Let’s talk about positional authority. We’ve been down this road before, and so I’ll try to keep it brief.
The scriptures refer to the same men as “elders,” “overseers,” and “shepherds.” What would a First Century reader have heard in these terms?
Well, “overseer” (episkopos) refers to middle management.
BDAG (the premier Greek dictionary of our age) defines the word —
one who has the responsibility of safeguarding or seeing to it that someth. is done in the correct way, guardian
Thayer’s defines the word as —
an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent
Plainly, if God charges the overseers to see that things are done correctly, he must give them enough authority to fulfill their charge. And, of course, words such as “superintendent” and “guardian” refer to people with authority given to them by someone else.
In 2 Kings 11:15, the Septuagint uses episkopos to refer to the commanders or captains of the army — that is, men to whom very real positional authority had been delegated by the king.
What about “elder”? Well, in Acts, “elder” refers either to elders of the church or elders of the Jews. The elders of the Jews in Jerusalem made up the Sanhedrin, a council that had authority to order arrests and conduct trials. Clearly, it was a word that referred to a man of considerable positional authority.
Of course, in the Old Testament, “elder” referred to the patriarchs of a village or town, who spoke for that town. It was the elders of Judea and Israel who anointed David king after Saul’s death. The elders sat at the city gate and decided who might enter the city. They served as a city council/city court combination (separation of powers wouldn’t appear for many centuries). (See Deu 19:11-12; 21:21-20; 22:18, among many other passages.)
Elders were not simply old men revered for their wisdom. They were granted very real authority — which had been considerably formalized by the First Century in Jerusalem.
The early church could have picked any number of terms for its leaders, and could have even invented a new vocabulary. But despite the fact that the Jerusalem elders were working hard to persecute the early church, they chose to call their own leaders “elders” — a term that had many centuries of meaning and with a rich texture from its Old Testament usage.
This brings us to “shepherd.” In the Old Testament, the term is largely reserved for God (Psalm 23) and the king (2 Sam 5:2). The king is a shepherd only in that he is God’s servant to do God’s will. While a literal shepherd leads and doesn’t drive sheep, he is, in fact, a figure of great authority within the herd. A literal shepherd does not lead according to polls or surveys. He does not take votes. He decides where the flock is to go because the lives of the sheep depend on his wisdom — and not their own.
David’s point in Psalm 23 is not that God kindly asks his opinion on what green pasture should be next, but that David is led by a greater authority and wisdom to pastures he could not find on his own.
Now, this sounds a bit much for human elders to claim, but it’s God’s metaphor. God chose to call certain men “shepherds,” and he did so with a considerable history behind him. We cannot immediately leap from “shepherd” to “someone who only prays and teaches.” There is no path there because the humans most commonly referred to as shepherds in the Old Testament, other than literal herders of sheep, are kings.
Jesus, of course, claims to be the “Good Shepherd” in John 10, but in so doing, he was claiming to be the Messiah — God’s king prophesied in Ezekiel 34. Leon Morris notes regarding John 10, in the New International Commentary on John, “The shepherd was an autocrat over his flock, and passages are not lacking where the image is used to emphasize the thought of sovereignty. Jesus is thus set forth as the true Ruler of his people.”
Patrick argues that “no shepherd has ever ruled his sheep,” but the Old Testament uses both “shepherd” and “rule” with respect to God and the king, and the New Testament uses both words with respect to Jesus and elders. The biblical writers see no contradiction between being a shepherd and having the rule over the flock.
I’m not at all arguing for an autocratic eldership, just pointing out that, in the ancient world, “shepherd” in no way contradicted the idea of positional authority. The shepherd had authority over the flock.
Of course, as I’ve suggested many times here, God’s kind of king is not at all like most earthly kings. God and Jesus, as kings over the universe, rule with servant hearts. They do not “lord over” their flock.
Consider —
(Mat 20:25-28 ESV) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Friberg’s Greek lexicon defines “lord over” as “exercising dominion for one’s own advantage.” Jesus’ point isn’t that leaders within the Kingdom don’t have authority. After all, he gives himself as an example, and yet later declares that he’s been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Rather, Jesus’ point is that the authority granted is exercised with a servant’s heart — for the benefit of those over whom authority has been given.
Hence, elders have very real authority, but they are required to exercise that authority for the benefit of the church and God, not for their personal benefit.
We should also consider such passages as —
(1Ti 5:17-18 ESV) 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
“Rule”? Thayer’s defines “rule” as “to be over, to superintend, preside over.” Friberg translates “put oneself (responsibly) at the head, lead, direct, rule.”
Compare —
(1Th 5:12-13 ESV) 12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.
“Are over you”? It’s the same Greek word as “rule,” in a different voice. Moulton-Milligan define the word as “put before,” “set over,” and intrans. “preside,” “rule,” “govern.”
