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
[Aaron] Here’s why they are not relevant:My point is not how a decision is made (eldership or congregationalism), although that has come up along the way. From the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to defend something you called the “will of the majority.” In post 6 you wrote, “the will of the majority must be measured in some way.” I’ll ask the question a 3rd time: Why? The Holy Spirit never speaks of such a thing, so I don’t know what it is.
We’re talking about how a decision is made. If it is open to being revoted, it has not really been made.
Secondly: what if the elders made a decision and the next day changed their minds? The point simply doesn’t argue for one approach more than the other.
[Aaron] I guarantee they are not changing their minds because the elders said so. They are accepting the decision and not opposing it. The same occurs when the body accepts the decision of the body.The difference being Scripture – it commands one and not the other. Therefore we are dealing with the believer’s conscience being bound to the Word and not human traditions.
[Aaron] To make a case for one method of local church decision making over another method, what one has to do is make a case for the superiority of one method compared to the others. To do that, there are several valid arguments…Good points, all, brother. But this thread is on congregational decision making.
1- Arguments that identify a biblical weakness in one method that does not exist in the preferred method
2- Arguments that identify a biblical strength in the preferred method that does not exist in the alternatives
3- Arguments that identify negative practical results that are unique to the alternative method(s)
4- Arguments that identify positive practical results that are unique to the preferred method
… and others, no doubt.
But arguments that identify weaknesses that exist for one method just as much as the other are not valid, no matter how numerous or passionate. Neither side can claim these in defense of their method.
[Charlie] I deleted almost everything I was going to write (and it’s a good thing), but I’m appalled by the sheer linguistic incompetence evidenced by one not-to-be-named person in this thread. I frankly can’t believe that seminaries let people graduate who are so deficient in their abilities.I have not commented in this thread on the meaning of the Greek. But you’ve really got to help me out, Charlie. What do you mean by saying I can’t “talk about [discuss?] what the Greek means” unless I can sit down and read “pages on end of Greek with relative ease” [how many pages, BTW]? I can’t even discuss the meaning of the Greek, even if I consult standard Greek lexicons?
As someone who is proficient in reading, writing, teaching, and recently speaking ancient Greek (mostly Attic and Koine), I implore people who would not feel comfortable sitting down and reading pages on end of Greek with relative ease: don’t talk about what the Greek means.
I would love to hear you, as someone who is obviously well qualified to discuss the meaning of the Greek, contribute your thoughts on the passages being discussed.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Greg, good questions. I will tighten up my language for clarity. “If you can’t just sit down and read Greek easily (and preferably write it passingly as well), don’t think that you can exegete the language, exploiting the niceties of a text to proffer your own views and rebut others’.” In other words, one needs to be able to process the language accurately at an intuitive level before one can legitimately move into a more analytic posture toward the text.
Here are my writings on this issue:
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-role-of-greek-in-theolog…
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/the-purpose-of-greek-grammar/
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/silva-on-the-purpose-of-gree…
As far as the present discussion goes, here and on the other related threads, there have been a host of illegitimate (entirely wrong) appeals to the Greek text. Kevin Bauder helpfully corrected a few of them at some point a while back. I really have no interest in the theology here, since it amounts to people who believe in independent church government trying to convince other believers in independent government how to govern their independent churches!
Here are my writings on this issue:
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-role-of-greek-in-theolog…
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/the-purpose-of-greek-grammar/
http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/silva-on-the-purpose-of-gree…
As far as the present discussion goes, here and on the other related threads, there have been a host of illegitimate (entirely wrong) appeals to the Greek text. Kevin Bauder helpfully corrected a few of them at some point a while back. I really have no interest in the theology here, since it amounts to people who believe in independent church government trying to convince other believers in independent government how to govern their independent churches!
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Ted, Thanks for the response. I am tempted to respond line by line, and since I am weak, I am going to :D
Part of the dynamic of church discipline being given to the body is to protect against abusive leaders who would discipline without the two or three or the congregation. The congregational aspect means that an elder and the two or three are held accountable for their judgment. And there is, in some cases, room for legitimate difference of opinion. We, as pastors, can be wrong sometimes. And it is good to have someone who speaks up. Congregationalism provides that avenue.
Christ’s command to the congregation in 1 Cor. 1:10 to be in complete agreement in the same judgment doesn’t relate to congregational decision making? Judgments aren’t decisions?Correct. 1 Corinthians simply isn’t about that. It has another focus, namely spiritual unity among proud people. However, even if this is applicable to polity and decision making, it still doesn’t help you. Remember, the vote doesn’t guarantee unity. If a church is divided about something, being unable to express their difference does not mean the difference isn’t there. You are trying to pound a nail with a shoe. It simply isn’t made for that purpose.
And where did this “congregational action” requirement come from?Jesus.
Jesus can’t command His church to obey His standards without first giving them some action to decide?He did both.
Fact is, the Corinthians were already acting congregationally prior to 1 Corinthians and independently disobeying Christ by not disciplining the immoral man in 1 Cor. 5. Paul stripped them of their autonomy and forced them to honor Christ and discipline out the man.They were acting congregationally and Paul does not reprimand them for that. 1 Cor 5 is completely absent of any condemnation for their congregationalism, or their lack of elder decision making. Paul didn’t strip them of their autonomy and force them to do something. He couldn’t. In refutation of your position, he refused to do it for them. He told them to do it. And he didn’t tell the elders among them to do it. He told them to do it. And apparently they did.
