Plurality of Elders: but one over them all?

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

I posted this on another thread but thought it would be a good topic by itself.

What I'm interested in is: Though the NT teaches a "plurality of eldership" in the churches; does it also teach that one elder "presides" (or should preside) over them all?

I would prefer it if this doesn't go into "Protestants V. Roman Catholics" (if there should or shouldn't be one "head bishop" or priest, if the RCC episcopacy is "biblical" or not, and so on). But I'm not trying to restrict anyone either, lol. I just want to know what we can find out about this from the Bible!

Here's my post from the other thread to get us going:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found some info at this site: Second Temple Synagogues

Who were the leaders of the synagogues?

The organizational structure varied somewhat from synagogue to synagogue. One common scheme had a "ruler of the synagogue," known variously as an archisunagôgos, archôn or prostates, at the head of the congregation. He would control the flow of religious services, serve as judge over community disputes, and represent the congregation outside the local community. He was frequently a patron of the synagogue.

Surrounding the synagogue ruler was a group known as the "elders" (prebyteroi, gerontes) or "notables" (dynatoi), who served as an advisory panel and assisted in administration and teaching in the synagogues. In additional, one or more trained scribes--most frequently a Levite or priest--maintained the synagogue archives and assisted in the reading and teaching of scripture. Finally, a synagogue assistant (hyperêtes or neôkoros) would oversee the upkeep of the physical plant and assist the synagogue ruler in various servile tasks during assemblies.

There are a number of variations on this scheme. In some locales there were several synagogue rulers, rather than just one. In others, the offices of archisunagôgos and archôn became specialized, with the former being concerned with religious ritual and the latter with more temporal affairs. Priests and Levites frequently functioned among the various leadership roles, though synagogue positions were not restricted to the priestly or Levitical caste.

While in later centuries women occasionally served in leadership positions in diaspora synagogues, the existence of female synagogue leaders during the Second Temple period is currently unattested.

Crispus, the ***president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it 2 believed and were baptized.


***archisunagogos <752>
arcisunagwgov archisunagogos
Pronunciation: ar-khee-soon-ag'-o-gos
Origin: from 746 and 4864
Reference: TDNT - 6:844,1107
PrtSpch: noun masculine
In AV: ruler of the synagogue 7, chief ruler of the synagogue 2
Count: 9
Definition: 1) ruler of the synagogue. It was his duty to select the readers
or teachers in the synagogue, to examine the discourses of the
public speakers, and to see that all things were done with
decency and in accordance with ancestral usage.
from 746 and 4864; director of the synagogue services:-(chief) ruler of the synagogue.
see GREEK for 746
see GREEK for 4864

comments:

How other versions translate ARXISUNAGWGOS:
the synagogue ruler (NIV)
the synagogue official (NAB)
leader of the synagogue (NASB)
the official of the synagogue (NRSV)
the chief ruler of the synagogue (KJV)

In some evangelical circles you hear a lot about how the NT teaches a "plurality of eldership" and that we should follow a similar type of church government today. My cousin is a pastor (elder) in one such church that has five elders. Steve (Gregg) talks about this in his "Some Assembly Required" and "Church History" mp3 series. I don't recall him talking about "the president of the synagogue" [Acts 18:8] offhand. I think he may have addressed it but I can't remember to what extent if he did.

Those who advocate a plurality of eldership in the church are "biblical," imo: The NT teaches it. However, the people who do this don't take into account the fact that there was, at least in many instances, one overall leader in the synagogues; they see the plurality of elders functioning in an egalitarian way. Iow, no one is "in charge."

The early churches (the first ones) were established in two ways. First, there is the general pattern or norm of the synagogues. Some synagogues seem to have "become churches" which would be to say they believed in Jesus now, and, otherwise, kept going along with their same governmental polity. Other churches had a non-Jewish government, being set up along the lines of tradesmen guilds.

My cousin's church, though it believes plurality of eldership to be biblical, etc.; they have my cousin "set aside" as the general overseer. Put another way, he presides over everything in the church. He doesn't call himself the "senior pastor" but for all intents and purposes he functions as one, even within this plurality structure.

He's like a chief ruler of a synagogue.

I'm not episcopalian about my ideas on church government. But I do believe a case can be made from the Bible that one person is to be the overseer of everything that happens in a church (a presiding elder over the other elders).

