Early Christian Decision-Making: And Now for the Vote (Part 2)
Read Part 1.
The famous Twelve Articles which preceded the Peasants War of Luther’s day are very modest by today’s standards. In their own day they were conservative and presented no challenge to the feudal system. They began with the demand that “every municipality shall have the right to elect and remove a preacher if he behaves improperly. The preacher shall preach the gospel simply, straight and clearly without any human amendment, for, it is written, that we can only come to God by true belief.” Luther had written words quite similar, with the difference that he named the congregation as the deciding body. In those days, of course, there usually wasn’t much difference between congregation and municipality. Now if this type of congregational control had been standard practice in 1520, neither the Twelve Articles nor Luther’s tract would have ever been written. Indeed, most political and religious leaders in those days did not take well to it. It would take over three centuries before independent congregations which chose their ministers were generally tolerated in European nations.
But the whole idea of congregations choosing their ministers would have seemed anything but radical in Jesus’ day. As I have related in previous articles, the concept of towns, cities, organizations, or religious congregations voting for their leaders was a widespread practice. The common (but not only) word for voting in the Greek language was cheirotoneo. Its second occurrence in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 8:19:
And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind. (KJV)
In this verse cheirotoneo is translated “chosen” by the KJV, NIV and NKJV and “appointed” by the NASB, ESV, RSV, and NEB. The BDAG lexicon gives the translation in this passage “choose” (by election). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon (LSJ) gives the translation “appoint” (like the high priest of Judaea).
LSJ says that there are three basic meanings for cheirotoneo.
- To stretch forth the hand (and thus vote)
- To select (without explaining how)
- To span with the hand
Obviously, the third meaning has no bearing on the two NT passages. So for the usage in 2 Corinthians 8:19 the question is whether the representative was chosen by a vote in each church or selected without a vote. Commentators who say cheirotoneo here describes an election include Alford, Barrett, Bernard (EGT), Calvin, Fausset, Lenski and H.A.W. Meyer. Commentators who say the representative was appointed include Harris (EBC), Hughes (NIC), and Lohse (TDNT). Alfred Plummer does not decide in his comments which translation is right, but he points out that cheirotoneo had a shift in meaning from “elect” to “appoint” over the process of time. This shift was well explained by Edwin Hatch in his article “Ordination” in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities in 1875.
To a large extent, writers focus on one or the other meaning of the word. On the one hand, the primary meaning of cheirotoneo is “to elect.” On the other hand, the word changed in meaning to “appoint” even before the NT was written. Both Josephus and Philo (contemporaries of the NT authors) frequently use the word to mean “appoint.” Thus John MacArthur asserts that the translation of “elect” here in 2 Corinthians 8:19 is “exaggerated literalism.”
But in all of this discussion, wrong assumptions are being made. Commentators are not performing a thorough study of the word in its various contexts (do they really have the time?). But, in fact, thorough study of that kind is precisely what is necessary since cheirotoneo appears only twice in the entire New Testament.
I have not studied the word in all of its contexts. That would require using a Greek search engine to look at every instance of cheirotoneo, then read the passage in the literature in which it occurs. The whole study would be worthy of a PhD project (perhaps I can inspire someone to do just that). But I have made a preliminary study and have found the following:
- Though the word cheirotoneo did change its meaning, it never ceased to be used with its original meaning, “elect,” as well. During the time of Christ and long after, cheirotoneo was used by Greek authors to mean “vote” (e.g. by Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, and Diodorus of Sicily). Likewise, although Philo and Josephus used the word to mean “select,” they also used it to mean “elect.” Among the church fathers, it frequently had the meaning of elect (e.g. Didache 15.1; Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 11.2, Letter to the Philadelphians 10.1, etc). In fact, even in AD 400, church leaders used the word to mean “elect” (e.g., Philostordius in h.e. 7.6).
- Another Greek word, proteineo, demonstrates the same history. It began with the meaning “extend the hand” and later came to mean “propose” but never lost the more literal meaning. Josephus also uses proteineo with both meanings.
- It appears that every time cheirotoneo is used unequivocally to mean “appoint,” it is done by one person. Thus, for example David was chosen (cheirotonetheie) by God to be King (Josephus, Antiquities, 7.53). But when a group was selecting, it had the meaning “elect” (Josephus, Antiquities 19.287—when Tiberius was elected to counsel for the second time).
