Eldership

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, I do.

Do you believe that when Job's wife advised him to "Curse God and die", she was speaking for God? Or was that merely her opinion?

aron, surely you do not compare Paul's practical instructions to Timothy on how to maintain a widows' roll with Job's wife's advice!

What you have written concerning Paul's letters seems to fly in the face of holding those works sacred. If these letters may be picked apart as, Oh, this part is just Paul's culture and we may ignore it, how can we, on the positive side, have the practice of "elders" with the confidence that the Bible is God's word to us?

I would go one step further to illustrate the problem.

In Hebrews, we are exhorted to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together as the custom of some was. Doesn't that pretty much declare that it was a matter of custom to assemble? And wasn't this, just coincidentally, the very practice of the synagogue and the Temple?

Brother Nee in one place wrote

The Bible gives explicit commandments as well as clear examples of people meeting together.

Watchman Nee - Messages for Building Up New Believers

Is the Christian meeting a matter of culture or commandment? We generally accept that assembling is something that we must do, but is that so? Is it so just because it was Paul's opinion that it was a good thing to do?

But I don't want to get off track. I am not asking if we should meet or not. That's purely rhetorical.

I am asking whether we can parse Paul's letters to Timothy as you have suggested and whether such parsing properly respects the Bible as the Holy Word. I think it might be possible to discern Paul's culture in a way that has been neglected for 2000 years, but I think many, most, nearly all, will tell you that you must do what Paul says to do regarding all the things he discusses or you are rejecting the Bible and counting yourself higher than it is.

[Suannehill]

It is also possible that later translators injected "opinion" and "customs" into later translations.
Sue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

It is also possible that later translators injected "opinion" and "customs" into later translations.
Sue

That is true.

It is also true that early scribes making early copies may have done the same, which is a very popular academic theory, especially in the case of the Timothy and Titus epistles. Some of the academic theories go even further and say that Paul did not write them at all. They say that some of Paul's followers must have written them after Paul died. I might even agree with them about the letter to Titus, which seems very much like a "blended brother" document to me, just a bunch of quotes lifted out of context from someplace else and then jammed all together and presented as if it was written by their leader, but I'm not convinced at all about the two Timothy epistles.

But you really get into difficulties when you start questioning the canon of scripture! You might have to take a second look at the Book of Wisdom from the Roman Catholic's version of the Old Testament (which, actually, I recommend that you do that...) Obviously, the New Testament collection of works that we have come to know as "The Bible" was precisely translated from the original golden plates by an entirely reliable source. Oh, wait, no, that's a different story. I meant to say that the 4th century clerics who included and excluded different written works on the basis of their own opinions must have done a perfect job because they were authorized by the Pope to make the selections and the infallible Pope then ratified their decisions.

Clearly, we 21st century believers who have vast access to far more information, and (I'll state controversially) much more spiritual insight derived nearly 2000 more years of consideration and prayer, at least from Biblical scholars beginning with Martin Luther through to the present day, must recognize and submit to the deputy authority of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who in his Easter letter of 367, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. Aside from the textual edits made in the earliest years of the assemblies, the interpretations asserted throughout the Dark Ages, the first attempts to translate into other languages, the removal of the Apocrypha from the 1611 King James Version (and subsequent corrections of its typos and archaic spellings), the scholarly revisions of the underlying texts, the subsequent translations and revisions of translations based upon the consensus underlying texts, and the superimposition of more modern interpretations, the Bible is EXACTLY the way God meant it to be from the very day Moses penned the account of his own death down to our present times.

Obviously.

The Lord be with your spirit!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

That is true.

It is also true that early scribes making early copies may have done the same, which is a very popular academic theory, especially in the case of the Timothy and Titus epistles. Some of the academic theories go even further and say that Paul did not write them at all. They say that some of Paul's followers must have written them after Paul died. I might even agree with them about the letter to Titus, which seems very much like a "blended brother" document to me, just a bunch of quotes lifted out of context from someplace else and then jammed all together and presented as if it was written by their leader, but I'm not convinced at all about the two Timothy epistles.

But you really get into difficulties when you start questioning the canon of scripture! You might have to take a second look at the Book of Wisdom from the Roman Catholic's version of the Old Testament (which, actually, I recommend that you do that...) Obviously, the New Testament collection of works that we have come to know as "The Bible" was precisely translated from the original golden plates by an entirely reliable source. Oh, wait, no, that's a different story. I meant to say that the 4th century clerics who included and excluded different written works on the basis of their own opinions must have done a perfect job because they were authorized by the Pope to make the selections and the infallible Pope then ratified their decisions.

Clearly, we 21st century believers who have vast access to far more information, and (I'll state controversially) much more spiritual insight derived nearly 2000 more years of consideration and prayer, at least from Biblical scholars beginning with Martin Luther through to the present day, must recognize and submit to the deputy authority of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who in his Easter letter of 367, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. Aside from the textual edits made in the earliest years of the assemblies, the interpretations asserted throughout the Dark Ages, the first attempts to translate into other languages, the removal of the Apocrypha from the 1611 King James Version (and subsequent corrections of its typos and archaic spellings), the scholarly revisions of the underlying texts, the subsequent translations and revisions of translations based upon the consensus underlying texts, and the superimposition of more modern interpretations, the Bible is EXACTLY the way God meant it to be from the very day Moses penned the account of his own death down to our present times.

Obviously.

The Lord be with your spirit!

Saying a letter may have been written by followers of Paul in his name is not the same thing as saying the letters shouldn't be in the scriptures. Are you suggesting both?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Saying a letter may have been written by followers of Paul in his name is not the same thing as saying the letters shouldn't be in the scriptures. Are you suggesting both?

It would seem to me that something presented as being something that it is not is not capable of being considered the truth of God because it is fundamentally false.

I suppose others might have different opinions but if I'm forced to accept not just unknown but pseudographic origin? If it says "I, Paul" and it's definitely NOT Paul? I'd decline that, yes.

A conclusion of pseudographia is not an analysis that I'm prepared to accept as capable of resulting in something worthy of acceptance as God's Word. I've reviewed other pseudographic material, of course, and that's part of the reason I'm very suspicious of Titus.

Happily, however, most of what Titus contains is to be found elsewhere anyways...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It would seem to me that something presented as being something that it is not is not capable of being considered the truth of God because it is fundamentally false.

I suppose others might have different opinions but if I'm forced to accept not just unknown but pseudographic origin? If it says "I, Paul" and it's definitely NOT Paul? I'd decline that, yes.

I don't have the research in front of me, but I have come across historical research that claims authorship in the name of mentor was a common and accepted practice back then, with no negative connotation. If that's the case, an objectively untrue "I, Paul" doesn't necessarily negate it as Scripture. It would, in my view, certain alter the way in which we interpret the epistle, however.

That said, though I have read a few compelling arguments that Paul was not the author of a few epistles which bear his name, I must admit there's a huge mental/internal barrier to getting into getting back into what is and what is not the insipired Word... That's just full disclosure - not an attempt to stiffle the inquiry...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't have the research in front of me, but I have come across historical research that claims authorship in the name of mentor was a common and accepted practice back then, with no negative connotation. If that's the case, an objectively untrue "I, Paul" doesn't necessarily negate it as Scripture. It would, in my view, certain alter the way in which we interpret the epistle, however.

That said, though I have read a few compelling arguments that Paul was not the author of a few epistles which bear his name, I must admit there's a huge mental/internal barrier to getting into getting back into what is and what is not the insipired Word... That's just full disclosure - not an attempt to stiffle the inquiry...

