The Eldership Center

Discovering and Recovering Eldership

One reason - one great reason why the church of today is not what it should be, is because the simple concept of Christian eldership has been misunderstood and misapplied. This improper configuration of the church's structure cannot but engender improper practices. The continual effects of this confusion have, we believe, greatly hindered the advancement of truth and virtue. That the Christian Home Church can help recover Christian eldership, should be apparent to all.

Behind much of this misunderstanding was the unintentional failure of the King James translators to faithfully bring this theme across their own language, cultural, and ecclesiastical barriers. Rather than perceiving eldership as something personal, pertaining first to ones age, they recast it into something positional, pertaining to a church office. Thus, the "office of bishop" in 1 Tim. 3:1.

In order to justify a clergy - laity church order, some Christian groups have created a "ruling elder" and "teaching elder" distinction. The teaching elder, under this unusual and unneccessary arrangement, is the clergyman, the pastor, the wage earner, the Reverend, and the sole "minister of the word and sacraments". This is indeed an unusual position because every elder according to Scripture is to be a teacher as are the elder women. 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 2:4. We will later demonstrate from abundant exegetical and historical evidence that such a distinction among the eldership is unsustainable.

Eldership appears repeatedly in the Old Testament, where it consistently applies to seniority. Ezek. 16:61, 1 Kgs. 12:8. Also, in the New Testament, prior to the appearance of the first churches, elders were already present, without the least introduction. Luke 15:25. The writer's of the New Testament repeatedly addressed their instructions to those in particular age categories, often contrasting the younger with the older. 1 Tim. 5:1,2; 1 Tim. 5:11,14; Titus 2:4,6; 1Pet. 5:5; 1 John 2:13,14. At what point in time, one wonders, did eldership cease to denote the older heads of families and become an office to which even young men were elected?

Your ultimate conclusion of this matter is crucial and may well determine whether you as an older one will accept your mentoring role in the church and in the community or expect others to fulfill it. Whether you will become your brother's keeper or only concern yourself with yourself and your own affairs. 1 John 3:16, 1 Tim. 3:5, Matt. 5:46. Whether your church will have one pastor or many pastors.

Do not suppose that this is a technical matter reserved for theologians. God's word is unambiguous. The older, mature, and seasoned Christians - the elders - are to fulfill the shepherding or pastoring role. No election, internal call, external call, seminary training, salary, or religious title is required to begin fulfilling this domestic and civic, life-changing and world-changing assignment.

We will later return, out of necessity, to this subject as well as the office of deacon, 1 Tim. 3:10, for which there is even less supporting evidence.

Critical thinking upon these subjects is long overdue. We have much to bring forward.

Milner

Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church, and said: 'Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,' Acts 20:17,28.

In the above quotation we find the three terms, presbuteroi, elders or seniors; episcopoi, bishops or overseers; and poimaino, to pastor or shepherd, applied to the same brethren, and that in relation to the one work in which they participated. Coincident with this is 1 Pet. 5:1-4, where that apostle says: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; feed the flock of God that is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint, but willing, nor for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; not as lords over the heritage, but as examples to the flock, and when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye also shall receive a crown of life that fadeth not away. It is thus certain that eldership, oversight, and pastorate, are terms expressive of the same functions of the same persons. Eldership, or seniority, in both passages stands initial to the charges given to oversee and feed the flock. The combined duty of oversight and pastorate is thus given in charge to the senior brethren.

Age, therefore, is the first requisite to the work of the Christian overseer and shepherd. Neither non-age, nor dotage, but simply age, is that which is denoted by presbuteros. A presbyter in apostolic use of speech is simply a senior. The zah-kehn of the Hebrews, the presbuteros, of the Greeks, and the senex of the Latins, are the exact equivalents of the English senior, elder, or aged. This comparative group of elder ones includes, but is not limited to, its superlative group of the eldest ones.

With all peoples and nations the aged have their appropriate place and standing in the commonwealth; from among the elders of Israel, the Sanhedrin, or national council, was constituted; the magistracy of the Greeks was filled by their presbuteroi; and the senate of Rome took its name from its being composed of seniors. It has been reserved for apostate Christendom to shew to the world such an inversion of the natural and divine constitution of things as savageism itself cannot parallel: the seniors systematically under the rule of the young - beardless youths fresh from school set to oversee the aged!