Now, let’s read the sentence in 2 Corinthians 8:19 again: “He was chosen (cheirotoneo) by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering” (NIV). A group does the selection. Thus the churches each elected the man (whom I would suggest was Aristarchus—a well-tested team worker of Paul from Macedonia). So each church voted “yes” or “no” on one man, it seems. A careful reading of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 makes this kind of action even more apparent. It was only natural for Paul to think that the churches had the say in who would handle the money they gave.
Did churches in New Testament times vote? I am rather convinced they did, though the Bible lays no stress on any word to express it. In the case of 2 Corinthians 8:19, it seems rather clear that the churches in Macedonia were instructed by Paul to vote. It was not a vote between multiple candidates, but rather a vote of confidence on one person who would carry the Christians’ money. It was a vote, nonetheless. This action really shouldn’t amaze us. Believers in those times may not have had electricity, cell phones, and the Internet, but they did a lot of the same things we do today.
Jeff Brown Bio
Jeff Brown was born in 1951 and received Christ as a child during an evening service in the First Baptist Church of Elkhart, IN. During his senior year in college, while studying Biology, God led him to change course and enter the ministry. He later attended seminary, and completed his theological education through the PhD in Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Seminary. Jeff and his wife, Linda, have four adult children.
- 71 views
[Jeff Brown] Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time today, Ted. So I will only answer part of your comment. First, I sincerely thank you for your compliments. I am amazed that anyone would say that about anything I have written, ever.I meant it. You are precise and well-thought. I appreciate the discussion.
[Jeff] At least here, some have had a chance to read part of what I have found out, and I feel I have fulfilled an obligation. Your articles were the occasion, not the motivation.Yes. You were waiting, huh? ;)
If Paul had had any horror at the the idea of voting, he surely would have laid out its offensiveness to God in very plain terms. He did not. BUT THIS IS REALLY NOT MY POINT. I am concerned at how and why groups made decisions in the New Testament. The New Testament does not say what method was used - except in 2 Corinthians 8:19.I too am concerned about Christ’s meek children making decisions in a manner that reflects their calling into His life. Voting doesn’t reflect that calling, and is not taught as the way congregations make decisions in Scripture. I’m happy to wrestle 2 Cor. 8:19 with you all day long, hoping that at some point you’ll cry “uncle.” because you are simply putting too much weight on it.
Have you ever pastored a church alongside other biblically qualified elders who collectively possess full charge authority over the church and make decisions based on the requirement of unanimity and preference (Phil 2:3-4)?
[Jeff Brown] Now, it may be that Paul chose the man too, I will not dispute that. But the Bible does not say that Paul chose him. It only says in 2 Corinthians 8:19 that the man was chosen (cheirotonetheis) by the churches. Check most any English translation. Did the believers align themselves with Paul? Did they voice agreement with Paul? Did they vote for both the man and Paul? Did they simply affirm Paul’s plan? The text does not say this. It only says that they voted for the man to accompany Paul. That is all. And regarding v.18, which came first, Paul’s decision to send the man along with Titus to Corinth, or the choosing of the man by the other churches? Does Paul say in v.18 that he chose the man on the basis of his character, or that the churches were convinced of the man’s character? “And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.” (NIV)You and i only differ on the matter of authority here, I think. So my question for you is this: Had the Corinthian church voted “NO” on the man Paul approved of, and the other churches approved of, would that man have been prevented from going to Jerusalem? This assumes they also, as a church, approved someone else to go with them (1 Cor. 16:3). However, their approach there seems to be more in line with deacon testing since Paul usesthe word for “testing” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:10) - an approach that can only work under the principle of unanimity, not voting.
It also makes perfect sense that the churches would each vote for the man who would handle their money. In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul tells the church in Corinth to choose reliable people from their church to take the offering. In fact, Paul says that they are to be confirmed from the Corinthian church by letter: a common practice for people who carried money for others in that day. The Jewish pattern for taking donations to Jerusalem in Paul’s day was, that each community chose representatives to carry their money there (Philo, Spec. 1.78). Would it be at all strange that Paul would use a procedure basically demanded by both Jew and Gentile in that day? By the time of the second letter to the Corinthians, the situation had changed. For whatever reason, Paul’s method has shifted to one person, instead of someone from each church (perhaps because threats on his life required a more simple procedure?). Still, the vote on the carrier would have been the normal practice for any group of people giving funds to be transported. It is also possible that the one man was voted on by the Macedonian churches, and the Corinthian church would still send along the money carriers they had selected. This point is somewhat unclear. In any case, the churches chose whoever carried the money. “I affirm you” had little to do with financial accountability either than or now. How you could call this event non-authoritative is beyond my comprehension.