I've known a couple of historians in my day. I've got the witness of the Spirit with my spirit. I'm fairly comfortable where I'm at as regards such matters.

As to the issue of whether this was a common and accepted practice back then, I do not know it, would not assume it would be the case in the case of Paul's epistles, and am suspicous, at least, that the existence of a common and accepted practice is not now common and accepted knowledge, if true.

That said, I'll vigorously defend traditional authorship, including Paul of Hebrews, for everything - except Titus. I'll get into that issue further one day, even here perhaps, but at this time I surely wouldn't base any great decision in my faith or practice on which direction the epistle to Titus cuts, if that is the sole witness on the point. I'd say it was a sloppy cut-and-paste job if they had been using word processors in first century Judea.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

It is also possible that later translators injected "opinion" and "customs" into later translations.
Sue

Even more worrisome is that we current readers inject our "interpretive customs" into our reading process. Peter Debelak's word on "elders" in 1 Timothy 5 is a perfect example. He points out that the phrasing renders our interpretation as suspect.

Suppose I said, "Workers who work have double honor. First, because they work, and second because they work. Workers who don't work only have a single honor." Doesn't make sense.

Or, "Leaders who lead are counted worthy of double honor. First, because they lead, and second, because they lead. Leaders who don't lead only get single honor." Doesn't make sense.

Now look at verse 17 -- "Elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of a double honor, especially those who preach and teach." How can you say "Elders who don't direct the affairs in the church"? Doesn't make sense.

But, if you say "The more elderly among us who lead are worthy of double honor: first because they are more mature, second because they labor. Those elderly who don't labor still get single honor because of their time on the earth." Makes sense.

We have possibly been injecting our own conceptual, cultural, traditional "translation" into this word for how long now? And how many other cases over the last 2000 years? Oh Lord, guide us today! Help us to see You in the maze and tangle of human affairs, thoughts, customs, traditions, and opinions. Lord save us from our complicated selves! We weave a tangle of our thinking and then we lay down in it, and Satan tricks us into sleep, thinking we are "home". Lord, bring us on! The fighting among the saints must wake us up to the fact that we are not home yet. Lord, bring us closer to the Father today. Amen.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Now look at verse 17 -- "Elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of a double honor, especially those who preach and teach." How can you say "Elders who don't direct the affairs in the church"? Doesn't make sense.

Affirmation by negation is a favorite technique of mine.

Apophasis is the process of defining something by saying what it is not. A very handy and oft neglected form of inquiry.

"Is it bigger than a bread box?" in a limited universe of possibilites will get you to the correct answer eventually....

[aron]

I have a sort of blanket "disclaimer and apology" here on a couple of fronts.

One, I apologize for my tone if I seem a little too glib, too casual. When I earlier wrote, "I now present my next witness, the apostle John" I was kind of mocking myself, because I am in no way an organized or trained or even careful theologian or scriptural presenter. I sense something in the Word of God which resonates both with my study of christian, even human history, and my experiences, both "human" as well as "spiritual" (these are arbitrary categories), and both in the local churches led by Witness Lee as well as those in what we in the LC's used to call "christianity", i.e. non-local church groupings of believers. I see a common theme emerging, and it may only be tangenitally connected to the subject at hand, "eldership", but to me it is a critical theme in christian history and the appointment and service of elders in the assembly is quite connected.

But I am not a trained, organized, or systematic thinker so I am more or less reduced to "thinking aloud" in my posts. Which makes for messy, wandering reading, I am sure.

Combine that with my sort of "breathless" style, that every fourth or fifth line I write is full of self-inflicted drama, and I find it very easy to caricaturize myself, which I did in introducing my ideas on the apostle John.

So I apologize if my loose, breezy style comes off as disrespectful to Paul, or John, or anyone of antiquity. We owe them much. We are grateful to the Lord for their lives and experiences and testimonies. And I apologize if my writing is inflicted with self-importance, as if I have laid hold of something. And I apologize if my writing is scattershot, meandering, long and disorganized. And I especially apologize if I am disrespectful to Mr. Lee, any of the leading ones in the "Recovery" or elsewhere, or any posters here. I can be self-absorbed and often don't consciously realize the effect I have on others.

That said, I feel that John does in fact have something to say about the assembling together of the believers. He writes often in a general tone, a universal tone, but it may well be applicable in specifics as in the elders appointed by Paul. So please bear with me, if you can.

John is an important witness to me because he was there at the beginning. I think it quite possible that he was the other disciple of John the Baptist, called by the seashore. Look at the callings recorded in the Gospels. There is John's account, with two John the B. disciples transferred to Jesus, one of them being Andrew, who then goes and gets Peter.

Then there is the Matthew/Mark version, which has them by the seashore, fishing and mending nets. Jesus calls them and they go. The boats are presented as being in close proximity. Probably they know each other, being in the same trade on the same pond. Then there is Luke, which has them listed as being "partners", if I remember correctly. John and James and Peter are partners. But Zebedee the father of the two is also somehow connected, and has other servants laboring there as well.

So they are all somehow connected before Jesus shows up and changes their lives forever. Then Peter and James and John become a somewhat delineated "inner ring" around Jesus, at least in some occasions. Peter takes the lead to declare Jesus the Christ, to get out of the boat and walk on the water, etc.

John and James break ranks, with their mother inquiring on their behalf, and the others are indignant, but no permanent damage seems to linger. John and Peter are seen together at the tomb, and early in the book of Acts.

John may be therefore "of" Peter in the parties forming in Corinth. Some are of Paul, some of Peter, some of Apollos, etc. John may be "under" Peter in one grouping of the new fellowship of believers.

But I see John as too independent for that. I doubt he was unwittingly dragged into his mother's scheme; he is lockstep with James in calling down fire, in being a "son of thunder". He is intimate with the high priest, enough so that not only can he go in and out of the high priest's house when Jesus is being tried, but he can bring in Peter with him, who remained outside. No, John is what they call a "player", he has connections and contacts. His experience with John the B. and with the high priests of the Jewish religion casts him as anything but a naiif wandering along, like some early Forrest Gump.

The universal perception was that Jesus was going to set up a kingdom on the earth. Death and resurrection was part of nobody's plan, except God's, and it was hidden to all until it sprang forth by torchlight and weapons and a kiss of betrayal (Of course Jesus knew what was happening, I am speaking of the followers). The statement made by the two walking on the road to Emmaus in Luke 22 is likely a universal sentiment. "We thought [Jesus] was going to be ruler in Israel..."

So there are two shocks which make John disappear, to become an invisible "nobody" in our written record. The first is the crucifixion. This was contrary to his and everyone's expectations. All their earthly and selfish dreams and hopes, tied up in this man Jesus, were running out onto the ground in His shed blood. And they expired when Jesus died. But John remained in the center of the drama. Jesus told him, from the cross, to take Mary into his, John's own home. John is there with Peter at the tomb after the resurrection, and he's next to Peter when Peter heals the cripple at the temple, early in the book of Acts.

But then Herod kills James, his brother, with the sword, and when Herod sees that it pleases the Jews, he grabs Peter. An angel busts Peter out of jail, and Peter has to go into hiding. So John, being ambitious, realizes Herod's methods (he sees himself, in a way; his ambitious alter ego wielding earthly, threat-based power), and he also disappears. John realizes it would behoove him not to be "somebody" in the christian ranks, but to be an anonymous nobody. My point is that James is dead, Peter was grabbed and nearly killed also, and a prudent John realizes he's probably "next".

