Lee,

Youve done a fine job of reading the scriptures that pretty much summarily say that there are overseers in the church that are appointed by men of God. I have no dispute with you whatsoever in this regard.

You define oversight in your initial post, but you base much of your work in this on the traditions of the day. Allow me to quote you, when you quote McGarvey:

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.

Wow. Meager reliable information, but these standards were obviously adopted and give us rulers in the church. Thats quite a leap.

I would bet that for this reason Nelta brings up Matthew 20, which directly opposes using the exercise of authority by those in that day as any example to the church. It shall not be so among you, says our Lord.

I have a hard time believing that the early Christian church used much of anything the Sanhedrin or other rulers of the day exemplified, given Jesus ample disdain for them. I would think it hard for the apostles to forget all of those critical words against such leadership.

Biblically now, what does overseer and elder look like? How is it practiced? What does submitting to such oversight require of us? How do we decide who truly has this oversight?

But first, let me correct something. You make a false assumption that I reject elders. You state: I would like to know however, what passages of scripture teach you that we are to reject them without any evidence whatsoever that they are justly accused of sin? Its kind of an extreme example, and I dont know the pope myself, and yet I find enough error in his doctrine as to choose not to follow his word or be in obedience to him. In the wash of error and fracture that has crept into the church, I believe that every man and woman needs to discern these things and not just be submitting to those declared as elders. (I choose the pope here, but locally its no different. At the end of this response, Ill show from scripture how to determine whos a biblical elder to respect.)

Where I side with Nelta is that when reading through her plays of the Whats Happening Now Church, I find the eldership doing little but ignoring the word of God and exerting their authority in what are essentially carnal matters: how big and beautiful our building is, how to drive up offering, requirement of membership. I dont read in scripture where those are the duties of an elder. I dont know if shes so much questioning the positioning of elders in the church as she questions how its handled today (hence the name, Whats Happening Now Church). If Nelta, as you contend, suggests that there are no elders in scripture, then I disagree with her. There are. But I saw her use of *authority* (with asterisks around it) referencing her description of how authority is sometimes wielded today, and here I agree  such authority derives no basis from scripture.

In Neltas final post, she offers up quite a bit of provocative work, which literally no one handled. People ridiculed her, made much of her reference to authority, talked at length about exousia, but her handling of the verses offered by Danny werent contended. And from what I can see, its largely due to the fact that shes right, which most everyone ignored. At Dannys behest, Ill wax exegetical in this post.

You make the presumption that Im not familiar with the Greek language. Let me give you a little more insight into what I meant by The word presbuteros (not presbutero Lee, forgive me my typo) simply means older man or woman (Strong's Enhanced Greek Lexicon), which you quoted and corrected.

At its root, yes, this word means older man or woman. In its usage, yes, it can suggest broader meaning, as do most words, and both the Greek and the Hebrew languages employ some liberality in meaning by intention. Hebrew verse, for example, often allows interpretation of subtle nuances for a more colorful and insightful read. It is with this understanding that I go to scriptures and read, and yes, work from the Greek as well. Im a bit offended by what comes off as arrogance from you. Perhaps you didnt intend it this way, but thats the way it reads. But in what follows you can discern for yourself whether Im a neophyte in Greek or not.

I do read presbuteros as having maturity at its root, which I find does quite a bit for understanding this word. I Timothy 5:1 illustrates this quite nicely.

Rebuke not an elder (presbuteros), but intreat him as a father; and the younger (neos) men as brethren.

Neos, of course, being new. A similar word, neophutos, is used in I Timothy 3:6, saying that a bishop should not be a novice. So were looking at an older Christian, one who has been around the block and has maturity.

What presbuteros doesnt contain in its meaning is authority, but it does suggest someone worthy of respect  someone you wouldnt just run up and rebuke, but someone youd handle softer than you would a brother or peer. Is this because they have authority? No. Thats not inherent to presbuteros. Its because they have maturity and seasoning that shouldnt be lightly disposed.

Does elder suggest authority? Not by itself, no.

The authority you tie to this word comes from episkope, as Mr. Thayer points out. Take a look at this word its derived from epi and skopos, which is literally overseer, or one who watches over. Skopos comes from the word we know today as skeptic, implying critique. These mature believers were primarily designated to watch over the newer believers and the rest of the body within that city to guard them. This brings us to Hebrews 13.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls

Their chief job was not to execute authority and order the church around  they were over-seers. You did well to connect the word shepherd here. But what was this when you again quoted McGarvey:

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.

