Author Topic: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?  (Read 1107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dan p

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Manna: 7
HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« on: Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 19:01:44 »
 Hi to all and  this has given many a hard time !

 Who can appoint  ELDERS  in the  Assembly for  TODAY !!

 We know  KNOW  Paul had  some  appoint  ELDERS in his  ministry !!

 Does a  committee  appoint them today ?

 Is it a ELDER  BOARD ?

 Does only the  Pastor  appoint them ??

 What is the  scriptural  way ??

Will some one has  verse , that show the  way ??

 dan p


Christian Forums and Message Board

HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« on: Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 19:01:44 »

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12646
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #1 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 00:07:00 »
Elders are those who are aged.  It isn't an elected/appointed position.  (Sorry Presbyterians!)

Jarrod

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7487
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #2 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 04:07:44 »
Who can appoint  ELDERS  in the  Assembly for  TODAY !!
God does, he does so by allowing the to grow old! Jarrod is correct, and Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist and any other group who believes that an elder is an office of the NT church are in error and following the great whore from whence they came out of.

There are only two offices in the NT church, bishops and deacons~and an elder are the ones that fill the office of a bishop. There is no such office as a pastor, it is the work that a bishop does toward the sheep~and we will add, there was no church in the NT where a single church had a single bishop over them as we see in our days. The spirit of the Nicolaitans, which spirit God hates has totally taken over most all churches in Mystery Babylon in the religious part thereof.
Quote from: THE HOLY GHOST
Revelation 2:6~"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
It is an evil wicked spirit ruling over the laity.

I have written an article on this very subject a few years back and could post it if needed, and if one was truly interested in knowing what the scriptures said versus the man of sin that now rules in almost all churches in Mystery Babylon sector side of its religion. 
« Last Edit: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 04:12:35 by RB »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #2 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 04:07:44 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #3 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 06:17:26 »
The elder [Greek - πρεσβύτερος. presbuteros], the bishop or overseer [Greek - ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos] and the shepherd or pastor [Greek - ποιμήν, poimēn] were all one and the same person  (See Acts 20:17, 28).  Whether you think of them as an office, a position, a function or whatever, there is no distinction made in the NT between them.





Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #3 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 06:17:26 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #4 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 11:19:23 »
Agree with those rejecting the concocted word “office” when it is mistakenly applied to the ministry of an elder.  It’s a SERVICE, not a lordship over GOD’S heritage, which has only Jesus as its SINGLE HEAD over all things in the church.

But I object to the assumption that only aged, senior citizen types should fill the role of an “elder”.  True, that an aged-in-years condition once was and still is a common feature of elders serving in the church, but it is never considered a REQUIREMENT in scripture.  Otherwise, Timothy himself would never have been ordained by Paul. 

Timothy was still a young man when ordained, because Paul cautioned him in I Timothy 4:12, “Let no man despise THY YOUTH, but be thou an example of the believers...Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”  (the eldership - presbyteriou)

One necessary feature of an elder was not the amount of years they had been alive, but on the years they had already given testimony of being a faithful believer.  In other words, they were to be “NOT A NOVICE” in the faith (I Tim. 3:6), but of a mature spiritual character, which had already been proved by their living a consistent example of holiness for a few years. 

I believe Paul provides the example of just how many years that should be by his THREE YEARS of training in Arabia by God Himself before God commissioned him to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. 

Jesus Himself also went through a similar pattern of a THREE YEAR novitiate period after His AD 27 baptism before He ever launched His public ministry in AD 30 by selecting His 12 disciples and by performing His first miracle at Cana (John 2:11).  Significantly, that training period for His disciples lasted for a similar 3-1/2 years before Christ at His ascension sent them into all the world to preach the gospel and make disciples.

So I would say that the biblical pattern seems to be at the least about THREE YEARS of consistent Christian testimony before a person can be recognized by an assembly as having the characteristics of an elder among them. 

In Timothy 5:1-2, Paul recognizes 4 categories of those acting as overseers in the church, with instructions for how Timothy (serving as an elder among them) was to exhort each one of those 4 types of overseers.

#1)  Those aged-in-years men acting as overseers (presbytero) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his father.

#2)  Those young-in-years men acting as overseers (neoterous) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his brother.

#3)  Those aged-in-years women acting as overseers (presbyteras) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his mother.

#4)  Those young-in-years women acting as overseers (neoteras) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his sister, with an emphasis on purity.

As a final instruction on Timothy’s interpersonal dealings with elders of all ages and both genders, Paul told Timothy to “observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”  Timothy was not to be prejudiced against or to show favoritism for an overseer of any age or either gender. 

If Paul had ONLY wanted to refer to the AGE FACTOR of believing men and women in the church in I Timothy 5:1-2, there are other Greek words more specific that he would have used.  He would have used the same word for an “older man” (a “presbutes”) that John’s father Zechariah called Himself in Luke 1:18.