But age is not the only qualification. (Editor's note: by qualification, Milner doesn't mean a requirement to be fulfilled in order to become an elder. He is referring to requirements made of those who are already elders or veterans. Notice Milner's next sentence. When Jesus told his disciples to be perfect in Matt. 5:48, he didn't mean they had to be perfect in order to be disciples. Furthermore, all of the so called qualifications are elsewhere in Scripture commanded of the saints in general. Granted, if a senior doesn't fulfil these virtues then he disqualifies himself until his life amends.) An aged person may be a mere babe in Christ. It is not merely length of days, but that in the divine life which qualifies for the oversight of the Christian flock. Thus Paul says: 'Not a novice, (literally, an immature person), lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.' 1 Tim. 3:6. It is not merely the general experience that accompanies age, but that maturity and experience which alone can be had in the family and service of God that fits for Christian oversight.

This is the more manifest when we notice that the qualifications for this most honourable work are almost, if not altogether, of a moral or spiritual description. We do not at all find miraculous endowments specified in connection with the bishopric of the flock, nor particular mental abilities. Excellence of life, faithful discipleship, lengthened Christian experience, unchallengeable piety, are the grand requisites. 'An overseer,' says Paul, 'must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God? Moreover, he must have a good report of those without, lest he fall into reproach, and the snare of the devil,' 1 Timothy 3:2-7. This blamelessness, chastity, watchfulness, modesty, good conduct, hospitality, aptness to teach, non-quarrelsomeness, liberality, non-disputatiousness, ungraspingness, good domestic rule, and good report of all, are qualifications which ought to characterize every Christian senior. There is no attribute of character here which is not within the reach of the great body of the faithful. And those enumerated in Titus 1:6-9 are precisely of similar import: 'If any be blameless, the husband of one wife (Editor's note: we shall later examine this phrase and show that it refers to polygamy rather than to a previous marriage), having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.'

We are purposeful to note this, because of the too common notions that transcendent talents, or highly cultivated intellect, are indispensable to this good work. But the apostle says no such thing. We certainly do not say that this work is beneath the highest gifts which the Head of the church has bestowed upon his body - we do not say that uncultured minds, any more than that unsanctified spirits, are adapted to this ministry; but we do say that great oratorical powers, and much learning, are not requisite to the faithful and successful discharge of its duties. The aptness to teach here spoken of implies neither public oratory, nor scholastic lore. It is simply that aptitude to instruct the ignorant and erring which any mind well trained in the doctrine of the Lord may be master of by practice. The holding fast of the faithful word as he has been taught will enable the senior both to exhort and convict the objector. The brother who perceiving from the sure word what is the mind of the Spirit, can aptly state the same, either in personal converse, or to the brethren in associated capacity, is apt to teach. James 1:5. We have the happiness to know many such teachers in this most useful respect, who would shrink from attempting a lengthened, studied, public oration. We therefore entirely discard the notion that extraordinary gifts are needed to the fulfillment of this duty, and press the consideration of this upon the attention of all the believing, that they may perceive the responsibility which the Lord has laid upon the seniors in his flock.

Not until the qualifications are distinctly perceived to be of this purely experimental type, will the Christian mind be emancipated from the unscriptural trammels and trappings of mere clerical officialism which has made a reproachful and mischievous monopoly and despotism of one of the most free, lowly, honourable, laborious, and useful of Christian services. Be it therefore further remarked, that in all the apostolic allusions to it, the modern restricted official notion is sought for in vain, while the practical, moral, matter-of-fact character of the work is everywhere manifest. It is altogether and everywhere a thing of example, a manner of life, a good work - not an office in the modern acceptation of the term at all. The word officium signifies duty. The doing of any good work which neighborliness or relationship calls for, is truly the fulfilling of one's office. Thus we properly say, in respect of any acts of kindness, that kind offices were rendered us. But while, since our translators have given us this Latin term in 1 Timothy 3: 1, 'If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work,' it is well to note its meaning as we have just done: it is further proper to observe that it has no business in this passage. Our translation, as all know, was made by official Episcopal authority against the most urgent protests alike of Baptist and Presbyterian dissent; and here we find, as elsewhere, the marks of the official bishop. Paul's words are literally: 'If any desire oversight, he desires good work, Ei tis episkophs oregetai kalou ergou epiqumei . The words, 'the office of a bishop,' are given instead of the single term episcopees, oversight, inspection, or superintendence. The apostle does not call it an office, but simply and truly, 'good work' and he interposes nothing between it and the desire and destiny of any Christian.