Guide  yes, protector  yes, companion  yes whoa: Ruler???

As I study this work you put forward, ruler keeps coming into the text. Perhaps this comes from obey and rule in Hebrews 13:17.

But lets look deeper into this verse. Nelta says that the word obey is poorly translated. And you know what? Shes right! Its better rendered have confidence in or trust in or better yet, be persuaded by. Where did obey come from?

While Id love to say centuries of religious tradition by the very people Martin Luther rebelled against, I wont because thats pure conjecture. But I will mention that the Greek word peitho here is used once to form the compound peitharcheo, archeo of course being derived from archo, meaning to rule. (I wonder if thats where they got the term, Archbishop? Never mind; I move into that centuries of religious authority thing again.) But I should mention that peitharcheo is never used in reference to the elders of the church. In fact, even archo is never used in reference to the elders of the church.

How about rule? Well, that comes from hegeomai. Let me give you one verse that shows that rule can be a bad translation of this word.

In John 1:18, it says, No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

That word declared is exegeomai, a compound of ek (out) and hegeomai, our word in question. Surely this doesnt mean that the Son rules the Father.

Hegeomai means to lead, or to go before. I wont go into how this applies to John 1:18, but suffice it to say that rule isnt it.

So Lee, though you have a lot for respect for McGarvey, from what youve shown me of his work and based on what Ive given in response from the word of God, I dont share that respect. I would urge you to reconsider his work if this is what he has to offer.

Briefly, the words over you is humon in the Greek, which is a Genitive form of the plural you, and Im sure that knowing Greek you know that Genitive implies ownership or possession. Literally, of yours or your or belonging to you. But over? Probably a subtle twist when hegeomai was translated rule.

Let me give my rendition of the first part of Hebrews 13:17 (and its fine with me if you disagree, but I feel that Ive amply shown this from scripture):

Trust in your leaders

Hupeiko is the word translated submit in the next part of the verse. Its only used once in scripture. Hupo (under) and eiko (to yield) form this unique word. The question here is: yield to what?

As overseers, elders are to watch over our souls, as the next part of the verse says. If they come to us with a word of caution or rebuke, we ought to yield. This word carries with it a touch of combat or wrestling. Theyre mature believers and theyre our leaders; we ought to trust them, or at least respect them enough to heartily listen to their words to us and not be defensive. We should put down our guard and believe that they have our walk with the Lord at heart.

This begs the question: how will they watch over our souls? I mean, its kind of hard to do in 3 hours on Sunday (I speak along with the Whats Happening Now Church play from Nelta).

The word translated bishop in I Timothy 3:1, as mentioned before, is episkope, has a similar word, episkeptomai, the verb of episkope. Its funny that episkope, in its two of its four usages in scripture is visitation, and episkeptomai, in ten of its eleven usages is visit.

How do you recognize a bishop, overseer, episkope? They come to see you. They fellowship with you. They visit you. They do the function of an overseer. Which sounds a lot like Acts 2:42:

They continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship

Or said another way:

The new believers continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and in the apostles fellowship.

They hung out with their leaders, and the leaders let them. You probably didnt see little table tents that read Reserved for Ministry when they ate together either. The leaders, the overseers, knew their people, just as Jesus, our Shepherd, knows His sheep and His sheep know Him.

Quite frankly, titles aside, Ive met very few biblical overseers, Lee. You ask me how I can reject (your word, not mine) them? I dont see too many doing their job.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

Answers

Brother Rogers:

I appreciate very much your response to my post concerning elders. I respect those who engage in the discussion rather than merely ignoring all that was said and run from those who challenge their words with scripture as Nelta continues to do. She has not even attempted to answer anything that many have written to her or answer any questions ask of her and refuses to repent of false accusations made against her brother in Christ. I feel certain that you do not agree or support her in these matters.

I also appreciate the fact that you agree that the scriptures teach that there is an office in the Church called elders or overseers. I quote your words that indicate this agreement:

Youve done a fine job of reading the scriptures that pretty much summarily say that there are overseers in the church that are appointed by men of God. I have no dispute with you whatsoever in this regard.

