Did the Apostles choose the Elders?

Post Reply
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Did the Apostles choose the Elders?

Post by Homer » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:22 pm

Matthew Henry commented:

Acts 14:23-24.
when they had ordained them elders--literally, "chosen by show of hands." But as that would imply that this was done by the apostles' own hands, many render the word, as in our version, "ordained." Still, as there is no evidence in the New Testament that the word had then lost its proper meaning, as this is beyond doubt its meaning in 2 Corinthians 8:19 , and as there is indisputable evidence that the concurrence of the people was required in all elections to sacred office in the earliest ages of the Church, it is perhaps better to understand the words to mean, "when they had made a choice of elders," that is, superintended such choice on the part of the disciples.
and had prayed with fasting--literally, "fastings," thus setting them solemnly apart. This last clause confirms our interpretation of the former. For if "ordination" was by prayer and fasting (see Acts 13:3 ), why should it be said they first "ordained elders," and after that "prayed with fasting?" Whereas if the first clause refer to the choice and the second to the ordination, all is natural.
Some time ago I read an argument very much the same as Henry's quoted above. Tentatively I think it is correct, but I am intending to study further. Do you agree with this view or have another? Most translations seem to be saying that the apostles actually selected the elders; I'm thinking they oversaw the process and then ordained the elders the church chose.

Anyone?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:23 pm

It is true that the Greek word literally means to stretch out the hand. But there is nothing in the etymology of the word to indicate that this implies voting.

The apostles could have stretched out their hands toward individuals whom they had chosen or appointed. In my opinion "appointed" is a fairly accurate rendering of the word.
In making these decisions, the apostles may have asked for the input of the assembly, and acted with the consent of the assembly but there is no evidence whatever that democracy, or voting in any form, was practised in the early church.

It is probable that in praying for God's leading, the apostles, elders (overseers) together with the whole assembly, understood the will of God in the matter. Such a case seems to have been reported by luke in the following record:

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:37 am

I do not believe ‘laying on of hands’ (choosing the elders, and leaders) was meant to be a doctrine (of spiritual transmission of office) at all, but choosing elders came to be institutionalized as the 'giving a person authority in the Church'. And the minute this happened the Church became the church.
(Christ's body is the 'Church', lower case for the church 'institution')

Mormons, like the catholic church, have interpreted this to mean there was a special anointing that happened when the elders lay hands on one for church leadership. The truth is that the true Church should be selective and in agreement on officers in the Church, and that they should be all of one heart over the responsibility and integrity of church leaders (laying on of hands is also for healing and prayer, although misused as a 'special' authority and power in doing so sometimes). The lie and the problem is that this implies a ‘God ordained’ selection and position, unshakable, without question. And worse a special anointing above others, an 'unquestionable' giving of the Holy Spirit. And worst of all; authority on par with scripture.

The abuse is officially from the Catholic tradition, and the abuse primarily is in the form of abusing scripture. Because the Catholic traditions made ‘laying on of hands’ the open door to their circular argument to authorize their own authority, this paved the way for their own abuse of true doctrines i.e. salvation by grace, sola scriptura, and the implementation and addition of false doctrine i.e. the institution of the priesthood, popes, celibacy of church leaders, doctrines of Mary, purgatory, and I might add eternal torment.

The abuse of this doctrine; ‘The laying on of hands’ began the ritual of abusing people.
People have interpreted and ‘supposed’ and imagined the laying on of hands to a level meaning God Himself was ordaining an individual to office. Religious leaders, the Catholic church, even Calvin held to this ‘electing’ of individuals to a position that has been the cause of more abuse than kings, tyrants and political leaders. I don’t know how it got missed that it was the man appointed religious leaders that put Christ on a cross. Moses and the Prophets were proven by signs and wonders, as were the Apostles.

The first problem (in the church) is supposing the title was proof positive of God hand selecting a person, just because it is in a ‘church’ setting.
Two; is supposing the ones selecting (or laying on of hands) were themselves hand selected by God.
Three; is supposing the title is for life, irrevocable, immutable, unquestionable, etc.
Four; is supposing that Elder, Bishop, Teacher were positions that were ‘necessary’ to have Church, rather than what they were; only necessary ‘if’ they were necessary to have ‘order’.
Five; is supposing that Elder, Bishop, Teacher were positions that made them more godly, pious, spiritual, enlightened, higher, specially anointed, and worst of all more important.

The appointing of elders and bishops were appointed for the care and order of the larger groups of believers, that is ‘churches’, but it was not a law or requirement by God to have such offices or rule.

The Holy Spirit was given to ‘all who would believe’, and no longer would one man rule over them. God gave them a king because of the hardness of their hearts. The priests and kings were often led astray and corrupted. Plain reading of the bible makes this clear, and scripture also reminds us man will ‘continue’ to reject God and put his faith in man and himself. This lesson repeats itself throughout the life of the Hebrews, throughout scripture, and has repeated itself throughout the church again.

