1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited
1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited
By Danny Coleman

A few years ago I embarked on in-depth research into the topic of a woman’s role in the church. There were three reasons I undertook this study:

1. It occurred to me that the Body of Christ is about 2/3 female. What I mean by this is if you look at most church gatherings you will find that there are more women than men. Yet, in most church gatherings today and throughout history, the women--who make up the majority—are very restricted in how they can function.

2. I kept encountering women who were gifted teachers, pastors and theologians but who were not able to fully function in those gifts. That struck me as a bit of a rip-off—not just to those women, but to the church which was being deprived of the blessing of being edified by their gifts.

3. I was disturbed by the apparent contradiction in Paul’s writings in the New Testament: On the one hand, Paul worked closely with Priscilla and referred to her on equal terms. Priscilla was very clearly a teacher. One of her students was Apollos. In his letter to the Romans, Paul singled out Junia, a woman, and Andronicus, a man, and called them “outstanding among the Apostles” which is understood to mean that the two were considered by Paul to be Apostles of note. Also in Romans, Paul commends Phoebe to the churches. Many historians believe it was Phoebe whom Paul entrusted to deliver the letter to the Romans. In it, Paul calls Phoebe a “diakonon”, which is the same word he uses elsewhere to describe himself and Timothy. In our English Bibles, diakonon is usually translated into English as “minister” or “servant” (of course, when applied to Phoebe it is “servant”). Paul also calls Phoebe a prostatis. Although it appears only here in noun form, the verb form proistemi, occurs eight times in the New Testament and is translated as “rule”, “lead” or "manage". The noun prostatis is used in Greek writings of Paul’s time period to describe a “leading officer” (our English equivalent would be a superintendant). A prostatis was someone who presided, in the sense of leading, governing, directing or conducting. When applied to Phoebe, however, prostatis is translated into English as “helper”. Hmmm. There are other women that Paul pointed out: Euodia and Syntyche, whom Paul says “contended at my side in the cause of the Gospel”—which I think means they did more than just serve coffee and donuts. Then there was Nympha, Chloe, and Lydia (also possibly Stephana); all of whom appear to have been house-church leaders.

But on the other hand, in 1 Timothy 2:11 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul seems to be saying that women are forbidden such leadership and teaching roles.

There appears to be a contradiction in Paul’s thought and praxis. There have been many attempts to explain or reconcile this apparent contradiction. Why did the man who wrote to the Galatians that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” later write to the Corinthians that “…women must remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak…” and instructed Timothy to forbid women from teaching or having authority over men?

It is these two scriptures in particular which I want to look more closely at, because it is these two scriptures—more than any others—that have been used to limit and marginalize women in the church. We live in a day and age where women are police chiefs and pilots and neurosurgeons and CEOs and leaders of nations, yet within the walls of many churches, they are still told they must be submissive followers of men.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

One of the most important lessons I ever learned about studying scripture is to ask this question: “What did it mean to the original hearers?” That simple question opens up a world of discovery. When Paul wrote 1 Timothy, he didn’t just sit down out of the blue one afternoon and say “Hmmm, I think I’ll write some holy scripture.” No, he was writing to a particular person at a particular place at a particular time for a particular reason. When we read 1 Timothy we are, quite literally, reading someone else’s mail. And so it behooves us to understand what was going on in Timothy’s world and what Paul’s letter would have meant to him.

Timothy was in Ephesus. It appears that Ephesus was a tough place to be a Christian. It was in Ephesus, remember, that the craftsmen who made shrines to the goddess Artemis caused a riot because of the Gospel Paul was preaching (Acts 19). Paul later wrote about fighting “with beasts at Ephesus” (1 Cor 15:32), which probably refers to this riot. Of his time in the region where Ephesus was located, Paul would later write “…we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life.” (2 Cor 1:8).

And now a few years later Timothy, Paul’s young protégé, is in Ephesus and appears to be under a great deal of stress. Paul is trying to encourage Timothy and also give him some specific practical advice. Paul even tells Timothy to drink some wine because of his stomach and occasional illnesses, which makes me wonder if poor Timothy was getting ulcers from the stress.

What is it about Ephesus that would make it such a difficult place? In New Testament times Ephesus was considered a major city and trade center of the Roman Empire. It was located in the Western part of a region called Asia Minor which is now Turkey. Ephesus was the gateway from the West to the East. The region of Asia Minor had previously been called Phrygia.















Phrygia was sometimes associated with the mythical Amazons—a nation of female warriors. Phrygia, and Ephesus in particular, had also been the center of worship of an ancient goddess name Cybele. Cybele was the great mother goddess—believed to be the mother of all the gods and of the earth. Another name for Cybele was Magna Mater – Great Mother. Long before the Greeks and the Romans expanded into Phrygia, Cybele had been the primary deity, worshiped for thousands upon thousands of years—all the way back to Neolithic times.


The story of Cybele centers upon her love for a beautiful young shepherd named Attis. Attis, being pure and chaste, resisted Cybele’s sexual advances. In a fit of rage, Cybele caused Attis to go insane. He ran screaming through the forest until he came to a great pine tree. At the foot of the pine tree he pulled out a knife, castrated himself, and bled to death. Where his blood touched the ground, beautiful violets sprouted up. Attis went to the underworld and Cybele mourned him, but after a short time she resurrected him and her mourning turned to joy. In the cult of Cybele the goddess was simultaneously the source of fertility, the Great Mother, a perpetual Virgin (she never consummated with Attis), Creator, Resurrector and sexual aggressor.

During rituals, pine trees would be decorated with flowers and taken into sacred caves (representing Cybele’s sexuality). Worship of Cybele was overseen by priestesses and priests. The priests, called Galli, were men who had castrated themselves in reenactment of Attis’ self-mutilation and surrendered their manhood to the goddess. Thereafter the priests dressed and acted as women. Worship of Cybele is said to have been a frenetic and orgiastic affair with drums and cymbals and flutes, wailing and chanting, whirling priests dancing before a statue of the goddess, devotees slashing their arms and splattering their blood on her statue, a bull being castrated and then sacrificed. As the ritual reached a frenzied climax, new initiates to the priesthood who had worked themselves into a state of religious ecstasy would take out razor sharp knives, emasculate themselves and caste their severed manhood to the goddess as a sacrifice. We can assume that some did not survive the ordeal. Cybele is usually depicted with two lions or leopards at her side. In later statues, a cluster of egg-shaped orbs protrude from her chest. Scholars argue about what these shapes represent. Some think they are breasts, symbolizing that Cybele was the universal mother; others think they are the scrotums of priests and bulls. Others think they’re just large beads. The priestesses of Cybele served as mid-wives to their communities and invoked the goddess’s protection during child-birth. Men could engage in ritual intercourse with a priestess or effeminate priest, thus enabling Cybele and Attis to vicariously consummate their love.



The cult of Cybele was powerful, pervasive and well-established in Phrygia by the time the Greeks took hold of the region.

When the Greeks expanded into Phrygia, they brought their gods and goddesses with them. The Greeks tended to take local deities and absorb them into existing Greek deities. Thus, Cybele became Artemis. The Artemis worshipped in Phrygia was very different, however, from the Artemis worshipped in Athens. She was really just Cybele with a new name and a fresh coat of paint.

According to Greek mythology, Artemis was the moon goddess, the daughter of Zeus and the twin sister of Apollo, the sun god. As the story goes, Artemis was born first and then assisted her mother in delivering Apollo. As a result, Artemis was considered the protector of women during child-birth. Women in ancient times would make offerings to Artemis and ask her to protect them during pregnancy and labor. This probably accounts in part for the reason why little portable shrines to Artemis were a major industry in Ephesus. Artemis was also the goddess of healing and of hunting. She was believed to be a perpetual virgin, and would kill any man who approached her with wrong intentions. Artemis was a warrior. She was protective, capricious and dangerous.

