jewish shepherd was at once the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of his flock. Often, like the shepherds to whom the angel announced the glad tidings of great joy, he slept upon the ground beside his sheep at night. Sometimes, when prowling wolves came near to rend and scatter the flock, his courage was put to the test: (Jno. x: 12); and even the lion and the bear in early ages rose up against the brave [21] defender of the sheep. 1 Sam. xvii: 34-36. He did not drive them to water and to pasturage; but he called his own sheep by name, so familiar was he with every one of them, and he led them out, and went before them, and the sheep followed him, for they knew his voice. Jno. x: 3, 4. A relation so authoritative and at the same time so tender as this could not fail to find a place in the poetry of Hebrew prophets, and the parables of the Son of God. David's poetic eye detects the likeness between the shepherd's care of his flock and the care of God for Israel, and most beautifully does he give expression to it in lines familiar to every household, and admired in every land: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want, He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his names' sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Ps. xxiii. The same beautiful image is employed by Isaiah, when with prophetic eye he sees the great Persian king gathering together the scattered sheep of Israel in distant Babylon, and sending them back from their long captivity. He exclaims in the name of the Lord, "Cyrus is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasures; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid." xlv 28. But he sings a still sweeter note in [22] the same strain, when he foresees the life and labors of the Son of God, and exclaims, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." xl: 11. The Saviour himself re-echoes the sentiment, and says, "I am the good shepherd," "I know my sheep, and am know by mine." "I lay down my life for the sheep." Jno. x: 14, 15. Even the less poetic Paul is touched by the beautiful metaphor, and makes a prayer to "the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of sheep," (Heb. xiii: 20); while Peter says to his brethren, "Ye were as sheep going astray; but now are returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet. ii: 25. A word thus highly exalted by the pens of prophets, and even by the lips of Jesus, almost appears too sacred to represent the relation and responsibilities of an uninspired laborer in the cause of God. But even before the church came into existence it had been consecrated to this usage, and was a favorite term with the later prophets by which to designate the religious leaders of Israel. Jeremiah pronounces a woe upon the shepherds of his day who destroyed and scattered Israel, and predicts the time when God would bring the sheep again to their folds, and set up shepherds over them who would be real shepherds to them. Jer. xxiii: 1-4. The connection shows that the prediction has reference to the Christian age. Ezekiel speaks in the same strain, and in almost the identical thoughts of Jeremiah, except that in contrast with the unfaithful shepherds of his age, he says: "I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall [23] feed them, he shall be their shepherd." Ez. xxiv: 1-23. With such a history, the word shepherd came into the terminology of the church with a most clearly defined secondary meaning. When applied as a title in the church it necessarily represented its subject as the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of the members of the church. When Paul and Peter, therefore, exhorted the elders to be shepherds to the flock of God, all these important and tender relations were indicated by the word. We have already taken notice of that general conception of the duties assigned the eldership, which is derived from the title applied to the office. In the confirmation of the conclusions drawn from this and overseer are enjoined upon the elder by express command. In two distinct passages already quoted, (Acts xx: 28; 1 Pet. v: 2) the elders are exhorted to be shepherds to the church. This exhortation, or rather this apostolic command, has fain d to make its due impression on the English reader, because of the very inadequate translation of poimaino in the common version. It occurs eleven times, and is seven times rendered feed, and four times rule. When connected with church work it is uniformly rendered feed. No doubt the translators intended by this rendering to make their version intelligible to their uneducated readers in England and Scotland, where very little is known of a shepherd's work except feeding the sheep through the long winters. But this attempt at adaptation has led to serious misapprehension; for even to this day, and in America as well as in Great Britain, the term feed in these passages has been [24] understood by the masses as a metaphor for public teaching, and the whole work here enjoined is supposed to be accomplished when a suitable address is delivered to the saints on the Lord's day. Many an elder has imagined that the chief part of his work is accomplished when he has called together the flock