Would it be OK with you if you were in the Corinthian church and, after receiving 1 Corinthians a majority of the congregation had said, “let’s vote on whether we should discipline?” As a committed congregationalist, I suspect your answer is “yes.”Yes. And it’s historical. That’s what they did. It’s not really theoretical or hypothetical.
So what if you and the majority had voted to discipline the man, but a minority had voted NOT to? Wouldn’t the minority need to repent? And if they didn’t, would you start church discipline since they have disobeyed Christ (1 Cor. 5:13) and are as much leaven to the church as the immoral man (1 Cor. 5:7)?Yes, assuming you know who the “no” votes are, and they refuse to accede to the voice of the congregation.
Part of the dynamic of church discipline being given to the body is to protect against abusive leaders who would discipline without the two or three or the congregation. The congregational aspect means that an elder and the two or three are held accountable for their judgment. And there is, in some cases, room for legitimate difference of opinion. We, as pastors, can be wrong sometimes. And it is good to have someone who speaks up. Congregationalism provides that avenue.
And would you obey Christ and put out those who steadfastly refused to repent for voting no?Yes. We have never had a no vote in church discipline, though I know of at least one church that refused. But again, the fact that some people might disobey God is not a reason to change the way things are done.
Thanks Larry, You are a most precious and beloved brother in the Lord. Have a rich and blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow.
My point is not how a decision is made (eldership or congregationalism), although that has come up along the way. From the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to defend something you called the “will of the majority.” In post 6 you wrote, “the will of the majority must be measured in some way.” I’ll ask the question a 3rd time: Why? The Holy Spirit never speaks of such a thing, so I don’t know what it is.I think we’re all going in circles pretty much now. I’m pretty sure I’ve already answered that question more than once.
There are several passages where congregations clearly participated in decision making, described either as a “majority” or as a “whole multitude” or even simply as “you” (plural).
“Will of the majority” is one of many phrases some use to describe what’s happening when the body makes a decision together. It’s not hard to figure out “what it is.”
Though I wouldn’t necessarily agree with every detail, I probably don’t have anything to add to what Fred Moritz wrote here:
http://sharperiron.org/article/congregational-government-response-to-ja…
Or to what Jeff has written in the OP and his previous essay on the topic.
About use of Greek….
I have to comment here. While I certainly respect the effort experts put into acquiring intuitive ease in reading the Greek—and we’d all be greatly impoverished without their work—the fact is, we have their work and we don’t have to have the same level of proficiency to evaluate their arguments or understand the grammatical rules (and exceptions) they appeal to in making their arguments.
If only Greek experts at the level Charlie describes can make arguments from Greek, why do they write books for the rest of us? Why are there grammars and lexicons? It seems evident that a significant percentage of these experts believe those with less skill are able to make use of the tools they produce. (Although I’d say that an intuitive grasp of “how language works” in general is pretty indispensable for using the tools tolerably well.)
[Greg] I would love to hear you, as someone who is obviously well qualified to discuss the meaning of the Greek, contribute your thoughts on the passages being discussed.Dittos to that. I think, Charlie, that you’d be quite helpful to us if you can offer some observations on some particulars.
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.
So Ted, what Greek grammar says that whenever a singular noun takes a plural verb, that it must be accompanied by “all”?
In contradiction to your Greek rule, note Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32. In each instance ochlos without pas takes the plural verb. On the other hand, in Mark 2:13, ochlos with pas takes the singular verb. In John 6:2 ochlos takes both a singular and a plural verb. (Note also John 7:49)
There are many examples of this phenomenon in Greek writings, e.g. Daniel 11:11, (LXX) “and the multitude (sing) shall be delivered (pl) into his hand. So I really wonder where you got your Greek rule, or whether you just think this must be so.
Acts 11:22 really doesn’t require any subject-verb association anyway. The sentence says that the news “came to the ears of the church,” (ekklesia is Genitive, not Nominative). The next phrase is “and they sent” (no subject given for the verb, becuse it is understood). Disqualifying the church on the basis that it is singular in the sentence, while the verb is plural misses the grammar completely.
Your explanation about ochlos followed by the plural verb in Acts 6:7 on account of “many priests” in the sentence does not work at all. “many priests” is not the noun corresponding to the verb (the phrase in in Genitive), the “multitude” (singular) was “obedient.” (pl)
To me, you have no good reason to insert “elders” as the subject of “and they sent,” except that you feel it has to be so.
In contradiction to your Greek rule, note Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32. In each instance ochlos without pas takes the plural verb. On the other hand, in Mark 2:13, ochlos with pas takes the singular verb. In John 6:2 ochlos takes both a singular and a plural verb. (Note also John 7:49)
There are many examples of this phenomenon in Greek writings, e.g. Daniel 11:11, (LXX) “and the multitude (sing) shall be delivered (pl) into his hand. So I really wonder where you got your Greek rule, or whether you just think this must be so.
Acts 11:22 really doesn’t require any subject-verb association anyway. The sentence says that the news “came to the ears of the church,” (ekklesia is Genitive, not Nominative). The next phrase is “and they sent” (no subject given for the verb, becuse it is understood). Disqualifying the church on the basis that it is singular in the sentence, while the verb is plural misses the grammar completely.