When the Roman Empire arose and supplanted the Greeks, the Romans kept the Greek pantheon. Artemis became Diana. Same goddess, different name. During Paul’s time she was still commonly called Artemis. In Ephesus, Cybele became Artemis and Artemis became Diana. But the Artemis/Diana which was worshipped in Ephesus was very different from the Artemis/Diana worshiped elsewhere. In Ephesus, it was an amalgamation of Cybele and Artemis.




Ephesus was home to the Temple of Artemis, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It was not just a massive temple but also a repository of art and treasure. It was the largest bank in Asia. It was run by a huge staff of priests and priestesses who directed the affairs of the temple, conducted sacrifices, engaged in ritual prostitution, etc. This was the largest and most complex temple of ancient times. There had actually been a series of temples to Artemis on that spot going back to 700 BC. They had been rebuilt and expanded over the years. The Ephesians believed that Artemis had been born nearby and had founded the city. One historian has written that “…the principal force of her cult was upon the interrelated components of the city’s urban life, e.g., the civic, economic, educational, patriotic, administrative and commercial facets… There was no other Graeco-Roman metropolis in the Empire whose ‘body, soul and spirit’ could so belong to a particular deity as did Ephesus to her patron goddess Artemis.” By the time Timothy got to Ephesus, Artemis worship had been entrenched for nearly 800 years and Cybele worship for thousands of years before that. Christianity was a minority religion in Ephesus. It was the newcomer.



In light of this, you can imagine how Timothy might have been intimidated. But there’s more. Believe it or not, there was an even bigger threat in Ephesus. It was a teaching that had found its way into the church and it was trouble. Trouble with a “T” and that rhymes with “G” and that stands for “Gnosticism”.


Ephesus was ground zero for Gnosticism. Gnosticism got its name from the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. The roots of Gnosticism can be traced back at least to 400 BC and Plato. Plato taught that the cosmos had two aspects: The world we see and an unseen world of “forms” or “ideas”. Plato posited that the unseen forms were perfect and unchangeable but that what we see in our world are only crude imitations of the unseen forms. Thus, a tree is but a crude representation of the ideal tree. Plato’s thinking led to a type of dualism where the material world was seen as flawed and inferior while the unseen “spiritual” world was seen as perfect. This dualism led to Gnosticism, which viewed the material world as not just flawed but as evil. The goal of Gnosticism was to obtain secret knowledge which would enable one to escape the prison of the evil material world and be reunited with the perfect spiritual world.

Gnostic teaching can be likened to a parasite which attaches itself to a host and grows within that host. At the time of Paul and Timothy, Gnosticism had found its way into Judaism. Ephesus was second only to Alexandria as a center of Jewish Gnosticism. There are variations, but the Jewish Gnostic story basically went like this:

Outside of our cosmos is a greater realm called the Pleroma, or region of light. The Pleroma emanates from twelve beings called Aeons. The Aeons can be thought of like angels but are paired in male/female couples. Beyond the Aeons and the Pleroma is the Monad (also known as “The One”). One of the Aeons, a female named Sophia (which means “wisdom”) decided to create something on her own, apart from her partner Aeon. Because she was essentially rebelling, her creation was deeply flawed. What she created was a being called The Demiurge. The Demiurge, according to Gnostics, is what we call God. However, Gnosticism taught that The Demiurge is not kind or just or loving but rather is a cruel tyrant--a sadistic and ignorant monster. Sophia, ashamed of her mistake, isolated The Demiurge and surrounded him in a fog. The Demiurge does not know that he is the child of Sophia. He thinks he is God and is alone above all else. Because The Demiurge is the creation of Sophia, he has within him some of her power. So he set about to create the world, as recorded in Genesis. But the world he created, like The Demiurge himself, is deeply flawed and evil.

The Demiurge created Adam, but could not give Adam life. Sophia saw the lifeless Adam and took pity. She sent her daughter Zoe (which means life) to bring Adam to life. Zoe gave Adam life and Adam called Zoe “Eve”. But now Adam and Eve were trapped inside of the evil Demiurge’s material world. They had within them the spark of life, from the Pleroma, but it was encased in crude bodies of flesh. The Demiurge sought to keep Adam and Eve, and the children they would eventually produce, as prisoners in his world. But a savior came, sent by Sophia. The savior was the serpent. He came to liberate and teach Eve and Adam and so told them about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent explained that it was through secret knowledge—gnosis—that they and their offspring could escape from The Demiurge and his evil world and ascend to the Pleroma.

You can see how Gnosticism would have made Paul and the other Christian leaders crazy. It essentially takes what the Bible teaches and flips it upside-down. Good becomes evil and evil becomes good. God is the bad guy. The serpent—Satan—is the good guy. Eve gave life to Adam and “original sin” is actually liberation. Yikes! Christian leaders for the first few centuries would contend vociferously against Gnosticism. Eventually Gnosticism died out. Some would say it was forcibly stamped out once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Repeatedly in his first letter to Timothy, Paul refers to “false teachings”, “myths”, “endless genealogies” and “controversies”. At the end of the letter Paul tells Timothy “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called gnosis (knowledge), which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.”

This is the religious climate into which Paul brought the Gospel and then into which Timothy came to nurture the Ephesian church. One can only imagine what was going on in the house-church meetings of Ephesus as former priests and priestesses and worshipers of Artemis--now new converts to Christianity, were bringing their religious baggage with them while at the same time Gnostic teachings were infiltrating and competing with orthodox doctrine. I can begin to understand why Timothy was overwhelmed.

In light of all this background, let’s (finally) look at 1 Timothy 2, beginning at verse 11:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

There it is. The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

But what is it exactly that Paul said?

The quote above came from the NIV. If we look at the Greek text we find that the word translated “quietness” is hesuchia, which does mean quietness or harmony or agreement and the word translated “full submission” is hupotage which literally means “arrange under”—in other words, to voluntarily place oneself in subjection to someone or something. So Paul is saying that women should be in quiet agreement and place themselves under subjection. But to what? To men? Or to sound doctrine? I believe it is the latter.

Next Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” The word Paul used here, which is translated “to have authority over” is authentein. It is not the word normally used for authority in the New Testament. That word is exousia. The word authentein, in fact, is used nowhere else in the entire New Testament. When translators need to clarify what a writer meant when he/she used a certain word, they look at how that same writer used the word elsewhere. If that isn’t an option, they look at contemporaneous writings for how the word was used.

A remarkable thing has happened in the last 25 years or so. With the advent of computers, all of the extant ancient Greek writings have been gathered together into digital, searchable databases. This has opened new doors for researchers to see how particular words were used and how the meaning of words changed over time.

The word authentein, it turns out, was a somewhat unusual word even in Paul’s day. It was also a word which was rich with meaning and overtones. Paul seems to have carefully selected this word because of the meanings and overtones it would convey.

Just looking at the word authentein, and how it resembles certain words in our language gives us some clues: Authentic. Author. Authority. Authentein is a compound word made from the Greek word auto, meaning “self” and hentos, meaning “thrust”. Literally, it means “to thrust oneself forward”.

In the oldest examples we have, the word was used to describe someone who committed murder or suicide by planning the action and then carrying it out with their own hand (thrusting the dagger forward). The word came to be used to describe the mastermind of a diabolical scheme to overcome and murder someone. It was not just the action itself, but the authoring of the plan also. To authentein was to originate and perpetrate. By Paul’s day the word was also used to describe a tyrant. To authentein was to completely dominate someone. This reminds me of a popular phrase used today by video gamers when they defeat an opponent: “I owned you!”

