Do Preachers Have Authority Over Elders?

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DOCTRINAL MATTERSCHURCH ORGANIZATION

Does the Bible authorize the preacher in the local congregation to exercise authority over the elders, or over the members at large? The Bible very clearly teaches that each local congregation is to mature to the point that it can appoint a plurality of adult males, who meet the specific qualifications pinpointed in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-11; Titus 1:5ff.), to serve as the elders/shepherds/overseers of that single church (Acts 20:17,28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-4). They exercise shepherding or overseeing authority over the entire congregation/flock (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:7,17).

The Bible also clearly teaches that among the divinely-ordained functions in the church from the very beginning has been preachers and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5). These individuals clearly wield a measure of authority, by virtue of the message that they preach (1 Timothy 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:13; 2:15). They are to preach the Word of God without fear or favor, even in the face of opposition from fellow Christians.

The question, however, that presents itself regarding these two official functions in the Kingdom of Christ is: Is the preacher in a local congregation to submit to the authority of the elders; or may the preacher exercise authority over the elders and other members?

Since the Bible clearly teaches that elders are the shepherds of the local congregation, it naturally follows that they exercise that same authority over the preacher (if he is a member there). After all, they hired him! The mere act of hiring a preacher implies a measure of authority—and the same level of authority is retained by the elders to fire him! Likewise, if a congregation has no elders, the Bible places the authority to make decisions into the hands of the men of the congregation (in keeping with the principle of male leadership in the church—1 Timothy 2:8-15). They, therefore, have the authority to hire and fire a preacher—hence, exercising authority over him. Observe: God delegates authority to the preacher to preach God’s truth—and no eldership has the authority to dictate to a preacher to not preach the truth, or to preach error. Nevertheless, elders retain the authority to determine whether the preacher is permitted to preach the truth at that location!

God’s truth on the matter of authority in the local church is just that simple. The only way these foundational principles could be modified is if the Bible issues any supplementary directive(s) that would indicate that the preacher is somehow an exception to the extent that he is not under the authority of the elders. Sadly, some brethren have supposed that they have found just such an exception in Titus 1:5—

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (KJV).

Some brethren reason: Since Titus, an evangelist, was instructed by an apostle to go to the various congregations on the island of Crete and to ordain elders in those churches, the evangelist today is not under the authority of any eldership, but in fact, wields his own authority over them, even having the right to select them in the local congregation.

Observe that this line of thinking assumes a particular meaning for the word “ordain.”  It assumes that the evangelist was to select or hand-pick the elders. For the thoughtful student of the Bible, an immediate challenge to such thinking ought to be that it would not be possible for Titus to know personally all the members of the various churches all over the island of Crete. Yet, in order to make scriptural selections, he would have to be able to match up the divinely-stipulated qualifications (given in 1:6ff.) with each prospective elder. Further, it is obvious that Titus did not “stay around” in order to act as a pastor over the Cretan churches—he went on to Nicopolis (3:12).

The heart of the matter, however, is the meaning of the term rendered in the KJV as “ordain.” The word is more generally translated “appoint” (NKJV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV). The underlying Greek word is kathistemi. It has a variety of meanings, including “bring, conduct, take” as in Acts 17:15, “to appoint or set in charge” as in Luke 12:42 and Hebrews 5:1, and “to make or cause” as in 2 Peter 1:8. The salient question is: does the use of this word in Titus 1:5 mean that the evangelist actually selected the elders? Answer: it does not. For proof, consider that the Bible is its own best interpreter. A parallel occurrence of the term appears in Acts 6, when a problem arose within the early church regarding the daily distribution of benevolent assistance to the widows. The apostles insisted that their inspired function precluded them from having the time to handle such matters, and that the situation was to be resolved by the selection of qualified individuals who could manage “this business” (vs. 3). Read carefully the apostolic directive:

Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:3-4, NKJV).

To whom did the apostles give the responsibility to “seek out” men to serve in the official capacity? Answer: the members of the congregation. Consider other renderings of the phrase: “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men…whom we may put in charge of this task” (NASB); “Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men…whom we may appoint to this duty” (RSV). “Brothers, choose seven men from among you…. We willturn this responsibility over to them” (NIV); “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men…whom we will appoint to this duty” (ESV).

It is apparent from this passage that the membership was to select their own officers—strictly based on divinely-given qualifications—and that the apostles would merely install them or formally confirm their appointment. The KJV rendering of “look ye out” carries the idea of the members consulting with each other, investigating candidate qualifications, and coming to an agreement—before the individuals were even set before the apostles to be inducted into office.