I am extremely pleased that you have no dispute whatsoever with me in this regard. However you would have some dispute with Nelta on this matter for she is arguing that there is no such office and that the older Christians (which would include all both men and women) are the ones to do the work of overseeing the church. I now quote her words:

Then 1 Tim. 3:1-2: Again K.J., "This is a faithful saing. If a man desires the office of a Bishop he desires a good work.." The word office does not appear in the Greek. It was added, according to Greek scholars. The elders (old people) are described as laboring and teaching the message.

Notice that she believes that the elders in the church were nothing more than the old People. Her point is not that the elders were selected from among the older people but that the elders were nothing more than the entire class of older people in the church and that there was no particular post of oversight to which certain of the older MEN were appointed. So you see you and I both differ with Nelta on this issue.

Then you tell us:

You define oversight in your initial post, but you base much of your work in this on the traditions of the day. Allow me to quote you, when you quote McGarvey: 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. Wow. Meager reliable information, but these standards were obviously adopted and give us rulers in the church. Thats quite a leap.

Now Brother McGarvey is not here saying that ALL of the information concerning this Greek term presbuteros is meager but that reliable information concerning the functions of the office of elder among the Jews is meager. Then he says that though it is meager it is sufficient. Now just because the amount of information that we have is meager does not mean that it is insufficient. Now if you think it is insufficient, which seems to be the reason why you say Wow. Meager reliable information, then prove that it is insufficient. Merely saying that this is a leap from meager information when Brother McGarvey said it was meager but sufficient information is to completely misrepresent what was said. Thayer even references this information. But when one adds the usage of this word by the Greeks and the Christians the evidence is overwhelming that the elders were, in fact, rulers in the Church. You act as if Brother Mcgarvey makes his entire argument on information that was meager and therefore insufficient. When he clearly honestly admitted that in reference to the Jewish Sanhedrin the information was meager but sufficient. Now if you think that the information was insufficient because it was meager then prove it! But do not try to characterize this as an argument based solely on meager and insufficient evidence for such is clearly not the case! The information from all sources, Greek, Jewish, and early Christian, is far from meager. Though the information from the Sanhedrin is meager it is also more than sufficient to establish that the elders were leaders or rulers in the church.

Now here you claim that I base most of my work on the traditions of the day. This is completely incorrect. I based all of my work on the traditions found in the word of God. I cannot imagine which traditions you are referring to unless it is the ones found in the partial quote that I gave from brother Mcgarvey. He bases a portion of what he had to say on the traditions of the day among the Sanhedrin in order to show how the term Presbuteros was used among the Jews in order to establish how they influenced its use by Jewish Christians. I quoted Brother Mcgarvey to use the words of a genuine scholar to support what I had already said about the use of this word but very little of my work was based on the traditions of the day. In fact, the majority of my work was based the scriptural use of the word Presbuteros and on the definition of the word given by both Thayer and J. W. Mcgarvey and very little of their work is based on the traditions of the day.

Then you appear to know Neltas reasons for quoting Matthew 20 which you incorrectly argue, as did Nelta, that this verse directly opposes the use of the exercising of authority by those in that day as an example to the church. Your words were:

I would bet that for this reason Nelta brings up Matthew 20, which directly opposes using the exercise of authority by those in that day as any example to the church. It shall not be so among you, says our Lord.

Now our Lord did not condemn the exercise of authority but the incorrect purpose and method of exercising it. I have already shown that he said that they were not to exercise authority as the gentiles do meaning in the manner and for the purpose that they use authority. Jesus himself exercises authority in the church (Matthew 28:19,20) The Apostles and elders exercised authority in the church (Acts 15). And a reading of the entire passage in its context will show that Christ was condemning the kind of authority that seeks power for oneself for the purpose of having others serve oneself. But it shall not be so among us. The elders are given responsibilities and with it the right to exercise authority for the purpose of serving others and leading them to eternal life in Christ. They are not to be Lords over Gods heritage but to be ensamples to the flock. They have the responsibility to do this and hence the authority to do it. But they are not to exercise authority as the gentiles do for their own personal benefit and in the manner of forcing others to obey them. They are chief among us because they serving our spiritual needs. Christ NEVER said that no one would be chief among us but that those who would be chief would serve us. They serve as our leaders and spiritual guides so long as they follow the doctrine of Christ the chief shepherd. Lets look at the entire passage in its context and see that such is clearly the truth.