So what is Paul really saying here? Here are two possibilities:

1. “I do not permit a woman to teach or act in a way that utterly dominates a man…” This is close to how the verse was translated in the Latin Vulgate up through the King James Version – a period covering about 1200 years. If we think back about Ephesus with its Amazon legends, Cybele, Artemis, Diana, castrated priests and powerful priestesses, suddenly Paul’s use of the word authentein makes a lot of sense. There had been a religious culture of emasculation and female domination entrenched in Ephesus for thousands of years. It is also interesting to note that a couple of sentences later, in verse 15, Paul says “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” Here Paul is directly addressing the custom of pregnant women appealing to Artemis to save them during childbirth.

2. “I do not permit a woman to teach or claim to be the author of man…” This interpretation directly addresses the Gnostic teachings about Eve being the one who gave life to Adam and received saving knowledge from the serpent. This would explain why, immediately following in verse 13, Paul says “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul is directly contradicting Gnostic teaching, which he rails against throughout the letter to Timothy.

Or perhaps Paul, inspired genius that he was, intentionally selected this obscure word authentein because it invoked a richness of meaning that would encompass both of these forms of aberrant teaching that the Ephesian church was wrestling with.

All the evidence put together strongly suggests that Paul’s statement to Timothy about women was very specific to the situation in Ephesus.

If we were to amplify 1 Timothy 2:11-15 with everything we’ve looked at in mind, it might say something like this:

“A woman should learn in agreement and submission to sound doctrine. I do not permit a woman to teach that they are the author of man or to tyrannize men. She must maintain harmony. For, despite what the Gnostics teach, Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. And women will be saved during childbirth, not by offering sacrifices to Artemis, but by continuing to follow Jesus in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”


1 Corinthians 14:33-40

As in the case with 1 Timothy, this letter from Paul to the Corinthian church was prompted by some specific and troubling circumstances. Chloe, the leader of a house-church in Corinth, had sent messengers to Paul with a report about multiple problems in the Corinthian house-churches. These problems revolved mostly around behavior rather than doctrine. The report from Chloe seems to have been in the form of a letter which contained specific examples of things people had been doing and saying in Corinth, as well as a series of questions. In some ways, reading 1 Corinthians is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Paul oftentimes responds to the letter he received, but we don’t have that letter from the Corinthians which would enable us to “hear” both sides of the conversation. Repeatedly, Paul responds to points or questions from their letter:

Now about the matter you wrote about…
Now about virgins…
Now about food sacrificed to idols…
Now about spiritual gifts…
Now about the collection for God’s people…
Now about our brother Apollos…

Sometimes Paul seems to quote back statements from the Corinthian’s letter:

“I follow Paul”; “I follow Apollos”; “I follow Cephas”; “I follow Christ”.
“Everything is permissible”
“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”

















The tricky part about this is that in Paul’s day correspondences were written in Koine Greek with no punctuation. The letters were all capitalized. Words and sentences were run together without spaces in between. There was no such thing as quotation marks. The Corinthians would have recognized which parts of Paul’s letter were their own words being quoted back to them, but we can only guess.

For example, in the NIV, 1 Corinthians 7:1,2 says:

Now for the matter you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

Some scholars believe that in verse 1 Paul was quoting the Corinthians and then in verse 2 offering his response:

Now for the matter you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The difference is subtle. In other places, however, the difference could be dramatic. At chapter 12 (we know of course, that Paul didn’t write in chapters--they were added 1,000 years later) Paul launches into a lengthy discourse on the topic of spiritual gifts. He pays particular attention to vocal gifts; especially prophecy and speaking in tongues. This discourse goes from the beginning of chapter 12 to the end of chapter 14. At the end of chapter 14, just as he is about to conclude his discourse, Paul makes the following statement:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

There are several difficulties with this portion of scripture. The first is the previously mentioned contradiction between this statement and Paul’s other statements and praxis. Even within the letter of 1 Corinthians itself, there is an apparent contradiction: In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul makes the point that women should wear a head covering when praying or prophesying in church (in order to adhere to cultural norms and not cause scandal). Yet here, three chapters later, he seems to be saying that women cannot pray or prophesy in church at all! The second difficulty has to do with the placement of this statement in the overall discourse. Some scholars have even suggested that this statement was cut and pasted in awkwardly from another letter by Paul or added later by someone other than Paul. A third difficulty is Paul’s strange and pointed questions in verse 36 “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” and then his return to the topic of prophecy and tongues. What prompted this outburst?

There is a solution to these difficulties which causes this portion of scripture to flow very naturally and eliminates the apparent contradiction: What if verses 33 and 34 are a quote from the Corinthian’s letter and verse 36 onward is Paul’s response?

It would read like this:

Quote from Corinthian’s letter: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

Paul’s response: Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Someone in a Corinthian house-church has laid down a rule that women must remain silent. They have invoked the Old Testament Law to back it up (which is a clue that maybe the person is a Judaizer). A modern paraphrase of Paul’s reaction might be:

“What?! Do you think you’re the only one who can speak the word of God?! If you think you are a prophet or spiritually gifted, you’d better listen to what I’m telling you, otherwise you should be ignored: Be eager for prophecy and do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues. But do everything in a genuine and dignified way.

There is no way to prove this hypothesis, short of discovering the original letter to Paul from the Corinthians. But it should give us pause, especially in light of what we know about Paul’s radically supportive attitude towards women in leadership. If the hypothesis is true, suddenly 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 makes perfect sense. He is incensed that someone is trying to use scripture to block women from functioning in their spiritual gifts and edify the church. I suspect that if Paul were alive today, his reaction would be very much the same.
- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 5:12 PM

 
Tzedakah!
Tzedakah (pronounced se-da-kah) is the Hebrew word for charity or almsgiving. It describes giving aid and assistance (often, but not strictly, in the form of money), to those in need.

There is a long Jewish tradition of practicing tzedakah, which dates back to the time of Moses (1500 B.C.). In Leviticus 23:22 we read:

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."

In the 2nd chapter of the book of Ruth we see Ruth (a Moabite widow– both poor and alien) meeting Boaz as she is gleaning at the edges of his field.


In Deuteronomy 10:17-19 it says:

“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.”

God’s heart is for the lowly, poor and marginalized. As such, He made it clear to Israel that care for the poor was to have high priority in their lifestyles. In Hebrew tradition, going back 3500 years to Moses, every member of the community was expected to give to the needy. This is still considered by practicing Jews today to be a “Mitzvah” or commandment from God. In Jewish culture, even the very poor who received tzedakah were expected to help those less fortunate than themselves.

Here’s an interesting thing about the word “tzedakah”: The word is derived from the Hebrew Tzade-Dalet-Qof, which means righteousness, justice or fairness. So the literal translation of the word tzedakah into English would be “righteousness” or “justice”. Tzedakah is more than just giving to the poor. It is an attitude of being righteous by seeking justice for those in need. In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed so much as an act of generosity, but as an act of justice, righteousness and fairness. A Jew is also expected to practice good stewardship of their tzedakah by making sure it goes to legitimate needs and is not squandered.

The attitude and action of tzedakah is very important to God. Most of the Old Testament prophets who warned Israel and Judah of coming judgment pointed out not only their failure to keep covenant with God, but also their failure to practice tzedakah and instead allow oppression of the poor.


Listen to the words of Amos (2:6-7):

“This is what the LORD says: "’For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.’”


The entire 7th chapter of Zechariah deals with this also, particularly verses 8-12:

“And the word of the LORD came again to Zechariah: This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'

"But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry.’”


The first chapter of Isaiah (verses 10-17) says this:

"The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the LORD . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations- I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen.

Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”


The fifth chapter of Isaiah compares Israel and Judah to a vineyard that only yields bad fruit. In verse 7, God summarizes by saying:

“The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.”