Many commentators agree with this assessment of the text. For example, Greek scholar J.W. Roberts stated:

The term ‘appoint’ here refers to the setting apart or induction of elders into their place. It does not refer to the selection of the elders…. The selection and appointment were separate. The evangelist Titus had the duty to set in office and undoubtedly helped in the congregational selection of the elders, but nothing indicates that he did the selection himself (1963, pp. 8-9, emp. added).

Nineteenth century commentator Albert Barnes observes:

Titus was to appoint or set them over the churches, though with what ceremony is now unknown. There is no reason to suppose that he did this except as the result of the choice of the people (1847, p. 267, emp. added).

Lenski states:

The verb does not mean “to ordain” (our versions) although they were actually ordained by the laying on of hands; Paul speaks of placing them in office, having them elected by the congregations and then ordaining them; the former is the main thing (2001, p. 896, emp. added).

But why have the apostles (in Acts 6) or Titus (in Titus 1), under Paul’s direction, even be involved in the official installation ceremony? The text does not say, but it would make sense for them to do so in order to convey to the congregations an official, authoritative, apostolic sanction to the first formalization of church officers in these first century churches.

NOTICE: Even if the preacher, by divine directive, was not under the authority of the local eldership, nevertheless, the Bible is extremely clear that the elders DO exercise authority over the flock committed to their charge. So no congregation of the Lord’s people should ever exist in which the preacher has assumed to himself ruling authority over a congregation. If that congregation has elders, THEY are the ones designated by God to “rule” (1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17). If that congregation does not have elders, then the adult males are to make the decisions—not the preacher (except as one vote among the men). Any preacher who has taken to himself the control of a congregation, in which he presents himself as “the pastor” (like the denominations), and continually cultivates and facilitates that mentality among the members, is a disgrace to the Lord’s cause and a blight on the work of the evangelist. To assume such authority without the approval of God is vehemently condemned in the Scriptures (e.g., 3 John 9; Numbers 16).

Titus 1:5 provides no support for the unbiblical, denominational notion of evangelistic oversight.

References

Barnes, Albert (1847), Notes on the New Testament: 1 Thessalonians to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 2005 reprint.

Lenski, R.C.H. (2001 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon  (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrickson Publishers).

Roberts, J.W. (1963), Titus, Philemon & James (Austin, TX: Sweet).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed

 

More Scientific and Textual Evidence of Behemoth's Identity

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

CREATION VS. EVOLUTIONDOCTRINAL MATTERSDINOSAURS

Job 40 describes a mighty creature that was just as real as Job (vs. 15)—it was not a non-existent, figurative animal. Many scholars, mystified by what Behemoth was, and in many cases writing before many of the dinosaurs had even been discovered in the mid-to-late 1800s, or trained to believe dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist because of evolutionary presuppositions, quickly assume the Behemoth must have been a creature living today, like a hippopotamus or elephant. As we have shown elsewhere, however, the biblical description of Behemoth does not match the hippo or elephant. For example, Behemoth was “chief of the ways of God” (vs. 19, ASV)1 and, unlike hippos or elephants, had a tail2 comparable to a cedar tree (vs. 17),3 a tree known in the Bible for its size and strength. Other clues from the text, however, also preclude the hippo or elephant from being identified as Behemoth.

For example, the text says that Behemoth’s strength was in its hips or loins (vs. 16). The elephant’s strength, however, is in its head (namely, its trunk) and neck. It carries roughly 60% of its weight on its front legs, not hind legs.4 Interestingly, studies have been conducted that compared the weight distributions of elephants with sauropod dinosaurs.5 Scientists have discovered that sauropods, contrary to elephants, had the opposite weight distribution, with sauropods’ center of mass being closer to the rear and having much larger hind legs compared to their forelegs.6 Did God not know where the strength of Behemoth was actually located? Or is it possible that Behemoth was not an elephant?

According to the text, Behemoth’s “bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron” (Job 40:18). Concerning the term translated “beams,” commentator Albert Barnes explains that, while some translate the term as “tubes,” “the more common meaning of the word is ‘strong, mighty,’ and there is no impropriety in retaining that sense here; and then the meaning would be, that his bones were so firm that they seemed to be made of solid metal.”7 The bones of hippos have a marrow cavity that makes up “55% of the total thickness” of its femurs—less than most mammals—but still helping “the animal to walk on the bottom of rivers.”8 Elephant bones have cavities with “spongy bone” in them.9 Sauropod dinosaurs, however, were unique. Many had ribs, vertebrae, and limb bones that were not hollowed-out like most animals, but solid bone.10 Hippos and elephants simply do not fit the description as given in the text. Since we can know that the Earth is young,11 that dinosaurs have existed in the past according to the fossil record, that God would have created dinosaurs alongside man on Day 6 of Creation week (Genesis 1:24-28), that dinosaurs survived the Flood,12 and that post-Flood humans saw them centuries after the Flood,13 why would scholars so vehemently reject the possibility that Job, who likely lived relatively soon after the Flood, was shown dinosaurs by God? Which creature best fits the text?