[Jeff BrownHave you ever lived as an elder among elders - to whom you submit your ministry - and they their ministry to you - where you all have full-charge authority over the flock of God? No passages in the NT contradict this, yet many contradict the heart of congregationalism - i.e., Heb. 13:17. How can a congregation have authority to overturn an eldership decision - as congregationalism affirms - and still fulfill their obligation to “submit and obey” them?
I have studied every passage on elders in the NT, in Greek, I think rather thoroughly. I have taught through every one of them. I have preached on most of them.
Here are some of the books I have read on Elders in Scripture: Crouch, A Biblical Theology of the Church; Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church and Elders and Leaders; MacArthur, Answering Key Questions about Elders (pamphlet) and TMaster’s Plan for the Church; Strauch, Biblical Eldership; Clowney, The Church (section on church government); Robert Reymond’s and James White’s chapters in Perspectives on Church Government; Dever, Nine Marks of the Healthy Church (chapter on church leadership). All of them stress multiple elders. Most of them reject the idea that the congregation has any say in choice or rejection of elders. I have also carefully read the ecclesiastical sections of the theologies of Berkof, Calvin, Erckson, Grudem, Hodge, Shedd, Turretin, (most of which stress eldership). I haven’t mentioned the numerous commentary sections and journal articles in my library and files on the subject which are well-marked.
I have obviously studied the matter of Elders in the New Testament quite thoroughly already, and continue to study it. We differ.
As I see it, our difference is this: your beginning thought for church order is elders. My beginning thought is the Lordship of Christ: His relationship to all in His church and the relationship of believers to one another. You continually stress that if we would understand the authority of elders, we would have church order straight (and of course would forbid votes in our churches). But I reject the idea that elders are the centerpiece of church order.I would like to challenge you on that. I believe the Lordship of Christ is in the Scripture being obeyed, not His union with His people (Mat. 4:4 vs. Rom. 6:6-7). :bigsmile:
[Jeff Brown]I hope you are sitting down. I’m not opposed to voting among elders, so long as decisions are only made once godly unanimity is attained.
Gene Getz, one of the most well-known writers on the subject of Elder rule held pretty much this view originally. Then he realized that he was stifiling his elders’ honesty. He still did not believe in the members voting, but he introduced the idea that his elders do it. The result was a lot more honest talking of the elders with one-another. Voting thus promoted honesty in his church.
I have discussed the principle of unity within the context of church order in my book, Form and Freedom (available at Amazon for anyone reading this), and cite at least 15 passages which talk about it: “To be of one mind does not mean that no differing viewpoints are allowed. Rather, it means that differing viewpoints are subordinated to the purpose of the Gospel and the testimony of Christ … . Unity of purpose in the local church does not arise from convincing ourselves that we don’t have any differences, to repeat: the local church patterned after the New Testament is a diverse group. Nor is unity achieved when differing viewpoints are muzzled, or criticism is disallowed… . It will not be a unity in the Holy Spirit.” (71)I have you book - its very well done - really thought provoking and even worship-provoking. Thanks for all your labor for our Lord Jesus Christ. I treasure it.
We still have to play 1 Cor. 1:10 as it lies - a unanimity that is commanded down to the inner reasonings: “same mind and same judgment.”
[Jeff] If a vote comes out not 100%, no unity is damaged in any way. The damage comes when believers decide they are going to go ahead and do what they jolly well wanted to do anyway, regardless of how the rest of the body has spoken.Bodies don’t speak. Heads do. And when bodies do speak, it usually isn’t pretty.
Who believes the majority of a church is the church’s voice? Take the same vote a week later, and you may well get a different result. I would love for you to experience a unity that does away with church voting - where everybody in church is to determine what Christ say about any particular situation, and submits to His will.