The word “righteousness” there in the last sentence is, in Hebrew, “tzedakah”.


These are just a few examples. The Old Testament books are filled with this type of language. Clearly, God expects that His people will practice tzedakah.


This language carries into the New Testament as well. In Matthew 6:1-2, Jesus says:

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”

Notice that Jesus defines giving to the needy as an “act of righteousness”. In the Hebrew language New Testament, the word used is “tzedakah”.

In Matthew 25:34-40, Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats. How does Jesus describe the blessed sheep who are invited into His kingdom?

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

James 2:14-17 speaks of faith and deeds (or works – ergon in Greek) and of how one’s faith is made evident by one’s deeds:

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

Notice what the example is that James gives for a faith-demonstrating deed (of lack thereof). It’s feeding and sheltering a brother or sister in need. Sounds like tzedakah to me!

Paul gives this instruction to Timothy:

“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.” (1 Tim. 6:17-19)

In the time of Jesus, and to this very day, synagogues and homes of devout Jews will have a “tzedakah box” (also known as a "pushke") for depositing alms. It’s essentially a container with a slot in the top for dropping coins or bills and a door of some type for opening it up and getting the money out (sort of like a piggy bank). If you go on the Internet and do a search on “tzedakah box”, you’ll see that many merchants of Jewish goods sell them and that they come in a variety of styles; from simple boxes to ornate and whimsical sculptures.

It’s pretty typical nowadays for Jews to give 10% of their income for tzedakah. This sounds a lot like tithing, but it isn’t. To the Old Testament Jews, tithes were separate from tzedakah. Let’s clarify this by looking at tithing for a moment.

The Old Testament Jews actually paid three tithes:

10% each year was given to support the Levites, because they had no inheritance (land). This was known as the First Tithe or Levite Tithe. (See Numbers 18:21-24)

10% each year was given at the temple in relation to the seven yearly festivals and associated sacrifices. This was known as the Second Tithe or Festival Tithe. Interestingly, Deuteronomy 12:4-7 and 14:22-27 give instructions that the Israelites are to bring this tithe to Jerusalem and eat it together in the presence of the Lord. Alternately, they could sell their produce, bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy whatever food they wanted (including “fermented drink”!) and consume it in the presence of the Lord.

There was a Third Tithe, which is sometimes called the Poor Tithe. It was to be given every third year to the widows, orphans and others in need. This tithe was distributed locally in the towns and villages, not taken to the temple in Jerusalem. Historians and commentators are divided on whether this tithe was paid instead of the Second (Festival) Tithe or in addition to it. If it was in addition to the Festival Tithe, then 10% was given every three years (or 3.3% per year) for the poor. (See Deut. 14:28-29)

In the Jewish apocryphal Book of Tobit, which was probably written in the 2nd century B.C., Tobit says, “I, for my part, would often make the pilgrimage alone to Jerusalem for the festivals, as is prescribed for all Israel by perpetual decree. Bringing with me the first fruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, together with a tenth of my income and the first shearings of the sheep, I would hasten to Jerusalem and present them to the priests, Aaron's sons, at the altar. To the Levites who were doing service in Jerusalem I would give the tithe of grain, wine, olive oil, pomegranates, figs, and other fruits. And except for sabbatical years, I used to give a second tithe in money, which each year I would go and disburse in Jerusalem. The third tithe I gave to orphans and widows, and to converts who were living with the Israelites. (Tobit 1:6-8)

The 1st century Jewish historian Josephus explained it this way: “Besides those two tithes, which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring every third year a third tithe to be distributed to those that want; to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans.”

This meant that the Israelites gave either 20% or 23.3% each year in tithes. By the way, these tithes were in the form of agricultural produce (grain, fruit and livestock). This is why the temple had storehouses and pastureland. In some cases, as we’ve seen, these agricultural tithes could be converted to money, for example to make it easier to transport. Since the Levite and Festival tithes were to be presented at the temple, it appears that Jews living outside of Israel (and thus too far to travel to the temple) were exempt from them. Additionally, hired laborers, fishermen, miners, lumber workers, construction workers, soldiers, weavers, potters, manufacturers, merchants, government workers, and priests were not required to tithe.

Since Israel was a theocracy (at least until king Saul came along), the tithes were essentially a form of income tax (although, once Israel had kings, taxes were levied in addition to tithes). Payment of tithes was required by national law. Tithes were paid to, and administered by, the Levites (except the Poor Tithe). It was unlawful for anyone outside of the tribe of Levi to receive the tithe, even if they were prophets or kings (this means, by the way, that neither Jesus, Peter or Paul could have received tithes, since they were not of the tribe of Levi). The temple priesthood, by the way, also earned money through the sale of sacrificial items such as incense, the sale of meat (left over from the sacrifices) and through a temple tax (see Matt. 17:24).

Another important point about the tithes is that they were based on one’s increase. Let’s say, for example, that you were an Israelite and owned 1,000 sheep. If each year you tithed just 10% of your sheep, you would run out of sheep in ten years (which means you’d be destitute and have to begin receiving Poor Tithes and alms!). If you tithed 23.3% of your flock each year, you’d be sheepless in less than 5 years. God did not intend for obedient Israelites to go broke. Thus, the tithe was to be taken from one’s increase. In other words, if you had 1,000 sheep and the next year your flock grew to 1200 sheep, you would tithe from that increase of 200 and give 20 sheep at 10%, or 40 sheep at 20%, or 46.6 sheep at 23.3% (I feel sorry for that .6 sheep!).

This is consistent with the tithe that Abraham gave to Melchizedek in Genesis 14; it was a tenth of the spoils of battle that Abraham had just gotten from defeating Kedarlaomer and the other naughty kings who had kidnapped Lot. This tithe predates the three tithes given in the Mosaic Law. Tithing of this type (a tribute paid to a king) was a common practice in the ancient Near East.

The three tithes given by Israelites were not used for building projects. Tithes did not pay for the building of Moses’ tabernacle. It was funded by free-will contributions (Exodus 25:1-9). Solomon’s temple appears to have been funded via taxes and tributes. The post-exile temple was funded by free-will offerings.

In addition to paying tithes, Israelites also paid whatever taxes were demanded by their ruler at the time. Along with tithes and taxes, there were also laws against charging interest on loans (Exod. 22:25-27, Lev. 25:35-37), debts were to be cancelled every seven years (Deut. 15), slaves were to be freed and lands returned to their ancestral owners every 50th year (Jubilee - Lev. 25:8-10) and lastly, alms (tzedakah) were to be given.

Nowadays, we don’t have a physical temple or Levites or sacrifices or holy festivals. We are now all priests as well as living stones in a spiritual temple where God’s presence resides (1 Pet. 2:5 & 2:9). Old Testament tithes are no longer relevant. There is no temple to bring our tithes into and no Levite to receive them. Additionally, we who are Gentiles or who live outside of Israel or are not farmers would be exempt anyway. The entire system and covenant that the tithes were a part of was fulfilled in Christ 2,000 years ago.

So what remains?

The poor. “The poor you will always have with you…” (Mark 14:7).

This is where Jesus’ heart was. He inaugurated His messianic ministry by quoting Isaiah 61:

“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.”