Or Paul would have used “presbytas”, which refers to an aged-in-years man in Titus 2:2.  Or he would have used “presbytidas”, meaning an aged-in-years woman in Titus 2:3.  But he used none of these terms for age in I Timothy 5:1-2.  He used “presbytero” and “presbyteras” instead, which carries the additional meaning of these men and women being overseers in the assembly  - not just senior citizens in the church.

But as for the original post’s question, “How are elders appointed to the assembly today?”...

There should be no difference in the manner an elder comes to be serving in an assembly today from the way this was done in the early church.  God gives gifts to those upon whom He chooses to bestow them.  Just as Christ once told His disciples in John 15:16 (YLT), “Ye did not choose out me, but I chose out you, and DID APPOINT YOU, that ye might go away, and might bear fruit” (new believers in Christ as disciples), “and your fruit might remain, that whatever ye may ask of the Father in my name, He may give you.” 

To begin with, Christ appointed 12 disciples to be personally trained by Him for 3-1/2 years, who then passed the torch to others (just as Paul did later with Timothy), that would be able to teach others also who had the reputation of being faithful (II Timothy 2:2). 

If an assembly is functioning and growing in a healthy manner as it should, then there should be those who, after a few years of instruction, will be showing evidence that God has gifted them also to labor in the word and doctrine, and who have maintained holiness on a personal level.  The church should easily be able to recognize those exhibiting such characteristics, and from their number, to appoint those willing to be overseers among themselves. 

Those overseers suspected of overt sin while serving are not to be accused unless there are at least two or three witnesses who can give evidence of that sin before the assembly.  If found guilty, that overseer is then rebuked before all the assembly, that others who are also overseers may fear (I Timothy 5:19-20).  In other words, that original appointment to be an overseer is NOT A LIFETIME RIGHT to be claimed, but is to be faithfully maintained as an example to the assembly, in order to remain in that role. 


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #4 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 11:19:23 »



Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #5 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 12:48:37 »
Timothy was still a young man when ordained, because Paul cautioned him in I Timothy 4:12, “Let no man despise THY YOUTH, but be thou an example of the believers...Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”  (the eldership - presbyteriou)
I don't believe that it is anywhere said that Timothy was an elder or even a deacon. It is generally asserted that Timothy's role was that of evangelist, not an elder.

Also based upon 2 Timothy 1:6 it would seem that Timothy's spiritual gift was by the laying on of Paul's hand, together with the concomitant approval by the laying on of the hands of the eldership.



Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #5 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 12:48:37 »

Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5178
  • Manna: 243
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #6 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 13:30:40 »
Timothy was an evangelist.

2 Timothy 4:1-5.
I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry.

The laying on of hands upon Timothy by the presbytery was not an appointment to the presbytery, but was a commission to fulfill his ministry through the use of his gift (1 Timothy 4:14). Note in both contexts (1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 4:1-5) Timothy is being instructed to refute falsehood and to teach the truth. It would seem his gift is related to his handling of the word of truth and his ability to oppose falsehood.

How are elders appointed? The Holy Spirit chooses, I believe through the particular gifting to the man. Also, an evangelist appoints. The evangelist will have to recognize the giftedness and maturity and otherwise suitableness of the man so as to appoint wisely.

Acts 20:28.
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Titus 1:5.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge;

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12646
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #7 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 14:02:55 »
The elder [Greek - πρεσβύτερος. presbuteros], the bishop or overseer [Greek - ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos] and the shepherd or pastor [Greek - ποιμήν, poimēn] were all one and the same person  (See Acts 20:17, 28).  Whether you think of them as an office, a position, a function or whatever, there is no distinction made in the NT between them.
All bishops are elders.  Not all elders are bishops.

Also, given the culture at the time of writing, an elder would have been anybody older than about 30.

Jarrod

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Certified Resident Board Genius....The MAN, the MYTH, the LEGEND!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9937
  • Manna: 372
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #8 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 14:58:51 »
God does, he does so by allowing the to grow old! Jarrod is correct, and Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist and any other group who believes that an elder is an office of the NT church are in error and following the great whore from whence they came out of.

There are only two offices in the NT church, bishops and deacons~and an elder are the ones that fill the office of a bishop. There is no such office as a pastor, it is the work that a bishop does toward the sheep~and we will add, there was no church in the NT where a single church had a single bishop over them as we see in our days. The spirit of the Nicolaitans, which spirit God hates has totally taken over most all churches in Mystery Babylon in the religious part thereof. It is an evil wicked spirit ruling over the laity.

I have written an article on this very subject a few years back and could post it if needed, and if one was truly interested in knowing what the scriptures said versus the man of sin that now rules in almost all churches in Mystery Babylon sector side of its religion.

Probably the most idiotic post I have ever read from you RB.  4WD is correct.  Elders/pastors/bishops are the same thing.  Growing old does not mean spit.  1 Timothy 3 lays out the qualifications to be an elder/bishop/pastor and being elderly isn't enough.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #8 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 14:58:51 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #9 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 16:46:56 »
All bishops are elders.  Not all elders are bishops.

Also, given the culture at the time of writing, an elder would have been anybody older than about 30.