[Jeff Brown]Sure. 1 Tim. 5:22 and Titus 1:5.Well, we should probably take notice one thing - in neither case did Paul ask the congregation to chose, right? Then, what happened when Timothy left Ephesus, and Titus left Crete? each church would have watched other godly leaders do the work of appointing further leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). If Paul wanted congregations electing and deposing their leaders, why didn’t he just tell those congregations to do it?Please give us one verse where Scripture says that Elders appoint elders: exactly elders appoint elders.
But wait! You say, Titus and Timothy weren’t elders, they were apostolic designates. Well they were that, but they were also elders.
Here’s how to see it. How could Timothy or Titus know if any man was truly qualified by all the qualifications (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22)? Because they were themselves that mature, and knew by Christian experience what it meant to be elder qualified. A congregation of Christians doesn’t know what it means to elder-qualified, and so can only guess at who is, and who isn’t. Every man appointed into eldership by a congregation is therefore appointed by presumption. Every elder appointed into eldership by men who are are themselves elder-qualified are appointed by Scripture, since that is what Scripture-sensitive elders measure other men by. They can relate to Paul’s admonition not to lay hands on anyone hastily, and know how not to do that - thorough elder-testing.
In the Bible you will always find leaders appointing other leaders except in cases of rebellion. In the NT this is true - Jesus appoints apostles, apostles appoint elders (Acts 14:23), apostolic designates appoint leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). So the principle is clear - leader appoint leaders.
Who is supposed to be in leadership in the local church? A group of elders. Who then should appoint future leadership in the local church? A group of elders.
You step out of the biblical world and outside of all Scriptural precedent when you ask the congregation to do the appointing. Ask yourself the question, “where does the NT ever show the congregation appointing its leaders? As well, reflect on 3 John - John, “the elder,” doesn’t ask the congregation to depose Diotrophes. Why not?
You and i only differ on the matter of authority here, I think. So my question for you is this: Had the Corinthian church voted “NO” on the man Paul approved of, and the other churches approved of, would that man have been prevented from going to Jerusalem? This assumes they also, as a church, approved someone else to go with them (1 Cor. 16:3).I am not sure I understand your question. I will make an attempt to understand it. I assume you mean, that if every other church had approved of the man Paul mentions except the church in Corinth, would the man approved by every other church except by Corinth still go to Jerusalem carrying money? I did not live then. Neither did you. I assume he would have gone with the money from the other churches, but not the money from Corinth. I find this to be a silly question. Maybe you meant something else.
Ted, you left off with exegetical concerns and filled 2 Corinthians 8:19 with your own content a while back. Your explanation comes out contrary to what the text and near contest actually state. Now you try to come up with impossible situations to create contradictions. No need for me to cry uncle when you are wrestling with ghosts.
Jeff Brown
Have you ever lived as an elder among elders - to whom you submit your ministry - and they their ministry to you - where you all have full-charge authority over the flock of God?Ted, I have ministered together with other elders. We all submitted our ministry to one-another. God worked marvelously through us, and sometimes in spite of us. What is so unusual about that? But I would never, like you emphasize, keep the rest of the congregation from having any say about what I am doing, or whether I should continue as an elder.
Jeff Brown
Bodies don’t speak. Heads do. And when bodies do speak, it usually isn’t pretty.Really? Then why do we often read, “The congress has spoken,” “the parliment has spoken,” “the board has spoken,” “The American people have spoken,’” etc.? Is all that they have to offer ugliness.
Who believes the majority of a church is the church’s voice? Take the same vote a week later, and you may well get a different result. I would love for you to experience a unity that does away with church voting - where everybody in church is to determine what Christ say about any particular situation, and submits to His will.
The head of the church is Christ. He can speak through His church just as easily as He can through an elder.
Jeff Brown
Here’s how to see it. How could Timothy or Titus know if any man was truly qualified by all the qualifications (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22)? Because they were themselves that mature, and knew by Christian experience what it meant to be elder qualified. A congregation of Christians doesn’t know what it means to elder-qualified, and so can only guess at who is, and who isn’t. Every man appointed into eldership by a congregation is therefore appointed by presumption. Every elder appointed into eldership by men who are are themselves elder-qualified are appointed by Scripture, since that is what Scripture-sensitive elders measure other men by. They can relate to Paul’s admonition not to lay hands on anyone hastily, and know how not to do that - thorough elder-testing.I don’t think that you really believe this, Ted. Or perhaps you do, and do not preach from 1 Tim 3 to your congregation. I am convinced of the exact opposite of what you write. I have practiced my belief, which is contrary to what you write. I found the congregations quite capable of discerning who is elder-qualified, and selecting them. The Holy Spirit lives in each of the believers in the congregation, as well as in me. God has given each believer the capacity to understand the Bible. It isn’t just elders who are given the capacity to evaluate character. Their wives sometimes evlauate character better than they do. Some elders, in fact, are poor judges of character.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff] congregations are capable of discerning….Sorry, bro. Congregations don’t get a little extra Holy Spirit zap that covers their collective lack of maturity/discernment. Being greater in number doesn’t make up for less discernment.
