Loehe on Acts 14:23.
(from Loehe’s Aphorisms)
In Ac 14:23 we find that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for the new congregation in Lystra, Icononium, and Antioch (in Pisidia) without any mention being made of the slightest participation of the congregation in the election of the elders. And not only did the apostles themselves appoint shepherds for the congregations without any active participation being ascribed to the latter in the election and appointment, but precisely in the second most plainly pertinent passage Tit 1:5 ff. we meet the same state of affairs. St. Paul left his pupil Titus behind on Crete in order that he might continue and conclude the work that the apostle had begun. And in what did this work consist? In appointing presbyters city by city in keeping with the definite norm prescribed for him by the apostles ... . (web site editor: The Confessions state that the apostolic practice at the time was congregational election: "Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practise, you must diligently keep and practise what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordinations properly, whatever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the espiscopate was conferred and hands laid on him." The Smalcald Articles, Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope.13-14, Triglotta, pp. 507, 509.)
If they themselves lacked the necessary insight, how could they get to know the candidates for the holy office except from the testimony of the Christians from whose midst they arose and in whose midst they should exercise the office? After all, according to Ac 16:2, Timothy himself was selected by Paul with the testimony of the brethren in Lystra and Iconium ... . Whoever thinks this over will find that we have here the widest elbowroom for congregation participation in the appointment of presbyters. ... The congregations' elbowroom is large or small according to circumstances; but the actual appointing, the final decisive voice must in the end of the day belong to Timothy, Titus, Paul, for itis written of them that they did the appointing. The congregation could obviously make a mistake, elect in a fit of passion, be misled, be disposed in favor of heretics. Should Titus, timothy etc. yield to a congregation in such cases? By no means! Titus did the appointing, authority was given to him not for the ruin but for the well-being of the congregations; he was obliged to use this authority for their well-being. There is admittedly a difference between the apostles' 'ordaining' ([cheirotoneo, Ac14:23) and the 'appointing'... authorized in Tit. 1:5. The former must indicate both the greater trust and the higher authority of the apostles, and yet neither of the two words places any power in the hands of the congregation, but the final appraisal and decision concerning the man to be ordained rested with the one who had the decision to 'appoint.' ... An absolute right of election on the is not only unapostolic but also highly dangerous, a way to drive Christ out of the congregations through a majority of votes and to open wide the gates to the Baal of this world. Just as presbyters (apostles, evangelists etc.) appointed presbyters, with involvement of the of the congregations being left to their wise discretion, so let it happen today. Be it left to the appointing presbyter (bishop), let it be recommended even commanded him, to heed the just wishes of the congregations. Let it be permitted and not forbidden the congregations to bring to bear their 'testimony' concerning the one to be elected and to express their wishes, but let them also acknowledge that it is not their right to strive against the judgment of the one who does the appointing (i.e. the bishop). The one who does the appointing can make a mistake, and his conduct can be brought to the synod; a whole congregation must not be helplessly handed over to the sovereign dealings of a single man. But if the one who does the appointing is honest and up to his job, he has an interest ... in discharging his office well, and his governance must work more blessing for the congregations than that of an easily misled mob who have no idea what they are to have and receive from the office. If the first congregations did not elect, if the decision was there in the hand of a single wise and pious presbyter, how much more must the same hold good for our desolate congregations." Aphorisms, pp. 46, 47, 48, paragraph 23, transliteration added.
**********
Chemnitz on Acts 14:23.
(from The Examination of the Council of Trent)
In Acts 6:2-6, when deacons are to be chosen and called, the apostles are not willing to arrogate the right of calling to themselves alone, but they call the church together. They do not, however, wholly renounced oversight over the calling and commit it to the pleasure of the common people or the blind and confused crow, but they are as it were steersmen and directors of the election and calling, for they set forth the principle and rule as to the sort of person they should be and how should be chosen. The men are placed before the apostles in order that the election might be examined, to see whether in their judgment it has been rightly made. They prayed, and approved the election by the laying on of hands. ... In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in all churches to which they had preached the Gospel. However, they did not take the right and authority of choosing and calling to themselves alone. Luke uses the word [cheirotoneo], which in 2 Cor. 8:19 is used of an election which is made by the voice or votes of the church, for it is taken from the Greek custom of voting with uplifted hands, and signifies to create or designate someone by vote or to show agreement. Therefore Paul and Barnabus did not force presbyters on unwilling people, without the consent of the church. And in Acts 15:22, which men had to be elected who were to be sent to the church at Antioch with commands, Luke says: 'It seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose ... Barnabas and Silas.' ... It is useful to observe the apostolic history that sometimes both the ministers and the rest of the congregation jointly proposed and chose those whom they considered suitable (e.g. Acts 1:23). At other times the church proposed and chose; however, the election was submitted to the judgment of the apostles for their approval (Acts 6:3-6). Thus Paul sends to the churches Timothy, Titus, Sylvanus, etc. In acts 14:23 presbyters were proposed, whom the church accepted by raising of hands. Meanwhile some also offered their services to the church, I Tim. 3:1: 'If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.' Always, however, in a legitimate call at the time of the apostles the consent of the church and the judgment and approval of the presbytery was present and required. ... Thus Titus was put in charge of guiding and moderating the election of presbyters on Crete, in order that it might be done rightly and that he might by means of ordination approve it and confirm the rightly performed election. For in Titus 1:5, in speaking of appointing elders, Paul uses the same word which is found in Acts 14:23, where likewise both cheirotoneo and the appointing of elders are mentioned. And he instructs Titus that he should rebuke sharply those who are not sound in doctrine nor teach what they should, that is, as he says more clearly in 1 Tim. 5:12: 'Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor partake in another man's sins,' namely, by approving an election or call which was not rightly done. ... These examples from the apostolic history show clearly that election or calling certainly belongs in some way to the whole church, so that in their choosing and calling both presbyters and people are partners. This apostolic manner of choosing and calling was retained and practiced in the church also later on. ... This is the opinion of the primitive apostolic and ancient church about the lawful election of ministers of the Word and the sacraments, which opinion is followed in the churches which have now been ordered according to the Word of God, where there is a presbytery which embraces the faithful Word as taught, a godly government, and people who know the doctrine and love godliness. But where there were at the time of the apostles idol priest, wicked rulers, people who walked in darkness, there at first the ministry could not be established through such an election, but there the apostles either went themselves or sent others who had been rightly elected elsewhere, that they should first lay the foundations. Thus (Acts 14:32) Paul and Barnabas are sent to the Gentiles. And thus (Acts 11:19) the Gospel was spread all the way to Phoenicia and Cyprus, and indeed thus it was first proclaimed to the Gentiles at Antioch. Thus Paul had many around him whom he sent here and there to the churches. But where the churches had been in a measure grounded, the ministries in the churches were soon ordered in the manner we have described (Acts 14:23)." (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, pp. 707, 708, 709, 712, 713. "The Examen may be considered a thorough exposition of both Lutheran and Catholic doctrine during the 16th century." Forward, Part I, p. 12.)