Jarrod
Can you point me to any place in the NT where elders [πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros] is used to describe someone as simply being older than about 30 and other than a "bishop"?

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #10 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 18:16:18 »
Hi 4WD,  Was Timothy an evangelist, or an elder, or was he both?  I wouldn’t argue against you and soterion that Timothy was charged to “do the work of an evangelist”.  He was.  But that evangelistic work was only part of Timothy’s “resume”, and hardly excludes him from being an elder.  In fact, is there such a thing as an elder who does NOT evangelize? 

Paul told Timothy that he was to “Charge these things, and TEACH” in I Tim. 4:11 (YLT).  This is elder activity.

Paul called Timothy “My beloved son, and FAITHFUL in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, AS I TEACH everywhere in every church” (I Cor. 4:17).  This shows us that in just the same way that Paul taught the churches, Timothy ALSO was going to teach.  He was well-qualified to do do, since Paul had called him “FAITHFUL in the Lord” - just as the elders were to be recognized by their faithfulness in II Tim. 2:2. 

Timothy was to be diligent to show himself approved unto God, a workman that had no need to be ashamed, “rightly DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH” in II Timothy 2:15.  Again, elder activity.

Timothy was to “PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season and out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.”  He was told “These things TEACH and EXHORT” concerning the believers under his care in I Timothy 6:2.  Again, elder activity.

This was more than only evangelistic work that Timothy was doing; he was DISCIPLING THE BELIEVERS in Paul’s doctrine.  This is work that an elder is charged to perform faithfully.  Timothy obviously did this, because Paul gave testimony to the Philippian church in Phil. 2:20-22 about Timothy that “I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state: For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.  But ye know the proof of him,” (of Timothy) “that as a son with the father, HE HATH SERVED WITH ME IN THE GOSPEL.” 

High praise indeed from Paul for Timothy’s eldership characteristics.  Paul had “the care of all the churches” upon him, as he wrote in II Cor. 11:28, and Timothy labored along with Paul, heart and soul, in the SAME ROLE, just as a son would do with his father.  In other words, a younger-in-years overseer (Timothy the “neoterous”) was working along with an aged-in-years overseer (Paul as the “presbytero”) who had trained him.

I would also agree that Paul was the one laying hands on his “son Timothy” at his ordination in II Tim. 1:6.  And we know Paul was not the only one doing so on that occasion, (as I Tim. 4:14 shows us), since scripture typically uses the affirmation of AT LEAST TWO OR THREE WITNESSES to establish and confirm the truth of a matter (II Cor. 13:1) - which would certainly be necessary at the ordination of an elder.  After all, if it took at least two or three witnesses of an overseer’s sin to ACCUSE  and REBUKE them (as in I Tim. 5:19), then surely the same number of at least two or three witnesses would be necessary to AFFIRM that God had indeed gifted someone to serve as an elder.


Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #11 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 18:23:59 »
You are reading into the Scriptures what really isn't there.  It was never the elders' role to travel from one congregation to the next as both Paul and Timothy, and some others, were called to do.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7487
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #12 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 03:49:28 »
All bishops are elders.  Not all elders are bishops.
Agreed, I'm debating whether or not even to enter into this discussion~let me see if there anything on the forum today that I need to address, I will decide then..... 3 Resurrection is a hard nut to crack~nevertheless, it needs to be crack so the light can come in.  ::smile:: RB

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #13 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 09:59:01 »
Hi again 4WD,

You’re right in one respect - ideally, it is the most desirable situation for elders to remain with an assembly, serving among them and ministering faithfully until God calls them home.  Also to have trained enough godly replacements who are able to seamlessly step in upon the death of those elders.  Fortunately, it has been my experience to witness a situation similar to this first-hand at the last church in which I was a member.  It can be a blessing for those they serve to have that security of a long-term commitment by faithful elders.

But in contrast to this ideal environment for a church, there’s one thing that we have to remember about the early church of the first century.  From the very beginning, even from the very day that Stephen was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, persecution on a broad scale drove the new believers from city to city (Acts 8:1-4).

Christ had forewarned the disciples that they would be “hated by all men for my name’s sake”.  And so it was.  Rarely did the church experience long periods of restful growth and a stable environment - so rarely, that when it did happen, it was noted and written down as an unusual blessing (as in Acts 9:31, after Saul/Paul was converted and stopped threatening, imprisoning, and causing the death of believers with the aid of Jerusalem’s high priest).

Later persecution periods cropped up with the Asian campaign against the believers, which began from Ephesus after the AD 57 riot.  Paul testified about the severity of this persecution in II Cor. 1:8, saying that he had “despaired even of life” during this time.

And hot on the heels of this Asian persecution period came Nero’s oppressive treatment of Christians dating from AD 64 until his death in AD 68.  This was part of the “fiery trial” Peter spoke of in II Peter 4:12 (written around AD 65) that the saints were then experiencing. 