In Mark 10:21, Jesus challenges the rich young man to perform radical tzedakah: “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Tzedakah is the type of giving that we see in the New Testament church. This is the giving that we see in the Book of Acts:

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

This is tzedakah giving. It was a core value of the New Testament church. We know from the scriptures and from history that the early Christians still kept personal property (for example, individuals owned houses where churches met), but they were also committed to practicing extreme tzedakah. Tzedakah is showing our faith and righteousness (both gifts from God) by seeking justice through giving. This is what Paul meant in 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 when he wrote:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

It seems that the giving in the New Testament church was directed towards helping the needy within the church, helping struggling churches in other cities (such as the Corinthians collecting funds to send to the Jerusalem church, which was experiencing poverty and oppression) and sometimes supporting missionaries (such as the Philippians supporting Paul while he was under house-arrest in Rome). Offerings were not used to pay for buildings or minister’s salaries. Paul was adamant about working with his own hands and not taking money from those he was ministering to (1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 6, 2 Cor. 11, 2 Thess. 3). Paul used the money he earned from making tents to meet his own needs and those of his companions.

The giving that we see in the New Testament seems quite different from the method of giving that is typically taught in churches today (and referred to as “tithing”). In fact, the practice of tithing that is taught in Evangelical churches today bears no resemblance to how the early church gave or to the tithing of the Old Testament Israelites. So where did this practice come from? According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. XIV, pp. 174-175):

"The early Church had no tithing system. The tithes of the Old Testament were regarded as abrogated [abolished] by the law of Christ.... But as the Church expanded and its material needs grew more numerous and complex, it became necessary to adopt a definite rule to which people could be held either by a sense of moral obligation or by a precept of positive law. The tithing of the Old Law provided an obvious model, and it began to be taught.... The Council of Macon in 585 ordered payment of tithes and threatened excommunication to those who refused to comply."

So our modern tithing practices are actually a tradition instituted by the Catholic church in the 6th century.

The standard procedure today is to drop your 10% (of gross or net, depending on your faith) in the bag, plate, box or bucket and then leave it up to the church leadership to decide how to use it. In a typical Evangelical church, 85% of the money collected is used to pay for the building and pastoral salaries. The other 15% is divvied up for donuts, coffee, office supplies, advertising and, oh yeah, benevolence.

Is this good stewardship? Does it reflect our Lord’s values?

I was once in a leadership meeting at a small church that had just spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00 in the preceding three months on sound equipment, office space and furniture. Giving had suddenly dropped and there was concern about being able to meet the pastor’s salary and pay rent on the building. The discussion in the leadership meeting centered around trying to identify the cause of the sudden drop in giving. The assumption was that it was spiritual warfare. I piped up and asked this question: “In the last three months we’ve spent $20,000.00 on all this stuff, while some members of our congregation have lost jobs, are facing foreclosure on their homes, etc.; How much money in the last three months have we given to the poor?” The bookkeeper answered: “None.” Not long after, the church closed down.

Malachi 3 is the scripture most often used to support the modern tithing practice. As such, it is probably the most abused and misused text in the entire bible. The portion of Malachi 3 that is usually quoted in support of modern-day tithing is verses 8 through 10:

"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse-the whole nation of you-because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.”

However, if we read this text in the context of the texts surrounding it, we pick up some interesting details. Earlier in Malachi 3 (verse 3) God says He will purify the Levites so that “Then the Lord will have men who will bring their offerings in righteousness.” You guessed it, the Hebrew word translated as “righteousness” is “tzedakah”.

Further in Malachi 3 (verse 5), God explains who He is judging: “’I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,’ says the Lord Almighty.”

God was angry at the Jews for not practicing tzedakah; for not taking care of the poor and for not caring about injustices.

If you really wanted to bring yourself into literal obedience to Malachi 3, here’s what you would need to do:

1. Move to Israel and buy a farm.
2. Find some Levites to support.
3. Begin observing the Old Testament festivals (including animal sacrifices).
4. Bring 20% of the increase of your crops and herds to the temple in Jerusalem (a real challenge since the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago!)

If you successfully complete steps 1 through 4, you might then be able to expect God to bless or curse you depending on your response to Malachi’s prophecy (that is, assuming that this word of correction wasn’t specifically meant for those Israelites in that place at that time).

On the other hand, you can obey Malachi 3 in spirit by practicing tzedakah. This is God’s heart: That you give generously and responsibly to the needy in your midst and seek justice on their behalf. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)

Jesus had an expectation that His church would exceed the devout (but legalistic) Pharisees in their tzedakah (see Matt. 5:20 – the word “righteousness” there is “dikaiosune” in Greek or, in the Hebrew translation, “tzedakah”). The New Testament exhorts us to excel in our tzedakah and provides us with historical accounts of the early church doing just that. We know from history that within a very short period of time, the Gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the Roman Empire. Jesus had told His disciples that they would be known by their love for one another (John 13:35). Historical accounts from the first few centuries tell us that the people of the Roman Empire were amazed at the unselfishness and hospitality of the early Christians. Even those who persecuted the church wrote about the generosity and righteousness of those who followed Christ.

The Institutional Church in the U.S. and Europe is slipping further and further from the central position it once held in culture towards the margins of irrelevancy. Perhaps, in this post-modern age, we can best affect our culture if we quit trying to build temples (or crystal cathedrals) and ministries and instead build one another up; the true temple of God. What can we do to practice righteousness by seeking justice for the poor, oppressed and marginalized? How can we bring our giving into line with God’s heart for the needy? How can we practice tzedakah?







- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 12:16 PM

 
Biblical Leadership - Part II
Note: Because of the way this Blog sorts entries chronologically, Part I of this teaching can be found by scrolling downward.

Who does what?

There are lots of leadership titles used in the church today: Pastor, Elder, Deacon, Overseer, Cardinal, Bishop, Archbishop, Pope, Apostle, Prophet, etc., etc.

There are as many different church leadership structures as there are denominations. In many larger denominations we see complex hierarchies of leadership and authority.

The New Testament picture of church leadership, however, seems to be quite simple. In this lesson, we’re going to focus on three particular leadership terms: elder, overseer and shepherd. Take a look at Acts 20:17-35:

“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: ‘You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

’And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace.

’Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

’Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' ‘”

The leaders of the Ephesian church are referred to in three different ways in this passage (I bolded and italicized them to make it easier to spot). First, Paul calls together the elders of the church. He tells these elders that God has made them overseers of the flocks. He then exhorts them to be shepherds.

Let’s try to get a better understanding of these three words:

elder (presbuteros in Greek)
overseer (episkopos in Greek)
shepherd (poimaino in Greek)


Elder:

Presbuteros (noun; translated “elder”) is a very common term throughout the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament (aka the “Septuagint”). The word literally means “old person” and has no special religious significance. Elder is not so much a title as it is a description. However, in biblical times and cultures (and in many cultures still today), old people were afforded a great deal of respect and honor. It’s interesting that in ancient cultures an old person was assumed to be wise and valuable until and unless they proved otherwise. It seems that in our modern Western culture, an old person is assumed to be foolish and irrelevant until and unless they prove otherwise. Quite a shift has occurred and it’s to our loss.

Most tribal cultures have elders who are looked to for wise council. The Israelites were no different in this regard. The first mention of elders in the Old Testament is in Genesis 50:7 where the elders of Pharoah’s household and of all Egypt pay homage to the deceased Jacob. Israelite elders are first mentioned in Exodus 3:16 when God tells Moses to go meet with the elders of Israel. No introduction or explanation if given about how or why these elders came to be. It seems to be just taken for granted that the reader will understand that there would have been tribal elders and probably always had been.

1,500 or so years later, we see in the Gospels that the Jews still have elders. They are mentioned throughout the Gospels, usually alongside the chief priests and scribes.

The first mention we have of elders in the New Testament church is in Acts 11:30 when the disciples take up a collection for the church in Judea and have Saul and Barnabas deliver it to the elders. As in Exodus, no explanation is given about when, how or why these elders came into being. Their existence is just casually and naturally mentioned.

Paul referred to himself as an elder (Eph. 6:20 – sometimes translated as “ambassador” -, Philemon v. 9) as did John (2 John v. 1) and Peter (1 Peter 5:1).