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20: 20- 28).

Notice that Jesus did not say that there would not be any chief among us without authority. He simply showed that those who would be chief would not have others serving them but rather would become Chief or ascend to such a position of authority in the process of and in order to be of service to others. He gave himself as the example saying,  Even as (meaning in the same way) the son of man came not to be minister unto but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many If he meant that there would be no one with authority over others in His Kingdom then He would not be a good example because we are told that Jesus spoke as one having authority and not as the scribes. SO obviously there is a way to have authority that is different from the authority exercised by the scribes. Jesus also made it clear, all authority hath been given to me in heaven and on earth Matthew 28:19, 20. In fact he gave the apostles authority and set them on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. He had authority and he exercised it but the difference is that he exercised it through persuasion and for the purpose of serving our great need of eternal salvation. He did not come as a worldly King would come and gather servants to carry him about, cook his food, wash his feet and tend to his every need and mindlessly, and reluctantly obey him. He was a king, using his authority as the Son of God to redeem us from our sins and his love compels us to obey Him and his words persuades us to submit to him. He is referred to as the Chief Shepherd and the lesser shepherds under him are to exercise authority in the same manner and for the same purpose under the guidance of the chief shepherd in service of those souls He died to save. The authority of the lesser shepherds resides not within themselves but rather in the Chief Shepherd. He directs His subjects through the Apostles doctrine in the New Testament and the Elders are to teach us the apostles doctrine and lead us to follow that teaching in our worship and work. Not just here I want to mention that you appear to be complaining about elders who are bad elders those who are exercising authority for the same purpose (self-aggrandizement) and in the same manner (force instead of persuasion) as the world exercises it. If this is the case then I will agree completely with you. But you must know that this is very different than Neltas position that the elders are nothing more than the old people in the church and that NONE of them, good or bad, have any authority in the church. Now if you hold that position, which I do not think that you do, we will never agree. For that doctrine in completely contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord!

The elders do exist; they are in a position of responsibility, which requires that they have authority to discharge their responsibilities. For example they are to be able to convict and convince the gainsayers and stop the mouths of false teachers. They have the authority to do this when false teachers enter in not sparing the flock. They must be and are the ones that God will hold accountable for the condition of the flock and this is the reason we must submit to them which means to be willing to be persuaded by them and accept that they are the ones with the responsibility and the authority to persuade us. Paul even warned that some from among the elders would rise up and lead the flock away from Christ. He urged the other elders to be ready for this eventuality. (Acts 20:28). SO clearly we must not submit to those who are trying to lead us away from Christ but we are to submit to and support those elders who are fighting against the bad elders. But it certainly is not true to say that ALL of the elders are bad and that none of the elders have any authority in the Church for this is patently false doctrine.

Then you say: I have a hard time believing that the early Christian church used much of anything the Sanhedrin or other rulers of the day exemplified, given Jesus ample disdain for them. I would think it hard for the apostles to forget all of those critical words against such leadership.

No one, least of all me and certainly not Brother McGarvey, has argued that Christian church used anything that the Sanhedrin or the rulers of the day exemplified. No one has ever said any such thing. We only pointed to the way the Greek term (Presbuteros), was used in the New Testament period by both the Greeks and the Sanhedrin and the early Christians. Just because the use of the word presbuteros in the church was influenced by the way it was commonly used in their day by both the Greeks and the Sanhedrin does not mean that they were attempting to imitate the Sanhedrin or the Greek worldly leaders. It simply shows what the word meant by the way it was used. The Christians, as Thayer pointed out, used the word presbuteros indiscriminately with episcopos which shows that it had a meaning and a usage that indicated far more than your simply older men and older women. There is no doubt that the apostles condemned the kind of leadership displayed by the Sanhedrin. No one has argued that the church imitated the manner in which the Sanhedrin exercised authority. We have argued that the elders have authority not that they exercise it in the same way as the world or the Sanhedrin. Rather, they exercised it in the same manner as Christ our Lord exercised it. In fact, they were merely leading according to the Lords commands when they exercised authority in the church. But they did not say  we do not have any authority in the church. They had authority and exercised it often (Acts 15).

Then you ask a good question, which I agree is the ones we should be discussing, here are your excellent words: Biblically now, what does overseer and elder look like? How is it practiced? What does submitting to such oversight require of us? How do we decide who truly has this oversight?

