Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I will not quote all of your post. I read the verses. They indicate that Paul wrote to or about all the believers in the particular cities. While we can presume that at that particular time all were, in some form or fashion, meeting together at least some of the time, and Phil 1:1 actually mentions the elders, there is nothing about that fact that makes the elders "according to cities." This is an overlay not provided in the scriptures.
It is almost like when my wife used to complain that the fact that a game for our boys resided on the hard drive of our computer was responsible for her email not working right. It is true that the game is on the hard drive. And it is true that her email was having problems. But the game was no more responsible for the email troubles than the email was responsible for the game being present on the hard drive.
There is nothing in the verses mentioned, or in any others that I can find, that dictates elders according to cities. It can only be seen in a couple of places that elders were mentioned as being in a city (descriptive) and not that their office was related to the city. Their office was related to the believers with whom they met. I note that there were never elders appointed in cities where no believers lived and met.
I know you want it to be true, but the scripture just does not support it.
|
OBW,
I want to elaborate on my logic as follows for your understanding.
You wrote
"Acts 14:23 reports the appointment of elders in each church, not in each city."
In short, your point is that the appointment of elders is in each church, which is not necessarily tantamount to the boundary of cities. Thus you concluded that "Only Titus 1:5 makes reference to appointing elders in every town. But given the wording of the other references, this is easily understood as referring to the churches that were in those towns, and not to the towns themselves. The towns probably had elders (according to the local political system(s)). To presume that this one is the key and the others must be re-read to match it would be nothing short of spiritual myopia. You do not read the majority in line with the exception — you read the exception in line with the majority."
The best way to point out the shortcomings of your interpretation is to show that there was one church in one city at the time the Bible was written by Paul. If I am successful in that task, the boundary of a church can be equal to the boundary of the city where the church is. Subsequently, the appointment of elders in each church means the appointment of elders in each city. So, I quoted
Phi 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (ASV)
Phi 4:15 And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; (ASV)
What do you read when you see "all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi?" in Phi 1:1. Those are the recipients of this epistle. They are referred to as "ye Philippians" in Phi 4:15, followed by the juxtaposition of "church" and "ye". This means that
All the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi = ye Philippians = the church in Philippi
-> There was just one church in Philippi. This was the understanding of Paul.
My interpretation is in line with Barnes.
To all the saints in Christ Jesus - The common appellation given to the church, denoting that it was holy; (Barnes)
WN and WL were not alone. As opposed to your comment that "While we can presume that at that particular time all were, in some form or fashion, meeting together at least some of the time", I was trying to prove that Apostle Paul equated "all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi" with "the church in Philippi", meaning only one church in Philippi.
And you wrote
"There is nothing in the verses mentioned, or in any others that I can find, that dictates elders according to cities. It can only be seen in a couple of places that elders were mentioned as being in a city (descriptive) and not that their office was related to the city."
I already several times clarified that actually prescriptive vs. descriptive dichotomy is not so useful. Please tell me. Is Trinity prescriptive or descriptive in the Bible? Definitely, Trinity is descriptive. Then, can you argue that Trinity is not legitimate truth because there is no prescriptive verse in the Bible?
Furthermore, there are two critical verses.
(Acts 14:23) 『Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.』
(Titus 1:5) 『For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:』
Please show me any as prescriptive verses in the Bible, saying "elders are not according to cities" as these two verses. Which interpretation does the Bible support?
Gubei