once a week, or it may be once a month, and give them their regular supply of food, even when the food is given is nothing better than empty husks. And many an evangelist, miscalling himself a pastor, has labored under the same mistake. Let it be noted, then, and never be forgotten, that the term employed in these passages expressed the entire work of a shepherd, of which feeding was very seldom even a part in the country where this use of the term originated. The shepherds of Judea, and those of Asia Minor, pastured their sheep throughout the entire year. Their duty was to guide them from place to place to protect them from wild beast, and to keep them from straying; but not to feed them. The Apostle Paul leaves us in no doubt as to his own use of the term in question; for after the general command, "Be shepherds to the church," he proceeds to distribute the idea by adding these words: "For I know this, that after my departure shall ravenous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch; and remember that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts xx: 28-31. Here, continuing the metaphor of the flock, he forewarns the shepherds against ravenous wolves, who can be no other than teachers of error who would come into Ephesus from abroad, such, for example, as those [25] who had already infested the Galatian churches; (Gal. i: 6-7; v: 12;) and he commands them to watch. He also predicts that men of their own number, like unruly rams of the flock, would rise up, speaking perverse things, and seeking to lead away disciples after them. The shepherds were to watch against these also, and as they saw symptoms of such movements, within, they were to "warn every one, night and day," as Paul had done. Here, then, are two specifications under the generic idea of acting the shepherd, and they are strictly analogous to the work of the literal shepherd. It is made the duty of the eldership, first, to protect the congregation against false teachers from abroad; second, to guard carefully against the influence of schismatics within the congregation; third, to keep watch both within and without, like a shepherd night and day watching his flock, so as to be ready to act on the first appearance of danger from either direction. The first of these duties is again emphasized in the epistle to Titus, where Paul requires that elders shall be able, by sound teaching, both to exhort and convict the gainsayers, and adds: "For there are many vain and unruly talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped." Ti. i: 9-11. The duty of watchfulness is also mentioned again, and in a manner which shows most impressively its supreme importance. Paul says, "Obey them who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." Heb. xiii: 17. From these words it appears that the object of the watching enjoined, is not merely to keep out false [26] teaching and to suppress incipient schism, but to do these in order to save souls from being lost. That priceless treasure for which Jesus laid down his life is at stake, and the elders of each church, like the shepherds of each flock, must give account to the owner of the flock for every soul that is lost. The task of Jacob, concerning which he said to Laban, "That which was torn of beast I brought not to thee, I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night," is a true symbol of the task assigned the shepherds of the Church of God. Well might they all exclaim, "Who is sufficient for these things?"
Now notice the manner in which Brother McGarvey connects the idea of "ruling" with the concept of being a shepherd. Notice that he uses the New Testament to do it. Notice also that he does not in any place Add to the word of God. He uses the place where Peter tells the SHEPHERDS to "take the oversight" and shows the meaning of the Greek term "proisteemi" in 1 Tim. 5:17 is used in reference to the rule of a father over his family, a deputy over a district, of a king over his subjects and ELDERS in the church and gives examples from the New Testament and other ancient literature to demonstrate that it was commonly used in this fashion. All of this information is also given in the best Lexicons as well.
The duty of "taking oversight" is enjoined upon the elders in express terms, and the expression is used as the equivalent of acting the shepherd. Peter says, "Be shepherds to the flock, taking the oversight thereof." 1 Pet. v: 2. The essential thought in overseership, that of ruling, is frequently enjoined. Paul says to Timothy, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor." 1 Ti. v: 17. The Greek word here rendered rule is proisteemi, the etymological meaning of which is to stand or place one object before another. But the fact that rulers stand before their subjects, with all the eyes of the latter looking to them for direction, led to the established usage of this term in the sense of ruling. It is so defined in the lexicons, and so used in both classic and Hellenistic Greek. It expresses the rule of a father over his family, 1 Ti. iii: 4-5, 12; of a deputy over a district, 1 Mac. v: 15; of a King over his subjects, Jos. Ant. viii: 1, 2, 3, and of the elders over the church, 1 Ti. v: 17; 1 Thess. v: 12; Ro. xii: 5-8."
