Authority, submission, and chain of command

[andrew]

The issue of "who are the elders" in an individual man's life is therefore very important, and not as simple as just "Nathan, Andrew and Ron".

Never said it was that simple for every man or any man. Just said it was that simple for BF. Context, context.

As I mentioned, we don't use the term "elder" here because reasons, but one of those reasons is that we are specifically not a church/assembly, as we understand what that is supposed to look like, and are a parachurch ministry. And as I mentioned, I was speaking only to the issue of where the functional leadership of BF resides, using my 'amplified' and generic version of the question regarding who sets the course for the group, specifically this group.

Meanwhile, I'm still interested in any thoughts on the Paul verses re the role/rule of elders, whoever those elders are determined to be. And I still believe that figuring out who the elders are (or should be) in a man's life will be figured out after we figure out what an elder is and what he does.

 

[andrew]

This is an interesting verse as it seems to contrast 1 Th 5:12 etc. I think it may be saying something like "secular matters are so simple that anyone can find a decent answer, you don't need to use the court". It might also be suggesting that simple matters can be taken to anybody, leaving the elders to deal with the more difficult matters.

I agree 100%. I've always understood that to be Paul's using hyperbole and maybe a bit of sarcasm to make a rhetorical point about the unseemliness of Christians taking each other to secular courts.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I think the analogy of the multitude of counselors would be more apt for both BF and the assembly UNLESS there is harm that has been done between brothers or families. In that case, the elders would be obligated to intervene and try to set things right to restore fellowship within the assembly. If that didnt work, it should be brought to the body as a whole and decided. Pretty much any decision would not necessarily be binding, but if it wasn't made right the offending party would be ostracized.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

These elders could also perform the role of "father" or matchmaker for a widowed or single eligible lady in the group. I.e. Either woman could approach one of these elders and request that he make an inquiry into a particular mans interest in adding her under his covering. He would have no authority or say in the match, just be a facilitator for the lady.

 

[aineo]

Something else to keep in mind is the situation where there exists a quarrel between two brothers. I find it interesting where Paul says to let the least esteemed among you judge. 1 Cor 6:4

This is an interesting verse as it seems to contrast 1 Th 5:12 etc. I think it may be saying something like "secular matters are so simple that anyone can find a decent answer, you don't need to use the court". It might also be suggesting that simple matters can be taken to anybody, leaving the elders to deal with the more difficult matters.

I am no linguist, but it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 6:4 may not be an easy one to translate. There are widely varying translations for this verse in the traditional English translations, such as:

1 Corinthians 6:4 If then, you have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the assembly?

1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have ordinary lawsuits, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? (NET notes say: 6:4 a tn Or "if you have ordinary lawsuits, appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church!" This alternative reading (cf. KJV, NIV) takes the Greek verb καθίζετε (kathizete) as an ironic imperative instead of a question. This verb comes, however, at the end of the sentence. It is not impossible that Paul meant for it to be understood this way, but its placement in the sentence does not make this probable.)

1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?

1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?

In addition, I often cross reference Aramaic translations. Whether you think there is something to the Aramaic primacy or not, these versions can often give insight into early church translations on the New Testamant. Here are three of them:

1Corinthians 6:4 But if you have matters to be judged regarding the world, those who are little-esteemed [Or, contemptible.] in the church make you to sit in judgment.

1Corinthians 6:4 But if ye have a controversy about a worldly matter, seat ye on the bench for you those who are contemned in the church!

1Corinthians 6:4 You have worldly affairs to be settled, and yet you have put men of bad reputation in the church on the judgment seat.

This makes me think the verse is saying asking why we are appointing people who have no standing in the church to judge, not that we should appoint people with no standing in the church to judge.

Andrew - not dodging your question. I hope to get to that before I got to bed.

 

[steve]

<esteemed>
Just a thought, but sometimes those with moneybags are most highly esteemed.
Could it be that he was saying to not choose those with the most influence?

