MJ/HRG View of 'Authority' with Church & Home

[jcee]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. I'm hearing a consensus that the spiritual authority of elders mentioned in Scripture is primarily focused on matters of faith and practice. As heads of households, we should look to them for guidance and trust their expertise in those areas, but it's ultimately up to us to exercise that guidance in our household.

In the Old Testament, elders were respected community leaders who provided wisdom, counsel, and judgment in various matters. (eg: Exodus 18:13-26, Numbers 11:16-17) Do you see those elders as the same people (elders/overseers) described to be local church leaders who shepherd the flock, teach sound doctrine, and provide spiritual guidance? (eg: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)

 

[MemeFan]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. I'm hearing a consensus that the spiritual authority of elders mentioned in Scripture is primarily focused on matters of faith and practice. As heads of households, we should look to them for guidance and trust their expertise in those areas, but it's ultimately up to us to exercise that guidance in our household.

In the Old Testament, elders were respected community leaders who provided wisdom, counsel, and judgment in various matters. (eg: Exodus 18:13-26, Numbers 11:16-17) Do you see those elders as the same people (elders/overseers) described to be local church leaders who shepherd the flock, teach sound doctrine, and provide spiritual guidance? (eg: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)

No, it can't be.

Old Testament elders were tribal leaders, work which included politics, warfare, negotiations with other tribes. No such work for New Testament leaders. Romans did take care of mentioned work.

 

[Mark C]

In the Old Testament, elders were respected community leaders who provided wisdom, counsel, and judgment in various matters. (eg: Exodus 18:13-26, Numbers 11:16-17)

The word used (Hebrew) is 'tzadikim' - because they literally knew His Instruction. That is what made their counsel 'wise.'

Do you see those elders as the same people (elders/overseers) described to be local church leaders who shepherd the flock, teach sound doctrine, and provide spiritual guidance? (eg: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)

So, sorry, not just "no," but, "Hell, no!"

Most are literally ignorant of most of Scripture "as Written," and are what Yahushua rightly called (repeatedly) "hypocrites," because they "teach as doctrine the commandments of MEN." (all of Matthew chapter 23, Mark chapter 7, etc.)

 

[Mark C]

Roll your eyes all you want, @MarkH...the fact the Whore Church and its so-called "leaders" do EXACTLY what Yahushua said NOT to is why we "came out of" it.


And read Acts 20 prior to v 28 in context, @jcee: Why does Shaul/Paul say reference the "WHOLE counsel of YHVH" - and not just the part that the Whore Church claims still matters?

They didn't like polygyny because it threatened their power base (just like He did!) And guess, what? That was only the beginning.

IF in fact we understand what was meant in Ephesians 5, and Who is the Head of whom, then we also need to understand why that same Paul warned (II Cor. 11:4) not to be fooled by "another jesus" (who allegedly 'did away with' His own Written Word!) and that we shouldn't put up with it.


[As it turns out, that's the gist of why "The Cup" was put in the hand of the 'sota' - the woman who may have "gone astray" -- just as the Whore Church, and Whore Synagogue, both DID.]

 

[Maddog]

Back to the practical aspect- what is the "rot in the thigh" when guilty and how would that play out today in the adulterous church?

 

[Michael Moon]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. I'm hearing a consensus that the spiritual authority of elders mentioned in Scripture is primarily focused on matters of faith and practice. As heads of households, we should look to them for guidance and trust their expertise in those areas, but it's ultimately up to us to exercise that guidance in our household.

The men who are leaders in the assembly should be the wise men who we should seek the counsel of in all manner of practical situations as well. If a group of Christians could simply stick together for longer than a generation or two this structure would naturally merge with the tribal/patriarchal one. We would rid ourselves of "Pastor Tim" and "Pastor Scott" and would just have "My Grandfather" and "My Father-in-Law".

In the Old Testament, elders were respected community leaders who provided wisdom, counsel, and judgment in various matters. (eg: Exodus 18:13-26, Numbers 11:16-17) Do you see those elders as the same people (elders/overseers) described to be local church leaders who shepherd the flock, teach sound doctrine, and provide spiritual guidance? (eg: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)

The elders of the New Testament were supposed to fill the roles left empty by the mass conversion at Shavuot. The Jews who converted often lost their family patriarchs and the new Christian community needed leaders. Eventually the Temple fell and these elders (much like the Jewish community leaders in that time and even in the modern day) took on the necessary work of the priests and Levites as well (some of this happened before, like the deacons being raised up to care for the widows and orphans).

