Eldership

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Peter:

Can you please provide a good citation or citations you may have as to the latter view?

Well, I...uh...well, this is just my speculation and I have not seen it seriously posited elsewhere.

It comes from my study of the Greek word "presbuteros" and its use in the NT.

Presbuteros is used nearly 70 times in the New Testament. Of that number, almost half are clearly referring to leaders within the Jewish community. In the Jewish society of Christ’s time presbuteros was used to refer to the respected leaders of the community, the synagogues and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as "traditions of the elders," "elders of the people," "priests, scribes, and elders," "elders of Israel," are such examples.

It seems to me to be pretty self-evident from the Word that "eldership" was part of the Jewish tradition, even if not official offices in the synagogue.

I don't think that my hypothesis has to be right, it only has to be possible - for, as such, then it would be impossible to say that "eldership" is prescribed.

I'll post more soon, I just wanted to follow up with this quick note...

Peter

P.S. aron, I do like the flock analogy and have some further thoughts on it, but not much time now to post. Grace to you!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Well, I...uh...well, this is just my speculation and I have not seen it seriously posited elsewhere.

It comes from my study of the Greek word "presbuteros" and its use in the NT.

Presbuteros is used nearly 70 times in the New Testament. Of that number, almost half are clearly referring to leaders within the Jewish community. In the Jewish society of Christ’s time presbuteros was used to refer to the respected leaders of the community, the synagogues and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as "traditions of the elders," "elders of the people," "priests, scribes, and elders," "elders of Israel," are such examples.

It seems to me to be pretty self-evident from the Word that "eldership" was part of the Jewish tradition, even if not official offices in the synagogue.

OK, so then, that makes two of us.

But there you go! The question I'd ask in that context is why would the appointment of elders fall to an apostle post-synagogue. Was there a practice of such appointment by someone else?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

OK, so then, that makes two of us.

But there you go! The question I'd ask in that context is why would the appointment of elders fall to an apostle post-synagogue. Was there a practice of such appointment by someone else?

I should rephrase my answer:

I have seen support for the proposition that the church-structure was inherented from the synagogue pattern - I just haven't seen this proposition be used for the further proposition that church-structure in the New Testament is therefore merely descriptive and not normative.

Here's some background on "elder" in the OT and into the NT:

Prominent member of both Jewish and early Christian communities. In the Old Testament, “elder” usually translates the Hebrew word zaqen from a root which means “beard” or “chin.” In the New Testament, the Greek word is presbuteros, which is transliterated in English as “presbyter” and from which the word “priest” was derived.

Elders in the Old Testament From the beginning of Israelite history, the elders were the leaders of the various clans and tribes. When the tribes came together to form the nation of Israel, the elders of the tribes naturally assumed important roles in governing the affairs of the nation. Moses was commanded to inform the “elders of Israel” of the Lord's intention to deliver Israel from Egypt and to take the elders with him to confront the pharaoh (Exodus 3:16,Exodus 3:18). Similarly, seventy of the elders participated with Moses at the covenant meal at Sinai (Exodus 24:9-11). As the task of governing Israel grew in complexity, part of the burden was transferred from Moses to a council of seventy elders (Numbers 11:16-17).

During the period of the Judges and the monarchy, the elders were prominent in the political and judicial life of Israel. They demanded that Samuel appoint a king (1 Samuel 8:4-5); they played crucial roles in David's getting and retaining the throne (2 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:15; 2 Samuel 19:11-12); and they represented the people at the consecration of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 8:1,1 Kings 8:3). In the legal codes of Deuteronomy the elders are responsible for administering justice, sitting as judges in the city gate (Deuteronomy 22:15), deciding cases affecting family life (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Deuteronomy 22:13-21), and executing decisions (Deuteronomy 19:11-13; Deuteronomy 21:1-9).

Although elders were less prominent in the post-exilic period and the term was apparently not much used in Jewish communities outside Palestine, the “council of elders” was an integral part of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. In the New Testament, frequent reference is made to the elders of the Jews, usually in conjunction with the chief priests or scribes (for example, Matthew 21:23; Mark 14:43). In this context the elders, apparently members of leading families, had some authority but were not the principal leaders in either religious or political affairs. Elders did have leading roles in the government of synagogues and after the fall of the Temple became even more central to Jewish religious life.