Your explanation about ochlos followed by the plural verb in Acts 6:7 on account of “many priests” in the sentence does not work at all. “many priests” is not the noun corresponding to the verb (the phrase in in Genitive), the “multitude” (singular) was “obedient.” (pl)
To me, you have no good reason to insert “elders” as the subject of “and they sent,” except that you feel it has to be so.
Jeff Brown
Acts 11:22 really doesn’t require any subject-verb association anyway. The sentence says that the news “came to the ears of the church,” (ekklesia is Genitive, not Nominative). The next phrase is “and they sent” (no subject given for the verb, becuse it is understood). Disqualifying the church on the basis that it is singular in the sentence, while the verb is plural misses the grammar completely.I want to pull back on this statement somewhat. I am speaking beyond my knowledge. I should say, that Acts 11:22 does not correspond completely to the examples of Subject-verb agreement we have discussed. Though I am correct to say that the subject is supplied for the verb, “they sent.”
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] So Ted, what Greek grammar says that whenever a singular noun takes a plural verb, that it must be accompanied by “all”?Jeff, I appreciate your post and observations on the Greek text. Just to keep things properly oriented we’re discussing whether or not Acts 11:22 is an example of congregational authority – was it the “church” that “sent” Barnabas to Antioch, or was it a subset within the church that sent Barnabas? Your position is that it was the entire church, my position is that it wasn’t.
In contradiction to your Greek rule, note Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32. In each instance ochlos without pas takes the plural verb. On the other hand, in Mark 2:13, ochlos with pas takes the singular verb. In John 6:2 ochlos takes both a singular and a plural verb. (Note also John 7:49)
There are many examples of this phenomenon in Greek writings, e.g. Daniel 11:11, (LXX) “and the multitude (sing) shall be delivered (pl) into his hand. So I really wonder where you got your Greek rule, or whether you just think this must be so.
Acts 11:22 really doesn’t require any subject-verb association anyway. The sentence says that the news “came to the ears of the church,” (ekklesia is Genitive, not Nominative). The next phrase is “and they sent” (no subject given for the verb, becuse it is understood). Disqualifying the church on the basis that it is singular in the sentence, while the verb is plural misses the grammar completely.
Your explanation about ochlos followed by the plural verb in Acts 6:7 on account of “many priests” in the sentence does not work at all. “many priests” is not the noun corresponding to the verb (the phrase in in Genitive), the “multitude” (singular) was “obedient.” (pl)
To me, you have no good reason to insert “elders” as the subject of “and they sent,” except that you feel it has to be so.
I am with you when words like “crowd” “people” and “multitude” are sometimes used with verbs plural in number. It’s idiomatic and is often true in Hebrew, and English, as well. For example, consider John’s use singular and plural verbs in John 6:24. His use reflects language factors at work. For example, notice that the verb “saw” (indicative aorist) is singular whose subject is singular – crowd – even though a crowd is by definition plural – i.e., many people. But then John switches number with the verb “got into boats” (indicative aorist plural). Of course, how does a crowd (sg) get into boats (pl)? Language requires a plural whereas at the beginning of John 6:24 it did not. At the end of the verse is a plural participle “seeking” describing the action of a singular subject – crowd. But now it’s expected due to the plural “got into boats” earlier in the sentence.
But see A.T. Robertson’s discussion on number agreement between noun and verb in the NT (Grammar of the Greek NT, 408-09). He begins this way: “The formal grammatical rule is, of course, usually observed, a singular subject having a singular subject, a plural subject having a plural verb. This is the obvious principle in all languages of the Indo-Germanic group.” (403). So to build doctrine on a contrary case from the norm, as you are claiming occurs in Acts 11:22, requires a higher burden of proof. I won’t ask you for a heavy burden proof – just something simple: please show me anywhere in the NT (or elsewhere in Attic or Koine) where the singular “church” is the subject of a verb that is plural in number (or vice-versa). That will help support your case that the ones “sending” Barnabas in Acts 11:22 were the entire church.
Until then I’m more inclined to agree with Richard Reymond, the American Presbyterian theologian who writes concerning Acts 11:22, “I doubt very seriously whether the entire church in Jerusalem, which numbered in the thousands by this time, was polled to see what it thought about Barnabas’ assignment.”
Concerning Acts 6:7 I would direct you to “A Greek Grammar of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature” where Blass and DeBrunner’s discussion on Constructio Ad Sensum, page 74 (134, 1, c). There they make the point concerning our verse: that “polus te ochlos ton hieron” = [“many (sg) of the priests (pl) were obeying (pl)] is another way of saying “polloi hiereis hupekouon,” [i.e., manys priests obeyings]. IOW, Acts 6:7 is idiomatically a plural construction. It has to be, right? – each of the priests under consideration were obeying, not “a collective crowd of priests were obeying.” My citations are from Funk’s English translation.
Have a most blessed Lord’s Day, brother.
I have been observing this discussion with interest. I found my Mickey Mouse ears so may I offer an observation on Acts 11:22.
The issue is not just an issue of Greek grammar rules. It is also a matter of sentence structure and flow of thought. Herman the Ootick comes into view which involves the simple rules of sound reading.