This is what we should discuss. There are overseers in the church and there are scriptures that tell us exactly what kind of Character such should be (1 Tim.3: 1-8;Titus1: 5-11). We have examples of how early Christians submitted to the elders or overseers. (Acts 15; 1Tim.4: 14; Heb. 13:17). Those who are qualified according to the word of God have the oversight. All we have to do is follow those qualifications and appoint those with such qualification as our overseers. None without these should be overseers. Now I admit that this is a lengthy discussion in itself but once we find these men they must be appointed and we must submit to them.

Then you correct my false assumption:

But first, let me correct something. You make a false assumption that I reject elders.

It is an assumption that I made because you seemed to be agreeing with Nelta that the elders do not have any authority in the Church and that the word presbuteros according to you simply means older men and women implying that you did not accept the idea that the word had any connection to a class of leaders in the church selected from among the older men. But it does appear from your last post that such was an incorrect assumption and I apologize to you for it. It seems to me that you are saying that we should not accept those elders who are not qualified according to the word of God and are not exercising their authority in ways and are leading others away from the truth. If that is the case I agree with you. But if you agree with Nelta that NONE of the elders have any authority in the church including those who are scripturally qualified and do watch diligently night and day for our souls. Those like the elders where I worship that visit all of the members on a regular basis and have the flock of God among us as their constant care, men who teach us diligently the word of God, men who pray for us without ceasing and lead us into the homes of our neighbors teaching the gospel, men who bear the brunt of sectarian bias and harsh criticisms for the sake of the truth. If you contend, as Nelta does, that these men have no authority in the church, then I am correct in saying that you reject the elders of the church. But, as I have said, I believe that such men as the ones I have described are the kind of men that you willing accept and would gladly submit to their leadership. Your words that follow indicate that we agree far more that it appears on the surface of this discussion:

Where I side with Nelta is that when reading through her plays of the Whats Happening Now Church, I find the eldership doing little but ignoring the word of God and exerting their authority in what are essentially carnal matters: how big and beautiful our building is, how to drive up offering, requirement of membership. I dont read in scripture where those are the duties of an elder. I dont know if shes so much questioning the positioning of elders in the church as she questions how its handled today (hence the name, Whats Happening Now Church). If Nelta, as you contend, suggests that there are no elders in scripture, then I disagree with her. There are

The part of Neltas plays that indicate situations where elders appear to be doing unscriptural things I also agree with. However, I know from our other arguments in other threads that she would not do a play of scriptural elders exercising their scriptural authority defending the church against the false doctrines of neo orthodox theologians and change agents who are trying to teach us that the elders do not exist in the New Testament and that they were nothing more that the older members of the church and they therefore do not have any authority in the church. For she does reject the idea that ANY of the elders have authority in the church, even the scriptural ones.

Then you seem to think that her use of asterisks around the word authority meant that she was referencing a description of how authority is being used today. Your words were:

 But I saw her use of *authority* (with asterisks around it) referencing her description of how authority is sometimes wielded today, and here I agree  such authority derives no basis from scripture.

She was not referencing how authority is sometime wielded today. For if she was saying that I would have agreed with her also. In fact, when I responded to her words and showed that there is in fact a Greek word for authority in the scriptures she could have said that she was talking about how authority is sometimes wielded but she did not respond at all. In fact her exact words were that there were no Greek words for authority in the New Testament. There is a Greek word even for how the world exercises authority. Therefore I doubt very seriously if she was referencing how authority is sometimes wielded today.

Then you tell us that Neltas work is provocative and that she made arguments that no one has contended:

In Neltas final post, she offers up quite a bit of provocative work, which literally no one handled. People ridiculed her, made much of her reference to authority, talked at length about exousia, but her handling of the verses offered by Danny werent contended. And from what I can see, its largely due to the fact that shes right, which most everyone ignored. At Dannys behest, Ill wax exegetical in this post.

Now, I do not disagree that Nelta has provoked us. In fact that is exactly what she does and then runs away and refuses to respond to the arguments made against her position. I responded to her and I am the one that talked about exousia because she said that there was NO GREEK WORD FOR AUTHORITY in the New Testament. I used the word exousia because it was found in the very passage (Matthew 20), which she had quoted in her post. It is a Greek word that means authority. She has not, nor has anyone else even attempted to answer or contend with that argument.