But not merely are hindrances to the work thus removed, but injunctions are solemnly given to the seniors for its due fulfillment. Thus writes Peter: 'The elders among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight - literally overseeing, episkopountes, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lords over the heritage, but as examples to the flock: and when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you also shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.' And then the address immediately following: 'Likewise ye younger submit yourselves unto the elder,' shows unmistakably that the word presbuteroi is used simply of seniors or elders. These, then, are exhorted to pastor, to shepherd, to feed the flock among them: they are to do this, overseeing, superintending, looking after the flock in their midst. They are not to look after distant flocks, but they are to confine their care to that surrounding them. (Editor's note: the divine ingenuity of this plan has been surveyed time and again. People are more likely to be led to Christ by an insider than an outsider.) And this not constrainedly, but willingly; not for sordid gain, but of a ready mind; not as lords over the heritage of the one Lord, but simply and emphatically as examples to the flock. And all under the eye of the chief Shepherd, and by the exalted anticipation that when he appears they shall receive from him the reward of their life-long labors, in an unfading crown of glory.

Connecting the thought that this crown is to be looked for, in consideration of the faithful rendering of the shepherd's work, with what is said in other passages, it appears that the Christian overseer is the steward or servant of the Lord, and not of men. 'An overseer,' says Paul, 'must be blameless as the steward of God.' A steward, of course, renders his account to, and receives his reward from the party from whom he holds his charge. Here, then, we find that the Lord reposes this particular trust concerning his flock in the seniors in its midst: he gives by his apostle the charge to them, saying, "Elders, feed the flock, elders, oversee." They are encouraged to the work in expectancy of the great reward from Him who give the charge: they are warned, that as stewards of God they are expected to be blameless. The brethren are enjoined to obey them, and submit to them, as those who watch for their souls, and who must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, Heb. 13:17. Certainly, the account here spoken of is that which must be rendered to God, showing that he holds those responsible for the flock whom He has charged to watch over it. Unquestionably it is the possessor of the flock who holds the right to appoint the shepherds; so that, if the disciples of Jesus be his sheep, if he be the Good, the Chief Shepherd, if the flock be his heritage, it must be his prerogative to name those who are to oversee it. Matt. 9:38. In every passage that treats on the subject we find the patronage - the right of gift - the bestowment of the shepherds, lies not with men, not with the church, but the Head of the church. 'When he ascended on high he gave gifts to men, and he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.' Eph. 4:8,11,12. The clear doctrine of Scripture is that shepherds are as much the gift of the sovereign Jesus, in whom all authority in heaven and earth resides, as the apostles or prophets were. There is not a vestige of Scripture authority for a man-made or man-given pastorate. Paul told the elders of the church in Ephesus that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers of the flock of God; and he wrote to the church that Christ had given them pastors. Everywhere and every way the bishops are a divine gift: the duty of oversight is the God-given charge to the seniors in Christ.

This being so, we find not a trace in Scripture of human 'calls' and 'elections' to the pastorate. It is not in the province of any, save the blessed and only Potentate, to call or elect to this service. Popes, emperors, kings, premiers, patrons, councils, conferences, presbyteries, and churches, do neither more nor less than act as the usurper of the crown rights of the King of Saints whenever they interpose their call or election to the oversight of the flock of God. No power on earth can constitute a Christian bishop. Christ is He who has appointed and ordained the older ones to this work irrespective of the let or hindrance of any earthly tribunal or potentate. Let all who revere the authority of the Lord Messiah pause, and find his warrant for human call or election to this service, lest they make themselves parties to the transaction. Let every Christian senior see to it whether the Lord does not hold him responsible for the overseeing and pastoring of the flock according to gifts and opportunities.

And as in Scripture we find no calls nor elections to this work, neither do we discover any resignations of the office. These acceptances and resignations are only parts of human systems. Neither they nor their adjuncts are traceable beyond the lines of the apostasy. The nomenclature connected therewith is as barbarous a speech as could possibly be compared with the pure language of heaven. Where read we of the Rev. Doctor So-and-so 'accepting a unanimous call' to any 'church and congregation' or of the Rev. Mr. This-or-that 'resigning the pastorate' or of any presbytery 'moderating in a call' or 'sustaining a call' or 'publishing a moderation' or 'licensing a preacher' or 'appointing one to preach in a vacant church'? Where read we of 'a destitute church waiting for someone to break to it the bread of life' or of 'the pastor' or 'the minister of the church'? The whole, from beginning to end is far removed from apostolic speech and practice.