 

[andrew]

I think the analogy of the multitude of counselors would be more apt for both BF and the assembly....

Pretty much any decision would not necessarily be binding....

He would have no authority or say in the match....

Okay, so to be sure I'm getting this, your interpretation of the Paul verses is that elders have no actual authority in the church, but they're sort of senior advisors—is that it? So based on Paul's use of that same Greek word in a different context, the male head of household has no actual authority in his home, but is useful as a resource when someone feels they need advice, right?

 

[andrew]

This makes me think the verse is saying asking why we are appointing people who have no standing in the church to judge, not that we should appoint people with no standing in the church to judge.

Interesting point. Seems congruent with my point about rhetoric, in that the outcome would be to point toward having matters between believers settled by someone credible (or 'with standing') in the church, as opposed to either those without the church (so no esteem anyway) or within the church but without the standing to make them credible as judges or mediators.

Andrew - not dodging your question. I hope to get to that before I got to bed.

Looking forward to it!

 

[aineo]

I'm not as interested in those as in, say, 1 Th 5:12-13 (note the link between 'ruling' and peace among the brethren) and 1 Ti 5:17. What do you think Paul's talking about there? What are those elders doing?

Note also, while we're busy noting things, that whatever those elders are doing, it's the same thing (same word) a husband does with his family, so whatever this authority is that a husband is supposed to have over his household, there is some evidence that the 'elders' (whoever they are) are supposed to have the same relationship to the group of families that they eld.

Back to the whole "I'm not a linguist" thing - the actual word used in the two passages you reference is not the same, though the root is. I am not sure how the alterations to the word change the meaning. It is also not the same in 1 Timothy 3:4. See below:

1 Thessalonians 5:12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge (προισταμενους or proḯstēmi) over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule (προεστωτες or proḯstēmi) well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

1 Timothy 3:4 He must be one who manages (προισταμενον or proḯstēmi) his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage (προστηναι or proḯstēmi) his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)

That said, I think your point is a fair point. It made me think of this passage:

Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

It sure seems any brother is permitted to question another, even escalating that to a larger band of brothers, and finally "the church", however that is defined.

To your question, @andrew, it does seem that the elders of the church do have some right to manage/lead/rule us, but I am not sure what the limitations are on that. As I think about this, it brings up a few points for me.

First, it sure makes it important for you to respect your elders interpretation of the Bible and their wisdom in handling situations. For example, how many on this forum have gone to their pastor regarding polygyny and have been effectively banned from church. Should they have submitted to their elders? In those cases, each one I know of, the BF member either quit attending church or found a new one. Can we willy nilly choose who our elders are and only go to those who agree with our point? I don't think that makes sense, so I think it is important to be in the presence of like-minded believers who first seek answers in prayer, led by the Spirit, and in sincere study of the Bible.

Second, how does this change that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman? Is there a fourth layer where Christ is the head of the church, and the church is the head of man?

Third, where does the rule of the elders begin and end? Are they our ruler only in the matter of the activities of the church, including disputes and sin? Or do they have the right and authority to proactively step into our lives and guide our next steps? If a husband tells his wife they are going to go on mission in Africa, the wife is expected to listen, even if she heard that they are to work in an orphanage in inner-city New York. What if the elders come before the church and tell the church that they are all supposed to go to Africa and work together? I don't think any of us would agree to follow them if the Spirit was leading us elsewhere. So, back to the point: is this "rule" limited to the organization of the church, settling disputes, and other such activities, or is this "rule" as far as the God-seeking elder cares to take it?

I need to ponder on this a bit more and study a bit more to more firmly develop my opinions.

 

[andrew]

Back to the whole "I'm not a linguist" thing - the actual word used in the two passages you reference is not the same, though the root is. I am not sure how the alterations to the word change the meaning.

They all mean the same thing at root, but are used grammatically differently due to context.