(Heb 13:17 ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
“Obey,” “leader,” and “submit” clearly indicate positional authority. Thayer’s gives as the meaning of the Greek word translated “leader” “to lead, i. e. a. to go before; b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over.”
Now, obviously, all these passages must be read in light of Jesus’ instructions to leaders not to “lord over” the flock but to lead as servants. But we cannot exegete words such as “rule,” “lead,” “submit,” and “obey” entirely out of the text.
The fact is that human organizations require leadership, and the Holy Spirit provides leadership for the church —
(Act 20:28 ESV) Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
It is ultimately the Holy Spirit who equips certain Christians to be elders, and their authority, therefore, comes from God. They are tasked to serve as overseers, which is a term for middle management and which indicates positional authority.
Of course. this authority is to be exercised to “care for” the church, but this does not mean “serve as volunteer comforters and counselors” — not in context. The particular care that Paul has in mind is —
(Act 20:29-31 ESV) 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.
Paul’s concern is that the elders protect the flock against false teaching and lies that lead to division.
Moreover, Paul had just said,
(Act 20:25-27 ESV) 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
Again, Paul is speaking of teaching the true gospel. In context, “care for” is therefore not about visiting the sick and counseling for emotional needs but teaching the doctrine of the Kingdom and defending the congregation against error.
There is certainly nothing here that limits elders to praying for the church (which, of course, they should also do). Nor are the elders limited to being mere examples of moral living. Rather, they are called to teach with authority and protect the church against false doctrine.
[to be continued]
TDNT demonstrates the use of episkopos as “one who watches over”, similar to outside NT use guardian angels or family gods. The more I study culture, the more convinced I am that our middle management idea of episkopos is actually us projecting our culture back into the OT/NT world. This is reinforced to me in an assessment of societal complexity along the lines of Clare Graves’ work on thinking systems. The complexity that is required for a culture wide understanding of episkopos as management didn’t really exist on a global level until around the 1500’s, corresponding with the reformation. Add that into what the characteristics of a good king are (justice, defending poor, widow, orphan, etc), which is discussed at length in N. T. Wright’s “How God Became King”, we start to get a picture of episkopos, king, and shepherd that is more intercessory/protecting for/of his people and less of a position of power. This matches societal complexity better as well: king and prophet working together to appease the unknown, unseen spiritual forces. Each have a slightly different role, but both are protectors of their people.
Jay, my concern about your emphasis of the elders “authority” is that it encourages the exercise of authority on matters that should not require it.
For example, in your earlier post, you used the example of elders addressing the matter of clapping during the worship assembly.
Why would elders even address such an issue? To address it, directly, is to suggest that clapping or not clapping has some spiritual significance to God. Which, I’m confident, both and I don’t think there is.
When we exercise authority, we encourage the view that our relationship with God is about complying with rules, rather than relying on his grace.
Jay I basically agree with what you set forth here. I see, however, the whole area of polity and church government as problematic for Churches of Christ. We have two largely opposite understandings of the authority of elders. One is the position you set forth. The other is the David Lipscomb view of elders who lead by example and through their pastoral ministry but without the authority more associated with the view of elders as bishops. I think Lipscomb failed to take into account some of the passages you cite that seem to clearly invest a formal authority in elders. Nevertheless Lipscomb’s writings on elders are well worth reading for all of us and especially his functional understanding of elders. He strongly believed that the true elders of any congregation are those who do the work of an elder whether or not they are recognized as elders. Likewise he believed that named and recognized elders who do not do the work of elders are not really elders at all. He is quite persuasive on this. His understanding is a helpful corrective for elders who have no pastoral ministry to speak of and who see their role as primarily making authoritative decisions for the church.
Another problematic area is the role and authority, if any, of the minister who is the preacher and primary teacher for the congregation. There is no doubt in my mind that the one who filled this role in the early church would have been considered to be an elder or bishop of the congregation. Of course that won’t fly in Churches of Christ and I see many problems with it myself. But I do think it is an important way that we differ from the early church.
An even thornier area is whether the apostles intended two levels of leaders in the church (elders and deacons) or three (bishops, elders and deacons). We have opted for the former but the latter seems firmly in place by the very early second century. Since that generation had a living memory of the apostles and their associates such as Timothy and Titus I can’t see as reasonable the automatic assumption that they were clearly departing from the apostles’ teaching.
The more oversight you take on the harsher the judgement.
Better to be judged for what you have done for others than for your enforcing rules, eliciting withdrawals, and other laws you think important to maintain the authority given you as an Elder.