May I first insist that the singular noun be properly translated as “assembly.” May we then observe that by it being singular what is in view is one particular assembly and not more than one which would require the plural and be translated “assemblies.” So one assembly of people is in view.
Next may we observe the sentences as they express the subject and progression of thought. The prior subject concerns men who were scattered due the persecution of Stephen. Some came to Antioch and preached and a large number believed. Then vs. 22 states that the news about them (the men preaching and results) reached the ears (plural) of the assembly (singular) at Jerusalem. They (the plural of the assembly who heard (expressed by the ears) sent Barnabas. The fact that there is a singular noun coupled with a plural verb is normal as those in the one church (oops assembly) were more than one. Also, as had been expressed, Greek grammar rules also allow for the singular noun and a plural verb to be used together.
Finally, the most obvious thing from this passage is that the assembly heard and therefore the assembly (all who heard) sent. There is only this assembly in view. There are no Angelic host mentioned and therefore they are not in view. There are also no Elders mentioned so they are not in view as the senders. The whole assembly heard with their ears and the whole assembly sent. The whole assembly is in view. If that is not clear then there is no such thing as understanding language and meaning. We should all just threw up our hands and declare all the scriptures beyond human comprehension. You do not need to be a Greek scholar here.
Let us not out Greek the Greeks in an effort to discover the meaning without discovering the intent.
Thank you Ted for your persistency in seeking to prove and defend your position. Thank you Jeff for your fine answers and scholarship which have given insight and blessing.
Ted, I may be prejudiced by my opinion. However, if there is a favor in any weight of express teaching passages and passages of circumstantial evidence, about the assemblies, it is weight in favor of the whole assembly as being the final decision maker as at Matthew 18 and the whole assembly expressly declared as the pillar and ground of the truth as 1 Timothy 3:15. These are express teaching statements. This passage at Acts 11:22, as well as other Acts passages mentioned by myself and others, provide the circumstantial evidence that the whole assembly was often involved in decision making. Did they vote? Perhaps some Archaeologist will someday discover ballots used with hanging chads or a church voting booth. But until that time we can surmise that the whole assembly used some procedure to be involved in decision making.
How does this fit into Elder selection and function? The scriptures give the requirements for Eldership to the entire assembly of believers, not just other existing Elders. The authority given by the Apostles to select elders may have involved a final approval by the entire assembles as some contend, But even if not, such authority passed with the Apostles. What is left are the declarations and circumstances of scripture. These scriptures do not name everlasting Elders. Therefore, there is no Apostolic succession to other groups, Bishops, or elders. We must fall back on all believers gaining authority from scriptures and then with whole assemblies acknowledging their leaders or Elders. There is either Apostolic succession or Biblical authority to each generation of assemblies to acknowledge the Elders in their midst. Christians are to submit to the Elders as those who rule over them. But the Assembly as a whole has the authority to acknowledge or take away the right of the Elders to rule.
At least that is my present view. I am sure good men may differ on this subject.
The issue is not just an issue of Greek grammar rules. It is also a matter of sentence structure and flow of thought. Herman the Ootick comes into view which involves the simple rules of sound reading.
May I first insist that the singular noun be properly translated as “assembly.” May we then observe that by it being singular what is in view is one particular assembly and not more than one which would require the plural and be translated “assemblies.” So one assembly of people is in view.
Next may we observe the sentences as they express the subject and progression of thought. The prior subject concerns men who were scattered due the persecution of Stephen. Some came to Antioch and preached and a large number believed. Then vs. 22 states that the news about them (the men preaching and results) reached the ears (plural) of the assembly (singular) at Jerusalem. They (the plural of the assembly who heard (expressed by the ears) sent Barnabas. The fact that there is a singular noun coupled with a plural verb is normal as those in the one church (oops assembly) were more than one. Also, as had been expressed, Greek grammar rules also allow for the singular noun and a plural verb to be used together.
Finally, the most obvious thing from this passage is that the assembly heard and therefore the assembly (all who heard) sent. There is only this assembly in view. There are no Angelic host mentioned and therefore they are not in view. There are also no Elders mentioned so they are not in view as the senders. The whole assembly heard with their ears and the whole assembly sent. The whole assembly is in view. If that is not clear then there is no such thing as understanding language and meaning. We should all just threw up our hands and declare all the scriptures beyond human comprehension. You do not need to be a Greek scholar here.
Let us not out Greek the Greeks in an effort to discover the meaning without discovering the intent.
Thank you Ted for your persistency in seeking to prove and defend your position. Thank you Jeff for your fine answers and scholarship which have given insight and blessing.
Ted, I may be prejudiced by my opinion. However, if there is a favor in any weight of express teaching passages and passages of circumstantial evidence, about the assemblies, it is weight in favor of the whole assembly as being the final decision maker as at Matthew 18 and the whole assembly expressly declared as the pillar and ground of the truth as 1 Timothy 3:15. These are express teaching statements. This passage at Acts 11:22, as well as other Acts passages mentioned by myself and others, provide the circumstantial evidence that the whole assembly was often involved in decision making. Did they vote? Perhaps some Archaeologist will someday discover ballots used with hanging chads or a church voting booth. But until that time we can surmise that the whole assembly used some procedure to be involved in decision making.