So I cannot see where he has even mentioned "Amos" but he did show that Jeremiah referred to the leaders of Israel as "shepherds". Thus demonstrating that the Jews had in the Scriptures a usage of the word "shepherd" in reference to leaders or rulers such as Cyrus and the rulers of Israel. It does not matter if "Amos saw himself as a "ruler" or not but none can doubt that Jeremiah and Ezekiel both used this term "shepherd" in reference to those who were Rulers. Therefore I cannot for the life of me gather how you reached the conclusion that Brother McGarvey has "added" anything to the word of God. Especially when his connection comes both from the fact that the word of God refers to rulers as shepherds and the connection of the word shepherd with the word "proisteemi" which has a definate usage in reference to rulers. All of which he documents in the numerous references from the New Testament, Hellenistic Greek and Classical Greek. So just what is it that you find that he has added to the word of God? If one follows his argument from the beginning to the end and keeps each point connected to the preceeding points the logic flows unbroken and the conclusions are inescapable. But if you take any part away from the rest it is easy to make it appear to be in error. I do not think that this was your intent but I do believe that it is the result that you have obtained..
But let us also remember that if the elders have the responsibility to "protect" the flock as you say. If they have the responsibility to "guide" the flock as you say. They must also have the authority to "rule" or lead the flock as well for without the sheep recognizing the shepherd's voice, submitting to his direction and accepting his protection they cannot be protected, guided, or fed. If they are allowed to wander their own way and to ignore all of his commands and direction then it would be impossible to do the first two things that you agree the shepherds can and should do. There is no way to guide and protect any flock that does not recognize that the shepherd is their shepherd and that he has the authority which comes with the responsibility to do these things. Therefore shepherds rule over them for their own benefit. It seems that anyone should be able to see this. I am glad that those who cannot see the connection between "responsibility" and "authority", and "accountability" in the function of a shepherd are not real shepherds. For if they were we could never buy a wool suit or sweater for there would not be any sheep living on the earth within a very short period of time. I pray that none will ever be appointed as shepherds in the body of Christ that cannot understand these matters.
Then you offer another objection to Brother Mcgarvey's work with these words:
I posted my objections to his work and on the basis of his work. I do not respect the work that I see. He may have other work that is wonderful, but I don't share your enthusiasm for what you quoted.
His work on cheirotoneo is an excellent example of what I mean, which begins as his foundation into this topic. As he correctly points out, it means "to stretch the hand." But then he states "from the fact that bodies of men frequently expressed a choice by an elevation of the hand, it acquired the meaning of to choose or to appoint by an extension of the hand." Chapter and verse? How about going to the word of God to see where ordination and hands are mentioned? Perhaps something other than hand-raising is meant here.
"Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands (cheir) of the presbytery (presbuterion)." - I Timothy 4:14
I don't find a hand-raising ordination anywhere in the word of God, but I do find ample instances of the laying on of hands. Titus contains a similar example. So my question is: how did he miss this? Unless it just didn't fit with his beliefs, which obviously lean toward having an office and democratic vote (elevation of the hand) and rule within the body. Lee, it isn't arrogance to dismiss this work - it opposes scripture. I could go forth with an exhaustive look at his essay, but by my reading, it's flawed.
Now a simple reading of Brother McGarvey's words shows that he is correct in what he says about theis word "cheirotoneo" and it also reveals that he said "AND FINALLY IT CAME TO MEAN TO APPOINT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT. SO you can see that Brother McGarvey does not even attempt to argue for or support in any way the idea of a "hand-raising ordination as you incorrectly claim that he has done. You are right that it is not arrogance to dismiss this work but it is arrogance to dismiss it without even attempting to understand the arguments. This implies a prejudice against the work before reading and examining it. For nothing that is said by Brother McGarvey could lead anyone to draw the conclusion that he was arguing for some kind of "hand-raising" ordination. So the question is not "how did he miss this" but how on earth did you find this in his words? Better yet how did you "miss" his words that clearly state that this word came to mean to appoint WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT. How did you "miss this? In fact his argument in this place has nothing to do with the method of appointment but rather how this word came to refer to an appoitment to an office. This he has show quite well and you have demonstrated that you have completely missed his point entirely. I now quote Brother McGarvey's words for all to see that he nowhere advocated that the word of God teaches a "hand-raising ordination" as you claim. I only hope that you can see what you have missed. But if not, I hope that others can see that the word of God does teach that elders are appointed to and office which is the teaching of the word of God that Brother McGarvey is trying to help us to see and understand. He has done an excellet job of it as well. You on the other hand have not done such a good job of reading, understanding and accurately crtiquing his work.
