|
Dr. Michael Zarb, Cobble Hill, B.C.
In Judaism and Christianity we meet parallel usage, that of age and as a term denoting a place of dignity in the community. In the Old Testament the 'Elders of Israel' are men of position and influence representing the community in both religious and civil matters. In the Hasmonaean period the supreme ruling body of the Jews with its seat in Jerusalem was the 'council of elders' ('gerousia' or 'presbuteroi', cf. 1 and 2 Maccabees). Gradually a separate distinction developed between the priestly members, the scribes ('grammateis') and the lay notables ( elders, 'presbuteroi') constituting the Sanhedrin ('sunedrion, gerousia'), - this is the situation presented in the synoptic gospels. After the destruction of Jerusalem the great Sanhedrin was succeeded by the Sanhedrin of Jabneh, comprising 72 elders mirroring the council of elders appointed by Moses, now divested of all political powers. Its members were exclusively Pharisaic scribes, no longer including priestly aristocracy or lay nobility. This body became the higher school of scribal learning, the normative authority in the exposition and application of the Torah for all Judaism. The investigation of the usage of the term in the New Testament needs to be considered against this background. The Pauline Writings There is no mention of any elder in the genuine Paulines, which are the earliest documents in the New Testament. Since Paul does not mention elders but mentions other functionaries it is highly probable that during his time the Christian communities were not led by elders but by prophets, teachers etc. Paul mentions types of leadership of the Christian communities minus the elders, had Christian elders existed during his time, it is more likely that he would have mentioned them with the others. Paul’s situation was that before the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE); the institution of elders was still part of the Jewish system including priesthood and Sanhedrin. The Messianic Jews would not set up their elders in opposition to the Jewish elders because they still recognized these as their own leaders since they still considered themselves Jews, members of those communities, whether in Jerusalem, outside Jerusalem or in the Dispersion. The Jewish elders were not yet supplanted, the break had not occurred yet and there was no need for such a break. The situation changed after the fall of Jerusalem when the separation of the Messianic Jews from the non-Messianic ones began to take a more distinctive shape and it is at this time that the Messianic communities adopted the Jewish form of leadership which at the same time the non-Messianic Jews were also developing as the result of the demise of the priestly system. So Acts and the other writings mentioning Messianic elders in this period reflect their own situation in the late decades of the century or later and not the pre-70 CE situation. - Regarding the completely Gentile-Christian congregations, if there were any such at all, the creation of the elder system would also be unlikely. Why import a system from another culture, i.e. Jewish, which the Jewish Christians themselves do not adopt or use? Besides, Paul talks of the system of guidance and instruction in the Messianic congregations as one emanating from the Holy Spirit not a mirror image of the Sanhedrin or the synagogue. Paul's system: In Paul's time, according to his writings, order in the Messianic congregations was spiritual and charismatic rather than institutional and hierarchical. For Paul every Christian has the Spirit, "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." (Rom 8:9). Each individual is given a task or ministry, "... the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses." (1Cor 12:11) and " When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." (1Cor. 14:26 ; cf. 1Cor 12:7,18) This diversity is freely assigned by the Spirit and is thus fundamentally equal; superiority and subordination are incidental. Thus the enumerations of the different gifts are not strictly systematical - yet the gifts/tasks involving the ministry of the word ( envoy, prophet and teacher) are always to the fore [note also that prophecy is the gift to be aspired to by all (1Cor 14)] It is of utmost importance for Paul that these gifts/tasks require the foundation of love, otherwise they are nothing; he emphasizes this requirement in no uncertain terms in 1Cor 13:1ff. Note also that the list in Rom 12:3ff blends into the call to love (v.9) and see also13:8-10. Paul presents three lists of gifts / tasks / functions operating in
the Christian communities:
List 2 :- 1Cor. 12:28 “And God has appointed in the
community first envoys,