Let’s imagine that you’re part of a group of people that have come together and formed a community (or a tribe). People naturally look for leadership. Who do you look to? In our Western culture we might try to identify who has the best credentials or education. Oftentimes, we will yield to the most dominant personalities or the ones who appear to “have their act together”. However, in tribal cultures (including ancient Middle-Eastern people), the group would naturally look to its oldest, most seasoned members – the elders.

So then, biblically speaking, “elder” is not an office or title. Elder is simply what an old or mature person is. I have a 15 year-old son. I could confer upon him the office and title of “Teenager”, but that would be redundant; “Teenager” is what he is, regardless of what I call him. Conversely, someone could confer the title and office of “Teenager” upon me, but the fact is, I’m not a teenager, even if you call me one.

In the New Testament church then, an elder was simply an older, mature believer, who was honored and looked to for their experience and wisdom.

1 Timothy 5 sheds more light on this, but it takes a little untangling to get to. In verse 1 we read (in the NIV) “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” The Greek word that is translated here as “older man” is presbuteros. A little farther in 1 Timothy 5:17 we see the word presbuteros used again, only this time (in the NIV) its translated as "elder": “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”

Notice first off that in the Ephesian church (where Timothy was when Paul wrote this letter to him) there was a plurality of elders who directed the affairs of the church, as well as taught. This seems to have been the case in all of the New Testament churches. There is not a single example given in scripture of a church having just one leader – its always a plurality of elders.

Notice also in verse 17 where it describes elders who “direct the affairs of the church well”. Some translations read “who rule well”. The Greek word which is translated “direct the affairs” or “rule” (depending on your Bible translation) is proistemi. Its interesting that in other places the word “proistemi” or its noun form “prostatis” is given a very different spin.

Take a look at Romans 16:1-2: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help (prostatis) to many people, including me.” The King James version, which has greatly influenced most subsequent English translations, translates “proistemi” in 1 Tim. 5:17 as “ruleth” and “prostatis” in Rom. 16:2 as “succorer”. The NASV updates the wording, but continues the double standard by translating “proistemi” as “rule” in 1 Tim. 5:17 and “prostatis” as “helper” in Rom. 16:2. Heaven forbid that Phoebe, a woman, be referred to as a ruler of many people (Paul included)!

The appropriate Greek word to use for “rule” or “ruler” would be "arche" or "archon" (as in archangel), not proistemi/prostatis. Usually when you see the words "rule" or “ruler” in the New Testament, it’s a translation of “arche” or "archon". A more accurate definition of proistemi/prostatis would be: To assist, to protect, to represent, to care for, to stand before as a defender, to be guardian of, to protect, to uphold. The picture here is not one of ruling over, but of coming alongside and supporting.

Here’s a great example of the use of the word proistemi found in a letter written in 252 B.C. from a son to his father: “There will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you (proistemi) for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me.”

If we understand proistemi/prostatis in this light, it fits hand-in-glove with the servant-leadership style that Jesus modeled, as discussed in Part I of this teaching (see Matthew 20:20-28, John 13:1-5 and Philippians 2:1-18). Elders (presbuteros) are to sacrificially serve, protect, support, and defend the people that God has placed in their care; in other words, they are to proistemi, in the same way that Jesus served and gave of Himself.

So what Paul is saying to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5 is that older, mature believers are to be treated with honor and respect, and older, mature believers who do a good job of serving/guiding/protecting/nurturing/teaching the ekklesia should be honored even more.

In this section we’ve defined what Elders were (mature believers) and what Elders did (guide, protect, serve, support, teach, etc.).


Overseer:

Episkopos (noun; translated “overseer” or “bishop”) is a compound word. “Epi” means to add something that forms a support. It is neither under (“hypo”) or over (“hyper”) but alongside of. “Epi” implies togetherness; “attached-ness”. We read in 1 Peter 2:24 that Jesus bore our sins “upon (epi) the tree.” “Skopos” is where we get our word “scope”. It means “to look”.

So “episkopos” refers to the activity of looking upon or “overseeing”. It stresses the active and responsible care for what is being looked upon; in other words, to watch over, to supervise, to take care of, to visit, to look in on. In the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or “LXX”), the word “episkopos” is applied to God in several places (Deut. 11:12, Ruth 1:6, Psalms 80:14, Zeph. 2:7, Job 20:29, Gen. 21:1) to express His loyalty and care in watching over people. “Episkopos” and its variants are used in the New Testament to describe both God and church leaders; always with an emphasis on loving care, demonstrated in a heart moved to action. Peter referred to Jesus as “the shepherd (poimen) and overseer (episkopos) of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25).

The translators of the King James version used the 16th century hierarchical church office of “bishop” and superimposed it onto the word “episkopos” in several places (see Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:7, Acts 1:20, 1 Pet 2:25 and 1 Tim 3:1 in the KJV). This is an example of what I call “anachronistic eisogesis”, which means to take something from modern times and read it back into scripture. We all have a tendency to do this (especially people who teach about the book of Revelation), but it’s especially damaging when Bible translators do it. The church office or position of “bishop” did not exist in the 1st century church.

Here are some examples of where the word “episkopos”, or its variants, are used in the New Testament (NIV) which give a better sense of its true, intended meaning:

Luke 7:16 – (When Jesus raised the widow’s only son from the dead) “They were all filled with awe and praised God. ‘A great prophet has appeared among us,’ they said. ‘God has come to help his people.”

Acts 15:13 – (Upon hearing the report from Paul and Barnabas on their work amongst the Gentiles). “When they had finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.”

Acts 15:36 – Paul says to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.”

Acts 6:3 – “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.”

Acts 7:23 – “When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit his fellow Israelites.”

Matthew 25:35-36 – “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

James 1:27 – “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…”

Have you ever been really sick (perhaps when you were a child) and someone came (perhaps your mother) and comforted and watched over you? That's the biblical picture of episkopos. Unfortunately, we tend to get hung up on the word "overseer" because it has connotations of supervision and management and dominance. In the days of slavery in the American South, the white men who controlled the black workers were called "overseers". The word has baggage. Perhaps a better translation into English of episkopos would be caretaker.

In this section, we’ve seen that an “episkopos” (overseer/bishop) is not a hierarchical office that exercises authority and control over other believers. It is someone who is moved out of love and compassion to provide care and nurture to God’s people.


Shepherd:

In Part I of this teaching on Biblical Leadership, we saw how the shepherd metaphor is used to describe Christ-like, sacrificial leaders. Shepherd is used both in the verb form (“poimaino”) and the noun form (“poiman”) in the New Testament. In Ephesians 4:11 the Greek word “poiman” is translated as “pastor”. This is actually the only place where the word “pastor” appears in the Bible. Isn’t it strange that a word which is used only once in scripture would come to be so widely applied today?

In Matthew 23, Jesus is speaking of the religiosity of the Pharisees and warns: “Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the market places and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’, for you have one Father and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

The warning here is about a prideful, religious heart that would do things like taking titles upon ourselves, in order to separate and elevate us above our brothers and sisters. Notice how the last sentence echoes back to Matthew 20:25-28, which we looked at in Part I. I don't believe that most clergymen are Pharisees, but I wonder, why do they ignore these texts and take upon themselves honorary titles such as “Pastor”, “Reverend” and “Father”?

Rosemary Radford Ruether, a Professor of Theology, has written, “If I were asked for a yardstick to discern good from bad spirituality, I would suggest three criteria to be detached from: material gain, self-importance, and the urge to dominate others. Unfortunately, much of what is labeled spirituality in America today moves in the opposite direction. It means using the names of God and Christ to promote one’s own importance, material gain, and right to oppress others.”