And aside from physical persecution (the “much tribulation” Paul and Barnabas warned of in Acts 14:22), there was danger of corrupted doctrine from WITHIN the church itself, as Paul warned the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:30-31.  “Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES” (among the number of the Ephesian ELDERS) “shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears.”

4WD, I only bring up these examples of persecution and corrupted doctrine of the elders to show that the church as a whole existed under quite volatile circumstances in that first century.  Elders of the church were in real danger of imprisonment, and would then need a replacement.  The members of the assemblies themselves were often on the run for their lives to escape oppression by the hostile Jewish leadership.  Also, considering the ramped-up level of deceptive activity of Satan in those days, (who was said to be “walking about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” with his deception), the elders who thereby became corrupted with perverse doctrines (as Paul warned the Ephesians) needed to be rebuked in the assembly and replaced. 

4WD, wouldn’t you think that all these unstable conditions would have required a more mobile eldership in those days?  Wouldn’t the instability of the times have made it necessary for elders to be able to “travel from one congregation to the next”, as you have phrased it?  The very reason there was an emphasis on selling property and landholdings in those days of Acts 4 was to enable the Christians to have portable wealth for the necessities of themselves and others in the event that they were made refugees by persecution.  Just some thoughts...


Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #14 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 11:48:33 »
4WD, wouldn’t you think that all these unstable conditions would have required a more mobile eldership in those days? 
It really doesn't matter what I think.  And it doesn't really matter what you think.  If I began to care what others thought, I would probably be knee deep into the Catholic Theology since there are an awful lot of people who think that is the right way.  But of course I am not and I don't really care what they think.  I try to adhere only to what I think the Bible says.  The Bible never speaks about a "mobile" eldership.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #15 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 13:34:39 »
Hi 4WD,

Then with all cogitation set aside, we know for certain that Paul was an elder, and Paul was most definitely an example of a mobile elder.  None more so than he.

He was the church of Corinth’s first overseer.   And as an aside, even before his conversion, Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, was he not?  These were considered “elders” over the nation of Israel.

But in his converted state, Paul was one of the “presbytery” (the “eldership”) of the church who laid hands on young Timothy at his ordination (when we compare I Tim. 4:14 and II Tim. 1:6). 

It appears that you’re laboring too hard to put a line of segregation between the activities of evangelism and the role of an elder.  These things are not required to be mutually exclusive of each other.  An elder can pursue evangelism  - even on a mobile basis - without relinquishing the role of being an overseer.  Indeed, the more elders that are present within an assembly, the more each of them are freed up to exercise evangelism outside the church, on a rotating basis, without neglecting the oversight of the assembly.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #16 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 13:49:09 »
Then with all cogitation set aside, we know for certain that Paul was an elder
I don't know that at all.  Your references to  1 Timothy. 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 do not confirm that.  Now we do know that Peter asserts himself to be an elder (1 Pet 5:1), but we do not have a record of him moving about. The notion that an elder is one independent of the congregation that he oversees is not established either.
« Last Edit: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 13:51:29 by 4WD »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35626
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #17 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 13:59:04 »
Do we have record of elders being other than City-Wide leaders? Especially since there probably wasn’t a physical location of the church in Ephesus, like at so and so address on 12th street. House gatherings prevailed, right?

Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5178
  • Manna: 243
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #18 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 15:21:49 »
Hi 4WD,

Then with all cogitation set aside, we know for certain that Paul was an elder, and Paul was most definitely an example of a mobile elder.  None more so than he.

He was the church of Corinth’s first overseer.   And as an aside, even before his conversion, Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, was he not?  These were considered “elders” over the nation of Israel.

Was Paul married?

I think not, and the elder/bishop/shepherd must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). You know, Paul wrote this. It would make zero sense to say he was an elder when he knew he did not qualify.

Quote
But in his converted state, Paul was one of the “presbytery” (the “eldership”) of the church who laid hands on young Timothy at his ordination (when we compare I Tim. 4:14 and II Tim. 1:6). 

Going by the above, we know that is not the case.

What I don't understand is why you are trying so hard to make Paul and Timothy elders when biblically we know they could not have been.  ::headscratch::

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #19 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 18:15:07 »
The question should really be “Was Paul ever married at all?”  Paul had once said that it was better for the unmarried AND THE WIDOWED for them to remain as he was.  We can’t tell from this if Paul was a virgin or if he was widowed. 

By the logic being presented here, once an elder loses their spouse, then they are automatically disqualified to serve any longer, since they are not married anymore.   (???!) Moreover, since an elder was to have their children raised in a godly fashion, then someone who is otherwise gifted to serve as an elder, but whose marriage has never been blessed with offspring at all should also be disqualified automatically.  (???!)   Rather, I would say this text in I Timothy 3:1-7 means that IF an elder was married, he should not be in a polygamous bond with more than one wife, (which was a real issue in that Ephesian church), and IF there were children involved, they should be under sober subjection to their parents.

Look, we know Peter the Apostle literally called himself an elder in I Peter 5:1.  “The elders which are among you I exhort, WHO AM ALSO AN ELDER”.  That means the Apostles could also hold the position of an elder simultaneously.  The Apostles were sort of an elder on steroids, so to speak.

