Book Review: The New Testament Elder, by Thomas Witherow

His Position, Powers and Duties in the Christian Church

I stumbled upon Thomas Witherow around twenty years ago. (He was an Irish Presbyterian minister and historian who lived in the 1800’s.) I read his book, The Apostolic Church – which is it? It was a short book and a first edition. I own it. The bindings are crumbling and I handle it as if it were a baby, but the biblical argument Witherow makes in favor of the Presbyterian (elder rule) form of government against the other forms of church governance is so convincing, I am drawn to read his other books. The New Testament Elder, is another.

In The Apostolic Church – which is it?, Witherow argued that Jesus Christ established and only recognizes two ongoing offices to rule with Him over His Church: elders and deacons. Witherow refuses other hierarchical offices as proposed by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. He calls that form of government prelacy. Both of those church traditions advocate for officers ranked above elders, such as popes, arch-bishops, bishops, etc. They make a distinction between “bishops” and “elders” calling them separate offices in the church. Witherow considers the distinction unbiblical. He argues that the words “bishop” and “elder” (or “presbyter”) are different terms for the same exact office.

He writes, “In the apostolic church, the offices of bishop and elder were identical. An elder was not inferior to a bishop, nor was a bishop superior to an elder. It was the same office-bearer who was known by these different names” (page 13).

He also argued that the apostolic church gave us the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Elders and Deacons. The first three were temporary offices, and they ceased with the passing of the apostles. While the last two were to be perpetual.

Furthermore, Witherow maintained that each church, in the first century, was established and required more than one elder – a plurality, which in turn causes a conflict for any independent church ruled by a single pastor.

This brings me to Witherow’s more recent book, and the one I want to review.

In The New Testament Elder: His Position, Powers and Duties in the Christian Church, Witherow elaborates on the office of elder in particular. He argues that the two primary duties of an elder is to teach and to govern. He writes, “It is noteworthy that no exception whatever is made; every elder must be able to rule and also fit to teach.” [page 6, and the italics are his.]

Yet Witherow recognizes that not every elder will teach and govern equally.

He suggests, “Even although he could do so if necessary, no elder would insist on instructing the congregation in the presence of one more gifted than himself, who was willing to speak, and who as a speaker was more acceptable to the people; and no teacher, however ready as a speaker, would insist on ruling in opposition to older and wiser men. Nothing is more natural than that each should follow his bent, and do most frequently the work that he could do best...While the elder must, to some extent, be qualified for any department, yet the work will always be the best done by every man doing that portion of it for which he is best qualified...” (See pages 8-9, 11.)

So then, the elder must be qualified to teach and govern. However, the amount of attention given to those duties may vary. This is easily apparent with our “bench of elders.” Two of us have been studying and teaching for years; the third has more recently poured his time and attention into it.

Witherow admits that modern elders (i.e. the 1800’s) do not exercise the rights as possessed by elders of the apostolic age. (p.43). He believes, along the way, that elders in Reformed and Presbyterian churches relinquished their duties to “trained” ministers and that this has hampered the church.

This is certainly the contorted model of eldership we encounter today in our Christian Reformed Churches. The elders consist of the minister and the “others.” As if the minister were the quarterback and the other elders were merely offensive linemen, or maybe a more apt analogy of Santa Claus and his elves.

Witherow makes the point that legislation was added in the Presbyterian churches over time that began to disqualify elders from duties previously performed by the apostolic elders. On page 42, he writes how, “The ruling elder is interdicted from speaking to the people from the pulpit, from laying on hands in ordination, and from administrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

Witherow believes the disparity should be removed.

Reading that section of the book, which Witherow called Results of False Theories, I was reminded of the same issue, the ailment “scribal-ism” that existed in the first century when the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees established a strangle hold upon God’s Word and those allowed to rule and sit in seats of honor within their religious society, etc.

It shouldn’t need to be said that the church offices must be protected and sometimes liberated from man-imposed definitions, definitions not prescribed by God.

In The New Testament Elder: His Position, Powers and Duties in the Christian Church, Witherow again records how each church is to have a plurality of elders. And he cites James 5:14 as one Scriptural proof, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” Witherow makes the point, “[I]t would have been impossible to obey the admonition of James, had there not been more than one of them in every congregation” (page 5).

On page 13, Witherow adds, “The apostles, so far as we are informed, never left any church permanently in charge of an individual elder or pastor; but they themselves formed, or sent some of their associates to form a bench of elders, and under this bench of elders they placed the congregation. The work of these officers was to instruct and govern the Christian community over which they were appointed.” He also uses the phrase board of elders on page 19, to identify the plurality.

Most of Thomas Witherow’s published work was written from 1855 to 1889. Due to his combined education as theologian and historian, his clarity and precision is a valuable help to the reader.