I don't think John was a wilting lily, by any means. It just became dangerous for him to be "somebody". So he went underground. And the vision within him percolated, and eventually came out in his writings. But he did make disciples. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, are listed by name. So John was there, laboring quietly, all along, but his labor offers a different "model" than that of Paul. It was not by his design, but necessity, expediency. But it was by God's design. And we should consider it when we talk about the "New Testament Model".

Thanks for bearing with me. Peace to all who read this.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks for bearing with me. Peace to all who read this.

I think you're too hard on yourself about your tone, aron. When I'm requesting that you prepare your book draft for final editing, I'll ask you to kindly formalize your tone. Otherwise, an informal and conversational tone here makes these sorts of venues more attractive and interesting. I can smile at a joke that one would never consider making in a formal document.

We've got the smilies, after all.

Regarding organization, we need to be very careful, even precise, when citing to the Word. Just so that you know, if you don't do that, I instinctively and automatically discount your argument into the "hmmmm" category rather than the "amen" category until I have myself had a chance to verify it in the Word. And even posts presenting citations need to be prayerfully considered, of course.

So, taking your implicit challenge, and considering your actual thesis here about John, as far as I understand it, please explain how you have come to "see John as too independent" by citation to specific verses showing his independence, then help me to understand how such a view helps inform your opinion that John has something important to say concerning "elders" and, finally, if you don't mind, please help me to see, again by specific citation, exactly what it is he says on the topic.

But you can still use a smiley or two along the way if it helps...

[YP0534]

From the start of Acts, the term "elder" was used to refer to those who accompanied more formal Jewish leadership. They appear distinct at every point.

Act 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem;

Act 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders,

Act 4:23 And being let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them.

Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the council,

From these verses the Jewish elders do not appear to be "rulers of the people" nor "scribes" nor "chief priests," but they are something other than just the common "people."

Act 11:29 And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea:
Act 11:30 which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

In this verse, we see the term used the first time in Acts to refer to a group that was potentially distinct from the prior usage, although it is not crystal clear. Because the relief is being sent to "the brothers" and is to be delivered to "the elders", these "elders" appear to be a new group distinct from the old group of "elders" who were in the company of the rulers of the people, the scribes and the chief priests until now.

The key is to determine who are "the brothers" here. But once again, from the start of Acts, the word "brethren" is also used to refer generally to the fellow Jews in Jerusalem.

Working from Still's thesis that Luke intended Acts as the factual basis for a legal argument that the Christians were engaged in a lawful practice of religion under Roman law because it was authorized as a reform movement of the Jewish religion, the indistinct usages of "elder" and "brethren" when referring to groups of alternatively Jews and Christians leads in that direction. However, to maintain the foundation of truth, these terms must be susceptable to legitimate construction in very general and non-official terms.

My meaning is this: if I refer to "brothers" and "elders" and mean "the Jews and their leaders" in one place and then, without making a clear distinction, refer to "brothers" and "elders" and mean "the Christians and their leaders," then either those terms are quite amorphous and don't mean much of anything or I am being intentionally misleading. In that I cannot ascribe the latter to the author of the New Testament book, I'm inclined to believe that "brothers" and "elders" could not have been very rigidly defined terms with very distinct meanings between the Jewish background and the Christian practice. And, specifically, I think the meaning wasn't merely indistinguishable between the Jews and the Christians due to similarity but that the terms really only meant general things that were very broadly applicable in both contexts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

John is an important witness to me because he was there at the beginning ... So they are all somehow connected before Jesus shows up and changes their lives forever ... So there are two shocks which make John disappear, to become an invisible "nobody" in our written record ... and a prudent John realizes he's probably "next" ... It just became dangerous for him to be "somebody". So he went underground.

Thanks for bearing with me. Peace to all who read this.

Aron, I like your comments on John, and wanted to add a couple of my own for your comment.

I agree that John was there fishing when called. I have long held the opinion that James, John, Jesus, and the baptizer John, were all cousins and related as extended family, based on the early record and of who was at the cross. Especially those from Galilee, then, should have had some relationship prior to the gospel record. I felt John loved and looked up to Jesus as an older well respected cousin, yet so friendly at heart, from his childhood.

One dilemma for me ... coming from a Catholic background, the concept of "ever virgin" was greatly reinforced by the Lord's words, "behold your son." I still wonder why He said that -- when the Lord had 4 other brothers and at least 2 sisters.

Regarding the "disappearance" of John, you mentioned the cross and persecution. I have never considered those, looking at the record of events. During the crucifixion, we have no account that John showed any signs of fear. Even Peter, the bravest of all, succumbed, though I never held this against him, as so many do. Yes he denied, but he was there. Where were the other ten? Also, the persecution only made John the more bold. He was a "son of thunder" before regeneration, how about afterwards?

Early on in Jerusalem even until ~AD50, John was still "reputed to be a pillar" by Paul, yet we have no record that he spoke at the council on circumcision. My impression has always been that John, over time, like Peter, became subdued by James and the zealots of the law. He was new to Jerusalem with all its traditions and trappings, having grown up in distant Galilee. John the Baptist, however, knew it all and forsook it all to go to the wilderness, but those from "up north" were still "in awe" of it all.

Then it was the destruction of Jerusalem which "recovered" John, who later served in Ephesus. The revelations returned. When initially called, he was perhaps the youngest, and thus saved by God to minister to the church after all the destruction and persecution of the period of ad 66-70. Of course, by this I am voicing my agreement to the later date of his writings, which some object to. His ministry in the end became a "mending of nets" in the church, which had suffered dearly, and was transitioning from the "Ephesus" to the "Smyrna" model in church history.

What say ye? This little blurb on John reminds me of one I did on Timothy years ago.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Early on in Jerusalem even until ~AD50, John was still "reputed to be a pillar" by Paul, yet we have no record that he spoke at the council on circumcision. My impression has always been that John, over time, like Peter, became subdued by James and the zealots of the law. He was new to Jerusalem with all its traditions and trappings, having grown up in distant Galilee. John the Baptist, however, knew it all and forsook it all to go to the wilderness, but those from "up north" were still "in awe" of it all.

Then it was the destruction of Jerusalem which "recovered" John, who later served in Ephesus. The revelations returned. When initially called, he was perhaps the youngest, and thus saved by God to minister to the church after all the destruction and persecution of the period of ad 66-70. ... His ministry in the end became a "mending of nets" in the church, which had suffered dearly, and was transitioning from the "Ephesus" to the "Smyrna" model in church history.

I think I want to start a new thread on Peter/James/John & the first "assembly" around Jesus, and contrast that with the assemblies Paul was ministering to and trying to manage, some from a distance. Then, obviously, try to shed some light on the situation today.

There is a lot to say here, on the relations and relationships before Jesus, on the circumstances of the initial "call" to gather around Jesus, on the nascent subgroups within the new assembly, and the delineations of various services and special roles filled by people, and how that may have mutated into "offices" with bureaucrats and so on.

I am especially interested that John the Baptist came from a Jewish priestly family and "chucked it all", and made disciples of his own, before the fateful day that he said, "Behold, the lamb of God...", and they left John and followed Jesus. Combine that with the "Zebedee" John's being "...known to the high priest"(John 18:16). However, this new gathering of seeking ones around Jesus seemed quite new and fresh contrasted to the "offices" filled by Pharisees and Sadducees. And it is contrasted, I think, because up until John the B. and then Jesus the formal priestly "offices" was the status quo.