Elders in the New Testament In the earliest Jewish Christian churches, at least the church in Jerusalem, the position of “elder” was almost certainly modeled after the synagogue pattern. Although there are few specific details about the function of elders in the Jerusalem church, they apparently served as a decision-making council. They are often mentioned in conjunction with the apostles, and some passages give the impression that the apostles and elders of Jerusalem considered themselves to be a decision-making council for the whole church (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:17-26). As the Jewish character of the Jerusalem church increased with the departure of Philip, Peter, and others more amenable to preaching to Gentiles, the synagogue pattern probably became even more pronounced in Jerusalem.


- - from Holman Bible Dictionary found here (admittedly, I do not know the pedigree or reliability of this source - but the references check out!).

[Peter Debelak]

If "eldership" was inhereted from the Jewish custom, then Christ's words in Matthew 15 could shed some light on the normative/descriptive nature of eldership:


1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus (B)from Jerusalem and said,

2"Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they (C)do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

...
12Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"

13But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

14"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Thus, I would say that if the "eldership" does not have an independant NT prescriptive foundation (as opposed to being an inhereted OT prescription), then it got abolished with Christ (at least as a prescription).

Except, I'm not sure how then to reconcile Matthew 23:1-3:

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2saying: "(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

The bolded sentence is odd and I'm not sure how to comport it with the rest of Matthew 23 (or Matthew 15):

8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

I think these passages should be at the forefront of our minds in any interpretation of potential "offices" in the church.

Peter

P.S. YP: I haven't the first clue - regardless of the descriptive/prescritive nature of eldership - why their appointment would fall to the apostles if the practice was derived from Jewish tradition. I don't know if there is an analogue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Elders in the New Testament In the earliest Jewish Christian churches, at least the church in Jerusalem, the position of “elder” was almost certainly modeled after the synagogue pattern. Although there are few specific details about the function of elders in the Jerusalem church, they apparently served as a decision-making council. They are often mentioned in conjunction with the apostles, and some passages give the impression that the apostles and elders of Jerusalem considered themselves to be a decision-making council for the whole church (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:17-26). As the Jewish character of the Jerusalem church increased with the departure of Philip, Peter, and others more amenable to preaching to Gentiles, the synagogue pattern probably became even more pronounced in Jerusalem.[/COLOR]


- - from Holman Bible Dictionary found here

Scant evidence for making the connection between the two "elderships," however. "Almost certainly" doesn't quite do it for me, although it DOES show a contradiction within that entire school of analysis whereby the supposed "offices" are later features of assembly practice, which is an important consideration that I have been grappling with. If it is "almost certainly" something derived from synagogue custom, transmitted through the Jewish believers in the assembly at Jerusalem, then that's a very early feature, not a very late, potentially post-apostolic, one.

Hmmm.

See, this is why I'm keyed in on the "widows' roll" concept. It's so distinctive that if it finds itself firmly ensconced in common synagogue practice, it then becomes far less unreasonable to propose that other items, such as an appointed eldership, find their source in a similar place, specifically, in a traditional practice of first-century Palestinian Judaism.

This would really make several things make a whole lot more sense, in my opinion, not the least of which is Paul's subjugation of the functioning of the sisters by means of an appeal to the Law...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Scant evidence for making the connection between the two "elderships," however. "Almost certainly" doesn't quite do it for me,...

Doesn't cut it for me either. The case is well footnoted (w/ scripture) all the way up until making this crucial link, which is supported, it seems, by "well, duh...right?"

But there is an element of "duh, of course the structure was inhereted from Judaism." The more important question then would be: well, which way does that little fact cut?

I just read an article about how much Jesus utilized the synagogic structures for the spread of his ministry - as evidence that Jesus condoned the perpetuation of that structure even after the gospel...

I'll write more thoroughly on why I disagree...

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

I came across a "defense of the rule of Elders" recently, in which the author set up the framework for this inquiry thus:

"The Bible is the rule of faith and practice. This fact constitutes a reason to accept its descriptions of certain features of church organization as normative unless there are compelling reasons to feel that they are not. The burden of proof rests on those who hold that the patterns are merely descriptive."