Jay,
Many years ago I thought I would study the words for authority in the NT (there are 7 in nearly 200 verses), in an attempt to solidify the understanding and specific teaching regarding who has authority in the church, and more importantly, how authority is to be used. Amazingly, I could find not even one verse that spoke of authority for elders or overseers or shepherds in the body of Christ.
Reading through your comments, I find a lot of implications and inferences (which I cannot remember you ever accepting in any other context) which rely more on definitions of 19th and 20th and 21st century scholars rather than any actual teaching in the scriptures. More important, though, is that those implications and inferences go directly against many NT doctrines taught by Jesus (which you noted, but down-played) and the other NT writers. Patrick was closer to what Jesus taught than you want to admit.
I do not just disagree with your implications and inferences from definitions and societal norms, but I believe that the root of any grasping for authority runs contrary to Jesus being the One who has been given not just some authority, but ALL authority in heaven and earth. Brother, you have only tradition on your side in this. When all you have is reduced to definitions and inferences and implications from the world’s examples, you become like a lame man declaring his dancing ability.
Some may take this opportunity to mark me as a rebel, but I will stand with Jesus on this point. The main reason any man appeals to authority is because he cannot persuade effectively. THAT, Jay, is the world’s way and most certainly NOT the way of Jesus.
Does that seem harsh? Perhaps it is for those who are unable to see past the debates and the traditions so long taught without a true leg to stand on. Jay, should we yield to the same kind of ‘scholarship’ progressive thinkers have long stood against in the effort to be faithful to God whether or not tradition becomes a casualty? I cannot imagine you would accept the kind of arguments one must make in this area to get to the position you take.
Sincerely stumped,
Grizz
Glenn, I’m just curious how you understand the command to “obey them that have the rule over you.” The citation eludes me for now.
Pretty good goals for an old Florence, Alabama gal:
The sad thing is we all want to live together in happiness and peace in the hereafter. Its just heartbreaking we cannot get along, even in our worshiping of our God.
How wonderful to see folks off at their funeral and say ‘See you again'”. Isn’t that what we want all others to say of us? I know it is.
Does this mean that all para-church organizations must be over-seen by Elders?
Anonymous,
There is no biblical pattern for para church organizations
In my limited experience, elder oversight of para church organizations is largely nominal
Elders just don’t have the expertise to truly oversee many of these organizations and so they exercise very little real oversight
The idea comes from the old missionary society fights and are built on a very thin doctrinal base
Which is precisely what Luke warns us will be the party line…
“So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.'” (Luke 22:25 NET)
Benefactors.
Friends of the people.
“Goodworkers”
Jay, in all your teaching and writing and listening-to-the-stories-of-others experience, have you ever met or heard of an elder who didn’t claim that they were “exercising their authority for the benefit of the church and God?”
I’m somewhat surprised by the reaction to oversight and authority in the church… Was there ever a time in the history of mankind that God didn’t put some person or group of people in charge ? Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, Prophets/Priests, Apostles… Elders were a spiritual gift to the church…their leadership as mentioned along with Apostles seems quite evident to me… And, there seems to quite a bit more scriptural support for there being leaders with some oversight responsibilities which common sense suggests some authority (solving disputes such as Jerusalem council), being appointed as Apostolic representatives in various churches, etc…. than there is scriptural support for no leadership whatsoever… I don’t remember anywhere scripture suggests that everybody just does what they feel is appropriate… Didn’t Paul write his letters to the Elders of the various cities ?? My guess is that there is some real resentment toward bad eldership coming out in some of the comments that is tainting one’s understanding of authority and leadership in the church… I mean, why have qualifications for Elders if there is no purpose in having Elders ? That just doesn’t make much sense to me… But, I do agree that a good Elder simply can direct people through proper teaching, edification, exhortation and encouragement which on very rare occasion would require any exercise of authority.
The word for “obey” in Hebrews 13:17 essentially means to be persuaded by. It is quiet different from the word in Acts 5:29 where Peter said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Here, the word is πειθαρχέω (peitharcheō). Thayer’s Definition is “to obey (a ruler or a superior).” In Hebrews 13:17, the word is “πείθω (peithō). Thayer’s Definition is “persuade.” While there is some correspondence between the two, the word in Acts 5:29 has more the idea of submission to an authoritative person; Hebrews 13:17 speaks more of submission to persuasion. The one is because I have to; the other is a voluntary submission because of love.
Jerry,
ESV, KKV, NET Bible, and NAS all translate “obey.”
Thayer’s mentions Heb 13:17 specifically, and with respect to this passage, translates “b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with,” which explains the most common translation. (It’s in the passive voice here, and so you have to follow that section of the definition.)
Similarly, Friberg’s lexicon translates: “obey, follow, with the dative of person or thing (HE 13.17).”
Gingrich translates, “obey, follow w. dat. Ro 2:8; Gal 5:7; Hb 13:17.”