And worse still. It is the degrading of a free, willing, and an honourable service, to a well-suspected means of living. There is no trace in all the New Testament of a hired pastorate (Editor's note: there is, of course, the warrant for paying those involved in itinerant missionary activity. Preacher, not pastor, is the proper name for those in this category.) So far from the elders, overseers, or shepherds, getting their livelihood from their pastorate, they are expressly enjoined to work with their hands, that they may have to give to those who need. It was on purpose that he might be an example to the presbyters that Paul himself, though entitled to support as an apostle, eschewed it, and toiled and labored night and day. Thus his charge to the elders of the church in Ephesus: 'I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive,' Acts 20:33-35. This agrees with the directions to Timothy and Titus, that the overseers be lovers of, and given to, hospitality, and with Peter's exhortation, that they 'feed the flock not for filthy lucre.' Nor is there a single passage in contrariety to these.

We know that special pleading has sought to wrest other Scriptures into the sanction of a pecuniarily supported pastorate, but it is as manifest as sunlight that the passages relied upon teach no such doctrine. They are Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:1-9; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17,18. The first three passages refer not to pastorate at all but to traveling evangelists and apostles. The fourth says nothing of money or means. Luke reports the Saviour's charge to the seventy apostles. Paul argues with the Corinthians for his own right of maintenance with that of other evangelists from the churches they had planted; and to the Galatians he says, that those taught in the word are to communicate of all good things, not to the elders, but to the teachers, evidently in the sense of evangelist, whose avocation, as already shown, engrosses the teaching of the word here spoken of. And as to 1 Tim. 5:17,18, 'Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine; for the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his reward,' the apostle's statement is neither more nor less than this, that as corn is appropriate to the ox treading it out, and reward to the laborer, so is honor to those elders who rule well, particularly such as labor more abundantly. The expositor would be laughed at who would argue for a double share of corn to those elders, from the fact that the industrious ox gets his supply; but this is no less a blunder than the argument for 'higher stipend' because the laborer gets his remuneration. The present reward of the Christian elder is appropriate esteem, and the final reward is a crown of life. So saith the Scripture. (Editors note: Paul here has just mentioned honoring the older females, how natural then for him to then refer to the older males by the exact word for honor that he had just employed with the older females. Verses 3 and 17.)

These calls and elections, with their stipends and other concomitants of acceptances and resignations, are not only mere inventions of men, but they are inventions which utterly make void the commandments of God. The command is, that the seniors oversee, and that the younger submit. But by those traditions these simple, explicit, undeniable commands are held to be utopian, extravagant, and absurd. What, it is asked, would you have men venture upon this solemn work of themselves, without being called and chosen to it? Certainly not. But when we find that God by his Son, his Spirit, and his apostles, has expressed his call and election to the effect that the seniors oversee, it is not 'of themselves,' nor without being 'the called and chosen,' that they feed the flock. Were they to assume this work without the divine nomination to it which they have in the exhortation of Peter, it would indeed be of themselves, or at best, by the mere unauthorized call and election of men. But when the injunction is so explicitly given, the presumption exists not in experienced, faithful Christian men doing as bid, but in their failing to do so.

What, is it presumption to obey God? Must the seniors in Christ ask license of their junior brethren to obey the Lord? Never was there anything more absurd than this - that a flock elect its shepherds, that the shepherds wait the authorization of the sheep to tend them, that when the Chief Shepherd says, 'Feed my sheep,' the answer is, Lord, it would be presumption; we must get the authorization of the flock before we can obey thee; we cannot recognize thy authority alone in this matter; nothing is plainer than thy command to the elders to oversee, but we must defer to the flock, not to Thee; the sheep would say we assumed if we obeyed Thee without their leave in this business; and, Lord, we are too humble to have this said of us; what Thou wilt say does not concern us so much.