The Apostle Paul acted in the same capacity as Peter.  He was the elder over the Corinthian church, calling himself a kind of “father” who had begotten them in the gospel, and passing a decision of judgment from a distance in the dispute over the man who married his father’s wife.  If Paul were not an elder in communion and fellowship with the Corinthian church, he would not have been in a position to knowledgeably tell them how to deal with that erring brother.

In addition, Paul said in I Cor. 16:10 that Timothy did the same work that he himself did.  “Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: FOR HE WORKETH THE WORK OF THE LORD, AS I ALSO DO.”  Same work of elder activity for Timothy as Paul was doing. 
« Last Edit: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 21:26:39 by 3 Resurrections »

Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5178
  • Manna: 243
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #20 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 18:21:33 »
3 Resurrections,

As excellent an example of eisegesis if ever I saw one. ::tippinghat::

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Manna: 25
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #21 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 21:25:38 »
LOL If you say so, soterion!  ::smile::  I’m certainly not offended by an opposing view being offered on this.  But what I don’t understand on my part is why anyone would try so hard to deny that Paul and Timothy were elders when they were both so faithfully and obviously discharging the duties of an elder in their service to the church.

If Timothy was charged to “do the work of an evangelist”, and that very thing of “doing the work...” consequently made him an evangelist (which I agree was PART of Timothy’s giftedness), then if Paul said Timothy “worketh the work of the Lord, AS I ALSO DO”, then that identical “work” of elder activity Paul was doing would consequently make Timothy an elder also.  Call it eisegesis if you will, but it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable.

The reason we are belaboring this point at some length is that the original comment was brought up that the term “elder” refers ONLY to a senior citizen-type individual serving as an overseer.  This is not necessarily so, if young Timothy was doing the work of an elder in the church.

In Texas Conservative’s colorful lingo, “Growing old does not mean spit” as a biblical REQUIREMENT for being an elder in the church - whether now or back in the first century.  As long as they were “not a novice” in the faith as a newborn believer, that was the only so-called “age” that was considered for eldership under the New Covenant.


Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5178
  • Manna: 243
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #22 on: Wed Aug 28, 2019 - 21:44:28 »
LOL If you say so, soterion!  ::smile::  I’m certainly not offended by an opposing view being offered on this.  But what I don’t understand on my part is why anyone would try so hard to deny that Paul and Timothy were elders when they were both so faithfully and obviously discharging the duties of an elder in their service to the church.

But they were not faithfully and obviously discharging the duties of an elder. You are reading that into the passages, but they do not actually say anything like that. Like I said...eisegesis.

Quote
If Timothy was charged to “do the work of an evangelist”, and that very thing of “doing the work...” consequently made him an evangelist (which I agree was PART of Timothy’s giftedness), then if Paul said Timothy “worketh the work of the Lord, AS I ALSO DO”, then that identical “work” of elder activity Paul was doing would consequently make Timothy an elder also.  Call it eisegesis if you will, but it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable.

It is not inescapable if you read, "AS I ALSO DO" as meaning, "the identical work." It doesn't mean that at all. Paul is saying that, just as he works in the Lord according to his particular ministry, so Timothy should work in the Lord according to his own ministry. He is encouraging Timothy not to shirk his duty in Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1.
Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

This passage is exactly the same encouragement to Paul's readers. It would never be correctly understood as "Do every single thing I do exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason." Paul is just encouraging his readers, including you and me, to be active and faithful in our whole service to God, even though we each have different roles to fulfill in such service.

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12646
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #23 on: Thu Aug 29, 2019 - 17:32:46 »
Can you point me to any place in the NT where elders [πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros] is used to describe someone as simply being older than about 30 and other than a "bishop"?
Can you point out any usage of the word "girl" (choose any book you like!) where it's used to describe someone who isn't male and isn't an adult?

...

What do you mean that's the primary meaning of the word?  I want an example where it's spelled out!  Maybe in the learn-to-read section of the library?

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10465
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #24 on: Fri Aug 30, 2019 - 05:05:59 »
Can you point out any usage of the word "girl" (choose any book you like!) where it's used to describe someone who isn't male and isn't an adult?

...

What do you mean that's the primary meaning of the word?  I want an example where it's spelled out!  Maybe in the learn-to-read section of the library?
Sorry WS, I am missing the point you are trying to make.

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12646
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #25 on: Fri Aug 30, 2019 - 21:51:08 »
Sorry WS, I am missing the point you are trying to make.
The Bible doesn't spell out the primary meaning of the word.  It assumes you know what this word means, since it's a common word.

Offline dan p

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Manna: 7
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #26 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 13:54:39 »
  Hi and from  Acts 14:23 , we  read , And  having  APPOINTED  for them 

ELDERS / PRESBYTEROS  I see this also .

 A , A , N  , G  .

 A  means that ELDERS  is an  Adjective

 A  means it is in the  ACCUSATIVE  CASE which to me means it is  LIMITED to only  ELDERS .