How does this fit into Elder selection and function? The scriptures give the requirements for Eldership to the entire assembly of believers, not just other existing Elders. The authority given by the Apostles to select elders may have involved a final approval by the entire assembles as some contend, But even if not, such authority passed with the Apostles. What is left are the declarations and circumstances of scripture. These scriptures do not name everlasting Elders. Therefore, there is no Apostolic succession to other groups, Bishops, or elders. We must fall back on all believers gaining authority from scriptures and then with whole assemblies acknowledging their leaders or Elders. There is either Apostolic succession or Biblical authority to each generation of assemblies to acknowledge the Elders in their midst. Christians are to submit to the Elders as those who rule over them. But the Assembly as a whole has the authority to acknowledge or take away the right of the Elders to rule.
At least that is my present view. I am sure good men may differ on this subject.
Bob, thank you for making the point, that we don’t need to try to out Greek the Greeks.
Ted, I don’t know what to make of what you are saying. BDF 74 (134) says that Acts 6:7 is an example of constructio ad sensum (grammatical construction according to the sense - Wallace calls this “Collective Subject with Singualr Verb”) BDF then explains: “a collective, embracing a plurality of persons in a singular noun, is construed as if the subject were plural.” As an example, BDF gives Acts 6:7 “a large multitude of priests were obedient.” The sense is, of course (BDF) that “many priests” is meant. And this is precisely why I gave this as an example. I am glad to find BDF agreeing with me, because I got this from Wallace as an example. And I think you have confused things here. “priests” is a noun, in Genitive, but NOT the subject of the verb. This is an example of a singular noun ochlos taking a plural verb.
Note how many examples BDF gives of Greek nouns which display this phenomenon (singular nouns which take a plural verb): “multitude, crowd, people, household, army, seed.”
With regard to Robertson, p.403, you needed to keep reading through 404, where he gives NUMEROUS EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE, and says, “Where there was such liberty each writer or speaker followed his bent or the humour of the moment.”
This is somewhat wearying.
First you said that the church did not send in Acts 11:22, because there is no subject-verb number agreement.
I responded that there are plenty of examples in the NT of singular subjects which take a plural verb at times, e.g. Luke 6:19 “crowd.”
Then you responded that “crowd” with the plural verb only acts this way when it is modified by “all”
I gave you three examples where this is not the case (Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32), contradicting the rule I think you made up.
Now you say that this phenomenon may work for words like ochlos or laos, but not for ekklesia.
When you read in BDL that there are many words which display the phenomenon of singular subject with plural verb (obviously, words that by definition refer to a plurality of persons), you should have guessed that this is probably the case with ekklesia as well. But here are some instances where ekklesia in the singular takes the plural verb.
1 Chronicles 29:20 (LXX) “And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers,” ekklesia is singular eulogeo is aorist plural.
2 Chronicles 23:3 (LXX) “And all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God.” ekklesia singular, diatithemi is aorist plural.
Do not think this phenomenon is determined by the presence of pas. For when it modifies ekklesia, ekklesia often still takes the singular verb, e.g. 2 Chronicles 29:28.
And here is an example without pas, Sirach 31:11 (LXX): “And the assembly will praise his alms-giving” ekklesia is singular, ekdiageomai is fut. plural.
If you look at the word synogoge in the LXX, you will find the same phenomenon: singular subject, often with the plural verb (Exodus 16:1; Leviticus 9:5; Numbers 20:2)
Frankly, I am confident that if one also explored the writings of Philo, Josephus, and other Greek writers of the period, one would find multiple examples of this phenomena.
Conclusion: Luke 11:22 says that the ekklesia sent Barnabas.
Ted, I don’t know what to make of what you are saying. BDF 74 (134) says that Acts 6:7 is an example of constructio ad sensum (grammatical construction according to the sense - Wallace calls this “Collective Subject with Singualr Verb”) BDF then explains: “a collective, embracing a plurality of persons in a singular noun, is construed as if the subject were plural.” As an example, BDF gives Acts 6:7 “a large multitude of priests were obedient.” The sense is, of course (BDF) that “many priests” is meant. And this is precisely why I gave this as an example. I am glad to find BDF agreeing with me, because I got this from Wallace as an example. And I think you have confused things here. “priests” is a noun, in Genitive, but NOT the subject of the verb. This is an example of a singular noun ochlos taking a plural verb.
Note how many examples BDF gives of Greek nouns which display this phenomenon (singular nouns which take a plural verb): “multitude, crowd, people, household, army, seed.”
With regard to Robertson, p.403, you needed to keep reading through 404, where he gives NUMEROUS EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE, and says, “Where there was such liberty each writer or speaker followed his bent or the humour of the moment.”
This is somewhat wearying.
First you said that the church did not send in Acts 11:22, because there is no subject-verb number agreement.
I responded that there are plenty of examples in the NT of singular subjects which take a plural verb at times, e.g. Luke 6:19 “crowd.”
Then you responded that “crowd” with the plural verb only acts this way when it is modified by “all”
I gave you three examples where this is not the case (Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32), contradicting the rule I think you made up.
Now you say that this phenomenon may work for words like ochlos or laos, but not for ekklesia.
When you read in BDL that there are many words which display the phenomenon of singular subject with plural verb (obviously, words that by definition refer to a plurality of persons), you should have guessed that this is probably the case with ekklesia as well. But here are some instances where ekklesia in the singular takes the plural verb.