To frighten men from duty is an old device of the adversary. Men have verily thought that it would prove a most dangerous thing to put the Bible into the hands of the common people! It has been most prophetically foretold that the church was in danger by the removal of the sword of the state from its side and there are still three bodies (Editor's note: this is a reference to three 19th century denominations in Scotland.) that meet in annual congress in Scotia's capital whose constitution regards it as anarchy to let men preach without a presbyterial license! But He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. He is doing his work despite the imagination of these vain things. From the days of the apostles till now it has been by the free circulation of his word, by the unfettered, willing service of his people, that his truth and kingdom have advanced. And while some have learned so far as to perceive that every Christian may and should preach the gospel, they would tolerate this only by the fireside and wayside, or in the streets and lanes; they could not think of permitting it 'in the great congregation'. They will quote the words of Moses: Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, Num. 11:29, but take good care that if they prophesy, it shall be outside, not within the camp; forgetful that prophesying serveth not for him that believeth not, but for him that believeth. 1 Cor. 14:22. But there are others who have, at last, made the admission that liberty of ministry in the teaching in the church, according to the truth and according to the grace given, is indeed scriptural, and not after all to be scouted as utopian and deprecated as fanatical and dangerous. Yet there are not a few of these same ones who perceive not the simplicity and adaptation of the divine order respecting oversight. That freedom and simplicity which they acknowledge to be true, safe, and edifying, as it respects preaching and teaching, they are not prepared to allow in regard to the pastorate. Yet they cannot deny that the three kinds of service stand together in the same category. That just as the Messiah gives evangelists and teachers so he gives pastors. The gift in all three cases is his without the intervention of human calls and elections. Overseers, as well as preachers and teachers. If the license of a church, or church court, be not scriptural nor necessary with respect to preaching and teaching, neither is it necessary in regard to the pastorate. If knowledge, gift, talent, grace, experience, and opportunity, qualify under the directions of the word in these two branches of labor, so do they in this latter.

And what is there to cause doubt as to the safety of this divine order? Was Peter a propounder of anarchy when he exhorted the elders to oversee the flock unconstrainedly, unavariciously, undespotically, willingly, readily, exemplarily? Why, if the call and election, the leave and license of men, be so necessary or advisable, have we no such safeguards intimated in Scripture? We cannot, by any view we can take, discover anything that is not safe and edifying in committing the oversight of the ecclesia to the blameless, faithful seniors in its midst? We cannot conceive any danger from giving them to realize that the Lord holds them to be responsible to Him for the overseeing and tending of his flock. But the history of the sects abounds with examples of shipwreck under the reign of human expediency.

When is it that a church is really perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, in the call and election of a pastor? Why is it, if the vote of the electing church be, as is pretended, 'the voice of God,' that the counter-requisition of the reclaiming congregation sets forth the conviction that it is 'the will of God' that the pastor should continue in the bosom of the bride of his first espousals? How comes it, if the ecclesia be one body, that the deacons or elders of one church are sent literally as spies to 'a sister church' to tempt away the minister from his flock, over which it was so piously said at his ordination, 'the Lord has surely sent him'? How is it, if the ministry be not a secular trade, but a holy, heavenly calling, that money is an invariable item in the stipulations? How is it, if it be the doing of the Lord, that churches are so continuously murmuring, quarreling, splitting, sinking under this system?

Never can the safety and well-being of the churches be secured until the seniors in the faith realize and act out their liberty and responsibility in the doing of oversight work. To what are we to trace the almost continual complainings of church members of non-visitation, the lamentable deficiency in the adornment of the doctrine of God our Saviour by so large a proportion of professed Christians, and yet more melancholy excess of defection from the faith, but to the almost utter lack of oversight and shameful shortage of laborers which the systems of the sects entail? Every one knows how common it is for the 'minister' to excuse himself by saying the 'it is impossible for him to visit his flock so often as he could wish.' A hurried, professionally intimated call once a year, when the whole house is duly prepared to receive the pastor's visit, and he comes, and is struck with the order, decorum, and piety of the family - as well got up for the occasion as his own sermons for a sacramental Sunday - is the sum of the pastorate for which they pay so well. This, and more, for we know of not a few households in this clerical capital where 'the visitation' has occurred not oftener than once in three, five, and even fifteen years!

It would be every way as wise and prudent to put a ship, with a crew of threescore veterans, under the pilotage of the last shipped cabin boy, as to play the immeasurably more serious farce of ordaining the youngster just from college to the sole charge of the combined duties of teacher and pastor. But let the churches have the benefit of the free, unbought, willing oversight of all the faithful men of experience and piety, whom the Lord has raised up in their midst, and thus should we have in each church such a presbytery, for number and character, as guided and guarded the first churches.

