Eldership

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that this is a really good question. I don't have an answer either, but I did happen to come across something related (though not necessarily relevant) when reading Miller's church history.

Here's some passages from Ignatious - who was contemporary of Johns, friend of John's and fellow-worker/disciple of John - who only survived John by 7 years:

Writing to Ephesus: "Let us take heed, brotherren, that we set not ourselves against the bishop, that we may be subject to God....It is therefore evidence that we ought to look upon the bishop even as we do upon the Lord Himself."

To the Magnesians, "I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord; your bishops presiding in the place of God; your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles; and your deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ."

Excerpts taken From Miller's Church History at 179 (1980).

It is said that these were written but a few years after John's death - and that by a disciple of John, who was "bishop" of Antioch, presumably even prior to John's death. What do we do with them?

Well, for the time being, I'm just going to lay them aside!

YIPES!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, for the time being, I'm just going to lay them aside!

YIPES!

A man with more wisdom that I...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

A man with more wisdom that I...

Well, if anything, I think I would still accuse myself of being "of Paul."

I'm just not ready to become "of Ignatius" today, although I do agree that the question of whether he was "of John" in this context is a very interesting one that likely merits real consideration at some point.

[Peter Debelak]

Well, YP, it seems to me that the word "eldership" does appear in the New Testament. It isn't a derivation of /prebeturos but rather the greek word /gerousia. Strongs number 1087. Its the word to refer to the Sanhetrin in, for example, in Acts 5:21. Here's some historical background on gerousia (from Britannica:

: The Gerousia was a body of old men of Sparta from noble families who were appointed (because of their virtue) by the Ecclesia (the Spartan Assembly) for life. This council was composed of the two kings plus 28 Spartiates (Spartan citizens) aged at least 60. The Gerousia presented matters to the Ecclesia, gave advice, and tried criminals.

I'd say this Greek practice, in place before the birth of Christ, should not lightly by ignored in our account of the eldership.

Here's some history on the Jewish development of the gerousia:

In Israel before the exile to Babylon, elders functioned as heads of the Hebrew clans (the "twelve tribes of Israel"). The ancient story goes that "seventy elders of Israel" were convened to ratify the covenant which Moses had negotiated with God (Exodus 24). They were portrayed as civil judges whose task it was to settle disputes (Deuteronomy 21 and 22). Later they became rulers with political and military powers (1 Samuel 4.3; 8.4-9).

When the tribal system collapsed after the exile, they retained power as heads of eminent Jewish families. Eventually the families became what we would today call "aristocrats" - such as those with whom Nehemiah had many disputes (Nehemiah 5.7; 7.5). When Palestine came under Greek rule in the centuries just before Jesus, the families were given wide-ranging powers in a council called the Gerousia ("of the elders"), which in turn became the Sanhedrin. This is the "Council of the Elders" referred to in Luke 22.66 and Acts 22.5 (both of which were written by the same person).

Just slowly gathering data... (and doing my darndest not to let my conclusory impulses preceed sound conclusions, if there are any to be had).

[Peter Debelak]

Toledo:

Can you give us any background on /episkope/ in ancient greek usage? In one contextual usage, it seems it means "office of __________" - but not particular about which office (in the other usage it seems to mean "God's visitation" - see Luke 9:44). Its used in Acts 1 to refer to what seems to me to be "office of apostle" - or just generally "office". But in Titus 1, it seems to mean "office of overseer/bishop/elder". So, unless "apostle" and "bishop/elder" are the same thing, I gather that /episkope/ simply means "office of _________" without specification when there is no context.

Or is this going down the wrong track altogether? How was this word used, if you know?

Peter

P.S. Pardon if I'm presumptive about your greek knowledge - you popped in earlier with some comments that had the color of someone who knows....

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Toledo:

Can you give us any background on /episkope/ in ancient greek usage? In one contextual usage, it seems it means "office of __________" - but not particular about which office (in the other usage it seems to mean "God's visitation" - see Luke 9:44). Its used in Acts 1 to refer to what seems to me to be "office of apostle" - or just generally "office". But in Titus 1, it seems to mean "office of overseer/bishop/elder". So, unless "apostle" and "bishop/elder" are the same thing, I gather that /episkope/ simply means "office of _________" without specification when there is no context.

Or is this going down the wrong track altogether? How was this word used, if you know?

Peter

P.S. Pardon if I'm presumptive about your greek knowledge - you popped in earlier with some comments that had the color of someone who knows....

Although it is important to know definitions ("Word mean things"...), definitions alone won't suffice. [Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?]

"Presbuteros", as you have pointed out, means "elder" -- first as an "older brother", then as a responsible person.

"Episkopos" (epi -- "over" + skopeo -- "observe") means, practically, an "overseer".