Paul wrote to Titus, [re: Titus' Task on Crete ] "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint [or ordain] elders in every town, as I directed you," (Tit. 1:5).

If Paul and Titus were following common and established Jewish practices, would Titus have appointed one elder over the other elders in each church? (keeping in mind that "each church" could be "by itself" or one of a group of churches that met in one city: "Paul...to the church of God that meets in Corinth" (1 Co 1:1-2, NAB).


I think: Probably so....

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

In the New Testament, there does not seem to be any elder-overseer distinction.

However, the writings ascribed to Ignatius [A.D. 30-107] definitely do make this distinction. In these writings there seems to have been a single overseer in each city church, and a number of elders.

There is extant both a longer and shorter recension of what is supposed by some to be the genuine writings of Ignatius. However, quite a number of critics consider that none of the letters ascribed to Ignatius are genuine. Others think that they are genuine but have that many parts have been added by later writers.

[Guest]

Thanks for the interesting question Rick. I think scripture supports a hierachical church, with Christ as the head and the High Priest. Not everyone is truly called or annointed to be a leader of the Church. Not everyone can be a chief, surely, we need some Indians as well.

Ephesians 4:11 states: "It is He who gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in roles of service for the faithful to build up the boyd of Christ, till we become one in faith and in the knowledge of God's Son, and form that perfect man who is Christ come to full stature."

4:12-13 gives us a good portion of why Jesus did not leave a church where everyman and woman does what ever he/she wants in whatever position: "Let us then, be children no longer, tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine that originates in human trickery and skill in proposing error. Rather, let us profess the truth in love and grow to the full maturity of Christ the head."

If Paul states to go around establishing presbyters in every town, as he directs, then these people must be leaders to get the Church going AND keep it going.


BTW, when you say that each Church is by itself, does this mean that they teach differently from the Apostolic teaching? To what degree is it "by itself" other than geography?

God bless,

Liseux

[/i]

[Guest]

Thanks for the interesting question Rick. I think scripture supports a hierachical church, with Christ as the head and the High Priest. Not everyone is truly called or annointed to be a leader of the Church. Not everyone can be a chief, surely, we need some Indians as well.

I don't think many in this forum disagree with you there, Liseux. Jesus is the only "chief" of the church, and I know of no one who presently wishes to be His equal in that position.

Ephesians 4:11 states: "It is He who gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in roles of service for the faithful to build up the boyd of Christ, till we become one in faith and in the knowledge of God's Son, and form that perfect man who is Christ come to full stature."

Liseux, Rick, in his post, was not questioning that there were such leaders in the church. He was asking whether there is anything in the Bible which indicates whether there was an overseer over the overseers. In other words, was there a "chief apostle", a "chief prophet", a "chief evangelist". a "chief pastor" or a "chief teacher" in the church?

In my opinion, the answer was "no" in the first century.

[Guest]

What you are suggesting would lead us directly into the Protestant vs. Roman Catholics, which Rick is not wanting to do at this time.

I take his question as asking if their is a "head elder" over each church being established, such as in Corinth, in Antioch, in Jerusalem. Which in my opinion, would be yes, there were presbyters in each church that lead that group. The bishops fit in also in the picture. To not leave a catechized person in charge of a newly formed church is to ask for chaos, and our Lord knew this.

How these "head elders" would all be kept to the one faith, one baptism, and one Lord is another topic.

Liseux

[_Rick_C]

I'm studying this and listening to Steve's lectures on it (early CHU & SAR series).

I have this to add for now from the Catholic Study Bible (I own one):

1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the [1] overseers and ministers:
2 grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[1] Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means "one who oversees" or "one who supervises," but since the second century it has come to designate the "bishop," the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop. At Philippi, however [and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28], there was more than one episkopos, and the precise function of these officials is uncertain. In order to distinguish this office from the later stages into which it developed, the term is here translated as overseers.

Just from my notes with no comment......gtg...........Rick

[Guest]

+++JMJ+++

Hello Rick,

In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop.

Most people seem to agree that a hierarchical church is discussed in scripture.

I think the question is what occurs when this plurality cannot solve disputes or questions in the parish.

What happened already in the 1st century I posted earlier, with Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians to discipline them for rebuking their overseers. He did settle the dispute, as they recognized his hierarchical position. (as a bishop)

Liseux

[_Rick_C]

Hi Liseux,

Most people seem to agree that a hierarchical church is discussed in scripture.