No, it can't be.

Old Testament elders were tribal leaders, work which included politics, warfare, negotiations with other tribes. No such work for New Testament leaders. Romans did take care of mentioned work.

The Elders of the Assembly should be Patriarchs, and Patriarchs should be tribal leaders. Engaged with all of these things.

 

[Mark C]

Back to the practical aspect- what is the "rot in the thigh" when guilty and how would that play out today in the adulterous church?

Good question...but has it drunk yet? (I can't help but think I hear, "I am now widow," and "I will see no sorrow..." still.

 

[FollowingHim]

In the Old Testament, elders were respected community leaders who provided wisdom, counsel, and judgment in various matters. (eg: Exodus 18:13-26, Numbers 11:16-17) Do you see those elders as the same people (elders/overseers) described to be local church leaders who shepherd the flock, teach sound doctrine, and provide spiritual guidance? (eg: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)

Yes.

By which I mean, they should be. I agree with @Mark C that often the people who are given the title of "elder" in churches today are not these people. But if a person is not truly one of those people, I don't recognise them as an elder anyway, regardless of their title. I make a strong distinction between the "nominal elders" (the people who are given that title by a church), and the "natural elders" - the people who truly are or should be the elders of that congregation.

The "natural elders" I take to essentially be the male family heads who meet all scriptural requirements of an elder. If you look around any church you know well you can see who they are - just as if you look around any small secular community you know well (e.g. a sports club) you can see who the "elders" are there. They're the people who naturally command respect, who you would go to for advice, the people who if there was a dispute you would be comfortable asking to render judgement on it.

 

[frederick]

The men who are leaders in the assembly should be the wise men who we should seek the counsel of in all manner of practical situations as well.

Yes, indeed.

In his epistle to Titus Paul told him to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). Titus was to appoint those men who were already recognised as elders, but who had the character and qualities set out in verses 6 to 9, to oversee the saints. No one was appointed to be an elder; elders were to be appointed who would be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict (v:9).

 

[DanielnMichele]

If it's a 501c(3) 'church' then they obey "another master" - and I want nothing to do with them.

Likewise, if they reject His Word concerning:
- marriage
- His moedim
- or, yes, serve pork chops at the sun-god day pot luck,
- or if they advocated for taking the Zyklon-B mRNA injection, etc,

I want nothing to do with them.

They're not my "leaders," their rotten fruit shows they don't "watch over my soul," and I don't submit to what I contend (at some length, elsewhere) YHVH Himself condemns, and exiled, for "whoring" (idolatry/adu

More blunt than I would have put it but well said. I was not bold enough to say it at all.

 

[Mark C]

The "natural elders" I take to essentially be the male family heads who meet all scriptural requirements of an elder.

And by this I suspect you exclude the 'mia' trap...

...or at least translate it properly, and in-context.

 

[jcee]

Back to the practical aspect- what is the "rot in the thigh" when guilty and how would that play out today in the adulterous church?

They'd probably be good with it as long as you still volunteered in kids ministry and tithed

 

[jcee]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. It's fascinating to consider how the decline of traditional patriarchal structures might have impacted the authority of local churches.

Shifting gears a bit, I'm curious about your perspectives on how Matthew 18 and "church discipline," including excommunication, might work in a community led by a council of wise patriarchs rather than a traditional pastor/elder structure we've seen over the last 50+ yeras?

 

[Michael Moon]

Shifting gears a bit, I'm curious about your perspectives on how Matthew 18 and "church discipline," including excommunication, might work in a community led by a council of wise patriarchs rather than a traditional pastor/elder structure we've seen over the last 50+ yeras?

Matthew 18:15-17 (and also Matthew 5:25) convey to me that it is better to handle disagreements privately (if possible) rather than in a communal fashion. I think most churches today don't really follow the proper structure. They will say "oh Matt 18" but tend to either not discipline or attempt to do so by popular vote. I also don't think I personally know of any situation of true excommunication in my family or local assembly.

