Absolutely, for those of us who know, we have a great responsibility.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
General And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, ...?"
- Thread starter frederick
- Start date
The pastor vs sheep scenario is problematic if we do not recognize that we aren’t intended to remain sheep.
If you want to be owned by a pastor, go ahead, but that is not what we have been called to.
If you have ever brought spiritual food, water, shelter to another sheep, congratulations. You have shepherded (pastored) them. That is our calling.
Confining it to the clergy class is a perversion of the gospel.
If you want to be owned by a pastor, go ahead, but that is not what we have been called to.
If you have ever brought spiritual food, water, shelter to another sheep, congratulations. You have shepherded (pastored) them. That is our calling.
Confining it to the clergy class is a perversion of the gospel.
Ye
I agree but also disagree @steve. Peter wrote instructing the elders to shepherd the flock of God among you (1 Peter 5:2). While all saints have a responsibility to be maturing in the faith and knowledge of the Word, it is a specific requirement for those mature men appointed to shepherd the flock to do that shepherding work - for which they will also give account to the Chief Shepherd and be rewarded accordingly. Shalom
The problem is that most shepherds act like the sheep belong to them instead of recognizing that they are just a humble servant for the Owner of the flock... the result is that they pasture themselves on the sheep... Ezekiel 34!
What makes a man not an elder, and what prevents him from becoming one?
Yes; who decides who is ordained?
What people do may not be right but it doesn't change what God requires. Nor does it change the consequences for not doing what is right.
Paul said, when instructing the elders, Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20:28
This is a serious question.
Please don’t skip over it.
What/who do you define as an elder? We are told of the qualities and character a man is to have if he is to be appointed as an overseeing elder in Titus 1:5-9. If he is not such a man obviously he is prevented from becoming one.
Why do not all of us choose to be men of elder quality and character?
Good question. Why?
Technically, the answer to, 'who decides who is ordained?' is no human being. Yah/Holy Spirit decides, or Yeshua, so it is a Who deciding, not a who. Paul's power to assign eldership was a delegated power, and we risk placing ourselves above Yah when we make decisions about eldership, etc., or assume Holy Spirit has conferred wide-ranging authorities and authoritativeness upon us. Steve also makes an excellent point that Paul never appointed pastors, only elders. In the wake of Scripture, human beings have deigned to expand the commission to suit their own purposes. I like your choice of Acts 20:28 in this discussion, Frederick: "Take heed to yourselves and to the entire flocklet, among which the holy spirit appointed you supervisors, to be shepherding the ecclesia of God, which He procures through the blood of His Own." [CLNT] The 'ecclesia of God' [Body of Christ] was purchased with Yeshua's blood. But Paul doesn't stop there, instead immediately addressing a theme he mentions in numerous letters: beware those who would mislead, even at times predicting that the wait wouldn't be long and that they would emerge from within trusted sources. "Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet. And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves. Wherefore watch, remember that for three years, night and day, I cease not admonishing each one with tears." [Acts 20:29-31, CLNT]
In pursuit of forcing the existence of pastorships upon the Body of Yeshua, human agencies have bastardized words from Scripture to suit the purpose of human bureaucratization, changing the meaning of 'ecclesia' from 'a gathering together' to a purposefully-vague word we translate as 'church,' justifying declarations that Scripture supposedly compels us (at risk of losing our salvation) not only to fellowship but to create sectarian exclusivity organizations, become members of them, build 'church' buildings, meet in them at prescribed times, and, of course, hire staffs for them to ensure their sustainability -- further bastardizing Scripture by transferring the tithing prescriptions of Torah to demand that 'church' members cough up 10% of their earnings to fund the very organizations that, in their conceit, inject themselves in between Yah and His children.
And it never escapes me that the predominant forms in which 'pastorship' and 'eldership' manifest in modern times are the very forms most associated with condemning those of us who promote biblical marriage.
I believe Paul was admonishing us to turn our backs on that in order to turn our faces to Yah, because the staffed religious bureaucracies will never offer the approval we so misguidedly seek from them. One has to choose one's master.
What are you choosing?
To keep that glass ceiling between you and the ministerial class, or to grow beyond being just another sheep?
In reality we are all brothers and sisters with the older ones helping the littler ones. None of us are consigned to forever being a little one, always being ministered to and never growing into ministry. Even the young ones help those younger. All of us are expected to be growing into more maturity than we had yesterday.