I do not remember her handling any of the scriptures that Danny quoted. But it is possible that I have not read all of their confrontations. If you will quote her responses to Danny that you refer to and I find that they are in error I will contend, as you say, with them. So just show me, which ones you are talking about and if she is wrong I will provide the contention that is lacking.

I owe you an apology for it did appear to me that you were not very familiar with the Greek Language. You said:

You make the presumption that Im not familiar with the Greek language. Let me give you a little more insight into what I meant by The word presbuteros (not presbutero Lee, forgive me my typo) simply means older man or woman (Strong's Enhanced Greek Lexicon), which you quoted and corrected.

I apologize for correcting your typographical error. I knew that it was a typographical error. I thought when I was typing that it was my typographical error and did not realize until I had posted it that I had corrected your words instead of mine. I do apologize for that. I make enough typos myself, I surely have no right to correct others. Ha!

I also must apologize to you for what appeared to be an arrogant assumption that you were not familiar with the Greek language. I can see from your arguments in your response that such is surely not the case. I assure you, however, that I was motivated by kindness rather than arrogance. I would have much rather assumed that you were unfamiliar with the Greek language than to believe that you knew better than to say that the Greek word presbuteros simply meant older men and older women when you knew that, in fact, it means much more especially when it is talking about the overseers in the church. For I did not want to assume what now appears to be true, that you knew that the Greek word presbuteros meant more than simply older men and older women but you tried to teach us that such was all that it meant anyway. That you are without doubt very familiar with the Greek language is obvious from your response to me and I do sincerely apologize for leaving the impression that you were a neophyte in this area. You surely are not. But that does not change the fact that you said something in your last post that was surely something that only a neophyte would say and you did it deliberately while you knew all along that it was not true that the termpresbuteros simply means older men and older women. For you indicate that you agree that it suggest a broader meaning with these words:

At its root, yes, this word means older man or woman. In its usage, yes, it can suggest broader meaning, as do most words, and both the Greek and the Hebrew languages employ some liberality in meaning by intention. Hebrew verse, for example, often allows interpretation of subtle nuances for a more colorful and insightful read.

Now in your last post you did not tell us these things. You said that the Greek term presbuteros simply means older men and older women. Leaving the impression that it could not have any connection with the post of oversight that elders in the church had in the New Testament. It has secondary meanings as pointed out by Thayer. It does not in its usage merely suggest a broader meaning but it does, in its usage demonstrate clearly secondary meanings. It is not just a matter of subtle nuances but rather it its used in a completely different sense suggested, not by its usage alone, but by its primary meaning or root meaning.

Then you tell me that I have offended you:

 It is with this understanding that I go to scriptures and read, and yes, work from the Greek as well. Im a bit offended by what comes off as arrogance from you. Perhaps you didnt intend it this way, but thats the way it reads. But in what follows you can discern for yourself whether Im a neophyte in Greek or not.

I apologize for it was not my intent to offend you. Nor was it my intent to be arrogant. I can clearly see that it did in fact come off that way and I apologize to you. Please forgive me. In the rest of what you have said I agree that you have established quite well that you are not a neophyte in Greek. One sure fire way to insult someone is to imply that they are not scholarly and are neophytes in anything. I do sincerely apologize to you.

I agree with the following written by you:

I do read presbuteros as having maturity at its root, which I find does quite a bit for understanding this word. I Timothy 5:1 illustrates this quite nicely. Rebuke not an elder (presbuteros), but intreat him as a father; and the younger (neos) men as brethren. Neos, of course, being new. A similar word, neophutos, is used in I Timothy 3:6, saying that a bishop should not be a novice. So were looking at an older Christian, one who has been around the block and has maturity."

This does indicate very well the reason that the term elder is used in reference to the overseer. He is not to be a novice. It also shows that he is taken from the class of older men but that the elder in the church was more than just an old man. For many older men do not have maturity especially in the faith. The elders were selected from the older men but no one was an overseer that was not a mature man. Therefore all older men in the church were not overseers. Nor was the term presbuteros used in reference to the entire class of older men in the same sense in which it is used in used in Phillipians 1 and 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In fact the term presbuteros is used interchangeably or as Thayer puts it indiscriminately in Philippians 1.