I have always scratched my head in bewilderment at the mental gymnastics many scholars will engage in to (1) deny the striking similarities that Behemoth had to sauropod dinosaurs, and (2) force the hippo or elephant into the text where they simply do not fit (engaging in eisegesis, rather than exegesis). Why not just let the evidence speak for itself?

Endnotes

1 Dave Miller (2008), “The First of the Ways of God,” R&R Resources, 7[3]:9-R, https://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/28_3/0803.pdf.

2 Note that if Job lived towards the end of the Ice Age, which is probable, elephants as we know them may not have yet been on the scene. The elephant kind was apparently represented by woolly mammoths and mastodons at the time, which have a similar tail length and character as modern elephants (though with more hair).

3 Dave Miller (2011), “Behemoth: A Tail Like a Cedar?” Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:122-131, https://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/31_12/1112.pdf.

4 Donald M. Henderson (2006), “Burly Gaits: Centers of Mass, Stability, and the Trackways of Sauropod Dinosaurs,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 26[4]:912, December; “Jobaria and the Elephant” (2020), Paul Sereno: Paleontologist, https://paulsereno.uchicago.edu/discoveries/jobaria_tiguidensis/jobaria_and_the_elephant/.

5 The large dinosaurs with the generally long necks, long tails, and small heads.

6 Henderson; “Jobaria….”

7 Albert Barnes (2010), Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament, electronic database, Wordsearch Corp, emp. added.

8 J.G.M. Thewissen, Lisa Noelle Cooper, John C. George, and Sunil Bajpai (2009), “From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises,” Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2:272-288, https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2.

9 “Elephant” (2002), International Wildlife Encyclopedia, Volume 6: DUG-FLO, third edition, p. 767.

10 “Dinosaur: Classification” (2020), Encyclopaedia Britanica on-line, Accessed September 23, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/animal/dinosaur/Classification; Patricia Barnes-Svarney and Thomas E. Svarney (2010), The Handy Dinosaur Answer Book (Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press), second edition, p. 64; “Sauropods” (n.d.), On-line Biology Library, Orange County Community College, http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/36%20Sauropods.htm; Andreas Christian, Wolf-Dieter Heinrich, and Werner Golder (1999), “Posture and Mechanics of the Forelimbs of Brachiosaurus brancai (Dinosauria: Sauropoda),” Mitt. Mus. Nat.kd. Berl.,
Geowiss. Reihe, volume 2, https://fr.copernicus.org/articles/2/63/1999/fr-2-63-1999.pdf, p. 68; Samuel W. Williston (1898), The University Geological Survey of Kansas (Topeka: J.S. Parks, State Printer), volume 4: Paleontology, Part 1: Upper Cretaceous, p. 69; “Titanosauria” (2020), Wikipedia, Accessed September 23, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanosauria; Chris McGowan (2011), Dinosaur Discovery (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers), p. 6; Mark Hallett and Mathew J. Wedel (2016), The Sauropod Dinosaurs: Life in the Age of Giants (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press), p. 72.

11 Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-11, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1287.

12 Jeff Miller (2019), “Was the Ark Large Enough for ALL of the Animals?,” Reason & Revelation, 39[7]:82-83, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1299&article=2920.

13 Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

 

Simultaneous Causation

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

In 2011, the renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, the late Stephen Hawking, was given a platform to spread his atheistic perspective (“Curiosity…,” 2011). Discovery Channel aired a show titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking adamantly claimed, “No.” He claimed that there is no need for God in the picture, since he believes everything in the Universe can be explained without Him (see Miller, 2011a for an in depth response to Hawking’s claims in the show).

Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself” (“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to the nature of a black hole (see Miller, 2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang. He asserts:

You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).

So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.

It is a common mistake to oversimplify the Law of Causality, assuming that it states: “Every effect must have an adequate cause which preceded it.” In actuality, the law more correctly states: “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause” (see Miller, 2011b for an in depth discussion of the Law of Causality). The Law of Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be empirically observed—namely, the natural Universe (i.e., that which is “material”), not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to God. But even if it did apply to the Creator, Hawking’s belief that there’s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality requires a previous cause—which could not be the case if time did not exist before the Big Bang—is erroneous. Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not “consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the [alleged—JM] Big Bang operated at t_o, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang” (Craig, 1994). Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes.