The laying on of hands was no more a rule, law or spiritual transmission of authority than the washing of ones hands. It was only a gesture of order, given to those within your own group, who demonstrated integrity, wisdom, experience, kindness, hospitality or some trait that would benefit the group or assign some to specific task of ministry. Nothing more nothing less, and like in a household or assembly, some order was beneficial, but man went right back to giving himself special anointing and positions of honor.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Paidion » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:21 am

I do not believe ‘laying on of hands’ was meant to be a doctrine at all, but it came to be institutionalized as the 'giving a person authority in the Church'.
Irrelevant. The discussion is not about the laying on of hands; it is about the stretching forth of the hand—whether this means to stretch it forth in voting, or to stetch it forth in appointing.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:56 am

I was talking about what was relevant in the bible, church history, and Ecclesiology. Maybe I went to fast for you. The bible does seem to have people putting forth hands in a vote, and the bible does have men laying on hands for ministry and healing etc. The church continues to intertwine the concepts, and so this laying on of hands is quite often the gesture of choosing and identification of leaders (ordination) in the Christian churches.

Cheirotoneo (chosen, vote, appoint) is the word, and the doctrine is Ordination (or the ‘royal priesthood of believers’ according to Peter), the practice in the Catholic church is ‘Religious and Holy orders', the ordination ceremony includes (and the authority of office is instilled by) the laying of hands sacrament, and it all falls under Ecclesiology. I may have jumped ahead, but where do you go from apostles ‘choosing’ elders? I had meant to write ‘one line’ here, kept writing, and went into a tirade because I have gone down this road on the subject with Catholics and Mormons too many times before.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Homer » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:33 pm

The NIV Theological Dictionary says that cheirtoneo was used to describe voting or electing by a show of hands in the Athenian assembly.

In Acts 6 the seven, thought by many to have been the first deacons, were obviously chosen by the church with the qualifications established by the apostles. Given that the qualifications for deacons and elders are very similar, perhaps the method of selecting was also similar.

If elders are not chosen by the congregation, and are appointed by some authority, who is that authority? Certainly it could be said that the apostles had that authority. But what of Titus (Titus 1:5)? Did Paul pass on that authority and when Paul died could Titus pass his own authority on to a successor and so on down the line? Seems to be an institutionalized system, much as in the catholic church.

So who has the authority to appoint elders and how do they get it, if that is how it is done?

Note: I have no firm conviction on this matter, just trying to sort it all out.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Paidion » Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:57 am

Homer, you wrote:The NIV Theological Dictionary says that cheirtoneo was used to describe voting or electing by a show of hands in the Athenian assembly.
I think the framers of that dictionary had no justification for that assumption. The fact that "χειροτονεω" means "to stretch forth the hand" coupled with the fact that voting is sometimes done by a show of hands, is insufficient to prove that this is the way that the early elders were chosen.
So who has the authority to appoint elders and how do they get it, if that is how it is done?
I can see why people who do not recognize the continuing apostolic ministry, would have this problem. But the fact is that the apostolic authority has never ceased.

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4:11 NKJV)

Have we yet "come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"? If not, then this five-fold ministry continues until that happens.

In the circle of fellowship of which I am part, local elders are still appointed by the apostolic brethren. These leading brethren do not call themselves "apostles"—rather "travelling elders". But they are recognized as apostles.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Homer » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:29 pm

I can see why people who do not recognize the continuing apostolic ministry, would have this problem. But the fact is that the apostolic authority has never ceased.
This view certainly supports the catholic argument for the Pope being successor to Peter. Can you show anything the early church fathers said that indicated they were (or there were) successors to the Apostles? I might add anything past about 200 CE wouldn't count with me.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Did the Apostles chose the Elders?

Post by Paidion » Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:31 pm

I cannot show you that, though it is clear that there were "apostles" other than "the twelve" during the days that Peter and Paul lived . Paul himself is one example. Another is "the apostle Barnabus" (Acts 14:14).

Andronicus and Junius might be two others, depending upon how one interprets Rom 16:7, that is whether "who are of note among the apostles" means that they were two apostles who were especially noted, or whether they were especially noted by the apostles. I am inclined to the former interpretation.

Some understand that apostles other than "the twelve" were apostles in a different sense of the word. Even if that is true, I think it was they who continued to appoint elders.

Yet, the apostle Paul asked Timothy to appoint elders in every city, and there is no evidence that Timothy was an apostle.

Tit 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—

The word "appoint" in this verse is translated from a different word from that in Acts 14:23. The word is καθιστημι, and it means to set in place.
So it could be that not only apostles could appoint elders, but they could ask others to appoint elders.

So, like you, Homer, I don't have a cut and dried solution to the matter of appointing elders. However it should be done, I am certain that the church wasn't a democracy in the first or second century, and it should still not be a democratic institution. In a democracy the majority of people in a constituency rule. In a true expression of the church God rules.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “General”