Then at the end of the Bible, John the aged apostle is "writing in tongues", quoting the OT profusely, saying that Jezebel and Balak and the throne of Satan are there, either within or threatening from without, among the gatherings of believers. So it seemed to me that "offices" had sprung up among them, with bureaucrats and political maneuverings and power structures a-borning.

But all this, I fear, may be distracting from a perfectly reasonable discussion Peter D. & YP & others may have been having about eldership, with the apostle Paul & his experiences in Acts, plus his epistles. I had interjected my point on John simply to say that the Titus/Timothy quotes of Paul on eldership were not the only thing germane to the discussion. But as usual, I make my points by going overboard.

So I apologize if I've been flooding this discussion with "spam" (unrelated)posts, and think there's enough useful material on the "pre-elder" days to start a new thread. Which I will do one of these days, when I get time. Ha-ha.

[aron]

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
Mat 23:3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, [these] do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders [of their garments],
Mat 23:6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, [even] the Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter[.]
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a pretence ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.

------------------------

The Recovery Version has "instructors" in verse 10, and the footnote says it also can be translated guides, teachers, or directors. It seems to me that we can trample over the words of Christ in our hurry to be "biblical" and model our living after Paul. Paul writes to the Ephesians that God gave evangelists, prophets, shepherds, teachers, apostles to the assembly of the called out ones, for the building up of His corporate expression.

My question is, does our rush to delineate ourselves according to the "New Testament way" shown by Paul obviate the words of Christ, not to call anyone Rabbi, or Father, or guide? We were told upon entry into the Local Churches how the Catholics disregard the word of the Lord by calling the priests "Father", when there is only one Father, who is God. But we were happy to delineate ourselves by other words not expressly prohibited by Christ. But is this not the same thing? Are we not playing games, taking titles and giving "chief seats" to the elders up front?

My sense is that we were a little too smug, thinking we had laid hold...

I don't limit this criticism to the Local Churches, either. I have a dear christian friend who once in conversation said that we all need to be so delineated. I had told him that I was a "believer", but he said, "If you want to be used by God, to please Him, you need to be one of these things. So what are you?" He then listed all the qualifications for each position. Like in the army, you have to have some "rank". You can't be an undifferentiated soldier. You have to be a private, sergeant, lieutenant, corporal, or general. So I told him, "I am an apostle". That calmed him down for a bit.

I know I am opening myself up to criticism here, for at least obliquely criticising Paul. It just seems to me to be at least potentially a conflict. Even we who were in the Local Churches, thinking ourselves so "scriptural", and translating verse 10 as "instructors", we ourselves had a full time instructor, our very own "Bible teacher", sitting up front training us, day after day, and now have a bevy of wannabe's following suit. Now they have decided "teacher" wasn't lofty enough, and have posthumously bestowed upon him the title "apostle of the age".

I am trying to put the discussions we are having about the Local Churches into what seems to me to be a better perspective. The problems did not arise when Constantine decided to be head of the fellowship of the believers, and the believers embraced a worldly and temporal king. No, the marriage to the world was set up long before that.

I merely ask the readers to go back to the words of Christ, and consider how deeply they cut. And I wonder, in djohnson's estimable words, how much we all have been "playing in the sandbox". Playing church, giving one another titles and chief seats and reverence, but and ignoring our teacher, Christ.

I hope this word is not too sharp. I myself am nothing, and have amounted to nearly nothing. But I have the words of Christ before me, and I cannot help but consider, what to do with these words? Hopefully I have not been impertinent for considering aloud. May God cover us all with bountiful grace to receive each other's sentiments on this forum, and elsewhere.

[Peter Debelak]

aron:

I appreciate your thoughts here. I often think that we bracket Christ's words in the gospels to issues related to the "individual Christian life; while the epistles are about the "body" - and, in the way we treat them, never the twain shall meet. That is, we perceive (explicitly or not) the Epistles as going further that Christ's ministry...

Recently I've been wondering if we look to Christ's words enough in determining what our "corporate life" should be and how "practical" we should approach its implementation.

In fact, I've had a liberal little thought: what if we consider the Epistles to be circumscribed by Christ's words in the Gospels. As a hermaneutic to interpret the Epistles?

Does that change our understanding of a lot of the seeming prescriptions in the letters?

Peter

[aron]

I now bring forth my next witness, the apostle John. I will do so by asking the question, Why isn't John mentioned in First Corinthians chapter one?

In Corinth, some were "of" Cephas, some Paul, some Apollos, some Christ. Parties were forming, enough so that the apostle got wind of it and admonished it at some length. Why no party "of" John? Why not any school, or sect forming? If anyone should have been at the head of a group of "blended brothers", post-resurrection, it should have been John the apostle. Yet no mention. Basically, after a brief cameo giving the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2 he disappears. In Acts he is in the thick of it at first, then by Acts 15 he is receding fast, and is gone, to reappear as the aged apostle on Patmos, and after (I have heard that he wrote the fourth gospel after returning from exile).

John, it appears to me in the gospels, is extremely ambitious. Nakedly ambitious. But partway through Acts he vanishes from the scene. First I'll address the ambition, then the vanishing act.

The obvious place to start is the scene in Matthew 20 where the mother of the sons of Zebedee comes up, worshipping the Lord, and asking a question. "Grant that my sons sit, at your right hand and left, at Your kingdom." Are these guys ambitious or what? Yet, as I said, 'poof'...

At one point they call fire down from heaven, and are rebuked. Wrong spirit.

They are called the "sons of thunder". No surprise.

They are with Jesus when he puts everyone outside, to raise the dead girl, the daughter of Jairus the synagogue ruler (Matt. 9). They and Peter form the "inner troika", the inner ring of disciples. They and Peter are with the Lord on the mountain when He is transformed, and seen with Moses and Elijah. They are told to tell none others, even the other nine.

Peter is a leader by doing: he declares Jesus is the Christ, bids Christ to call him out of the boat in the raging sea if it is fact He, etc. He also leads in stumbling, in many places. He is bold, impetuous, rash, for good and occasionally ill.

I get a different impression of the sons of Zebedee. They seem much more calculated to me. The best way to get ahead is to be close to someone who's going places. It is a very time-worn (& successful) model. Think of Jesse Jackson latching onto Martin Luther King, for example. Or Alexander Hamilton, a 'nobody' artillery captain until he became George Washington's aide-de-camp. Washington would tell Hamilton to write a letter to someone and Hamilton could write "as" Washington. Pretty heady stuff.

What could be more heady than being in the inner circle of the coming Messiah? Nobody realized what was really happening; they all thought Jesus was going to set up an earthly kingdom. The gospels say repeatedly they didn't realize what was going on. What they thought was going on was the power-grab, career opportunity of a lifetime. Of any lifetime. And John and James were going to the very top. I don't think their mother dragged them unwillingly. All three were for it.

Thier mother was mentioned by name along with a few other women as being there at the crucifixion. They were the women who followed Jesus everywhere, ministering to Him. So their mother was in the "inner circle" of ministering women. Not without influence, even in a male-dominant society.

Several exegeses of the gospel of John have said that the second, unnamed disciple in John chapter one, who are with John the Baptist and leave him to follow Jesus, was John the apostle, the writer of the gospel himself. I think Lee mentions this in his Life-Study of John. I know I have read it in a couple of bible study books. I am not a scholar and can't cite them, unfortunately. Maybe someone who is a little more organized than I can weigh in on this and help me out. I think it is likely, and significant.