“Submit yourselves” in the same verse is translated by Thayer’s — “to yield to authority and admonition, to submit.”
The Hebrews author thus uses two verbs in parallel that lead to the same conclusion. They have to be read together.
PS — I used to argue as you do, but I changed my mind, largely due to acquiring better Greek resources that forced me to where I am today.
We look to Jesus for our example. How did HE lead? I observe that He led by example and by teaching and NEVER by “authority.” I hear Jay advocating leading by authority.
baltimoreguy99 says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
Glenn, I’m just curious how you understand the command to “obey them that have the rule over you.” The citation eludes me for now.
Grizz here: The command is to “allow yourself to be persuaded by and do not resist those who are leading you”… specifically. Rather than an appeal to the authority of rulers, this verse in Hebrews 13:17 .is specific in commanding that we allow those who are actively leading to persuade us and commanding that we not resist their persuasion. It does NOT imply they are to be treated like governors or kings, but rather that they be shown some deference as befits those who are blazing the trail out in front of us and whose lead we are presently following.
I would note that there is not even one word for authority anywhere near this verse – because being responsible does NOT imply authority, but rather directly addresses responsibility/good judgment and accountability.
We have One who leads us all … Jesus. Even Paul, an apostle, only commanded that we follow him “As (he) follow(s) Christ.” Thus, if Paul should at any point stop following Christ, then we should also stop following him. And this is a key point. If Paul, an apostle,of whom it is said directly that they HAD authority, commands only that we follow him inasmuch as he follows Jesus, then elders, of whom there is NEVER ANYTHING said about them having authority, should only be followed that far, too. That is, elders have no more say in matters of opinion than does any other member of the body of Christ.
Also, despite Jay’s insistence on associating elders with kings and members of the Sanhedrin council, there is a very real difference. Kings were appointed in Israel much differently than in the rest of the world. And the times when any king in Israel demanded obedience were the very times when they got into trouble. In Israel, kings were to be more like shepherds who tend a flock for the flock’s owner – NOT authorities before whom to tremble.
A rider may put a bit in a horse’s mouth to gain some control, but the wise rider knows to listen to the horse because the horse often observes a danger before the rider does. Even so, the elder who fails to listen to their flock is a poor shepherd. Does that mean an elder should always be persuaded by every member’s whims? Absolutely not! Even when leading a different way than the member of the flock would go, though, a good elder listens and finds a way to answer their request in a way that serves that member of the flock – because leaders in Christ are servants, no matter what else they are.
Grizz
Perhaps more telling than the Greek is the contemporary context of the first century Middle East versus our own culture. I think Americans have a hard time contemplating the kind of authority one reads of, say, in Luke 19. Our entire culture is one of self-government, of ourselves being the sole source of all legitimate authority. Americans, in a very real and visceral sense, are our own king. We reflexively reject authority not of our own making, and have to be convinced to consider anything which looks otherwise. We did not actually fire George III, we just took up his ermine and split it up among ourselves. The hardest thing in the world seems to be to convince an American that someone else has the actual right to tell him what to do. We are rebels by culture, and self-governing by law. An actual king would be anathema to us.
That said, I think that reducing our perspective on delegated spiritual authority to a pinhole-camera discussion of the Greek language also steers us off course. Divine direction in this matter is not so cleverly hidden as to only be ferreted out by a world-class linguist. We should return to the broad contextual picture we find in scripture. The pictures we see of leadership are diverse enough to tempt us to pick the set we want and ignore the contrary images, an intellectual dishonesty of the first water. One brother embraces the picture of the king of Luke 19 and gives only lip service to Matthew 23. Another brother adores the servant-leader example of “footwashing Jesus” to the point of letting that be his sole takeaway from seeing the rule and dominion of Christ Jesus. We have a large canvas here in scripture, and it ill serves us to look at it in the same manner as the blind men looked at the elephant.
I fear that the positions we take are often mainly colored by where we find ourselves in the Body. Godly leaders can get frustrated at a congregation of “rugged individualists” who ask for leadership and then who won’t take any of it, leaving the elder or preacher with little more than the blame for what does not work. Being held responsible for things over which we have little or no control is incredibly wearying. The temptation is to try to accrue enough power to override this situation and gain some measure of control. OTOH, people who have developed some level of maturity and spiritual insight tend to chafe when treated as schoolchildren being herded through the lunch line. Believers who have something valuable from the Lord, but whose leaders don’t appear to need it or want it, begin to shy away from arrogant and assertive leadership.
It is not always “rebels” or “overlord” who are the problem: more often, it is those of us who do not see ourselves as either one.
Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Final authority always rests in God’s hands.
“ALL AUTHORITY, in heaven and on earth, has been given to me.” – Jesus