This dissertation proposes to demonstrate ‘clearly and convincingly that the terms “elder” … and “overseer” … refer to the same office in the New Testament’ (2). To do so Merkle first offers a brief (but helpful) overview of past research (ch. 1), followed by an overview of the background of the two terms in both biblical and non-biblical sources (ch. 2). The surprise comes in chapter 3, which is given altogether to the ‘office-charisma’ debate of the past century; less surprising (see the book title) is that the author lands firmly on the side of ‘office’. Chapter 4 then (very briefly) takes up the main issue, arguing from Acts 20, 1 Timothy and Titus that ‘elder’ and ‘overseer’ are interchangeable terms for the same ‘office’.
The primary usefulness of this study will be found in the author’s convenient gathering of, and interaction with, the significant data, especially in chapters 1 and 2. But one will need to read chapters 3 and 4 with due caution, mostly because the Pauline data come to us with a great deal more ambiguity than Merkle’s confidence in his conclusions seems to merit.
Besides moments of questionable exegesis of key passages, the book has some major flaws. For example, Merkle’s concern to demonstrate that ‘offices’ existed in the church from a very early period allows him to confuse ‘leadership’ and ‘ministry’ with ‘official structures’. It is especially doubtful, for example, whether a passage like Galatians 6:6 can be called in as early evidence of ‘offices’ in the church. On the other hand he studiously avoids looking at 1 Corinthians 12:28 (cf. Eph. 2:19–20), where Paul deliberately specifies that God has placed ‘apostles and prophets and teachers’ in the church. One wonders whether this avoidance results from a prior commitment to the ‘shape’ of the ‘structures’.
Moreover, the discussion of the words ‘overseer’ and ‘elder’ needs more semantic precision. Merkle argues that these are interchangeable terms, and therefore that they represent the same ‘office’. But terms that are sometimes interchangeable are not by that reality at the same time coterminous. That there is some overlap between the two terms is difficult to gainsay (although some have tried); but the nature of that overlap needs careful investigation, not simply assertion.
Also Merkle’s deliberate downplaying of the role of the householder as a leader in his house church does not fit well with the sociology of first century Greco-Roman households. That householders ‘led’ their households in the worship of the gods in the ‘labarum’ can be established by all kinds of evidence; that they yielded leadership to others in the case of the church is based largely on assertion without evidence.
This could have been a much better book than it is. Here is an instance where a dissertation was rushed to press (just eight months from the conclusion of the dissertation to publication) without adequate vetting by colleagues with special acquaintance of the field, who could have helped the author make his case with a bit more caution. One could hope that Merkle might envision a revised version, in which the discussions can be more thorough, and the difficulties more often recognised and spoken to.