1 Th 5:12 is present middle participle, accusative plural masculine.
1 Ti 5:17 is perfect active participle, nominative plural masculine.
1 Ti 3:4a is present middle participle, accusative singular masculine.
1 Ti 3:4b is second aorist active infinitive.

The difference between 1 Ti 3:4a (husband) and 1 Th 5:12 (elders) is simply that the husband is singular and the elders are plural—that's the only difference. I believe this is evidence that my point stands, that we need to not be so twitchy about rejecting or limiting the responsibility and authority of elders unless we're prepared to so limit the authority of a husband.

The other differences (1 Ti 5:17 and 1 Ti 3:4b) are grammatical differences that don't change the functional meaning of the root but are driven by the word usage in the sentence. In 1 Ti 5 there is no object of the verb 'rule' (elders who rule well v elders who rule over you or one who rules over his household), and the second half of 1 Ti 3 uses an infinitive (one who doesn't know how to rule).

 

[Mojo]

Whether it's high or extremely high, we need to keep this point separate. I agree that it's useful to consider extremes to contextualize the conversation, but whatever constitutes grounds for 'intervention' in the life of the husband or the life of the family, I'm raising a different issue. We can explore both, but I don't want to lose sight of one for the other.

That's why I didn't get specific.
I know what my personal high is, but it may be different for others.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

that we need to not be so twitchy about rejecting or limiting the responsibility and authority of elders unless we're prepared to so limit the authority of a husband.

I'm not sure that the one necessarily equals the other. The elders of an assembly do not have the same authority over the same type of structure. In some ways, I think its apples and oranges. @aineo had a good point with the verse about headship omitting the elders and assembly. I think it would be a more accurate comparison to equate the authority to headship. Christ has been given all authority over his people, and the husbandman has been given all authority over his people subject to Christ's authority, not the elders. The elders have been given influence based upon being filled with the spirit, wisdom and "dynamis" and their authority is limited to the voluntary following of their people.

One thing that has stuck out to me in my reading of early christianity is this topic of elder/bishop authority. It seems that by the middle of the 2nd century, this elder/bishop authority and its levels are being pushed by the elder/bishop further than Christ ever intended. The end result of this is that another 150 later, you have a pope on the RCC side, and respected leaders who are treasured for their wisdom and scriptural insight on the primitive side. It seems that in the first model, the motivation is to condense authority/power and in the second model to train up the men around them and cultivate their Christ ordained authority and power. I think there is a time and place (the home) to condense it, and a time and place to cultivate it (the assembly).

 

[Aussies]

I am a little confused?? This is not a challenge, just trying to align some statements made with scripture.

If the authority of the elders is restricted to rare and serious cases, such as determining whether a divorce is legitimate or not, there does not need to be a formal eldership structure.

Could you please show me in scripture where another "man" has the right to determine the legitimacy of a divorce if it was enacted by the husband and meets scriptural standards? If it doesn't meet scriptural standards then its not a scriptural divorce regardless of what any man say's. Even in case of spousal abuse, today the wife could leave to protect herself and her children but if the man is going to still claim her as his own then as per Ex 21:10 he needs to continue to care for her and her children, if not, she is no longer his to claim, as she is "free to go". If he is then unwilling to legally divorce her so as to bring harm upon her then she may need to seek legal recognition in this matter but the decision was still his to make. Otherwise, if it is the wife that has sought to divorce against the husbands will when he is still willing to care for her, then would not Mark 10:10 come into play? In either situation the scriptures make the matter clear, do they not? In cases of child abuse (rape), then such a man was to be put to death and as such he should be handed over to the relevant authorities to be dealt with. In such an instance I can see that a wife might seek some clarity for her circumstance due to the fact that the husband would no longer meet his demise. But otherwise what is the scriptural basis for anyone else having the authority to over ride the husband in such a matter? Is not the choice that of the husbands to make due to the wife's unfaithfulness? Deut 21:14, Duet 24:1 Matthew 19;9

Re the whole issue of 'who are the elders?', at Biblical Families that's fairly straightforward--Nathan, Ron, and me.

