Eldership

[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.

[YP0534]

The following seems to be the first occasion that we see the practice of the "appointment of elders" and this is something quite curious.

Act 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch,
Act 14:22 confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.
Act 14:23 And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.

I firstly note that this was something accomplished by Saul and Barnabas outside of Jerusalem and Judea. So, is it possible that in these places they did not have much trouble with an existing group of Jewish elders in a leadership role among the group that they would at one point refer to generally as "brethren" as fellow Jews who would then become "brethren" in Christ?

I guess the real question is: how did it come to be that there was such a practice of appointment? I am not aware of any place wherein Paul declares that God has directed him to make such appointments. I am also not aware of any information that such a practice of appointment was a custom among the Jews. To the extent that elders were merely older, what is the function of appointment? Isn't a calendar going to do the job for you?

However you parse it, you have to come down on the side of saying that Saul and Barnabas must have been in a superior position in order to make an appointment. We can, by faith, say that they did so according to the leading of the Spirit and be done with the question. But I would like to see where such leading was revealed to them and to us. Here in this passage, it is spoken as if it were a common thing to have such appointing done by persons such as Saul and Barnabas.

And here's the benefit of further study: in Acts 14:23 "appointed" is a rather poor translation. The definition from Vine's:

Appoint, Appointed:

\cheirotoneo\
primarily used of voting in the Athenian legislative assembly and meaning "to stretch forth the hands" (cheir, "the hand," teino, "to stretch"), is not to be taken in its literal sense; it could not be so taken in its compound procheirotoneo, "to choose before," since it is said of God, Act 10:41. Cheirotoneo is said of "the appointment" of elders by apostolic missionaries in the various churches which they revisited, Act 14:23, RV, "had appointed," i.e., by the recognition of those who had been manifesting themselves as gifted of God to discharge the functions of elders (see No. 2). It is also said of those who were "appointed" (not by voting, but with general approbation) by the churches in Greece to accompany the Apostle in conveying their gifts to the poor saints in Judea, 2Cr 8:19.
See CHOOSE, ORDAIN.

When, in a legislative assembly, there was a vote by show of hands, this would not be ordinarily understood to be an "appointment" or "appointing." Giving due weight to Vine's construction of the compound form, terms such as choice, election and selection are clearly distinguishable from the notion of appointment. Such a translation appears to me to do damage to the author's thought. "Appointment" implies the matter of a position of superior authority and the existence of a formal office. Saul and Barnabas do not "ordain" elders as some translations have it; they select them. The difference is installation versus selection.

Also interesting: The footnote on this verse in NIV implies that the verb may even be translated such that the selection was done by the assembly. Young's Literal concurs that there was a vote here. Only Darby uses "choose" as the verb. The rest appear certain that there was an appointment to an office as a function of the superior authority.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I guess the real question is: how did it come to be that there was such a practice of appointment? I am not aware of any place wherein Paul declares that God has directed him to make such appointments. I am also not aware of any information that such a practice of appointment was a custom among the Jews. To the extent that elders were merely older, what is the function of appointment? Isn't a calendar going to do the job for you?

I like the word in verse 22, preceding the 'appointment' of elders; that they 'confirmed' the souls of the believers. They affirmed what God had done; they did not push something that was not already there.

Is there any connection in the 'confirmed' in verse 22 to 'appointed' in verse 23? If these words in the original greek seem in apposition to each other, then we would have to lean more towards 'selected' as the reading for the appointment of elders.

There is some confirming going on there in Acts. When Peter goes to Cornelius, the Jews in Jerusalem have to confirm that God has moved among the Gentiles. When Ananias lays hands on Saul and baptises him, the brethren at first shrink back from this converted murderer and blasphemer; Ananias exhorts them to receive Saul/Paul as a brother, which they do.

And Jerusalem, when it is not sending out Judaizers, must at least confirm, or affirm, that Paul is of God's move, both when they lay the right hand of fellowship on Paul and Barnabas and send them off, and in Paul's account in Galatians when he returns to Jerusalem after 14 years and presents his case to the brethren there.

So Jerusalem didn't appoint much of the doings of Paul; but they did confirm it. Did Paul in any way confirm what God was doing in the local assemblies? Is there any record of elders being raised up, by some kind of local assembly agreement, then to be confirmed by Paul, just as Jerusalem confirmed him?

If Paul didn't take "orders" from the de-facto headquarters in Jerusalem, did he also not try to impose his version of order on the assemblies of saints gathered here and there? Or did he?

The other thing about elders; it's not just chronological maturity. It is also spiritual maturity. Else some dotty old fellow would end up "in charge"...

[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.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

I read all the new posts (at least, on the threads I'm interested in reading) and if there's cross-talk or overlapping dialog between threads I don't think that's a harm. And if the topic of "eldership" properly needs to be subsumed in a larger examination, I doubt Peter will weep at the demise of his worthy thread. To the extent that this topic arises again elsewhere, we can endeavor to bring it back as appropriate and we can even work in parallel on two threads if it works out that way. Perhaps "eldership" was just "Chapter One" and "ekklesia" needs to be "Chapter Two."

You worry too much, aron.