Anyways, I think the process is fairly simply. Any disagreement between two men ought to be handled by those two men. But if it cannot be, they should attempt to solve the disagreement amongst family or mutual friends, perhaps even going to a single elder. If that elder can't help them, or if one of them refuses to listen to his counsel, you take it to "the community" (which I believe means a council of the elders, not a literal congregation vote or anything) who issue a judgement. If the judgement and plan of reconciliation is not adhered to, you move on to excommunication.

I think most churches today will usually just jump to a private meeting with the pastor (which could be fine if more pastors were actually worthy of any respect) or the more concerned issues might immediately be thrown out for the congregation to vote on. Whichever happens, silly conflicts are usually given too much attention and serious conflicts are usually kept hush hush.

I also think that modern corporate Christians do not understand what excommunication ought to look like.

 

[FollowingHim]

And by this I suspect you exclude the 'mia' trap...

...or at least translate it properly, and in-context.

Yes - but I'd go further and say we shouldn't be too strict about the precise requirements for an elder. Imagine a congregation where, however you interpret the requirements for an elder, every single man is disqualified from eldership for one reason or another. It's not hard to see that happening. Would that congregation have no elders, no leadership at all, until someone new turns up who happens to meet the requirements? Of course not. The most appropriate / least inappropriate men would be the elders. They are guidelines as to what is best, but in practical terms they cannot be mandatory in all circumstances.

Which means that even if mia in that verse does truly mean "husband of precisely one wife", and you happened to have a congregation where every man was polygamous, some of them would still be elders. Just as if it means "husband of first wife" (as I prefer to interpret it), and you had a congregation where every man was divorced and remarried, some of them would still be elders.

 

[Mark C]

Good, Samuel, but this is the only place I'd take issue:

Which means that even if mia in that verse does truly mean "husband of precisely one wife"...

It can't, or the Messiah is "a liar and the Truth not in Him."

...Just as if it means "husband of first wife" (as I prefer to interpret it), and you had a congregation where every man was divorced and remarried, some of them would still be elders.

If not one of 'em could keep a promise, or just show better judgment somewhere along the line (admitting the possibility of learning through error) - I'd probably look for a better circle of men.

 

[MemeFan]

Matthew 18:15-17 (and also Matthew 5:25) convey to me that it is better to handle disagreements privately (if possible) rather than in a communal fashion. I think most churches today don't really follow the proper structure. They will say "oh Matt 18" but tend to either not discipline or attempt to do so by popular vote. I also don't think I personally know of any situation of true excommunication in my family or local assembly.

Too much of Romans 13.

In ancient time Church had it's own court system as per 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. Court do nothing than solve disagreemnts publically.

If you refuse doing courts, in long run group will lose it's disagreemnts solving skill.

 

[Michael Moon]

Too much of Romans 13.

In ancient time Church had it's own court system as per 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. Court do nothing than solve disagreemnts publically.

If you refuse doing courts, in long run group will lose it's disagreemnts solving skill.

Could you elaborate, I'm struggling to comprehend exactly what you are taking issue with.

I don't believe I promoted a lack of "doing court".
Edit: or were you agreeing? Either way, please elaborate.

 

[MemeFan]

Could you elaborate, I'm struggling to comprehend exactly what you are taking issue with.

I don't believe I promoted a lack of "doing court".

It's better to solve things privately. Horewer, you can't use same system for discipline issues and excommunication issues. Why? Because in private it's word of pastor vs accused.

Why would you believe any word of decision? Pastor can remove rival, make sin from not sin etc..... And accused can leave church and go to next where it's again pastor vs. accused word.

Court will have to be public. Which will force church to do proper justice. They couldn't toy will things like no cross examination, no defense witness. C'mon, everyone will know such court is crooked together with pastor.

Such things will enable filth cleansing. And it's also reason why regular church stay monogamy-only.

With proper court you could publically bring second wife while pregnant in church, then publically humiliate pastor when he tries excommunication.

Since church has outsourced courts to state (thanks to Romans 13) it has lost capacity for proper discipline of members.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Mark C, you're overly pedantic. We know what mia doesn't mean, and obviously a bunch of divorcees would be a less than ideal congregation. I used both examples because they were wrong / undesirable, in order to illustrate a point. You don't have to point out that they are wrong / undesirable, that was exactly why I used them!