Likely, because the second disciple is not named. This is John's m.o. Everyone else gets named. He is anonymous, unnamed. Likely, because it is first person, and so is pretty much all of John's gospel. John was there. The conversations are recorded verbatim. I never got the impression that John was collecting stories from others. Likely, because do the math. Most of the others are named, and that leaves John and a few others. I think Peter and Andrew are listed in another gospel as associates of James and John fishing in Galilee; one of the two disciples of John the Baptist in verse 37 of John chapter one is Andrew: he gets Simon, who gets Philip, who gets Nathaniel, etc. Do the math. Not a big pool left. I think maybe it's John. Anyway, I've heard this said elsewhere.

It is significant because John was a climber. He knew the Jewish religion from the inside. John the Baptist's father was one of the Jewish priests. John the disciple of Jesus, the son of Zebedee, knew the high priest and could go into his house unmolested, even as they tried Jesus. John went outside and got Peter. So John was not an illiterate peasant fisherman. His father had servants. And if he got is way, he would have a lot more, when the Messiah got His throne in Jerusalem.

Outta time. Gotta run. Hope this sparks some interest somewhere. Peace to all. More to follow soon, I hope.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I often think that we bracket Christ's words in the gospels to issues related to the "individual Christian life; while the epistles are about the "body" - and, in the way we treat them, never the twain shall meet. That is, we perceive (explicitly or not) the Epistles as going further that Christ's ministry...

Recently I've been wondering if we look to Christ's words enough in determining what our "corporate life" should be and how "practical" we should approach its implementation.

In fact, I've had a liberal little thought: what if we consider the Epistles to be circumscribed by Christ's words in the Gospels. As a hermaneutic to interpret the Epistles?

Does that change our understanding of a lot of the seeming prescriptions in the letters?

Peter,

For a possible strengthening of your notions, and to back up my assertion of "trampling the words of Christ to rush towards Paul", look at Don Rutledge's testimony in his "History" thread, on Ray Graver's program for "Serving the Ministry". Look at all the verses Ray chose to put together a "blueprint" for serving the ministry of Witness Lee.

All the verses are "deputy authority" verses from epistles to Colossians, Corinthians, Timothy, Titus, etc. Not one word from Jesus. No "love thy neighbor as thyself" stuff there. Just authority and submission. What happens with that blueprint, is that eventually when "love thy neighbor" and the institution created to "serve the ministry" come into conflict, who wins? The institution wins. And God's love for man, expressed in the person of His Son Jesus Chist, is nowhere to be found. We find instead an empty shell, an institution with lackies, flunkies, bureaucrats, social climbers, wanna-be's and assorted hangers-on. This is not restricted to the LSM version. But the LSM version, with its "Philip Lee is the Office" brand of nepotism, among other egregious abuses, could serve as the poster child.

Maybe we could mandate in all assemblies a 5-year moratorium, for the new ones anyway, of all the epistles, you know, the "solid food", and make them just read the Beatitudes over and over 'till they get that ingrained. Love one another, love one another, love one another....eventually when they get that they can discuss elders and deacons and whatnot. Let them drink the "pure milk" of the Word before they go trying to chew on steaks.

Just a little tongue-in-cheek humor there, folks.

[YP0534]

Just a side note, but I've discovered that some denominations look at Peter's verse in 1 Tim. 5:17 in a very different way.

They note that there are some who labor "in word and teaching" and others that only "take the lead well" and therefore devise that there are two classes of the office of "elder" - those that teach and manage and those that manage only.

So, I guess under Peter's reading, we'll have THREE kinds of elders: the elderLY, the teaching elders, and the managing elders.

Perhaps we can also devise a number of classes of believers and organize the assembling saints such that they will fit into an elaborate org chart? We should use different colors for each class and invent good names for each.

Just a suggestion, of course.

A modest proposal. :rollingeyes2:

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

aron, surely you do not compare Paul's practical instructions to Timothy on how to maintain a widows' roll with Job's wife's advice!

Why not? They are both humans who are speaking/writing in God's Holy Word. Or did Paul get a special dispensation of inerrancy by holding the office of "Apostle of the Age"?

When Peter said, "Not so, Lord, this shall never happen to you" in Matthew 16, was he speaking for God, or injecting his fallen human thought? Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan." So obviously it was not the former.

Later, after the resurrection, Peter said, "I am going fishing." The rest said, "We are going with you." Here they seem to be in some error, judging by the Lord's gentle rebuke later ("Peter, do you love Me?"); did they get a special "inerrancy pill" on the day of Pentecost, so that their deeds and speaking cannot be scrutinized afterwards? I think not. They obviously had different opinions at times -- see the record in Galatians on Paul's confrontation with Peter when some came "from James".

I am not holding my opinion as capable of setting Paul's opinion at naught (Except in the case of wine: he told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach; I would have to say, "Sorry brother, can't do that. The stuff makes me crazy"). I apologize if I gave that impression. I have the bad habit of leaving unstated several "connecting dots" in my thinking. My point of Timothy and Titus not being the "last word" was more do to my annoyance at people seeming to imply with their citations of scriptures that it was now and henceforth "case closed", and any further questionings rank of foolish impiety. "God has spoken; we have the cases of eldership cited in Timothy and Titus. It is clear. Cease your nettlesome questionings."

(Forgive me, Toledo, if I am picking on you here specifically. I am just trying to simplify my sense of the arguments I have heard over the past umpteen years of my christian discussions. Sometimes simplification involves distortion. I apologize if my characterization in any way distorts your argument).

What I am setting against Paul's writing in Timothy and Titus is not my opinion. It is the speakings of Jesus the Galilean. Sometimes Paul's writings smack of "exigencies", i.e. dealing with particular cases which no longer are so relevant (slavery, women's place in the assembly) due to changes in culture over time.

What I am also setting against Paul's writing in Timothy and Titus is the writings of others in the Bible. I am specifically thinking of John. Where is John's opinion on this matter? It is never discussed in my hearing or reading, and I think this is due to two reasons.

First, people go "case closed" when they read the verses in question. This is a problem with the "concordance" school of systematic theology. We just look up all verses saying "eldership" or "elder" or "office" and think we have it. I am actually picking on Lee here. He was too quick to say "case closed".

Secondly, John's writings are more elliptical, more inscrutable, more veiled, which I think was done purposefully by him. John picked up Jesus' trick of hiding in plain sight. "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches" is a direct echo of Jesus' word in the face of the Pharisees, after He threw a parable at them: "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear." John was deliberately playing "games" with his readers; he was setting a puzzle before them. What does John say about the appointment of elders in the assemblies of those who are called out?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

What does John say about the appointment of elders in the assemblies of those who are called out?

I think this is an excellent question, to which I currenlty have no answer.

But asserting that the clear New Testament practice of having elders an "expediency" seems to me to an extremely uncertain step on the slipperiest slope of Biblical exegesis.

Don't worry, though.

I've got you.

Go ahead....