I don't have a problem with the burden of proof being on me to put forth "compelling reasons" to feel that church organization, as described in the Bible, is not normative. The first is not an historical or factual one, but rather a logical one:

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

That does not mean that Christ, within each believer, will not lead a believer - even potentially all believers - to enter into a particular structural arrangement - but that is a description of someone obeying Christ within - not a prescription of obeying a normative structure. Some may say this is "mere semantics" - I say it is absolutely not.

SOme, who are convinced that "eldership" is prescriptive, use the prior practice of "eldership" in the Jewish tradition as positive evidence (not negative evidence, as I would) that eldership in the church is prescribed. Here is one such example:

"It can be plausibly argued that the reason why the New Testament is not more explicit in regard to church government is that it presupposes, as prescriptive, familiar principles of organization in use in the Old Testament, the synagogue, and perhaps in Hellenistic institutions. "

This approach, it seems to me, gives short-shrift to the massive paradigm-shift that was Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

Thoughts?

Peter

P.S. the two above quotes are from The Biblical Case for Elder Rule by
Dan Dumas, Executive Pastor of Southern Baptist Church. This article (outline actually) can be found here

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Some, who are convinced that "eldership" is prescriptive, use the prior practice of "eldership" in the Jewish tradition as positive evidence (not negative evidence, as I would) that eldership in the church is prescribed. Here is one such example:

"It can be plausibly argued that the reason why the New Testament is not more explicit in regard to church government is that it presupposes, as prescriptive, familiar principles of organization in use in the Old Testament, the synagogue, and perhaps in Hellenistic institutions. "

This approach, it seems to me, gives short-shrift to the massive paradigm-shift that was Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

Thoughts?

Peter

Can't I manage to post anything without using the phrase "universal church"?

Nope.

Rome is the ultimate source of the post hoc continuation doctrines of this sort, my friend, and "short-shrift" is a massively-kind understatement.

You and I are in solid agreement on this point. It really seems to me that the problem of the continuation of administration is ultimately what we're talking about.

Wish I had time to do more right now but I will apply myself in this direction as soon as I can...

[KSA]

The authority in the church is not in the office. It is in the godly character and the anointing of a minister. When he is appointed for the office, it is just a recognition of the spiritual authority that he already posseses. If he has fallen from the Lord, then, of course, he loses his spiritual authority. But he should be removed by proper means. For example, the Word says that an accusation against an elder should be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by KSA

The authority in the church is not in the office. It is in the godly character and the anointing of a minister. When he is appointed for the office, it is just a recognition of the spiritual authority that he already posseses. If he has fallen from the Lord, then, of course, he loses his spiritual authority. But he should be removed by proper means. For example, the Word says that an accusation against an elder should be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

I don't know about this word "office" either, BTW, Peter.

I may end up concluding that the Bible says we must have the appointment of elders to the office of overseers in every assembly, for all I know, but I just know that I don't have one single verse that does that and that when you start adding verses together you have to do so carefully and prayerfully.

[Peter Debelak]

KSA:

For the record, I hope you will press me (and others) on this subject. I am not clear. I do have serious questions that come out of certain convictions that I feel strongly about. But I am willing to be challenged, provided we each approach the Word with a mutuality and not a preconceived assumption of meaning and consequence. We are all, in some sense, "emerging" - some of us with more confidence in how to move forward than others. The one place where I hope we can all have a mutual relationship (rather than a student-teacher relationsihp) is here where we are attempting to re-establish the nature of our corporate life in Christ. Forgive me if I press too hard in the "liberal interpretation" direction. I am open to harsh correction. But I will not necessarily buckle when confronted with a standard interpretation of verses which I have seen abused numerous times. That history - while not dictating my interpretation - does give rise to a desire to re-examine afresh. So, if I resist your classic interpretation of well-known verses, please understand where I am coming from. It is not a rejection, it is a pleading and an inquiry. As always, I appreciate and am pushed positively by your input. I hope it continues.