1 Chronicles 29:20 (LXX) “And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers,” ekklesia is singular eulogeo is aorist plural.
2 Chronicles 23:3 (LXX) “And all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God.” ekklesia singular, diatithemi is aorist plural.
Do not think this phenomenon is determined by the presence of pas. For when it modifies ekklesia, ekklesia often still takes the singular verb, e.g. 2 Chronicles 29:28.
And here is an example without pas, Sirach 31:11 (LXX): “And the assembly will praise his alms-giving” ekklesia is singular, ekdiageomai is fut. plural.
If you look at the word synogoge in the LXX, you will find the same phenomenon: singular subject, often with the plural verb (Exodus 16:1; Leviticus 9:5; Numbers 20:2)
Frankly, I am confident that if one also explored the writings of Philo, Josephus, and other Greek writers of the period, one would find multiple examples of this phenomena.
Conclusion: Luke 11:22 says that the ekklesia sent Barnabas.
Jeff Brown
I’d like to get to your points in post 56, but before I do I feel its best to clear up some statements that you have attributed to me in this thread that I haven’t made:
Again you paint me into a corner. In post 52 you wrote,
Again, in post 56 you repeat this kind of stuff:
And then there is all the unnecessary stuff:
Look. Since this thread is getting technical and fewer of the readers can follow along, we owe to each other, and to them, to portray each other’s technical and doctrinal statements with charity - which requires accuracy. I would ask you to respond in like, and if I have portrayed your words with less than accuracy or charity, please show me. I’d be happy to fix that to your satisfaction.
Now to your points in post 56:
BDF’s assertion is that while we have a singular noun “crowd” in Acts 6:7, it’s sense is plural – and to show that they equate it – [/ and even write it out - with an entirely plural construct as I quoted them in post 54: “”polloi hiereis hupekouon”. After all, the word “crowd” doesn’t require a plural verb – see Acts 16:22. So Luke had a reason for choosing a plural in Acts 6:7 that suited best what he wanted to communicate. I believe the same is true in Acts 11:22 - as do you. Just for different reasons.
But thank you for bringing some important examples of ecclesia with a plural verb to my attention. I do feel some tension in that the LXX translators hadn’t a clue about the local church as defined in Luke’s theology and were thinking of an entirely different kind of assembly, but you have proven that the word “ecclesia” can take a plural noun according to sense. Thank you!
[Jeff’s post 39] “I take issue with you that the agreement of the number of subject and verb: “the church had peace” in Acts 9:31 creates a precedent for Acts 11:22.”I suppose my words could be taken to mean I’m claiming precedence. But what I actually said was
[Ted in post 36] “Luke’s consistent Greek on this matter is established in Acts 9:31 where both church and verbs are singular.”OK, maybe “established” is a bit too strong for the linguist, but it’s a far cry from making me claim “precedence” – a word that implies I demand here a linguistic rule. I’m just saying the NT has a consistent pattern in number when the word “ecclesia” is the subject of a verb – a pattern you claim Acts 11:22 is not a part of. I’m claiming Luke’s Greek on this matter is consistent in number; you are claiming his Greek reflects Luke’s usage with words like “crowd.” I get it. I just disagree.
Again you paint me into a corner. In post 52 you wrote,
[Jeff] “So Ted, what Greek grammar says that whenever a singular noun takes a plural verb, that it must be accompanied by “all?””That’s knocking down a straw man. What I actually wrote was,
[Ted in post 40] “”Luke 6:19 is an idiom – “all the crowd was seeking” Luke 8:40 shows that when the word “crowd” is not with the adjective “all,” its accompanying verb “welcomed” is likewise singular (cf. Luke 13:17, Acts 16:22).”I chose to ignore your words there in post 52 hoped you would catch my gentle correction in post 54,
[Ted] “I am with you when words like “crowd” “people” and “multitude” are sometimes used with verbs plural in number.”I guess you missed that because you wrote
[Jeff in post 56] “Then you responded that “crowd” with the plural verb only acts this way when it is modified by “all.””I never said, or even implied, “only.”
Again, in post 56 you repeat this kind of stuff:
[Jeff] I gave you three examples where this is not the case (Matthew 20:29; 21:8; Mark 3:32), contradicting the rule I think you made up.“Rule I made up?” Jeff, I appreciate the thread, and even the weariness you admit to feeling about it. Nonetheless it is incumbent to read each other’s words charitably, bless when cursed, and always don a thick skin. I offer a doctrinal viewpoint on SI that is hardly a majority view and am used to my words being negatively interpreted – like the idea that since elders have full-charge governmental authority in the church mean they don’t want to hear from the congregation – stuff like that. That’s easy to understand and I laugh along with it, make jokes of it, etc. I’ve been there. And yes, I do poke you some along the way, too. But “making rules up?” Is that what this is?
And then there is all the unnecessary stuff:
[Jeff in post 52] “To me, you have no good reason to insert “elders” as the subject of “and they sent,” except that you feel it has to be so.”I do?
Look. Since this thread is getting technical and fewer of the readers can follow along, we owe to each other, and to them, to portray each other’s technical and doctrinal statements with charity - which requires accuracy. I would ask you to respond in like, and if I have portrayed your words with less than accuracy or charity, please show me. I’d be happy to fix that to your satisfaction.