[aron]

From YP's list: Qualifications for elders

Blameless as a steward of God; above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7)
Husband of one wife; a one-woman man (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6)
Temperate, sober, vigilant (1 Timothy 3:2)
Sober-minded, prudent (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8)
Of good behavior; orderly, respectable (1 Timothy 3:2)
Given to hospitality (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8)
Apt to teach; able to teach; he can exhort believers and refute false teaching (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9)
Not given to wine (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not violent, not pugnacious (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Patient, moderate, forbearing, gentle (1 Timothy 3:3)
Not a brawler; uncontentious; not soon angry or quick tempered (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not covetous; not a lover of money; not greedy of base gain (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Rules well his own house; his children are faithful, not accused of rebellion to God (1 Timothy 3:4, Titus 1:7)
Not a novice; not a new convert (1 Timothy 3:6)
Has a good report or reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7)
Not self-willed (Titus 1:7)
A lover of what is good (Titus 1:7)
Just, fair (Titus 1:8)
Holy, devout (Titus 1:8)
Self-Controlled (Titus 1:8)

Reading again the list of qualifications of elders, I was touched again, strongly, with something that's been bugging me for a long time now. Paul's list of qualifications are compared to what?

Did Apollos or Peter recommend leaders in the assembly who were brawlers, given to wine, keepers of more than one wife? Who was recommending something different than Paul here? Why did he have to write these words?

Or was it okay for the "rank & file" to drink & fight & fornicate; just not the "leading ones"?

Where do these admonitions come from? Why is Paul writing these words? I don't get it. It seems to me to be a huge dropoff from "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" and "Blessed are the pure at heart, for they shall see God", to "Don't drink and fight". It seems to be a big dropoff to go from "It was written, do not steal, but I say to you, do not even covet", to "Those who stole should steal no more".

The spiritual, mystical, deep, even unfathomable, limitless teachings have been replaced by prescriptions for outward behavior that even most unbelievers would shrug at. Don't steal, don't punch one another, stay sober. What happened here?

Just a little contextual question for the "eldership" discussion. Something clearly happened to the fellowship, from Acts chapter 2 to Paul's epistles.

Compare Paul's prescriptions for the "leaders of the flock" to Jesus' "Beatitudes". The latter is clearly at another whole level of reality. What happened?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

The spiritual, mystical, deep, even unfathomable, limitless teachings have been replaced by prescriptions for outward behavior that even most unbelievers would shrug at. Don't steal, don't punch one another, stay sober. What happened here?

Thank God for that. Who wants to try to recognize qualified leaders based on something unfathomable?

Paul is saying if you are qualified for leadership you will at least meet these minimum qualifications. He is giving the lowest standard, not the highest standard. Why did he use this approach? Because pool of potential leaders is imperfect, glaringly so, but the church still needs leaders. Yet there still must be be minimum qualifications. Those are these. Leaders can reach much higher though, and the really good ones do.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thank God for that. Who wants to try to recognize qualified leaders based on something unfathomable?

Hmm.

With what faculty are we "recognizing" spiritual authority? Based on outward criteria, of which our leaders must meet a minimum? The very notion of "recognize" is that there is something - already there to recognize. Surely it isn't some set of minimum standards that we already "recognized" - but rather a spiritual experience and heft that carried weight amoung a population, no? And surely that "recognition" couldn't necessarily be broken down into criteria. Isn't that "recognition" a spiritual and organic on - one of a natural relationship which has developed between certain elder believers and others? If so - if that "higher" standard of intuitive recognition of spiritual authority is the pre-requisite for "recognition" by an assembly - why the need for the very minimal outward standards? That is, either spiritual authority is, in fact, spiritually recognizable or it is recognizable because some set of outward criteria have been met. Either way, a minimum standard doesn't (seemingly) do us much good.

All that to say, I think aron's questions are still pressing and unanswered ones, Igzy. The standards are clearly in the Word. I echo aron's questions however, about what Paul is getting at with them. Thoughts?

Peter

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul is saying if you are qualified for leadership you will at least meet these minimum qualifications. He is giving the lowest standard, not the highest standard. Why did he use this approach? Because pool of potential leaders is imperfect, glaringly so, but the church still needs leaders. Yet there still must be be minimum qualifications. Those are these. Leaders can reach much higher though, and the really good ones do.

This discussion made me think of the verse in Matthew chapter 19: "[Jesus] said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (KJV).

Maybe Jesus' Beatitudes can be seen in this context as the 'from the beginning' words, and Paul's admonitions to the assemblies of saints that the leaders should not be drunkards and womanizers was a concession to the hardness of hearts yet remaining in many.

As Igzy is saying, Paul is giving the lowest standard, not the highest standard. So shouldn't we approach Paul's words through Jesus', not vice versa? We set up "churches" based on the "template" of Paul's experiences, then we assemble in these "biblical" arrangements and try to figure out what Jesus wants us to do. But we're already in a man-made cage.

I am thinking that maybe some of Paul's writings and experiences were "concessions" to the birds fast roosting in the great tree (Luke 13:19) of Christendom. Like Moses' words, they are part of the divine record. But shouldn't we go back "to the beginning", to Jesus' words, for our standard, our model?

[Cal]

aron,

I really don't see the "problem" you are addressing. What's the problem with groups using Paul's guidelines to help choose leaders? I don't think anyone thinks these verses should be taken in a vaccuum as the only needed word on the character of leaders. To me they just are general, bottomline principles, not for what qualifies a leader, but for what disqualifies one.

A brother who can't control his drinking, who is argumentative, who is unqualified to teach, who is a new convert, etc, is simply unqualified to be in a major leadership position. (Brawler doesn't mean a physical fighter, it means argumentative.)

These verses are applicable to all believers, but that doesn't mean all believers measure up to them. Those who don't aren't qualified to be leaders. So I really disagree with YP's statement that these verses "don't really help determine anything at all." They clearly help determine who is unqualified for leadership. If the state of a congregation is that all the members can pass the test of these verses then more power to them. Perhaps some of them should relocate to bolster more immature congregations.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Reading again the list of qualifications of elders, I was touched again, strongly, with something that's been bugging me for a long time now. Paul's list of qualifications are compared to what?

Did Apollos or Peter recommend leaders in the assembly who were brawlers, given to wine, keepers of more than one wife? Who was recommending something different than Paul here? Why did he have to write these words?

Or was it okay for the "rank & file" to drink & fight & fornicate; just not the "leading ones"?

You are right, aron.

These minimal standards are so broadly applicable to all believers that they don't really help determine anything at all. It is a very good question as to why Paul would bother to articulate that an overseer must not be one given to violence and must be holy. Only non-brutal faithful (male) believers need apply. Huh. I wouldn't really think there would be any question about appointment of brutal, unholy men to an "office" in God's own assembly, but, then again, maybe some in Ephesus were into that sort of thing or something.

This reveals that the REAL "qualification" must come from elsewhere.

I believe Lee taught that it was "revelation" that was the basis of this sort of thing but I'd like to continue to dig into the issue and see if the Bible itself doesn't yield some additional light on the topic. Paul clearly promoted his own apostleship as based in revelation but does this necessarily translate to anyone who claims some crazy revelation? Clearly not. How do we test and approve or reject the revelations?

Paul wrote that the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother. (Gal. 4:26) I think maybe the New Jerusalem is more like a Waldorf salad than a mommy. OK, so the Waldorf salad recipe can't be found in the Old Testament, but aside from the Book of Revelation, where else can I see that there's a city in the heavens someplace? Where'd Paul get that kind of stuff and then commend us to believe it? And, more to the point, what do I do about THAT guy and what HE says God showed him? Is my revelation of the Waldorf salad really THAT inconsistent with the New Testament revelation of God's eternal purpose? Lee taught that Christ is the reality of every positive thing in the universe, right? Does that stop short of the Waldorf salad? Who says so?

Or maybe revelation and "church offices" have no relationship one with another?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

You are right, aron.