I think the question is what occurs when this plurality cannot solve disputes or questions in the parish.

All Christians believe there was "structure," I'm sure. What was the exact nature of that structure? is another question.

In the NT, do we have any examples of bishops acting as if they were "above" the other elders? We know James was Bishop in Jerusalem and made decisive rulings (Acts 15). But he didn't do this till after hearing the other Apostles, elders, and even the regular believers. He had authority but didn't act from a basis of being "above" the others (in a kind of hierarchical military ranking system). There was a mutual interdependence going on. James was more like a "Wise Judge" (ruling on important decisions) than a "General" (pulling rank), if you see what I'm saying.

What happened already in the 1st century I posted earlier, with Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians to discipline them for rebuking their overseers. He did settle the dispute, as they recognized his hierarchical position. (as a bishop)

I saw your post on the other thread and read most of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians last night (but I fell asleep, it is long)! Did the Corinthians accept Clement's rebukes simply because they understood him as the final hierarchical authority? I'm asking this because there is a fine line between obeying a "boss" just because one has to or will suffer the consequences -- and -- taking heed to the admonishments of "leader" who is supervising and giving direction (this is a very fine distinction).

Other than this, I'm still reading and studying up on the things the Apostles did with regard to bishops and elders (and deacons). In the NT the bishops were much more like "(caring) leaders" than "(threatening) bosses," imo......gtg, Rick

[Guest]

Hello Rick,

Thanks for the answer. I do not belittle or disregard the discussion and hearing of the other apostles and disciples. I think this has been going since the beginning of the Church.

In the NT, do we have any examples of bishops acting as if they were "above" the other elders? We know James was Bishop in Jerusalem and made decisive rulings (Acts 15). But he didn't do this till after hearing the other Apostles, elders, and even the regular believers. He had authority but didn't act from a basis of being "above" the others (in a kind of hierarchical military ranking system). There was a mutual interdependence going on. James was more like a "Wise Judge" (ruling on important decisions) than a "General" (pulling rank), if you see what I'm saying.

Great example of authority. What you see as mutual interdependence I see as unity in Truth.

Let's remember that "mutual interdependence" and brotherhood can only go so far.

We both know that this brotherhood didn't always result in everyone agreeing, and that some who had false teachings either left the Church or were eventually expelled. I have in mind the early heretics, such as the Monatists and the Donatists.

I think if your point about mutual interdependence were actually workable, then churches today such as the Episcapalian would not be continually splitting and divorcing each other. They would be agreeing and staying with their elders with the truth. But not all the elders recognize the truth.

Without a leader, even a bishop (guided of course by the power of the Holy Spirit), who has the power to make final decisions, the truth just turns into what people vote on or what one guy and his cronies believe.

God bless,

Liseux

[Guest]

Hi Liseux,

You wrote:

"Without a leader, even a bishop (guided of course by the power of the Holy Spirit), who has the power to make final decisions, the truth just turns into what people vote on or what one guy and his cronies believe."

In point of fact, "what people vote on or what one guy and his cronies believe" is actually the policy that founded the Episcopal (Anglican) church, whose leaders you felt should be followed throughout the denomination. Henry VIII simply wanted to split from the church of Rome because the Pope would not grant him a divorce and allow him to marry his pregnant mistress. Henry, therefore, and his cronies, simply decided that they were independant of the Pope, and that, in the Church of England, the English Crown would now hold the authority that had formerly been invested in the Pope. Most denominations began, in principle, similarly.

The idea of a Spirit-directed, over-all leader in a church sounds like a good plan for keeping things orthodox—until we ask which church's Spirit-led orthodoxy the leader is to uphold. If we have a Catholic Bishop, an Anglican Bishop, a Presbyterian Bishop, a Baptist Bishop, a Methodist Bishop and a Pentacostal Bishop—each overseeing his respective denomination—does this arrangement guarantee that any of the groups are not heretical?

I am not sure why "a bishop (guided of course by the power of the Holy Spirit), who has the power to make final decisions," is a better idea than "an eldership (guided of course by the power of the Holy Spirit), who has the power to make final decisions." At least the latter would have a measure of biblical accountability among the leaders, which is lacking where one man makes all the decisions. It is the latter that we find in scripture. Jesus and the apostles seem to have been comfortable with it.