Then you tell us that the term presbuteros do not contain in its meaning is authority with these words:

What presbuteros doesnt contain in its meaning is authority, but it does suggest someone worthy of respect  someone you wouldnt just run up and rebuke, but someone youd handle softer than you would a brother or peer. Is this because they have authority? No. Thats not inherent to presbuteros. Its because they have maturity and seasoning that shouldnt be lightly disposed.

Now no one, least of all me, has ever said that the term presubteros contains authority in its meaning. What we have said is that those who were presbuteros have authority in the New Testament because they were also episcopos or overseers and not simply older men and older women as you tried to have us believe. We have said that the term was applied to a class of men who were leaders and did exercise authority in the church. (Acts 15).

This much you agree to in your following words:

Does elder suggest authority? Not by itself, no.

Just here, again I want to be clear that I have never said that the term elder by itself suggest authority. I have pointed out what Thayer shows also that the terms presbuteros and episcope are used indiscriminately in Philippians 1. So in this we agree that the word derives its authority from episcope. TO this you also agree as your following words indicates:

The authority you tie to this word comes from episkope, as Mr. Thayer points out. Take a look at this word its derived from epi and skopos, which is literally overseer, or one who watches over. Skopos comes from the word we know today as skeptic, implying critique. These mature believers were primarily designated to watch over the newer believers and the rest of the body within that city to guard them.

You admit in the above quotation that the mature believers were primarily designated to watch over the newer believers. I want to point out however that these mature believers were appointed and made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) and that they were mature MALE believers that met the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3;Titus 1. They were also to watch for the souls of all the believers including the older women, and the older men who were not elders not only the newer believers. They were to take heed to themselves and ALL THE FLOCK which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (Acts 20:28). This is not a situation in which all of the older men and older women in the church were to watch over the newer believers. These were men who had the qualities described in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 were selected from the older MEN and appointed to be overseers of all the flock of God which was among them. Now if this is what you mean by these words I agree with you but if not I do not agree.

You seem concerned that I have respect for brother McGarvey and make it clear that you do not share that respect. Then you claim to have less respect for Brother McGarvey than I do.

So Lee, though you have a lot for respect for McGarvey, from what youve shown me of his work and based on what Ive given in response from the word of God, I dont share that respect. I would urge you to reconsider his work if this is what he has to offer.

Now this is a strange display of arrogance by one who is offended when someone thinks he is a neophyte in the Greek language. I did not quote all that McGarvey had said so you have only a portion of it. But there is a more lengthy quotation given in the Thread entitled Elders and the business meeting. You have not understood or answered what I have shown you from Brother McGarvey. But I challenge you to answer his entire argument that I have quoted in that thread. If you like I can start another thread so that you can just pick apart all that brother McGarvey has said about the elders. I will then respond to your review of his work in its entirety. Would you like to do something like that? Many of us have respect for brother McGarvey for his works sake. You do not respect him but give no good reason for your lack of respect. It appears that you think that he is not deserving of any respect because you think that you have found flaws in his argument. I respect you and I find far more flaws in your arguments than in Brother McGarveys. I do not follow Brother McGarvey. I follow the word of God not any of the restoration leaders. But this does not mean that I cannot quote someone who expresses the same thoughts that I am trying to express but they say it better. I especially wanted to quote scholarly men on this subject such as Thayer and McGarvey for the same reason that you quoted Strongs Lexicon. You actually did not quote all that Strong had to say about presbuteros. I happen to agree with him about what the word of God teaches on these matters and quoted him only because I felt that he expressed these things better than I could. However, I do not think that anyone writing in this forum can even come close to matching his scholarship, unless that person is you. I do strongly doubt that your scholarship matches Brother McGarveys.

I must go to sleep now. I must go to work in the morning. I will take up the rest of what you have said later. For you have not told us the rest of the story on the Greek words that you discuss. You tell us only the meanings and uses of the words that favor your opinion. Now that is not the kind of scholarship that we have found in men like Thayer and Brother McGarvey.

I pray that we will submit to those who have the rule over us. Heb. 13:17.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000

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." 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.

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.

Regarding your read of my initial handling of Greek, I can totally understand where you thought me inexperienced with Greek. No apology necessary - I'm sorry that I didn't substantiate more, but I appreciate your kind words.

If you simply disagree with me, then I have no problem with your agreement to disagree. I am curious to see how you would handle the verses and words I put forth, but if I disagree, I probably won't respond to avoid endless bantering.

Thanks for your consideration.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 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