These minimal standards are so broadly applicable to all believers that they don't really help determine anything at all. It is a very good question as to why Paul would bother to articulate that an overseer must not be one given to violence and must be holy. Only non-brutal faithful (male) believers need apply. Huh. I wouldn't really think there would be any question about appointment of brutal, unholy men to an "office" in God's own assembly, but, then again, maybe some in Ephesus were into that sort of thing or something.

This reveals that the REAL "qualification" must come from elsewhere.

I believe Lee taught that it was "revelation" that was the basis of this sort of thing but I'd like to continue to dig into the issue and see if the Bible itself doesn't yield some additional light on the topic. Paul clearly promoted his own apostleship as based in revelation but does this necessarily translate to anyone who claims some crazy revelation? Clearly not. How do we test and approve or reject the revelations?

Paul wrote that the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother. (Gal. 4:26) I think maybe the New Jerusalem is more like a Waldorf salad than a mommy. OK, so the Waldorf salad recipe can't be found in the Old Testament, but aside from the Book of Revelation, where else can I see that there's a city in the heavens someplace? Where'd Paul get that kind of stuff and then commend us to believe it? And, more to the point, what do I do about THAT guy and what HE says God showed him? Is my revelation of the Waldorf salad really THAT inconsistent with the New Testament revelation of God's eternal purpose? Lee taught that Christ is the reality of every positive thing in the universe, right? Does that stop short of the Waldorf salad? Who says so?

Or maybe revelation and "church offices" have no relationship one with another?

YP -

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy....

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

YP -

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy....

Peter

I aimed to be somewhat nonsensical in that.

I'd have said "Caesar salad" but "Caesar" is kind of a loaded term in the New Testament and it definitely doesn't sound as funny. At least, I think "Waldorf salad" sounds funny, probably because of an episode of Fawlty Towers.

Sorry to disappoint but I don't actually have a Waldorf salad revelation. Although I could probably make something up if I tried.

Something containing "The Apple" and "nuts" should be easy to relate to Christianity.

According to the American Century Cookbook, the first Waldorf Salad was created in New York City in 1893, by Oscar Tschirky, the maître d'hôtel of the Waldorf Astoria. The original recipe consisted only of diced red-skinned apples, celery, and mayonnaise. Chopped walnuts were added later to this now American classic.

Waldorf Salad Recipe

Ingredients
1/2 cup chopped, slightly toasted walnuts
1/2 cup celery, thinly sliced
1/2 cup red seedless grapes, sliced (or a 1/4 cup of raisins)
1 sweet apple, cored and chopped
3 Tbsp mayonnaise
1 Tbsp fresh lemon juice
Salt
Pepper
Lettuce

Method
In a medium sized bowl, whisk together the mayonnaise (or yogurt) and the lemon juice. Add 1/2 teaspoon of salt, 1/4 teaspoon of fresh ground pepper. Mix in the apple, celery, grapes, and walnuts. Serve on a bed of fresh lettuce.

Serves 2.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy...

My gist of YP's gist was that a Waldorf Salad was a "kitchen sink" salad. Everything and the kitchen sink, to boot.

I keep thinking of the verse that starts Galatians chapter 5. "For freedom Christ has set us free..."

Paul was free to set up leadership in the new fellowships as he saw fit; we seem to be free to set up leadership, or not, as we see fit. Look at the different set-ups in christian history God has blessed with His outpoured Spirit. Some were highly structured arrangements, like formal "churches", and some were loose aggregates of coal miners and whatnot.

The Lord's ability to manifest Himself on earth is not limited to a specific structure, nor is it necessarily prevented by any structure.

I have just found that when we focus on the structure we tend to ignore the Lord. I think of Nee's "The Normal Christian Church Life" as a paragon. It is as "biblical" a template for organizing the fellowship(s) as one could want; but it turns Paul's "freedom" into "the letter of the law".

The only thing we are not free to do is sin. In that regard, we have been clearly captured by Christ, and are imprisoned in His righteousness. Other than that, "The Spirit blows where it wills, and you know not..." (John 3:8)

And that's my "Waldorf Salad" speech for the day.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

What does John say about the appointment of elders in the assemblies of those who are called out?

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?

[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).

[YP0534]

OK, here's at least part of the math that's been escaping me to date.

I found this somewhere online:

Bible Question:Who are the elders? Are they pastors?

Bible Answer:There are two types of official leaders in a church. The Apostle Paul speaks to both of them in Philippians 1:1 when he says,

Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons . . . (NASB) Philippians 1:1

In God's plan for the church there are overseers and deacons. But what is an overseer, elder, or a deacon?

Overseers. It is interesting to note, the church leaders are spoken to last and not first. We see the overseers and deacons together again in 1 Timothy 3. 1 Timothy 3 is a chapter devoted to the qualifications of the church leaders. The overseers and deacons are included and no other type of leader is mentioned.

Elders and Overseers. But what is an overseer? The first clue comes in the book of Titus where we discover that elders are also overseers. These two words refer to the same person.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you . . . a bishop must be blameless . . . (NASB) Titus 1:5, 7

The Greek word for elder is PRESBUTEROS, and the Greek word for overseer is EPISKOPOUS. The word "elder" refers to the leader's character while "overseer" refers to his oversight duties or responsibilities. An overseer is an elder.

Elders and Pastors. In 1 Peter we find another connection between elders and pastors.

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion . . . (NASB) 1 Peter 5:1-2

Peter is speaking to the elders when he encourages them to pastor or shepherd the flock. The Greek word for pastor or shepherd is POIMAINO. We also find that these men are to oversee the church. An elder is the person who has two type of responsibilities: oversight and shepherding.

We find EPISKOPOUS, PRESBUTEROS, and POIMAINO used again in Acts 20.

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. . . . Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (NASB) Acts 20:17, 28

Acts 20:17 tells us that the apostle Paul called for the elders (PRESBUTEROS) of Ephesus. Upon arriving in Ephesus, Paul meets these men. While speaking with them (verse 28), he tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (EPISKOPOUS) and commands them “to shepherd” or pastor (POIMAINO) the congregation.

Elders = Overseers = Pastors. These three terms are used for the same individual. Elders are bishops who are also pastors. Those who oversee are to be elder in spiritual maturity. In the church no single man should be called the pastor for all of the elders are pastors.

Conclusion:All of the elders are pastors. All of the elders are overseers. All of the overseers are pastors. A pastor is an overseer who is an elder!

Add to this another long quote and I think that about covers the waterfront:

Elder in the Bible

Terms
The term elders is used in various ways in the Bible. In many instances, particularly in the Old Testament, it has reference to the older men in a tribe, usually entrusted with the governmental affairs. Their age and experience made their counsel sought often. This was not necessarily a priesthood calling. Genesis 50:7, Ruth 4:2, Matthew 15:2, and Acts 4:5 are examples of this usage. There were ordained elders in the Melchizedek Priesthood in Old Testament times, as in Exodus 24:9-11 and Numbers 11:16.