Church planter and author Cheryl McGrath writes, “Kingdom authority has nothing to do with titles, positions, educational qualifications or reputation. Kingdom authority is granted by the Lord according to the measure with which He can trust us to wield it with humility. The greatest authority in the kingdom is reserved for His bondslaves.”

I remember many years ago when a man at a church I attended was “promoted” from the congregation and “ordained” to the position of Assistant Pastor. The following Sunday he showed up to church wearing a black shirt with a clerical collar (this was a non-denominational charismatic church)! At the time I thought it was cute, but what it’s come to remind me of is my own sinful desire to be considered special, separate, anointed, a holy man.

In our modern Christian culture, if a man is really passionate about serving God with his whole life, he is steered towards becoming “a pastor”, even if (as is quite often the case) he is not gifted by the Spirit with a shepherding gift. Many a pastor has confided to me that “I’m not really gifted as a pastor, my real gift is…”

In Ephesians 4:11, the one place where the word “pastor” appears, it is describing a spiritual gift for building up the body, not an office, position or title. “Pastoring” (shepherding) is what one does (when the Holy Spirit has gifted in that way), not a title or position. And it is done, in concert with all of the other spiritual gifts, for building up the entire body, not as a personal career path.

In the New Testament, no person in the church is referred to by the title of shepherd except Jesus. He is the Great Shepherd. Elders in the church are told to shepherd (verb) but not given the title of shepherds (noun). Way back in 580 B.C. or so, Ezekiel prophesied against the shepherds of Israel (Ezekiel 34). Part of that prophecy included a promise that God would remove the shepherds and replace them, not with new shepherds, but with one shepherd:

"I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd." - Ezekiel 34:23

This was written 500 years after David's death. Another 500 or so years after Ezekiel wrote this prophecy, the promised shepherd did come. Jesus was known as the "Son of David". He is that one shepherd. He is the head of the body; the cornerstone of the building; the Lord and Master. The rest of us are parts of that body; living stones in that building; brothers and sisters in the household of God.

"Shepherd" is a verb. It's an action, not a position. It implies sacrificing one’s own comfort, status and needs in order to feed, guard, care for, guide, nurture, serve and protect. Jesus gave the ultimate example of this. We should all follow His example, especially those of us who are mature believers.


In Summary:

We began this lesson by looking at Acts 20:17-35 and pointing out three words applied by Paul to the leaders of the Ephesian church: Elder (presbuteros), overseer (episkopos) and shepherd (poimaino/poiman).

Let's wrap things up by going to 1 Peter 5:1-6, where we see these same three words used in the same way by Peter:

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away."

Here’s how I suggest we understand the use of these three words:

Elder (presbuteros) is what they are.
Overseer (episkopos) is what they do.
Shepherd (poimaino) is how they do it.

In this study, we also looked at another leadership word, “proistemi/prostatis” and saw how well it’s meaning harmonizes with these three terms.

All of these terms speak of sacrificial servant-leadership. They imply loving support, guidance, care, protection, council, concern, nurture, etc. We saw how compatible such an understanding of these terms is with Jesus’ words in Matthew 20:25 and 23:8-12, and with His actions in John 13:1-5.

Ultimately, if we peel back the crust of tradition, what we find is an extremely simple leadership structure in the New Testament church. This is the same church that went from 120 true believers huddled in a room in Jerusalem (Acts 2) to tens of thousands throughout the Roman empire within 50 years! The creation of formal leadership structures did not come until quite some time later, when pagan religious forms and Greek philosophical views (such as neo-Platonic dualism and Aristotelian hierarchy) found their way into the church.

As Bible-believing followers of Jesus, we claim to get our theology (how we think about God) from the Bible. Shouldn't we then also look to the Bible for our ecclesiology (how we think about the church)? The scripture does not provide concrete instructions on how to conduct church, but it does, very clearly, show the values that should shape how we do (and are) church.

When we read the New Testament scriptures in the light of who Jesus is, and stop looking through the lenses of man-made church traditions, we see a picture of a loving, supportive family, or of an organic body. What we don’t see in scripture is the type of hierarchical organization that is so common today.

As Howard Snyder writes in his book Decoding the Church, “The church is a body, not a machine or a corporation. The church is not an army of Christian soldiers. An army functions by forcibly restricting the complexity of human interaction and programming it into a strict chain of command. An army is an unnatural community – very effective for one purpose, but not for building a healthy community.”

Organizations and hierarchies are built on function. The church is to be built on relationship. The church exists to continue the mission of Jesus by reflecting God to a lost world. God has revealed Himself as intrinsically relational - a triune being. The church, therefore, should be intrinsically relational. The church is the "body of Christ" - a living organism. There is no hierarchy within a living organism; rather it is a collection of parts and organs functioning together; each one essential for the well-being of the body. The only hierarchy in the 1st century church was Jesus as the head of the body and everyone else as part of the body.

Ekklesias provided an unusual environment of equality for people from diverse racial, social and economic backgrounds. Elder believers were looked to as a source of wisdom, council and example (what today we might call "mentoring"), but all believers were accountable to one-another and all believers were gifted and released to minister to the body.

The group of people referred to more than any other in the New Testament is "the brothers" (adelphoi - which literally means brothers and/or sisters). It was the brothers and sisters who ran the church, under the direct supervision of the Holy Spirit. Another Greek word used to describe the people of God is laos. It's where we get our word laity. In the early church, the laos comprised all believers. There was no separate clergy class. It was all the laity, and within the laity there were elders and "sent ones" (apostles) and a multitude of diverse gifts.

Take a look at the beginning of each of Paul’s epistles (Romans through 2 Thessalonians) and notice who they are not addressed to. With the exception of Philippians, they are not addressed to the leaders of the churches. They are addressed to the entire church.

Take a look at Acts 15 (the Council at Jerusalem). This was a monumentally important council that would set forth church doctrine about what Gentiles had to do to be Christians. Look at who was involved in that decision: “…the church, and the apostles and elders…” (v. 4), “The whole assembly…” (v. 12), “…the apostles, and elders, with the whole church…” (v. 22). The picture here is of the entire church gathering together and openly discussing the matter. The words of the apostles and elders are given due weight and deference because they are elders, but everyone is involved. Look at v. 23, where they send the letter to the Gentile believers. Is the letter addressed to the pastors or leaders of the various Gentile churches? No, its addressed “To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:”

In the book 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell, the commandment "All animals are created equal.", eventually gets changed to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." In a similar fashion, as time went by a separate class known as clergy emerged within the church. This change occurred gradually and eventually blossomed into the elaborate organizational structure of the Catholic church. Although the Protestant Reformation corrected many of the excesses of Catholicism, it left the clergy/laity division intact.

If we take off our Catholic/Protestant lenses and read the scriptures in their true historical context we find that the chain of command that has been superimposed backwards onto the early church and scriptures was not there. We also begin to see a picture of the church that more closely reflects the nature and values of our God.


In Part III, we’ll examine Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus and answer questions such as:

Why are these letters sometimes called “The Pastorals” when the word “pastor” is never used in them?
Should pastors/elders be paid?
What are deacons?
Where is ordination taught in scripture? (Big hint: It isn’t!)

- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 4:40 PM

 
Biblical Leadership - Part I
What is biblical leadership?


The “Shepherd” metaphor:

From biblical times up to the present day, the job of shepherding sheep in the Middle East is performed by children; oftentimes even very young children. The children tend the sheep, protect them, lead them to clean water and pasture, etc. An adult acts as “over-shepherd” and keeps watch, often from a hilltop or tower in the vicinity. An excellent example of how this works can be seen in a video by Ray Vander Laan called “The Lord is My Shepherd” (which is on Vol. 2 of the “Faith Lessons” series produced by Focus on the Family and Zondervan).


With this in mind, it’s interesting to read Isaiah 11:1-6:

“A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him- the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord- and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.”