When we are talking about "elders" are we just talking about men with wisdom and experience? If so then there must be more than just three earth wide?
If on the other hand we are speaking of men appointed to act under the direction of Holy Spirit and thus to represent Gods will as did Paul, then are not the standards for such a position clearly addressed at 1 Timothy 3:1-10 and Titus 1:6 with particular attention being given 1 Timothy 3: 2 and Titus 1:6 which both state that the elder must be a husband of one wife? Is that the case with those quoted as elders above?

I appreciate that this matter seems to be getting a little straight in language if not heated and as such I am risking talking hold of the tigers tail in the fight and thus risk getting bitten. However this is Biblical families, thus what is the biblical foundation for these and some other comments that have been made in this thread? I am not saying that there isn't one, I am just unaware of any, thus I am a little confused.

 

[aineo]

If on the other hand we are speaking of men appointed to act under the direction of Holy Spirit and thus to represent Gods will as did Paul, then are not the standards for such a position clearly addressed at 1 Timothy 3:1-10 and Titus 1:6 with particular attention being given 1 Timothy 3: 2 and Titus 1:6 which both state that the elder must be a husband of one wife? Is that the case with those quoted as elders above?

There is significant debate on what one (heîs) means, as it can be used as "a", "first", or "one". Arguments for each include:

• "A" - each elder should at least have one wife. This shows responsibility and his ability to manage.
• "First" - an elder should not have left his first wife. This doesn't keep him from being an elder if she were to passed away, but it does mean he should not be the type of person to leave a wife so he could take another, which is addressed elsewhere in scripture.
• "One" - no man with more than one wife can devote the time he needs to the roles and responsibilities of an elder, so it is limited to one wife. Some suggest that this means an unmarried man cannot be an elder, though others think it is prohibiting polygyny.

I finally came to the conclusion, as have many others, that this is not "one", but either "first" or "a". To my knowledge there is no conclusive answer on which it is though.

 

[aineo]

@andrew, I'd like your thoughts on the question I posed in my response above. If a man is putting himself under the rule of a local church, and the elders* of that local church call him out on his "sinful" belief in polygyny, is he obligated to back away and live a monogamous life, even if he is already dating the next potential wife? What if he is already married to a second?

It seems to me that if we believe the elders of a church have the same authority over our lives that a husband has over his wife or wives and children, then this creates a difficult situation. Granted, none of us are "married" to our assemblies or elders, but can we just leave because we disagree? Isn't that disrespecting them? Or, is the answer that there is a point where we can escalate our issue beyond the elders, even to (our interpretation) of the Bible? Is this somewhat like Paul escalating his trial to Caesar?

I'm still pondering all this and where boundaries are for each ruling relationship ...

*This is all the more reason to be sure the "church" we are a part of doesn't have major disagreements on interpretation of scripture.

 

[andrew]

There's a lot of handwringing going on here, but I do not have the bandwidth to engage every point, particularly objections or observations that are not on point with what I said, or conclusory statements that don't really reach the level of an argument, or begging the question. So I'll just keep rolling along, and by the time all the smoke clears I intend to address all substantive arguments.

@aineo, you are basically anticipating my thoughts on these questions, but I'll go on record with my answers and reasoning.

No. Even more no. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

Boy, that clears everything up!

You know I'm already looking to 1 Th 5 and 1 Ti 3 to make the case that the job of an elder and the job of a husband have something in common, based on the fact that Paul uses the exact same language to describe both jobs. The principal difference is, as you mentioned, that we have not normally made a lifetime covenant to a particular fellowship or leadership.

I wouldn't say we can "just" leave, as if it's a flippant thing, and of course no manly man is going to just take his glove and go home just because he's in a snit over some small thing. But people move on all the time over some change in the way they look at things, or over callings, or secular job requirements, or whatever. If you honestly believe that the leaders of your fellowship are in doctrinal error, it's time to find better leaders. But it's not always like that.