I don’t think that you really believe this, Ted. Or perhaps you do, and do not preach from 1 Tim 3 to your congregation. I am convinced of the exact opposite of what you write. I have practiced my belief, which is contrary to what you write. I found the congregations quite capable of discerning who is elder-qualified, and selecting them. The Holy Spirit lives in each of the believers in the congregation, as well as in me. God has given each believer the capacity to understand the Bible. It isn’t just elders who are given the capacity to evaluate character. Their wives sometimes evlauate character better than they do. Some elders, in fact, are poor judges of character.
God has been generous to give all have the same source for discernment - Scripture - and in our church, we require all to use it to judge potential elders. As an eldership church we rely more on congregational involvement than your congregational polity church. I explain how that is so in chapter 4 of my book.
If a man’s wife is more discerning than he on who should be in eldership - methinks the problem is not eldership but the elder.
You asked for texts on elders choosing elders. I complied (post 20).
I asked you for texts on congregations appointing elders. I got none.
[Jeff Brown]I don’t believe Christ speaks through the congregation. I don’t believe Christ speaks through the elders. Too much competition. Too much confusion.
The head of the church is Christ. He can speak through His church just as easily as He can through an elder.
I believe He only speaks through the Scriptures. That’s what makes Heb. 13:17 so ethically challenging to congregationalists.
[Jeff Brown]Thank the Lord for your happy experience. i would never want to see that argued away from you.
Ted, I have ministered together with other elders. We all submitted our ministry to one-another. God worked marvelously through us, and sometimes in spite of us. What is so unusual about that? But I would never, like you emphasize, keep the rest of the congregation from having any say about what I am doing, or whether I should continue as an elder.
But bro, you can email folks in our church about me “keeping them from having any say about what I am doing.” You have at least 3 people from my church you either know, or with whom you have interacted back and forth with. And if you ask them and they don’t give you answers that exalt me as their ruling elder, let me know. They obviously need church discipline.
[Jeff Brown] No need for me to cry uncle when you are wrestling with ghosts.Love it! Great answer!
1. You cannot know you what the will of the majority is unless you find out. This is what I mean by measured. You have to find out in some way. Do you say “everybody who is for this shout yes and everybody who is against yell no and we’ll see which is loudest”? Even that would be voting. Do you say “speak now or forever hold your peace” then assume the silence is unanimity? Folly. I guarantee it is only superficial unity some of the time. But even that is measuring. In short, a mandate to act as a majority is a mandate to determine what the majority is. It’s logical necessity.
2. How do I reconcile decision making by a congregational majority with the mandate for unanimity? The calls to unity are of two kinds. (a) Some are like the calls to holiness, calls to prayer, calls to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. They express the standard toward which we are growing, not the standard to which we are going to actually attain consistently any time soon. (b) They express a oneness of mind in reference to particular matters identified in the context. I.e., “Everybody accept together that what I’m telling you is the truth.” This is certainly achievable among believers in matters where Scripture speaks clearly. It becomes less attainable (and less what the unity passages have in mind) as we differ over passages that are more difficult or passages we must apply to a variety of situations.
One thing is certain: genuine unanimity on matters of application does not exist over time even when the size of the group is very small (say, two in number!). The larger the group is and the more matters they face together, the more often unanimity will elude them. Finding ways to hear the differing views, weigh them, and then attempt to teach persuasively is a far wiser course than “We have decided. Now you are all going to pretend you agree.”
As for the passages referring to elders having the “rule” over them, etc., these are open to more than one interpretation and history reveals that some of them have been debated for many centuries. My short answer is that there is plenty of room to rule and lead without making 100% of the decisions. Decision-making authority is not the only kind of authority, nor is decision-making leadership the only kind of leadership.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Jeff Brown
Featured Resource
Discussion