Grace to you,

Peter

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

Appointing to an office has several purposes. First, it is a recognition of the gift in the Body. In Acts 13 when the Holy Spirit called Barnabus and Saul (authority given to them), brothers still laid hands on them as an act of recognition and identification. Second, it is more than recognition. According to 1 Tim. 4:4 when Timothy was appointed by laying of hands, he received a spiritual gift and he got a prophecy. And take a notice that it was the eldership that laid hands on him. Therefore, I do not believe that "appointing to an office" is a formal structural arrangement. I believe there is some spiritual reality behind it.

PS. And by the way, the verses that I mentioned where office is clearly mentioned are still not addressed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

That does not mean that Christ, within each believer, will not lead a believer - even potentially all believers - to enter into a particular structural arrangement - but that is a description of someone obeying Christ within - not a prescription of obeying a normative structure. Some may say this is "mere semantics" - I say it is absolutely not.

You got my vote on this one, and kudos to you for stating what I have inchoately held in mind for some time, and have tried to stammer out to all and sundry.

Ad hoc structure is one thing - there are always situations that need structure. Someone to wait on the tables, someone to study the word for next week's meeting. But to formalize the process quenches the leading of the Spirit, and ruins our ear for Christ. We end up with the Rule Book (Bible), and the Designated Promulgators of the Rules. Sounds a lot like the Scribes with the scrolls of Moses and Isaiah, and we know how that turned out!

Every time I come into a "room" with Hope and TJ present I am aware of my "elders", and I do acknowledge that. But to formalize is to formaldehyde-ize God's living and vital (and adaptable) arrangement. I don't like that. (Most folks probably know this already, from reading my posts. But I'm happy to repeat myself!).

Look at John's letters to the seven assemblies of the called-out ones in Asia. Six out of the seven are called to repent, only one is asked to hold fast. Lest you think these collections of saints are not a representative sample of a wider problem, read Revelation 1:3: "Blessed are those who read the words of this prophecy, and who keep them." John is writing to us all.

If Diotrephes had not been there, wanting to be first, someone else would have stepped in and filled the role quite nicely, I am sure. John and James had been there before, wanting to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus; John now was aware how deep the problem was. It was rooted in the fallen human nature. The old man had waltzed into the New Age of Christ, and his formalization of the gatherings of saints exemplified this tendency to build things in his own image, try as he might to replicate God's Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't have a problem with the burden of proof being on me to put forth "compelling reasons" to feel that church organization, as described in the Bible, is not normative. The first is not an historical or factual one, but rather a logical one:

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

I was considering your point, and my response, and decided I had a better word for what I am addressing here. You used the word "formal", as in 'formal church structure'; I had used the word "organize", and others.

I decided I like better the word "institution", or "institutionalize", as a good label to capture what might be happening here. We believers gather, or rather are gathered, by our Shepherd. We are "assembled" together, as when you buy a bicycle for your son and it says "Some assembly required". God is assembling us together. Naturally, some are "elders" and some are "youngers". Fine.

But what we have tended to do is "institutionalize" these relationships. We create institutions out of our assemblies. So at first, a man has a ministry to transfer to his neighbors, who have been languishing in darkness; he shares, or ministers, something of the reality that has come to him in Christ Jesus. Fine. But then he mistakenly institutionalizes his ministry, and those to whom he ministered eventually end up not ministering Christ to one another, but rather serving "The Ministry", an institution, rather than the Lord.

I see the question of eldership in this light. Having a ministry is not wrong. In fact, it is probably necessary. You want to serve God. Wonderful. Also, having elders is not wrong on its face. As I said, when two or three gather, one will be elder, one younger. But do we need to institutionalize the process? I think the NT gives us a description of what happened, not necessarily a prescription to follow. The apostle John, I believe, realized this trend, and wrote about it. As I said in the previous post, the epistles to the seven assemblies in Asia are meant to be read by all, not merely those seven. The call to 'repent' is a broad one.

And not unrelated, I think, are the two great women in Revelation. One is seen in chapter 12, clothed with the sun. She is the glorious assembly of the called-out ones. The woman riding the beast in chapter 17, clothed in scarlet and having a golden cup full of abominations, is the institutionalized "church".