Now to your points in post 56:
[Jeff on Acts 6:7]You are right, and an earlier statement I made was potentially misleading:
“This is an example of a singular noun ochlos taking a plural verb.”
[Ted in post 40] In Acts 6:7 the plural noun, “priests,” is matched by a plural verb in the Greek, “becoming obedient.”Now, is it not possible that subject of the plural verb “were obeying” is the entire genitival phrase, “a great many of the priests” and not merely one word from that phrase (crowd)? That’s how I read Greek. Am I wrong to read it that way?
BDF’s assertion is that while we have a singular noun “crowd” in Acts 6:7, it’s sense is plural – and to show that they equate it – [/ and even write it out - with an entirely plural construct as I quoted them in post 54: “”polloi hiereis hupekouon”. After all, the word “crowd” doesn’t require a plural verb – see Acts 16:22. So Luke had a reason for choosing a plural in Acts 6:7 that suited best what he wanted to communicate. I believe the same is true in Acts 11:22 - as do you. Just for different reasons.
[Jeff] When you read in BDL that there are many words which display the phenomenon of singular subject with plural verb (obviously, words that by definition refer to a plurality of persons), you should have guessed that this is probably the case with ekklesia as well.I should have? I’m sorry. I just don’t see “ecclesia” used that way in the NT, nor do BDF cite it. I suggest to you there are doctrinal reasons for not seeing it this way, doctrinal reasons that match Luke’s ecclesiology.
But thank you for bringing some important examples of ecclesia with a plural verb to my attention. I do feel some tension in that the LXX translators hadn’t a clue about the local church as defined in Luke’s theology and were thinking of an entirely different kind of assembly, but you have proven that the word “ecclesia” can take a plural noun according to sense. Thank you!
If I may put on my Ears again. Inspite of Greek in college and seminary I am no Greek scholar. Now all that is said to say I am far from even approaching being a Greek scholar. It takes several years of teaching and researching the subject to become any level of scholar. Then such scholars can differ among themselves on some historical points of grammar. I believe Jeff has alluded to this though he does an admirable job of Greek scholarship.
What I would endeavor to point out again here is the obvious context with the progression of thought makes the singular ekklesia the only possible subject for the plural noun. There is no Greek rule on the planet that would abrogate the obvious. Any Greek rule one finds needs to be adjusted to accept this precedent. You do not make up subjects from thin air and then seek to justify that with some Greek rule found. I recognize that such rules must be dealt with and appreciate the discussion. But lets please yield to the obvious simple contextual progression of thought.
THE EKKLESIA (singular) HEARD WITH THEIR EARS (plural).
THEY (PLURAL) SENT BARNABAS.
WHO SENT? Those who had ears and heard the report. Not ear(singular) but ears (plural) The singular noun represents plural people. Thats why they called it an ekklesia or assembly.
It is not very good common sense to then offer conjecture that the church at Jerusalem was so large that they could not act as a whole or other subjects being in view. Luke is conveying that they heard and sent and we had better accept that instead of conjecturing as to other possibilities. It is not just Greek exegesis that is involved but the common sense of Hermeneutics. At least it should result in a common sense.
What we have here may be the advocacy of Elder teaching that will be held regardless of contrary valid evidence. In his book “The Master Plan For The Church,” Moody Press 1991, John MacArthur states:
John then states regarding elder rule:
Ted, I am not stating that because you are a Masters Seminary graduate that you just hold John’s opinions. You have done your own research and even written a book. However, what you have seen on this SI thread and other SI threads is that there are those of good education and scholarship that differ with you on this position and have given good evidence of the reasons for their opinions. They do see valid scriptural evidence for congregational government. It is not just a matter of tradition or American Democratic values. Actually, the churches were a major influence in bringing about these Democratic values in the colonies. Those who hold to the biblical evidence for congregational government do not necessarily hold that there must be but one Elder or pastor. Also, they are not necessarily waiting to be enlightened by the truth of Elder rule that abrogates congregational government.
As I have stated before on other threads, the Elder solution proposed by yourself and John MacArthur does not necessarily bring ministry unity and effectiveness. John had his entire staff resign at Grace Community when in his seventh year there. There may be is unity today at Grace Community. It comes after years of the same Pastor leader who does set the tone and content for church doctrine and practice. This is not unlike most Baptist churches with but one Pastor-Elder. I asked John about this back in about 1984 and received the answer that there was a difference of prominence and influence among the Apostles. He’s right there were. However, John’s influence and practice gives him much more prominence and influence then other Elders. Grace Community is known as John’s church with Johns teaching and statement on the Lordship Gospel. Most do not even know the names of other Elders. It is probably true that John says very little at Elders meetings. They are all his men who agree with him. I do believe he seeks to maintain a humble spirit and allow for plural Eldership rule. However, the reality of practice due to influence may be different.
