[Peter Debelak]

I would just say, so long as we are entertaining that early church structure practice of "elders" was inhereted - to whatever extent - from Jewish practice, we must say that there were "offices." That does not end the discussion of whether the "offices" were prescribed versus permitted/perpetuated contextually. But I don't think its much of a quesiton that in the Jewish tradition there were "offices." The "gerousia," particularly - but likely also the "presbuteros" were offices within the Jewish community, if not the synogogic strucutre.

Here's the conundrum I am wrestling with (and partly why I persist in this inquiry):

1) It is clear that the "office" of eldership was a Jewish custom and did, in fact, present challenges to CHristianity in its inception.

2) Since the canonization of the NT, questions of church authority and interpretation of the "prescriptions on authority" have created no end of dispute and confusion.

3) Nevertheless, Paul certain prescribed - at the very least, contextually, an eldership. Peter, too, assumed the existence of elders and called us to obey them. Luke described their place and function, to some extent.

So, the seeming prescriptions concerning "elders" in the NT are set against:

1) The Jewish tradition (i.e. it would be odd to me that, in a context where prior Jewish traditions were challenging the gospel at many points, a pre-existing practice of the Jewish tradition would be perpetuated by Paul without commentary if it were meant as a prescription)
2) the results of seeing church structure (including leadership) as a prescription over the centruies - leading to much disagreement and confusion/division
3) The internal logic and promise of the New Covenant, in which I (personally) have a hard time seeing prescribed leadership, though I absolutely can easily contemplate (and have submitted to) descriptive leadership in different times and circumstances.

I'm not trying to be a maverick. I have real questions which I feel have real consequences for my going on.

Thoughts?

In love,

Peter

P.S. Toledo: You state that you remain content to accept the reveiled canon of Scripture. I'm not sure what this in retort to: the specific questions of greek definitions; the discussion, at one point, concerning the authenticity of certain epistles; or the discussion, generally, which questions the prescriptive nature of the eldership. To which were you responding?