The youngest and least in the family were given the job of shepherding the sheep (remember the story of Samuel anointing David, who as the youngest son, was out with the sheep).

With this idea in mind, take a look at Matthew 20:20-28. Here Jesus gives his “leadership philosophy”:

“Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 'What is it you want?' he asked. She said, 'Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.' 'You don’t know what you are asking,' Jesus said to them. 'Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?' 'We can.' they answered. Jesus said to them, 'You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.'

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord if over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Those hearing these words, both as they were spoken and later in their written form, would have understood that the “Gentiles” referred to were the Romans. The Romans are considered to have been geniuses at administration, after all, they ruled a huge chunk of the world for almost 1,000 years. The Romans applied a very hierarchical approach to governing. In the Roman system of ruling, everyone knew who was directly “over” them and who was directly “under” them. This hierarchical system formed the basis for the governmental structure of the Roman Catholic church (which was an outgrowth and remainder of the Roman empire). We also see it in the organizational charts of modern corporate businesses (although, thankfully, managers rarely command their subordinates to fall upon their own swords as punishment for failure.).

What Jesus was telling His followers was that they were not to follow this type of hierarchical methodology. It’s appealing to our flesh, and it gets things done, but it’s based on position rather than on relationship. Chances are you have a boss at work. Perhaps this person has a title, such as “Manager”. This person has authority over you because of their position and title. If your Manager leaves the company tomorrow and a new person is given their job next week, that new person will now have the authority over you. The authority is based on that person occupying a position in the hierarchy, not on how much you respect and admire them as an individual. The authority is in the position and/or the function. If the position is eliminated or the person does not function according to standards, they are removed like a faulty part in a machine and have no further impact on you and your job.



“Not so with you…”

The church (ekklesia – gathering) of Jesus Christ is all about relationship. God is, in His revealed nature, relational. The very concept of the Trinity is a picture of community. We see in the Trinity each Person – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – loving one-another, esteeming one-another, preferring one-another. As Jesus revealed to us the Father, so we are to reveal Jesus to the world (and to one-another). This occurs as we love one-another, esteem one-another, prefer one-another, serve one-another, sacrifice for one-another. “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35).

In Matthew 20, Jesus states that the one who desires to become great (mega) must become the servant (diakonos) of all and the one who wants to be first (proto) must become a slave (doulos). A servant has few rights. A slave has no rights.

The Greek word “diakonos” is variably translated in our bibles as “servant”, “minister” or “deacon”. It is a compound word. “Dia” means “through” or “across” (as in diameter – a measurement through a circle). “Konos” means “dust”, “dirt” or “earth”. So the word “diakonos” literally means “through the dirt”. The picture it evokes is one of absolute lowliness.

Jesus taught this apparent paradox of leadership not just in words, but by his actions. In John 13:1-5 we read:

“It was just before the Passover Feast, Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extend of his love. The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.”

In that culture, the job of washing feet was given to the lowliest servant or slave. It literally involved getting on one’s hands and knees and cleaning the crap off of someone’s smelly feet. Truly, this was the job of a “diakonos”. Remember, these were the days of open sandals or bare feet, as well as dusty walking paths, streets with sewage flowing down the middle and animal droppings galore. I imagine that the whole concept of having a slave wash people’s feet became a standard practice in order to help minimize the stench that unwashed feet would bring into an enclosed space. I think we lose sight of the significance of this in our modern-day “foot washing ceremonies”, where we humble ourselves and lovingly wash one-another’s (already recently showered) feet. If you really want to “wash my feet” in the biblical sense, come clean my garage or pump out my septic tank or pick up the dog turds in the backyard.

In washing the disciple’s feet, Jesus was giving a picture of the greater truth: That the King of Kings, had taken on the role of the lowest servant in order to reveal and glorify the Father and save mankind.

Paul expressed this truth in his letter to the Philippians (2:1-18) when he advised them:

“If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Theologians refer to this passage as “the Kenosis”, which means “self-emptying”. Perhaps “self-emptying” is a good description for the essence of what Christian leadership is to be. Our task, as leaders, is not to be served, but to serve. It is to get lower than those to whom we “minister” (diakonos).

How contrary this is to many “leaders” today who take titles upon themselves and admonish others to support them and come under their “authority”. . I have yet to find a place in the New Testament where believers are told to “come under the authority” of other believers. Oftentimes, the pet verse used by these authoritarians is Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” What’s interesting about this verse though is that if you examine (exegete) it in the original Greek, the meaning is much more subtle than it first appears.

Hebrews 13:17 redux:

To begin with, the word translated as “obey” in verse 17 is “peitho”. “Peitho” is an unusual word in the New Testament and it literally means “allow yourself to be persuaded”. We might say it as “give the benefit of the doubt”. “Peitho” speaks not of blind obedience, but of voluntary agreement. It brings to my mind the story of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 whom Luke described as “noble minded” because they searched the scriptures to see if Paul’s teaching was true. They allowed themselves to be persuaded.

The next key word in verse 17 is “leaders”. The Greek word is “hegeomai”, which is a somewhat generic term for “leader”. “Hegeomai” can refer to someone who guides, who goes in front of, who provides an example, who leads the way, who rules, who commands, who cares for, who acts as a guardian, etc. In other words, there are subtle shades of meaning in the word, depending on its context. I think if we keep the overarching picture of leadership that Jesus taught in mind, we can grasp the appropriate sense of how “hegeomai” was used here by the writer of Hebrews.

The next key word in verse 17 is “submit” (“hupeiko”), which is best translated as “yield”. The use of “hupeiko” here is consistent with the earlier use of “peitho”. The picture is of making a choice to yield to the servant-leader and give them the benefit of the doubt. Notice that such voluntary yielding is a choice that can only by made by the giver; it can never be demanded or forced (that would be subservience, not submission). There is a beautiful reciprocal relationship here of the “leader” giving him/herself as a “diakonos” and the receiver of the ministry giving themselves back. Each is serving the other in a voluntary expression of love, not out of fear, guilt or compulsion.

In my NIV bible, after the word “submit” in verse 17, comes the phrase “to their authority”. Are you ready for this? That phrase, or anything equivalent to it, does not appear in the Greek text! It was added by the English translators. If you don’t believe me, pull out your Greek Interlinear Bible (if you don’t have one, you should get one) and check it for yourself. In other words, in your NIV bible, there should be a period right after the word “submit”.

So, a contextually correct rendering of Hebrews 13:17 would be something like: “Give the benefit of the doubt and allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who serve you and are your guides.” Do you see how much more consistent this is with what Jesus taught and modeled and with what Paul wrote in Philippians 2?

Jesus said that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to him. We children need to stop this nonsense of trying to take His authority onto ourselves and lording it over one-another.




Shepherds

We began this teaching with a shepherd metaphor and now the writer of Hebrews brings us back to a picture of shepherds. The next portion of Hebrews 13:17 says of the leaders (hegeomai), “They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” The phrase “keep watch” is a translation of the Greek word “agrupneo”, which literally means “to be sleepless” or “to keep awake”. The word is used to describe shepherds who stay awake all night long watching out for predators that might approach the flock that’s been placed in their care. It’s a beautiful picture of self-sacrifice. The gender reference in this verse (“as men”) does not exist in the Greek text, by the way. The idea expressed here is one of a person being given responsibility for a flock of sheep. Remember who was given the job of shepherding – the youngest children – the least. This person takes their responsibility seriously and sacrifices their own rights and comforts, for they know that the Chief Shepherd will check to see if any sheep have been lost, and they don’t want to disappoint him, because they love Him.


This concludes Part I of this teaching. In Part II, we’ll look more closely at how leadership terms such as shepherd, overseer, elder, deacon and pastor are used in the New Testament.

- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 1:22 PM