What I am seeking to get across is that your position on Eldership should now be held with some appreciation as to why good men do not go along with it. Also, there should be some awareness and appreciation that your position does not always bring revitalization and new unity to the church. Often the very change of church government will bring disunity and disharmony that it will take years to overcome. I can give several examples including one local GARBC church that had a Christian school with some teachers influenced by John MacArthur’s teaching. I believe one may even have been a graduate of the Masters college. The teachers were members and believed they should go to Elder rule. The Pastor had been there 26 years in which time the church had gone from about 10 to over 500 in attendance. He was a graduate of the old LA Baptist Seminary and a good expositor. After a few contentious meetings they forced (by harassment) the Pastor to resign and take another church. They went to Elder rule which the few now left just submit to. The church now has about 50 or 60 in attendance and has been that way for over 6 years now. I do not see how they will ever again have a vital ministry. Two Masters Seminary graduates have come and gone. One had been on Grace Community staff. They now have their school principal as the Pastor. He is good at preaching 15 minute sermons in an hour and 15 minutes. They have no evangelism vision.
What I would endeavor to point out again here is the obvious context with the progression of thought makes the singular ekklesia the only possible subject for the plural noun. There is no Greek rule on the planet that would abrogate the obvious. Any Greek rule one finds needs to be adjusted to accept this precedent. You do not make up subjects from thin air and then seek to justify that with some Greek rule found. I recognize that such rules must be dealt with and appreciate the discussion. But lets please yield to the obvious simple contextual progression of thought.
THE EKKLESIA (singular) HEARD WITH THEIR EARS (plural).
THEY (PLURAL) SENT BARNABAS.
WHO SENT? Those who had ears and heard the report. Not ear(singular) but ears (plural) The singular noun represents plural people. Thats why they called it an ekklesia or assembly.
It is not very good common sense to then offer conjecture that the church at Jerusalem was so large that they could not act as a whole or other subjects being in view. Luke is conveying that they heard and sent and we had better accept that instead of conjecturing as to other possibilities. It is not just Greek exegesis that is involved but the common sense of Hermeneutics. At least it should result in a common sense.
What we have here may be the advocacy of Elder teaching that will be held regardless of contrary valid evidence. In his book “The Master Plan For The Church,” Moody Press 1991, John MacArthur states:
“Twentieth century American Evangelicalism, with its heritage of democratic values and long history of congregational church government, `tends to view the concept of Elder rule with suspicion.”pg. 179.
John then states regarding elder rule:
Furthermore, it is the only pattern for church leadership given in the New Testament. Nowhere do we find a local assembly ruled by majority opinion or by one Pastor.”Pg 179-180.
Ted, I am not stating that because you are a Masters Seminary graduate that you just hold John’s opinions. You have done your own research and even written a book. However, what you have seen on this SI thread and other SI threads is that there are those of good education and scholarship that differ with you on this position and have given good evidence of the reasons for their opinions. They do see valid scriptural evidence for congregational government. It is not just a matter of tradition or American Democratic values. Actually, the churches were a major influence in bringing about these Democratic values in the colonies. Those who hold to the biblical evidence for congregational government do not necessarily hold that there must be but one Elder or pastor. Also, they are not necessarily waiting to be enlightened by the truth of Elder rule that abrogates congregational government.
As I have stated before on other threads, the Elder solution proposed by yourself and John MacArthur does not necessarily bring ministry unity and effectiveness. John had his entire staff resign at Grace Community when in his seventh year there. There may be is unity today at Grace Community. It comes after years of the same Pastor leader who does set the tone and content for church doctrine and practice. This is not unlike most Baptist churches with but one Pastor-Elder. I asked John about this back in about 1984 and received the answer that there was a difference of prominence and influence among the Apostles. He’s right there were. However, John’s influence and practice gives him much more prominence and influence then other Elders. Grace Community is known as John’s church with Johns teaching and statement on the Lordship Gospel. Most do not even know the names of other Elders. It is probably true that John says very little at Elders meetings. They are all his men who agree with him. I do believe he seeks to maintain a humble spirit and allow for plural Eldership rule. However, the reality of practice due to influence may be different.
What I am seeking to get across is that your position on Eldership should now be held with some appreciation as to why good men do not go along with it. Also, there should be some awareness and appreciation that your position does not always bring revitalization and new unity to the church. Often the very change of church government will bring disunity and disharmony that it will take years to overcome. I can give several examples including one local GARBC church that had a Christian school with some teachers influenced by John MacArthur’s teaching. I believe one may even have been a graduate of the Masters college. The teachers were members and believed they should go to Elder rule. The Pastor had been there 26 years in which time the church had gone from about 10 to over 500 in attendance. He was a graduate of the old LA Baptist Seminary and a good expositor. After a few contentious meetings they forced (by harassment) the Pastor to resign and take another church. They went to Elder rule which the few now left just submit to. The church now has about 50 or 60 in attendance and has been that way for over 6 years now. I do not see how they will ever again have a vital ministry. Two Masters Seminary graduates have come and gone. One had been on Grace Community staff. They now have their school principal as the Pastor. He is good at preaching 15 minute sermons in an hour and 15 minutes. They have no evangelism vision.
Inthe prior post paragraph two, what I meant to say was:
What I would endeavor to point out again here is the obvious context with the progression of thought makes the singular ekklesia the only possible subject for the plural verb.
What I would endeavor to point out again here is the obvious context with the progression of thought makes the singular ekklesia the only possible subject for the plural verb.
Ted, please forgive my expressions of frustration. Some things that are obvious to me are not necessarily obvious to others. Your challenges forced a discussion about Greek grammar that perhaps aided several readers
Jeff Brown
Discussion