Case in point (story time!): In the mid-'90s God was leading me and mine into a form of worship and prayer that wasn't going to work long term at the Baptist church at which we were leading the youth ministry. We ended up at a Vineyard fellowship where I served as the drummer under a worship leader young enough to be my son who I didn't always agree with. Nevertheless, I served where I was called, and learned a few things from the Spirit about leadership, followership, and teamwork. Meanwhile, we were developing a street outreach to runaway teenagers, and the senior leadership of the Vineyard didn't support that outreach (didn't object to it, they just had other irons in the fire...). I didn't sign my life away to the Vineyard Association or any particular fellowship or pastor—the pastor and I amicably agreed that the time had come for us to move on, and we moved to a Presbyterian church downtown actively involved in street ministry.

I could go on, but you get the point. If I'm a member of a group, I'm committed and submitted. But it's still up to me to follow God's call on my life and make sure I'm playing for the right team.

You mentioned Paul's escalating to Caesar as an appeal right, but I'd also like to throw in Peter's response to the Sanhedrin: "We ought to obey God rather than men." That can be in matters of doctrinal dispute, such as over the bible's teaching on marriage, or it can be over more mission-related differences, that aren't a matter of 'right' and 'wrong' as much as of everyone's finding their appropriate purpose and place in the body (which can change over time).

All that to say this: There's a huge difference between marriage and church membership based on the length (and therefore depth) of the commitment the wife or church member makes, and that difference is likely to affect some practical applications of what it means to 'manage' or 'rule' the household versus what it means to 'manage' or 'rule' the household of faith. But we've still got 1 Th 5 and 1 Ti 3 telling us that there is something intrinsically similar, or identical, about the job description. (VV76, I'm genuinely surprised that you dismissed this as 'apples and oranges'.)

Meanwhile let's look at this business of the chain of headship, as mentioned in 1 Co 11:3 and its companion verses, Eph 5:23 and 4:15-16.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

You see what I did there, right? 1 Co 11 isn't the only place Paul talks about the headship of Christ, but it's the only place Paul says that Christ is the head of 'every man'. When Paul's about to instruct the Corinthians on the importance of head coverings, he tees it up with some comments about headship that highlight the differences between men and women, for reasons that become obvious as he continues. When Paul's teaching the Ephesians specifically about submission in marriage, he doesn't say "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the man", he says "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church". And when Paul is teaching about the importance of all our gifts and relationships and specifically the importance of our unity in Christ, he calls Christ the head of the body.

So on the one hand, we have some pretty specific language that Paul uses to describe the job of a husband and the job of an elder that is beyond similar, it's identical. On the other hand, we have a metaphor that admits of different uses and applications depending on the context it's used in. 1 Co 11 doesn't settle anything, or even really move the meter when it comes to 1 Th 5 and 1 Ti 3.

I'm still pondering all this and where boundaries are for each ruling relationship ...

And I submit that that's exactly how we should all be thinking about this: Acknowledge that they are both "ruling relationships" (or I guess that was just a slip on Paul's part...), and then we can move on to pondering what 'rule' looks like and how the boundaries might be different in different relational contexts.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Something else to keep in mind is the situation where there exists a quarrel between two brothers. I find it interesting where Paul says to let the least esteemed among you judge. 1 Cor 6:4

1 Cor. 6:4-5
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. [5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Don't leave out verse 5 the idea is that the least in the church should be better than the world's solution if motivated by love. The shame that the church would have no wise among them is a shameful thought indeed. Wisdom is one of the gifts of the Spirit and we should seek those who have it in our counsel and decisions.

 

[Mojo]

There is significant debate on what one (heîs) means, as it can be used as "a", "first", or "one".
I finally came to the conclusion, as have many others, that this is not "one", but either "first" or "a". To my knowledge there is no conclusive answer on which it is though.