As there is no example in Scripture of one pastor for each church, neither is there any for one bishop nor of one presbytery over many churches. Each church had its elders, who formed its presbytery or senate. That the number was considerable in large churches is evident both from the consideration that all the faithful, experienced, gifted seniors, formed the eldership, and from the language of Acts 20:36,37 respecting the elders of the church in Ephesus, whose number must have been substantial when it is said Paul 'prayed with them all,' and that 'they all wept sore.' A bare plurality does not satisfy the descriptions of Scripture; it would be a very small church indeed that had only two or three.

And even those churches that have a plurality come short of its advantages by putting themselves under the presidency of but one at a time. There is nothing in Scripture for one of the elders occupying, by himself alone, even for one day, the sole oversight. Much more is assumed in such cases than is warranted. The brethren are not enjoined to obey him, but them who have the rule over them, Heb. 13: 7,17,24.

The duties of the elders comprise the oversight of the brethren, both when met together, and during the intervals of meeting. There are two terms used besides the word poimaino, to feed, tend, or pastor, Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2, namely, heegeomai, to lead, to guide, to go before, Heb. 13:7,17,24, and kuberneesis, governing, or directing, or piloting, 1 Cor.12:28. Regarding the feeding of the flock, it is to be done by speaking the word of God; 'Remember those who guide you, who have spoken unto you the word of God.' Nothing else is spiritual food. So 1 Pet. 2:2, 'As new-born babes, desire the sincere, unmixed milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.' But this feeding of the flock, this speaking of the word of God, is associated with the corresponding example. The guidance consists in the proper precept and example combined: so the entire passage runs. 'Obey those who lead you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.' The seniors who had lived, like Paul, a life of faith in the Son of God, were examples to the flock; the brethren were called to be imitators of them, even as they also were of Christ. Their obedience and submission, therefore, were but the homage which the children of God will ever rejoice to render to moral worth, to exalted piety, to Christian character, to conformity to the likeness of Him who is the Chief among the many brethren. It is only to this extent that obedience is commanded. 1 Thess. 5:12,13 puts this beyond question: 'We beseech you, brethren, to know those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake.' The word heegeomai, rendered rule in Hebrews 13: 7,17,24, is here translated esteem; so also in Phil. 2:3, let each esteem others better than himself. Proving that the rule or leading referred to is purely of a moral kind, that it consists in such guidance as naturally evokes the esteem, and thereby the submission of the faithful. The other remaining term, kuberneesis, directing, or piloting, occurs only in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and is no exception to this rule. Such elders are the most likely of all to pilot the ship safely through the most troubled waters. What man in his senses would say that a church could have too many of such guides, such shepherds, such overseers? What Christian man should not seek the attainment of such an experience, and such a character as would fit him for so honourable a position as that of a pillar in the temple of his God?

With such an eldership any church could ride safely at anchor amid the greatest storm. For there is no power so influential, so good as Christian excellence, integrity, and character. And with the united experience of a body of such men to guide the affairs of the church, and especially by their following the primitive example of deliberation and agreement among themselves, in order to ascertain the will of God before bringing the particular business before the church, disunion and disaster become all but impossible. That it is the duty of these leading brethren thus to consult and agree before bringing any cause before the ecclesia, is evident from the facts, first, that Paul communicated his own case at first privately to those who were of reputation, Gal. 2:1-9; second, that in delivering his farewell charge to the elders, he called them, not the whole church, to him; and, third, that in the question of the keeping of the law, the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter, Acts 15:6. (Editor's note: observe carefully, if you have a Study Bible or Greek text, that in vs. 23 of this chapter, 'elder brethren', not 'elders and brethren', is correct and is the appositive or equivalent of the 'elders'. F.F. Bruce et al. acknowledge this in their commentaries.) Only by this rule can the churches be saved from debate and strife; and it is expressly enjoined that they do all things without murmurings and disputings, that they may be blameless and harmless the sons of God, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, Phil. 2:14,15,20.

The ordaining of elders is the part of those brethren who have been instrumental in planting the church, and training its membership for the work of the ministry. It is simply confirming of them in the service for which they have already manifested their aptness and a commendation of them to God for his blessing. There are two words rendered ordain in our common version in connection with this question; kathisteemi, to set, Tit. 1:5; kirotoneo, to stretch out the hand, thereby to ordain, Acts 14:23. The former term occurs in Acts 17:15, where the brethren set or conducted Paul on his way; also in Acts 6:3, the apostles laying hands on the seven, set them over the service of tables. Because that the hand is also stretched out in voting, the attempt has been made to establish the popular election of elders from Acts 14:23, which says, that 'Paul and Barnabas confirmed the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and ordained them elders in each church, with prayer and fasting, commending them to the Lord on whom they believed.' But it is overlooked that kiroteneo is predicated not of the churches, but of Paul and Barnabas, who planted them. It was they who stretched forth their hands, and so with prayer and fasting ordained the elders, commending them to the Lord.