There are three different words used synonymously in the New Testament to refer to the office of elder. In 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul drafts nearly identical lists of qualifications for elder and overseer, while Peter draws all three concepts together in one passage: "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you... shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight..." (1 Peter 5:1-2). Luke uses the terms elder, overseer and shepherd interchangeably in Acts 20.

presbuteros
(Greek word #4245 in Strong's)

This is the most commonly used word in the New Testament with regard to the twelve apostles, the quorum of seventy, or others acting under their apostolic authority. It refers 28 times in the Gospels and Acts to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin and 12 times in Revelation to the representatives of the redeemed people of God. The remaining 19 times the word is employed in Acts and the Epistles, it identifies a unique group of leaders in the church. The term simply means advanced in age, but in the first century context indicates a rank or office among Jews as members of the ruling council, among Greeks as those who those who managed public affairs and administered justice, and among Christians as those who presided over the local assemblies. While no specific age is given, this term emphasizes the character of the elder and implies maturity, dignity, experience, and honor.[1]

episkopos
(Greek word #1985 in Strong's)

This is a common word for in the Greek culture for any official who acted as a superintendent, manager, controller, curator, guardian or ruler. It occurs only five times in the New Testament, once referring to Christ (1 Peter 2:25) and the other four times to church leaders. The term emphasizes the function of an elder as exercising authority and supervision "by divine placement, initiative and design".[2]

poimen
(Greek word #4166 in Strong's)

This word simply means shepherd. It is applied only once in the noun form and three times in the verb form in the New Testament in the context of church leaders. The term emphasizes the heart attitude of an elder as one who tends, feeds, guides, protects and cares for his flock.[3]

Mandate
Together, the New Testament writers mention elders, overseers and shepherds in reference to church leadership more than twenty-five times in the Gospels and the Epistles. The basis, selection, office, character, functions, attitude and qualifications of elders are laid out and the pattern established early and often. Strauch writes, "In fact, the New Testament offers more instruction regarding elders than on any other important church subjects such as the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Day, baptism or spiritual gifts".[4]

For example, Acts 11:30; 15:2,4,6,22-23; 16:4; and 21:18 demonstrate that elders had a significant role in the Jerusalem church and the Jerusalem council. In reference to churches in Antioch, Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, Acts 14:23 demonstrates Paul's pattern of appointing elders as a key step in organizing a new church. Paul spoke directly to the elders in Acts 20:17 and warned them in 20:28 to "(b)e on guard for (them)selves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made (them) overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

Each of these passages points to an early understanding that God's intent for church leadership was by a plurality of elders. Instruction about elders is given to the churches in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 1 Timothy 3:1-7,10 and 5:17-22,24-25; Titus 1:5-9; Hebrews 13:17; James 5:14; and 1 Peter 5:5. Instruction is given to elders about churches in 1 Thessalonians 5:13; James 5:14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. In the majority of the references the word for elders is plural and word for church is singular, indicating a very clear directive that the church should be governed by a plurality of elders.

Qualifications

Blameless as a steward of God; above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7)
Husband of one wife; a one-woman man (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6)
Temperate, sober, vigilant (1 Timothy 3:2)
Sober-minded, prudent (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8)
Of good behavior; orderly, respectable (1 Timothy 3:2)
Given to hospitality (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8)
Apt to teach; able to teach; he can exhort believers and refute false teaching (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9)
Not given to wine (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not violent, not pugnacious (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Patient, moderate, forbearing, gentle (1 Timothy 3:3)
Not a brawler; uncontentious; not soon angry or quick tempered (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not covetous; not a lover of money; not greedy of base gain (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Rules well his own house; his children are faithful, not accused of rebellion to God (1 Timothy 3:4, Titus 1:7)
Not a novice; not a new convert (1 Timothy 3:6)
Has a good report or reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7)
Not self-willed (Titus 1:7)
A lover of what is good (Titus 1:7)
Just, fair (Titus 1:8)
Holy, devout (Titus 1:8)
Self-Controlled (Titus 1:8)

Duties
Shepherd the flock, setting an example for all (1 Peter 5:1-3)
Feed and care for the church (Acts 20:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:12)
Teach and preach sound doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9)
Rule and lead (I Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:17; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 3:2,4)
Train and ordain others (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; Titus 1:5)
Refute and rebuke the insubordinate (Titus 1:9, 13)
Keep watch over and give account to God for the spiritual well-being of the church (Hebrews 13:17)
Serve clothed in Christ-like humility (1 Peter 5:3-5)

I feel the strong need to understand the full scope of the issue in classical terms before I am able to seriously consider any particular part or selection of verses.

If anyone feels there is something omitted here or inadequately presented perhaps, please comment. It looks about "right" to me as far as it goes. Which is all that I'm saying. That this fairly makes the case for the traditional practice of having an "office of elder" in the assemblies.

I'll be getting into it in detail as time affords opportunity. I note initially the handling of 1 Tim. 5:17 contrasted with Peter's earlier post on this verse. I don't think for an instant that all of this edifice will crumble under our scrutiny but I would like to at least reduce it to that part that will not fall.

To the extent that there is an "office of elder" in the Bible then let us learn and practice that and not merely some traditional teachings and practices concerning it. I have never studied this matter before. One day, some men told me that they were "the elders" and that is all I knew about it. I received them as ones over me until such time as they rejected me. I submitted to their rejection and did not even attempt to return to their company until many years later when I attempted a reconcilliation. Even today I recognize them as the elders of that church.

But since I know that the Local Church has issues, especially with regard to its leadership, I am inclined to discover whether those who were stated to be elders over me were truly appointed by God's will to a position of power which gave them the ground to reject me. Practically speaking, I somewhat doubt it. But my consideration here is merely the Bible basis for their believing so, not whether one can be an elder and make mistakes, of course. But whether and how one can even be an elder in the first place.

In my experience, to rise up against an elder is not looked kindly upon, to say the least. Even if he's behaved badly. But as I understand it, there is only a scriptural mechanism for correction of a single errant elder. The New Testament doesn't really seem to contemplate a body of elders in agreement with erroneous or abusive behavior. It has seemed to me that the only response to that situation is to leave them to their practices. If they declare that this is how things are done in their church, well then, I agree with them that it is their church. But it is not and cannot be the assembly of the believers and I make no division by departing their company for they have caused the division in the first place.

So let us consider all these verses and see what they will teach us by going back to the Holy Word itself.

Grace be with us all in it!

Lord, lead us into the reality of your Word concerning the elders!

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

OK ... let us consider all these verses and see what they will teach us by going back to the Holy Word itself.

Grace be with us all in it!

Lord, lead us into the reality of your Word concerning the elders!

YP0534,

There is another useage, I believe, which is germane to the discussion. It is hinted at in the second body of your text, but it finds an explicit expression elsewhere that is, to me, significant. It is at the start of John's second epistle. "The elder to the chosen lady..."

John is an elder, I think, in line with Peter Debelak's 'alternate' reading of I Tim. chapter 5. "The elderly among you who are serving deserve double honor etc."

John is writing not as an officeholder; he is not an apostle, disciple, deacon, bishop, or anything else; he is the aged brother in faith. His maturity grants him the perspective to speak certain things, which he could not have shared in his younger years. Because of his spiritual experiences, it would behoove the younger believers to listen and "heed" (not obey, in the secular sense, but rather take under advisement) his counsel. For example, a counselor may advise his/her client to take a certain course of action, but the responsibility of action still remains on the client.

Elders can, and should, advise. This is part of shepherding, along with being an example. But to "command the troops" is a misguided reading, I think. And to those who deign to place themselves "above" the elders, whether they call themselves bishops, apostles, "serving ones" or "blended ones" or whatever, don't seem to have any mandate in the Word to be telling assemblies of believers what to do. They can counsel, yes, but we can ignore thier counsel and be "different" as the GLA churches decided to be. The "sheepcloth" came off the "wolf" with the quarantine of the GLA brethren, in my view.

Also, John gives some counsel in the first epistle on elders and younger ones, does he not? That might be profitable to look at.

That said, your survey of the literature was a helpful guide, thanks.