Unfortunately, 99% of churches worldwide (just my estimate) will never concede "first", since that might imply there could be more at one time.

 

[Mark C]

So there is a place for intervention, but where is it. I submit its pretty high. [Zec Austin]

Extremely high.

Here is where I contend that the only way to understand Shaul/Paul, Kefa and the other later letters is that they are writing midrash, which is commentary directly on the principles of Torah, is in context. There is NOTHING they wrote which must not be understood to be based directly on principles of earlier Scripture, and in several obvious cases (Matthew 5:32, etc) clarified by Yahushua, because they had already been twisted by men.

[Obvious, relevant case in point: men "putting away" wives without giving them a "get". The Hebrew word for such a woman is "aguna". Yahushua, correctly translated, says that man "causeth HER" to commit adultery, which is expressly and undeniably true. Shaul later wrote that she "HAS a living husband". ]

The rabbis [Pharisees at one point] claimed the authority over families that they may, or more likely may NOT, have had. (A man can submit himself to another authority, Biblical or not. As Shaul noted in Romans (6:16), “you are his slave whom you submit yourself to obey,” for good or for ill. There is a related matter many may be aware of, known a the Beit Din (basically a court, or arbitration group) and of course a 'higher version', the Sanhedrin. Questions of 'legitimacy' have certainly arisen, and would apply similarly to roman catholicism (from the Inquisition to the Jesuits) and to 'church' spin-offs. What is clear, however, is that Scripture uniformly makes the point, confirmed by Paul, that we can choose life, or submission to “another master”; just can't serve both.

One main point of Numbers 30 is that a father has Scriptural authority over his daughter's vows (including transfer of that authority to a husband, when he eventually does so). The husband has authority of his wives'. But any claimed authority of a 'church' is "by agreement".

Every fellowship with which I have been associated that practices a "torah-oriented" perspective has understood the Scriptural authority of a head of house, whether or not they have 'elders'. I would contend that 'elders' who do not understand and respect Scriptural authority as Written have no business claiming such a title.

Be careful to whom we "submit ourselves to obey".

 

[Aussies]

I mean no disrespect but this has become very wordy. If I am understanding this thread correctly the key is, does a husband hold total headship over his wife under Christ or would the elders have the right to override the husband if they saw fit. If that is the question then,
If a wife made an oath and when her husband heard about it he held the authority to override that oath and thus she was no longer bound by that oath. Only the husband was able to step in to void the oath as only he held headship over her (now under Christ), no elder or priest was able to do the same. The headship was the husbands and no one else held that authority. However the husband then became responsible. (that is different to the lies of Ananias and Sapphira)
Thus if, when it comes to matters of the marital union, if others (elders, or any one else) wishes to command authority over the marriage then are such ones willing to take the responsibility for their input?
Ie; if elders make the determination with regard to the termination of a marriage and thus sanction the wife going to another man, if they get it wrong and thus her action is in fact a matter of adultery as she was not truly freed from her husband, then do the elders carry the responsibility for the adultery and she is free and clear as it was they that presumed to take the headship over her and indeed over the marriage. She could not be counted as an adulteress if the decision was not hers as can be seen with Davids first wife when Saul gave her to another. David reclaimed his right as husband but the error was not with the wife as she never left but rather it would be with Saul as he interfered with the marriage.
To my way of thinking if any man takes it upon himself to seek headship in such matters he walks on slippery ground.
The marital union is between, A man and A woman and God. Even Christ said that what God has yoked together let "no man" put apart. Even with extended oversight such as serving as an elder, there are limits to ones authority. Interfere beyond that point then be prepared to carry the responsibility.
How many in the Churches of Christendom have assumed authority and sought to override Christ in many matters of doctrine and teaching? His response is clear at Matthew 7; 21-23. Thus authority has its limits and to seek to override a mans God given authority over his own house is to go beyond the bounds.

Or am I totally misunderstanding this thread?