The fact that the upholders of the election of pastors are driven to this passage for support of the practice, is the best proof possible of its unscripturalness. Beza, the chief protestant father of this system, in his partisan zeal, so far forgot the duty of a translator, that he had the audacity to interpolate this passage with the additional words, per suffragia. Dr. George Campbell of Aberdeen, himself a dignitary, elected to his honors by this very system of suffrage, i.e. election by vote, which Beza sought thus to canonize, says, respecting this attempt: 'I cannot declare that the translation which the Vulgate has given of this passage, Et quum constituassent illis presbyteros, fully expresses the sense of the Greek, and, consequently, that the words, per suffragia, are a mere interpolation, for the sake of answering a particular purpose.' (Editor's note: this passage from Campbell is reprinted below. This is not to suggest that the churches cannot choose certain people for certain tasks as in Acts 6.) It is only by this tradition, dating from the second century, long before which, Paul's prediction to the Ephesian elders, that of themselves would men arise, Acts 20:29, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after the, began to be fulfilled. It is only by tradition dating from its fulfillment in the contests of the bishops for power, that we find the doctrine that the right of election rested with a church. Thus the last trace of popular election disappears as we near the apostolic age.

Thomas Milner, The Messiah's Service. Undated. pp. 324-343. Little is known of Milner and his writings are almost impossible to find. Praise God for the mind of Thomas Milner!

Campbell

(This is the reference from the previous article.)

A third example of the same undue bias we have in his (Beza's) version of these words, Acts 14: 23. (the greek text is here omited) which he renders Quumpue ipsi per suffragia creassent presbyterios. The word (the greek text is here omited) he translates from etymology, a manner which, as was observed before he sometimes uses. (the greek text is here omited) literally signifies to stretch out the hand. From the use of this manner in popular elections, it came to denote to elect, and thence again, to nominate, or appoint anyhow. Now Beza, that his intention might not escape us, tells us in the note, Est notanda vis hujus verbi, ut Paulum ac Barnabam sciamus nil privato arbitrio gessisse, nec ullam in ecclesia exercuisse tyrannidem: nit denique tale fecisse quale hodie Romannus Papa et ipsius asseclae quos ordinarios vocant.

Now, though no man is more an enemy to ecclesiastic tyranny than I am, I would not employ against it weapons borrowed from falsehood and sophistry. I cannot help, therefore, declaring, that the version which the Vulgate has given of that passage, Et quum constituissent illis presbyteros, fully expresses the sense of the Greek, and consequently, that the words per suffragia are a mere interpolation, for the sake of answering a particular purpose. It was observed before, that use, where it can be discovered, must determine the signification in preference to etymology. And here we are at no loss to affirm that (the greek text is here omited), whatever was its origin, is not confined to electing or constituting by a plurality of voices.

But whatever be in this, in the instance before us, the (the greek text is here omited) or electors, were no more than Paul and Barnabas; and it could not, with any propriety, be said of two, that they elected by a majority of votes, since there can be no doubt that they must have both agreed in the appointment; and if it had been the disciples, and not the two apostles, who had given their suffrages, it would have been of the disciples, and of them only, not of the apostles, that the term (the greek text is here omitted) could have been used, which the construction of the sentence manifestly shows that it is not. The sense of the word here given by Beza is therefore totally unexampled; for, according to him, it must signify not to elect but to constitute those whom others have elected. For, if this be not what he means by per suffragia creassent, applied to no more than two, it will not be easy to divine his meaning, or to discover in what manner it answered the purpose expressed in his note. And if this be what he means, he has given a sense to the word for which I have not seen an authority from any author, sacred or profane. It is from the words immediately connected, (the Greek text is here omitted), we learn that this is the sense there; as it is from the words immediately connected that we learn, with equal certainty, that it relates here to an appointment made by two persons only. *

The Works of George Campbell, D.D.; Vol. iii; London: Thomas Tegg: 1840. pp. 361,362.

Scottish Presbyterian G. Campbell occasionally challenged the official views of his denomination, in 19th century Scotland. His Ecclesiastical History was considered the standard in its time.