 P  means that the  appointment is to be  MANY .

 M  means all appointments are  MASCULINE .

What say you ?

dan p

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12389
  • Manna: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #27 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 20:37:46 »
The only reason bishop is in the Bible is because king James forbid it to be translated correctly.   “Where there is no bishop there is no king”

Offline johntwayne

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #28 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 10:54:30 »
The evangelist teaches the qualifications and the congregation looks among itself to see if any meet those qualifications and appoint those who do to the office.

Offline dan p

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Manna: 7
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #29 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 13:52:46 »
Hi and my reasoning is this ,  men wrote as they were moved by the  HOLY  SPIRIT  and  NOT   moved by man ,  to me is more  than a correct statement !!

 What say you ?

dan p

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #30 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 10:48:26 »
God does, he does so by allowing the to grow old! Jarrod is correct, and Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist and any other group who believes that an elder is an office of the NT church are in error and following the great whore from whence they came out of.

There are only two offices in the NT church, bishops and deacons~and an elder are the ones that fill the office of a bishop.

One could interpret the verses at the end of Acts 14 to mean that Paul and Barnabas appointed certain older men in every church.  But does 'elder' ever have the sense of an 'office' in scripture?

Were the 'elders' in the Sanhedrin every single old man in Israel at that time?  The Sanhedrin would have been huge-- instead of 70 or 71 people.  Going back further, were all the old men in Egypt the elders of Egypt?  Did every single old man in Moab and Midian take a diviner's fee to Balaam?  When Paul spoke to the elders of the church in Ephesus before setting sail and told them to pastor the church of God, over whom the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, was he talking to every old man in the church?  Was there not a single old man in the church who had unruly children or a bad reputation with them on the outside?  Were they all bishops? 

It seems reasonable to take 'elders of Israel' and 'elders of the church' as references to those who operated in an appointed role.

Quote
There is no such office as a pastor, it is the work that a bishop does toward the sheep~and we will add, there was no church in the NT where a single church had a single bishop over them as we see in our days. The spirit of the Nicolaitans, which spirit God hates has totally taken over most all churches in Mystery Babylon in the religious part thereof. It is an evil wicked spirit ruling over the laity.

I do not see any examples of a mono-bishop in a city in the Bible.  Some people try to squeeze that out of references to James, James and the elders for example, in Jerusalem.  But I do not see any good reason to think that Nicolaitan refers to the practice of having one bishop over the city or one pastor over the local church.  If all the elders in some city in the first or second century were killed for not burning incense on a pagan altar, would the one who remained by a wicked Nicolaitan?

Let us consider this passage.
Revelation 2
14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
(NKJV, bold emphasis mine.)

Notice the word translated here as 'thus'.  There is a logical connection between those who held to the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans.  Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History records a tradition that the Nicolaitans were a group that taught fornication and eating meat offered to idols.  The tradition says they were named after Nicholas, one of the Seven, who, when accused of jealousy offered his wife to those present to prove that he was not, though no one took it up on it, who also taught about 'abusing the flesh'.  His teachings were said to be twisted and turned into this group named after them, which he did not join. 

Is there anything remotely resembling historical evidence connecting the concept of Nicolaitanism to certain forms of church government?  The earliest reference I know to this was from the Christodelphian movement in the book Eureka.  Some of the Plymouth Brethren movement, including the movement with Watchman Nee in China repeated this idea.  They believed in a plurality of elders.  I have read some house church people, influenced by Nee, probably, repeat the idea. 

But this is based on a folk etymology approach to scripture.  The word Nicolaitan has to do with conquering or dominating Remember, though, that there is a Nicolas in scripture also.  Phineas mean's snake's mouth.  Are we at liberty to create some kind of association we make up loosely associated with the names?  The 'lait' part of Nicolaitan has to do with the people not 'the laity.'  The concept of 'the laity' as opposed to clergy is something we find in English, but it did not exist in the language at the time.  If we are going to try to interpret esoteric meanings from the meanings of component parts of names, why wouldn't we posit that the Nicolaitans dominated the people with their false ideas relating to eating meat offered to idols and fornication?

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #31 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 11:10:43 »
But I object to the assumption that only aged, senior citizen types should fill the role of an “elder”.  True, that an aged-in-years condition once was and still is a common feature of elders serving in the church, but it is never considered a REQUIREMENT in scripture.  Otherwise, Timothy himself would never have been ordained by Paul. 

The question is whether the concept of advanced age is inherent in the word presbuteros.

In I Timothy 5, the NIV tells Timothy not to rebuke an older man.  Another translation says not to rebuke an elder.  This is presbuteros.  In context, Paul goes on to discuss how to treat a certain group of older women-- widows over 60, how to 'honor' or provide for them. Then he goes back to the topic of elders, (older men?), that the elders who rule well are worthy of double honor.   

Where does scripture ever call Timothy an elder? What I see about Timothy is that it seems that Paul includes him among the 'apostles of Christ' and tells him to do the work of an evangelist.