"Apostolos" (apo -- away from + stello -- send) means "one who is sent" or "ambassador". In the fifth century B.C. the word had distinctly negative connotations, rather like an oppressive tax collector. The New Testament usage seems to be utterly different, referring to those "sent out" by the Christ of God.

Hope this helps. I am by no means all that knowledgeable in Greek. My hands on experience is limited to maybe a few dozen medieval manuscripts plus a bit of time with papyrus P46, and not much more.

I tend to shy away from arguments about pseudographia, being content to accept the received canon of scripture.

[Thank you, by the way, for editing your earlier post...]

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Well, YP, it seems to me that the word "eldership" does appear in the New Testament. It isn't a derivation of /prebeturos but rather the greek word /gerousia. Strongs number 1087. Its the word to refer to the Sanhetrin in, for example, in Acts 5:21.

Interesting, but why is this term used but once? It's not just an example. Acts 5:21 is the only scriptural occurrence outside the LXX.

And why is it used in the same book where the other term is used?

It mustn't be identical in meaning. What is the distinction?

Although \gerousia\ does appear to be the preferred term in LXX, there is no entry for this term in Kittel's TDNT. Instead, it is mentioned dismissively in a footnote in the article on \sunedrion\.

But that's not the strange part.

"In Ac. 4:15 \sunedrion\ means 'place of assembly.'"

Note 79 on page 871 of Vol. 7.

"In Ac. 5:21 \sunedrion\ and \gerousia\ are used alongside one another with no difference in meaning."

Note 80 right underneath it.

May we then assume that \gerousia\ means "place of assembly"???

Of course, I'm being facetious, but, seriously, there seems to be just a TAD bit of carelessness in the handling of these terms.

I'm suspicious I have an idea why that might be but, like you, I'm just researching at the moment.

I'm withholding judgment at present on the significance (or accuracy) of these two terms being used for allegedly the same leadership entity. But it's definitely another piece of a larger puzzle that may have been neglected historically by, at least, believers of a more evangelical bent.

By the way, I haven't said that the term "eldership" doesn't appear in the New Testament to refer to a group of "elders." It does. Usually with reference to the Jews but once in 1 Timothy as well. What I have said is that it doesn't appear in reference to an "office." My Englishman's Greek interlinear uses the word "elderhood" in these places you are discussing and I think that helps make the distinction necessary between a body and a title.

[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?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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)

Many of the traditional teachings I have received uplift Paul as a purely New Covenant teacher whose writings testify of his utter rejection of all things Jewish and whose occasional lapses into undeniable Jewish practice are excused as necessary "expediencies" but not a model for Christian practice.

It may be the case that we are so accustomed to viewing in paticular the Pauline epistles from a fundamentally anti-Jewish perspective that we are nearly unable to recognize that the apostle to the Gentiles was in fact himself a faithful Jew.

And my hypothesis is that, to the extent that Paul himself may have been a common practitioner of prior Jewish traditions, it is entirely possible that many went completely unexamined during his lifetime and were in fact transferred by his efforts into the practices of the Christian assemblies.

Simply because he boldly insisted that some aspects of Jewish practice were not to be superimposed upon the Gentile converts, with his carrying out Jerusalem's intention by means of his distributing the "decrees" of headquarters, he demonstrates that he was not opposed to at least presenting some aspects of Jewish dietary observances as a new set of ordinances to the Gentiles. And he himself circumcised Timothy for fear of the Jews according to this same passage in Acts 16.

I think perhaps he became later far more clear about the need to reject all of that stuff and not just the parts of it inconsistent with Gentile preference. But it seems that we must admit that his discussions and practice about New Testament "offices" originated in synagogue practice. To the extent that his earlier writings reveal a stronger Jewish character which may even be inconsistent with the functioning of the members of the Body, I think it behooves us to examine what the practices of "offices" looked like in later times under his guidance.

And THEN I'd be willing to discuss John's disciple, Ignatius.

Of course, this requires much more of an effort at reconstructing the New Testament chronology than most have generally seemed interested to pursue. That's kind of where I am right now. I intend to finish with Still's book, review again the Pauline epistles in accordance with a timeline placing 1 Timothy early rather than post-mortem, and see what if anything might be yielded through a proper chronological sequencing of the books. Keeping in mind of course that it may not be possible to make a conclusive statement about the sequence. But that fact that I've seen at least a couple of places now that put 1 Timothy early while the vast majority of modern scholarship insists that it must be post-mortem really raises a red flag about the general world teaching about such matters.

I've found that minority voices often have something important to say.

And I've also found that the enemy goes to great lengths to conceal the most important things, which are usually lying right there on the surface all along once the veil is removed...