* The Greek words are not readily conveyed by this medium. Sorry. Use your Greek text, Strong's Concordance, or a Greek - English Interlinear New Testament.

Clowney

To begin with, it is not clear that the word in 1 Timothy 5:17 is used of office rather than of age. In the whole intervening passage, Paul is discussing the place and responsibilities of older and younger men and women in the church. It is possible that the older widows who are enrolled (v. 9) and assisted (v. 16) by the church function as deaconesses; at least they are recognized by the church for ministry in the light of a history of good works and benevolence.

In this setting it is most natural to interpret 1 Timothy 5:17 in this way: "We have been considering the older women who are widows, their service and support. Now let us return to the older men who are not to be treated without respect (v. 1) but are to be honored. Those who rule - and, of course, who rule well - are to be counted worthy of double honor."

Edmund P. Clowney, A Brief for Church Governors. from Order in the Offices, Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers edited by Mark Brown. Classic Presbyterian Government Resources. 1993. p 61.

Clowney was the former President of the conservative, evangelical Westminster Seminary.

Harvey

It must be admitted at the outset that the use of the word presbuteros or elder to denote the holder of an office is foreign to normal Greek usage. Outside Jewish and Christian literature, the word presbutero has only one possible meaning: 'older men'. It is true that presbuteroi appear on many Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic period; but on closer examination it turns out that all these inscriptions refer to the various associations of older men which grew up as a kind of complement to the athletic associations of the young, and it is not until the middle of the second century A.D. that there is any evidence for presbutero" as a title for a member of the newly created gerousia of Hellenistic cities - and even then the epigraphic evidence amounts to no more than one certain and two possible instances. It therefore seems necessary to assume that in the Greek-speaking world the word presbutero meant, not an official of any kind, but simply an older man. . .

The point I am making is simply that one of the principles which seems to have played its part in the development of church order was the 'principle of seniority.' Elders were so called because they were originally the older and senior members of the congregation, and the respect to which they were entitled did not differ essentially from that shown to any 'older man'....

We have not a scrap of evidence from the early period that the Christian elders were ever organized into anything formal or official, or that they were ever sitting in committee in such a way that would need a chairman.

The word used here (Tit. 1:5-7) for 'appoint' kaqisthmi, is the same as that used by Clement when he talks of appointing first-fruits. But, as we saw, Clement does not mean that certain people were appointed 'first-fruits': this would make no sense, since either you were a first convert or you were not. What he means is that at that time apostles appointed their first converts... Similarly, in Acts 14:23, Paul an Barnabas 'chose elders in each church'. The verb here is ceirotoneivn, which is often translated 'appoint'. But this meaning is unattested; there is no other instance in the N.T. or contemporary literature of the word losing its proper meaning of election or selection, and the sense is at least as good if we keep the meaning 'choose' and assume that what the apostles are doing is choosing from among the existing elders of the churches those who are to bear special responsibility - just as, in Acts 20 Paul calls together the 'elders' of Miletus, whom the Holy Spirit has made (eqeto) episkopoi . In all these cases there need be no question to appointing people to be elders: elders exist already.

A. E. Harvey, Elders in The Journal of Theological Studies XXV:2 Oxford University, (October 1974) pp. 319, 320, 326, 329, 330, 331.

Green

These varied titles give some idea of the task of the ordained man. He is, first and foremost, a presbyter. The word means primarily a senior person, an elderly man. In some of the New Testament references (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:1-3, 17; 1 Pet. 5:1-5) it is notoriously hard to know whether age or office is meant. Clearly young men were not ordained: and one was generally considered a young man in both Greek and Hebrew culture until the age of forty.

The title bishop describes the main function of these elders. They are to supervise and oversee the congregations committed to them (Acts 20:28;

1 Pet. 5:2). Presbyters, or senior people is what they are: bishoping or oversight is what they do.

Michael Green, Freed to Serve, Word Publishing, 1983, pp. 45,46.

He has represented the London College of Divinity, St. Johns College at Nottingham, and Regent College, Vancouver. He studied under Professor C.F.D. Moule and Dr. Henry Chadwick.

Craig

Elders existed before the giving of the law at Sinai, and if they are not simply the heads of families then they are the products of social/cultural impotence, political bondage, and the slave mentality acquired in Egypt.

From Kevin Craig's revolutionary 95 Thesis.

To email the location of this article to an aquaintance, fill in the box.

   

To discuss this article, enter the appropriate web forum.

 

---

---