We have to get out of this we/they mentality.
Yes, some partake of specialized training that most of us never received, but that doesn’t automatically make them our spiritual superior.
The elders that Paul appointed were simply the most spiritually mature men that he recognized at the time.
Was it his intention that the division forever remain?
Did Paul “appoint” elders? Or did he recognize those who were elders?
It’s important to not focus in on the few instances to define the whole. Use the whole of scripture to define what an elder is. And let God’s definition describe our understanding of the word.
It’s important to not focus in on the few instances to define the whole. Use the whole of scripture to define what an elder is. And let God’s definition describe our understanding of the word.
Yes, it will be from among the elders that those demonstrating the qualities and character listed will be recognised. But some groups or assemblies will add a "monogamy-only" extra requirement.
Cheirotoneó: to vote by stretching out the hand, to appoint
Original Word: χειροτονέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: cheirotoneó
Phonetic Spelling: (khi-rot-on-eh'-o)
Definition: to vote by stretching out the hand, to appoint
Usage: I elect by show of hands, choose by vote, appoint.
HELPS Word-studies
5500 xeirotonéō – properly, stretch out the hands to commission (send forth).
[5500 (xeirotonéō) literally means, "'I stretch out the hand,' thus expressing agreement with a motion, then, 'I elect by show of hands' [of popular vote]), 'I elect' " (Souter); properly, 'to vote by stretching out the hand' (practised in the assembly, so Athenian, Lucian, Plutarch)" (Abbott-Smith).]
Our modern understanding of appoint is different than this word. Expressing agreement with an idea is not the same as establishing a hierarchical authority structure conveying subsequent authority to grant or deny power.
In our modern understanding (or at least mine), you cannot appoint someone unless you have the authority to grant authority, and likewise to take that appointment back from the person. This is not how scripture portrays the appointment of these elders.
The proper understanding would be simple acknowledgement of those already operating in the faithfulness by which they are now recognized.
presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Definition: elder
Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.
HELPS Word-studies
4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.
The NT specifies elders are men. (The feminine singular, presbytera, never occurs in the Bible.)
[The feminine plural, presbyteras, occurs in 1 Tim 5:2. It refers to aged women, i.e. not women with an official church office or title.]
I'm a major stickler for going to God's word to obtain the definition, and to examine myself to see if my understanding is hindered or twisted away from His definition. If it is, I immediately cut away the excess, make my definition conform to His, and go from there.
So to answer Steve's question of:
They either are or aren't old men, they either are or aren't conformed to the list of qualifications set forth. Although I doubt this constitutes authority but rather describes a man of character. And since this isn't a "position" of power, is there anything to appoint in the western meaning of appoint? No. There's only a comparison to a Godly standard and to check to see if the dude has wrinkles and isn't a stupid young buck.
I imagine it might have looked somewhat like this:
Paul: "Let's see, we have a handful of old dudes here, who all meets this short list of requirements? 5? Ok local body of believers, these guys are your old guys? Barnabas and I agree, these seem like fine old dudes, you guys should continue listening to their wisdom. Carry on." They xeirotonéō-ed (agreed with or voted alongside the church) to recognize these old dudes as being in their proper function as a presbuteros.
I can't get behind the idea that Paul showed up in all his God given glory and might and said, "Ok church, here's your new leaders, I pick Bob, Chuck, and Dave. Why? Because God gave me the almighty priestly power and authority to assign people to this power and position over you"
While I agree with your overall sentiment and the heart behind your position, I take exception to the idea that Paul had some divinely appointed power to appoint leaders.
Additionally I find no real merit to the idea that these are "positions" that are appointed with power and authority but merely functions of people gifted or otherwise naturally and inherently more disposed to operate in a certain way. Nobody appoints an old man as an old man. He simply is one. He might be recognized for his wisdom and honor, but nobody gives him some special title that conveys authority and power over any other.
I could be making a mountain of a molehill or misunderstanding the men here, if so I apologize if I'm accidentally misconstruing your position. I just don't like that word "appoint". The connotation is much more officious and power conveyance than I think scripture bears out.
Now I'm wondering if I should just delete or possibly eat crow... I've eaten it before, been a while, could always use a refresher in the taste I suppose...