We will now examine its New Testament usage sufficiently to settle this question. The following statement is made concerning Paul and Barnabas while engaged in their first missionary tour: "When they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts xiv: 23. The term here rendered ordained is cheirotoneo. It is compounded of cheir, the hand, and teino, to stretch forth, and its primary meaning is to stretch forth the hand. But from the fact that bodies of men frequently expressed a choice by an elevation of the hand, it acquired the meaning of to choose or to appoint by an extension of the hand; and finally it came to mean to appoint without reference to the method of appointing. Such is the testimony of scholars, and it is confirmed by the usage of the term. It occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, where it is said of an unnamed brother whom Paul sent to Corinth with Titus, that he "was chosen by the [11] churches." 2 Cor. viii: 19. How the churches choose him, whether by a show of hands or in some other way, is not determined by this term, nor by the context. Another instance of its use is found in Josephus. He represents Alexander Bala, the Syrian King who claimed jurisdiction over Judea, as writing to Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maccabaeus, these words: "We therefore do ordain thee this day high priest of the Jews." Here there was no stretching out the hand, but an appointment to office by a single individual, and through the instrumentality of a letter. Clearer proof of the definition we have given could not be demanded. Substituting this definition for the term ordained in the passage we are considering, we read that Paul and Barnabas "appointed" for them elders in every church. These elders, then, were made such by appointment; but Paul and Barnabas certainly did not make older men by appointment; neither would the passage make complete sense if it read, "They appointed for them men in every church." To complete the sense, it would be necessary to add the office or position to which the older men were appointed. The considerations show that the term is here used not its primary sense, but in a sense which designates position obtained by appointment. But an appointment puts men into office, and elder is therefore the official title conferred by this appointment. The process of appointment will be considered in another part of this treatise. The same conclusion follows from Paul's statement to Titus: "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city." Ti. 1:5. The term here [12] rendered ordain is kathisteeemi, the Greek word most commonly used in both the New Testament and the Greek version of the Old Testament, for appointing to office. It is used to express the appointment of Joseph as governor over Egypt, and of the other officers under him, Gen. xli: 33-34; Acts vii: 10; for the appointment of David as ruler over Israel, 2nd Sam. vi: 21; for the appointment of rulers over household servants, Matt. xxiv: 45; of a judge in civil jurisprudence, Ex. ii: 14; Acts vii: 27; and of Jewish high priests, Heb. v: 1; viii: 3. Now, the fact that this term so frequently expressed the idea of appointment to office does not necessarily prove that it has this meaning in any given passage. Whether it does or not, is to be determined by the context, and we should always try its primary meaning first. Its primary meaning is to set or place locally. It is so used twice in the New Testament, Acts xvii: 5; Jas. iii: 6. But Paul could not mean that Titus was to set elders or place elders in every church. There would be no good sense in such a rendering, and therefore, the secondary sense of the term must be adopted. With the universal consent of scholars and critics, we render it appoint. Titus, then was to appoint elders in every city, and the term elders designates the office to which they were appointed. We shall now regard it as an established fact that the term elder is sometimes used in the New Testament as an official title. In this fact we find further proof of our first proposition, that there is such an office in the church as the eldership.
I do greatly respect your ability in the Greek language and look forward to your help and assistance in understanding the teaching of the word of God in this forum. I hope that you can understand that it is not pleasant to disagree with a brother in Christ but it is often necessary. I respect you but I cannot agree with much of what you have said. However, I suspect that we do agree far more that you agree with Sister Nelta.
I pray that we will be one with Christ our Lord so that we can be one with each other.
You Brother in Christ,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000
I apologize Brothers and sisters. I accidentally posted the above post that was intended as a response to Brother Rogers in another thread into this one. Please forgive the error. This has just not been my day! Ha! Do not worry it will get better! Ha!Pray for me!
Your Brother in Christ,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000
Wow! A short post from brother Saffold! <g>Just teasing!
-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000