It is the intention of this section to introduce that the emphasis of the text of scripture is on the oversight of souls (individuals) not the oversight of an organization as one would expect in a business corporation. Unfortunately, some translations use the word “ordained” which is used today in an ecclesiastical sense. In commenting on the problem of authority in Diotrephes recorded in 3 John, Robert Gant writes, “…the situation is one in which the organization of the communities was not clearly determined. It reflects, in fact, the need for a clearly defined structure.”[1] He believed in the transition from apostles, prophets, and teachers to bishops and deacons in an official capacity and that the Didache, writing compiled in the latter half of the first century, is evidence of a necessary movement to develop its organization (146). Consistency demands that since all the gifts are listed together in Ephesians 4 for the same purpose and duration, that their work of teaching overlapped. If Titus was to teach like the elders are to teach and since they were given the responsibility to “ordain” elders, then they have the same responsibility and work until shepherds take over. Therefore, we are left with another necessary conclusion. If there is such a thing as congregational oversight of elders, then there must be also a congregational oversight of evangelists before elders were ever appointed. The appointment of overseers was done by those same evangelists. Given the task of Titus as teacher and pattern setter, if he had the power to ordain elders to a position of authority, then he had to have been in a position of authority to grant it. Among those who espouse this view, we must admit that in the context of local church organizations, it is consistent with the text of Ephesians 4 and the pastoral epistles.
However, nothing in the Bible shows that God’s design was to grant congregational oversight to either evangelists or elders. By “congregational,” I mean a local institution arranged as a corporate business entity. Though both are to teach, neither were to occupy an official position in an organization. If one considers the possibility that oversight is applied to individuals rather than a corporate body, then elders oversee souls as the Bible specifies. That can be accomplished without any congregational arrangement but if they are given the oversight of the business affairs of the local church organization, then there is an official position of authority and the title of the office to go with it. To get there, however, it must be proven that the ekklesia is something other than a family of individuals under the oversight of spiritual shepherds who labor among them.
The only other time the English word “ordain” is used is from another word found in Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. The later use finds Luke being “chosen of the churches to travel with Paul and his companions.” His selection was no more an official position in an institution as is the shepherds or evangelists. Albert Barnes commenting on Acts 14:23 writes:
“The word ordain we now use in an ecclesiastical sense, to denote a setting apart to an office by the imposition of hands. But the word here is not employed in that sense. That imposition of hands might have occurred in setting apart afterward to this office is certainly possible, but it is not implied in the word employed here and did not take place in the transaction to which this word refers.”
The verb properly denotes to stretch out the hand. It was customarily used to give one’s approval or vote by stretching out or elevating the hand, to “recognize” one for the work. When we read the English translation “ordain,” we read our sociological organization back into the text which is another form of hierarchical leadership. The idea of “ordaining” one to the work is merely recognizing men who have already demonstrated leadership and are worthy of imitation. Of all the words that could be chosen from civil and religious authorities of that day, God chose to use the word “shepherd” to describe their work. It describes a rule of leadership that arises from a “servant’s rule” in contrast to the kind of rule that Jesus taught against (Mark 10:42-45). Humanity has always diverted to either desiring a place of preeminence or being led/controlled by others to be relieved from responsible activity/work. Examples of the later extreme can be seen when Israel wanted Saul to “fight their battles for them” (1 Sam. 8:19-20), or when the people wanted Moses to stand as a mediator between them and God (Acts 20:19). Examples of the former extreme can be witnessed by Moses’ siblings, who thought he was taking on more authority than he should, from the apostles who argued about who would be the greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1), or from Diotrophes, who loved the preeminence and tried to control those with whom other Christians can fellowship (3 John 9-10).