I Thessalonians 1:1 tells us this epistle is written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.

We read in I Thessalonians chapter 2.
6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.
7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:

In Acts 13, the Holy Spirit spoke and told the prophets and teachers to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work to which He had called them.  With prayer and fasting, they laid hands on them and separated them.  Acts 14:4 refers to them both...for the first time in Acts... as 'apostles.'  Neither had been referred to as an 'apostle' before this in this book.  Verse 14 calls them 'apostles' again.

Timothy had a gift that was given to him by prophecy (compare to the Spirit speaking regarding Barnabas and Saul) with the laying on of hands of the elders (compare to the prophets and teachers laying hands on Barnabas and Saul.)  We do not know what this particular gift was, but it could have related to his ministry.

Whether Timothy's role in appointing elders was rooted in his own role as being among the 'apostles of Christ' or whether he was an operating as an extension of Paul's ministry, every case of appointing of elders we see in the New Testament involved the ministry of an apostle doing so. 

Was Timothy an evangelist?  The idea that he was has oft been repeated in the Restoration Movement.  Tradition considers him to have been a bishop, but we do not see this appellation applied to him in scripture.  The KJV translators call him a bishop in the title, but my understanding is that this is not really a part of the text of scripture.  In the late 1800's, the letters to Timothy and Titus came to be called 'the pastorals'.  And probably because of this, many evangelical preachers will say that Timothy was 'a pastor.' 

I even read in one book that Timothy was not an evangelist, but was called to 'Do the work of an evangelist'--even though his ministry gift was not evangelist.  I thought that was a strange comment.  Many preachers, reading I Timothy, assume that Timothy's role was that of a senior pastor, and that the elders were his board elders.  From reading scripture, though, Timothy was an itinerant minister, going around with Paul to preach...as in evangelize those who had not believed the message yet... and was also sent back to encourage and strengthen new believers. 

Timothy may have been included among those who were 'fathers' to the Corinthians when Paul wrote that they had many teachers, but not many fathers, for in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he had become their father.  As co-author of II Corinthians, it stands to reason that he shared a measure of rule in the church in Corinth with Paul, when they wrote in chapter 10 that they ('we') had a measure of rule that extended to the Corinthians. 

So evangelical pastors should not think of him as a 'senior pastor'.  The Restoration Movement concept of 'evangelist' should also be re-examined.  Many in the churches which bear the labels Church of Christ and Christian Church relabelled the Protestant 'pastor' role as 'evangelist'. 

Scripture indicates that Timothy was one of 'the apostles of Christ'-- a broader category than the twelve apostles.  The apostles mentioned in Ephesians 4 were given after the ascension, though the twelve were appointed before it, after all.  Scripture tells him to do the work of an evangelist, without telling us whether he was one or not. 

Any apostle travelling with Paul and doing his type of ministry would have been doing evangelistic work.  So we might say that Paul, Barnabas, and Silas also did the work of an evangelist.  But as apostles, they had broader responsibilities.  Is appointing elders the work of an apostle or an evangelist?  Since apostles always had a hand in appointing elders, it does not stand to reason that it must be the work of evangelists.

Consider the one man actually referred to clearly as 'the evangelist' in scripture.  There is no evidence of Philip appointing elders.  He preached, did signs, cast out demons, baptized, and left.  He left imparting the Spirit to the apostles.  He probably left further establishing of the churches to the apostles, too. 








Timothy was still a young man when ordained, because Paul cautioned him in I Timothy 4:12, “Let no man despise THY YOUTH, but be thou an example of the believers...Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”  (the eldership - presbyteriou)

One necessary feature of an elder was not the amount of years they had been alive, but on the years they had already given testimony of being a faithful believer.  In other words, they were to be “NOT A NOVICE” in the faith (I Tim. 3:6), but of a mature spiritual character, which had already been proved by their living a consistent example of holiness for a few years. 

I believe Paul provides the example of just how many years that should be by his THREE YEARS of training in Arabia by God Himself before God commissioned him to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. 

Jesus Himself also went through a similar pattern of a THREE YEAR novitiate period after His AD 27 baptism before He ever launched His public ministry in AD 30 by selecting His 12 disciples and by performing His first miracle at Cana (John 2:11).  Significantly, that training period for His disciples lasted for a similar 3-1/2 years before Christ at His ascension sent them into all the world to preach the gospel and make disciples.

So I would say that the biblical pattern seems to be at the least about THREE YEARS of consistent Christian testimony before a person can be recognized by an assembly as having the characteristics of an elder among them. 

In Timothy 5:1-2, Paul recognizes 4 categories of those acting as overseers in the church, with instructions for how Timothy (serving as an elder among them) was to exhort each one of those 4 types of overseers.

#1)  Those aged-in-years men acting as overseers (presbytero) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his father.

#2)  Those young-in-years men acting as overseers (neoterous) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his brother.

#3)  Those aged-in-years women acting as overseers (presbyteras) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his mother.