Original Word: χειροτονέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: cheirotoneó
Phonetic Spelling: (khi-rot-on-eh'-o)
Definition: to vote by stretching out the hand, to appoint
Usage: I elect by show of hands, choose by vote, appoint.
HELPS Word-studies
5500 xeirotonéō – properly, stretch out the hands to commission (send forth).
[5500 (xeirotonéō) literally means, "'I stretch out the hand,' thus expressing agreement with a motion, then, 'I elect by show of hands' [of popular vote]), 'I elect' " (Souter); properly, 'to vote by stretching out the hand' (practised in the assembly, so Athenian, Lucian, Plutarch)" (Abbott-Smith).]
Our modern understanding of appoint is different than this word. Expressing agreement with an idea is not the same as establishing a hierarchical authority structure conveying subsequent authority to grant or deny power.
In our modern understanding (or at least mine), you cannot appoint someone unless you have the authority to grant authority, and likewise to take that appointment back from the person. This is not how scripture portrays the appointment of these elders.
The proper understanding would be simple acknowledgement of those already operating in the faithfulness by which they are now recognized.
presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Definition: elder
Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.
HELPS Word-studies
4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.
The NT specifies elders are men. (The feminine singular, presbytera, never occurs in the Bible.)
[The feminine plural, presbyteras, occurs in 1 Tim 5:2. It refers to aged women, i.e. not women with an official church office or title.]
I'm a major stickler for going to God's word to obtain the definition, and to examine myself to see if my understanding is hindered or twisted away from His definition. If it is, I immediately cut away the excess, make my definition conform to His, and go from there.
So to answer Steve's question of:
His age and maturity make him an elder. An officially recognized "elder" in the ecclesia would be one of those grey headed old men that the fellow believers affirm is both old and wise, as well as aligning with the list of criteria for a recognized "elder". Despite having a smidgen of grey in my beard, I do not count as an elder no matter how handsome and wise I am. I am prevented from being recognized as an elder because I'm not a wise old man yet, EVEN if I met the other criteria. You can't call a 20 year old an elder even if they meet the other criteria. To do so would be to throw out all the context and historical usage of the word "elder". Let's be careful to not get into minutia about the list of criteria and neglect to consider the base word. An elder is first and foremost an old man, grey with wisdom.
Where do you find that Paul has a delegated power? Didn't he simply agree with the believers in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch about their choices in the best old men?
They either are or aren't old men, they either are or aren't conformed to the list of qualifications set forth. Although I doubt this constitutes authority but rather describes a man of character. And since this isn't a "position" of power, is there anything to appoint in the western meaning of appoint? No. There's only a comparison to a Godly standard and to check to see if the dude has wrinkles and isn't a stupid young buck.
I imagine it might have looked somewhat like this:
Paul: "Let's see, we have a handful of old dudes here, who all meets this short list of requirements? 5? Ok local body of believers, these guys are your old guys? Barnabas and I agree, these seem like fine old dudes, you guys should continue listening to their wisdom. Carry on." They xeirotonéō-ed (agreed with or voted alongside the church) to recognize these old dudes as being in their proper function as a presbuteros.
I can't get behind the idea that Paul showed up in all his God given glory and might and said, "Ok church, here's your new leaders, I pick Bob, Chuck, and Dave. Why? Because God gave me the almighty priestly power and authority to assign people to this power and position over you"
While I agree with your overall sentiment and the heart behind your position, I take exception to the idea that Paul had some divinely appointed power to appoint leaders.
Additionally I find no real merit to the idea that these are "positions" that are appointed with power and authority but merely functions of people gifted or otherwise naturally and inherently more disposed to operate in a certain way. Nobody appoints an old man as an old man. He simply is one. He might be recognized for his wisdom and honor, but nobody gives him some special title that conveys authority and power over any other.
I could be making a mountain of a molehill or misunderstanding the men here, if so I apologize if I'm accidentally misconstruing your position. I just don't like that word "appoint". The connotation is much more officious and power conveyance than I think scripture bears out.
Now I'm wondering if I should just delete or possibly eat crow... I've eaten it before, been a while, could always use a refresher in the taste I suppose...
Then they would be guilty of adding to scripture, and if calling a polygamous man unrighteous would be guilty of being an abomination before the Lord.
What about it? An overseer is not a ruler. Not a position but a function, an action.