When one sits in a seat, his legs form a lap. The effect of creating a lap occurs simultaneously with its cause—the act of sitting—though sitting is obviously the cause of making a lap. So clearly, causes can take place simultaneously with their effects. Renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in his book, The Critique of Pure Reason, under the heading, “Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality: All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect,” explains that, “The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena…applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous” (Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added). He then proceeds to provide two examples of simultaneous causation, the first being the scenario in which the effect of a heated room occurs simultaneous with its cause—a fire in the fireplace. He explains that, “In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good” (I.3.3.2.3.3). He then provides the example in which a lead ball lies on a cushion and simultaneously causes the effect of an indention or “hollow” in the cushion. Again, the effect occurs simultaneously with its cause. Kant explains:

The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen…. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time (Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added).

Logically, a cause can occur simultaneous with its effect. So, for Hawking to argue that a cause for the Big Bang is unnecessary and even impossible since it must precede the Big Bang, is simply incorrect. It seems to imply a shallow understanding of the Law of Causality on the part of Hawking. A proper understanding of the Law of Causality reveals that the Law does not rule out the existence of a Creator even if the Big Bang were true, since the effect of the Universe could occur simultaneous with its causal activity. That said, ultimately, even though Hawking is inaccurate in his use of the Law of Causality, it is irrelevant since the Big Bang Theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence anyway (see Miller, 2007; Thompson, Harrub, and May, 2003 for a presentation of some of this evidence).

REFERENCES

Craig, William Lane (1994), “Creation and Big Bang Cosmology,” Philosophia Naturalis, 31[1994]:217-224.

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Kant, Immanuel (1787), The Critique of Pure Reason (South Australia: The University of Adelaide Library), 2^nd edition, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16p/.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=588&article=643.

Miller, Jeff  (2011a), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.

Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3716.

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:33-47, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.

Were the Giza Pyramids Built Before the Flood? If you get a mixed message below click on the small down arrow in left column next to <> on switch to compose view

 

Were the Giza Pyramids Built Before the Flood?

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

CREATION VS. EVOLUTIONFLOODGEOLOG

Q:

If the Egyptian Pyramids of Giza were built around 4,600 years ago1 and the Flood was about 4,400 years ago, does that mean the pyramids were built prior to and survived the Flood?

A:

First, keep in mind that, although roughly 2,400 B.C. is generally accepted as the date of the Flood, the chronologies of Genesis 11 allow for an expansion of a few hundred years.2 Also keep in mind that dating techniques that are used to determine the age of ancient materials, such as carbon dating and tree ring analysis, rely on the assumption of uniformitarianism.3 These methods would be invalid if a worldwide catastrophic Flood occurred followed by a Flood-induced Ice Age. If the Flood actually occurred, and nuclear decay rates were accelerated during and after its occurrence for a period of time (and sub-annual tree rings were forming due to the Ice Age) as many creationists contend, all ages dating before roughly 1,000-1,500 B.C. would be inflated, giving an appearance of age beyond their true age.

Also, when we examine the layers of rock that form the continents upon which we reside, there is little doubt that the Cambrian strata—the beginning of the Paleozoic Era—represent the commencement of the biblical Flood.4 The rock layers throughout the Paleozoic, and overlying Mesozoic layers, approximately represent the sediment that was deposited during the Flood. Above those layers are the rocks of the Cenozoic era, which were laid down after the Flood. The Giza Pyramids were built into the Cenozoic layers (specifically, the Eocene strata5) that were deposited after the Flood—implying that the Giza Pyramids were not built before the Flood. The date of their construction, as assigned by archaeologists (e.g., 2700-2500 B.C.6), has likely been inflated based on uniformitarian dating schemes.

Endnotes

1 Brian Handwerk (2017), “Pyramids at Giza,” National Geographic, March 23, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/archaeology/giza-pyramids/.

2 Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:10.

3 Mike Houts (2015), “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 35[3]:26-34.

4 S.A. Austin and K.P. Wise (1994), “The Pre-Flood/Flood Boundary: as Defined in Grand Canyon, Arizona and Eastern Mojave Desert, California,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 37-47.

5 M.M. El Aref and E. Refai (1987), “Paleokarst Processes in the Eocene Limestones of the Pyramids Plateau, Giza, Egypt,” Journal of African Earth Sciences, 6[3]:367-377, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0899536287900790.

6 Brian Handwerk (n.d.), “Pyramids at Giza,” NationalGeographic.com, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/giza-pyramids?loggedin=true; Joseph Kiprop (2018), “When Were the Pyramids Built?” WorldAtlas.com, September 10, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-were-the-pyramids-built.html.