#4)  Those young-in-years women acting as overseers (neoteras) were to be exhorted by Timothy as he would his sister, with an emphasis on purity.

As a final instruction on Timothy’s interpersonal dealings with elders of all ages and both genders, Paul told Timothy to “observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”  Timothy was not to be prejudiced against or to show favoritism for an overseer of any age or either gender. 

If Paul had ONLY wanted to refer to the AGE FACTOR of believing men and women in the church in I Timothy 5:1-2, there are other Greek words more specific that he would have used.  He would have used the same word for an “older man” (a “presbutes”) that John’s father Zechariah called Himself in Luke 1:18.

Or Paul would have used “presbytas”, which refers to an aged-in-years man in Titus 2:2.  Or he would have used “presbytidas”, meaning an aged-in-years woman in Titus 2:3.  But he used none of these terms for age in I Timothy 5:1-2.  He used “presbytero” and “presbyteras” instead, which carries the additional meaning of these men and women being overseers in the assembly  - not just senior citizens in the church.

But as for the original post’s question, “How are elders appointed to the assembly today?”...

There should be no difference in the manner an elder comes to be serving in an assembly today from the way this was done in the early church.  God gives gifts to those upon whom He chooses to bestow them.  Just as Christ once told His disciples in John 15:16 (YLT), “Ye did not choose out me, but I chose out you, and DID APPOINT YOU, that ye might go away, and might bear fruit” (new believers in Christ as disciples), “and your fruit might remain, that whatever ye may ask of the Father in my name, He may give you.” 

To begin with, Christ appointed 12 disciples to be personally trained by Him for 3-1/2 years, who then passed the torch to others (just as Paul did later with Timothy), that would be able to teach others also who had the reputation of being faithful (II Timothy 2:2). 

If an assembly is functioning and growing in a healthy manner as it should, then there should be those who, after a few years of instruction, will be showing evidence that God has gifted them also to labor in the word and doctrine, and who have maintained holiness on a personal level.  The church should easily be able to recognize those exhibiting such characteristics, and from their number, to appoint those willing to be overseers among themselves. 

Those overseers suspected of overt sin while serving are not to be accused unless there are at least two or three witnesses who can give evidence of that sin before the assembly.  If found guilty, that overseer is then rebuked before all the assembly, that others who are also overseers may fear (I Timothy 5:19-20).  In other words, that original appointment to be an overseer is NOT A LIFETIME RIGHT to be claimed, but is to be faithfully maintained as an example to the assembly, in order to remain in that role.
[/quote]

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #32 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 11:11:47 »
The only reason bishop is in the Bible is because king James forbid it to be translated correctly.   “Where there is no bishop there is no king”

It also derives etymologically from episcopos as priest derives from prebuteros.

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #33 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 11:17:42 »
  Hi and from  Acts 14:23 , we  read , And  having  APPOINTED  for them 

ELDERS / PRESBYTEROS  I see this also .

 A , A , N  , G  .

 A  means that ELDERS  is an  Adjective

 A  means it is in the  ACCUSATIVE  CASE which to me means it is  LIMITED to only  ELDERS .

 P  means that the  appointment is to be  MANY .

 M  means all appointments are  MASCULINE .

What say you ?

dan p

Most of this can be seen in the English translation, except we don't have cases like accusative.  What do you mean by accusitive indicating it is limited only to elders.  What is limited only to elders?  Why does accusitive imply limited?

'Elders' is being used as a noun grammatically, even if it is an adjectival form.  What's the term for that?  'Substantive' maybe?  Greek has some of it's own terms apart form general linguistic terms. 

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: HOW ARE ELDERS APPOINTED TO THE ASSEMBLY TODAY ?
« Reply #34 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 11:25:36 »
All bishops are elders.  Not all elders are bishops.

Also, given the culture at the time of writing, an elder would have been anybody older than about 30.

I've heard that 30 year olds were considered younger men.  Do you have any evidence that they were considered elders by that time?

I've heard some low age for the average life span, maybe 30.  But a lot of babies died really young.  Once you got past three or five or whatever, the chances of living to a relatively old age were much higher.  Ancient Greece had many people living to ripe old ages.  My Classics professor in college pointed out this myth of people not living to old ages based on average life span figures and the high infant mortality rates.  He told about a man in his 60's who sued his father in his 90's for control of the family estate based on senility because his father hadn't died and given him the inheritance. 

Ana was 80 and that was considered 'very old', but that doesn't mean there were not a fair number of very old people.  I have read the opinion that 50 was considered aged and that Paul was over 50 when he called himself aged.  I read in a post from a scholar about 60 being the cut off to be a judge, which would have been a stepping stone to the Sanhedrin.  I haven't read Maimoinodes' Tractate Sanhedrin yet, though.  That was written about 1000 years after the time we are discussing and is probably filtered through what evolved out of Pharisaical opinions. 

The requirements for being a judge in Israel were somewhat similar to Paul's requirements for elders, but much more lengthy, and one had to be good-looking, too. 

 

     
anything