List 3 :- Rom. 12:4 “For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. 6 We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; 7 ministry, in ministering; the teacher, in teaching; 8 the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader (‘proistamenos’), in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness.” Regarding leadership in these listings, the terms used are 'kubernêseis' - leadership, guidance (1Cor 12:28 - only here in NT) and ‘proistamenos’ - the one in front, leader (Rom 12:8 - only here and 1 Thess 5;12). The ‘overseers’ * of Phil 1:1, not a title yet but still a general term, is deemed included in these terms of guiding and leadership, they are synonyms.The absence of ‘elders’ however, a term that in Paul’s time was extant as a title in the Jewish system, is significant. In 1 Thess 5:12 when Paul appeals to the community, “to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you (‘proistamenous’) in the Lord and admonish you”, he employs general terms, he does not mention any offices though obviously there was leadership in the community. Had there been any Christian offices or titles, such as elders, wouldn't it have been easier for Paul to mention them ? He also doesn't mention or address them by name which one would expect had there been a prominent person holding a prominent office. Leadership possibly rotated on an ad hoc basis according to abilities and needs. In the Thessalonian case the early community Paul writes to was probably a workers' association / guild that accepted Messianism as a group and therefore the leadership Paul refers to in this writing consists of the leaders of the association indicating that Paul allows his communities to develop locally without imposing on them any "ecclesiastical leadership". Paul deals with gifts not offices precisely because in the early communities there were no offices; each member had a gift/ task (1Cor 12:11) or office if one prefers this term but, as the saying goes, “ When everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody.” The time of Paul was the early formative period, a time of building. Offices were not yet established, they gradually grew out of and replaced the gifts. - One may compare the shortness of the list of gifts in Eph 4:11 (a later writing) which is perhaps an indication that the exercise of charisims in the communities was dying out. Disciplinary authority, in the Jewish system was carried out by the Sanhedrin or council of elders in the local communities not by the whole congregation; Paul however, requests the community to take disciplinary measures against offenders, a clear indication that the Messianic system in his time was not modeled on the Jewish council of elders. Furthermore, neither do we find one person in office exercising discipline over the community or individual members. This function was left to the Messianic group as a whole, for example, when Paul chides abuses in the communities he does not refer to anyone in authority to correct the abuse but addresses the whole community. Thus in the case of Corinth (1 Cor 11:17ff.) he knows no one to whom he can resort as a leader to advise regarding the correction of the abuses in the observance of the Lord's Supper; he appeals to the Messianic congregation as a whole. Again, in the case of the sexual offender in 1 Cor 5:1ff. Paul appeals to no community leader or committee of elders to hand him over to Satan but advises the assembly to convene as one body in order to remove the offender. The synagogue system, that is, that of the local Jewish congregations in the towns and villages both in Palestine and in the Dispersion had elders in charge of the affairs of the congregation with special officers appointed for particular purposes. There was no one nominated to conduct worship proper, i.e. reading of scripture, preaching and public prayer. These were performed by members of the congregation or visitors, cf. Jesus speaking in synagogues. The officers were: 1) The ‘archisynagogos’ ( Heb: ‘rosh hakneset’, president) who supervised the arrangement of divine worship and the business of the synagogue as a whole. 2) The receiver of alms ( Heb: ‘gabbay sedaqah’) who was in charge of the collections and the distribution of the help for the needy. 3) The minister (Heb. ‘hazzan hakneset’; Gk. ‘upêretês, diakonos’) - his tasks were, a) to bring out and afterwards replace the holy writings, b) to blow the trumpet to announce the beginning and end of the Sabbath, c) to teach children to read and d) to execute punishment on those condemned to be scourged. Paul mentions instances when he himself was at the receiving end of this last task of this officer (1 Cor 11:24). This is a further indication that the Christian communities of Paul’s time were not independent communities, otherwise why would Paul submit to the discipline of the ‘others’? Obviously he was a full member of the Jewish congregation and was subject to its discipline. In the Gospels all instances refer to the Jewish elders. In Acts, in chapters 2-6, the Jewish elders are referred to in their conflicts with the Envoys and then again in chapters 22-25 where Paul is in conflict with them. Messianic elders in Acts The Jerusalem community: Acts 11:30 is the first passage where Luke uses the word 'elders' with reference to leaders of the Messianic community.They are abruptly mentioned in the matter concerning the collection by the Christians of Antioch in aid of the congregation of Jerusalem. Their full role is not spelled out but in this instance it may be assumed that it involves the administration of the relief fund. However it cannot be restricted to the sole management of the 'welfare' of the community since in chapter 15 the elders have a prominent role in decision making on the same footing as the Envoys and James. Luke does not tell us when and how the 'elders' emerge alongside the Envoys. In chapter 15 the 'elders' are paired with the 'Envoys' in the discussions and decision concerning the admission of Gentiles into the Messianic communities (15:2, 4 , 6, 22, 23; 16:4). They are even included in the greetings of the letter (15:23) - Luke sees this deciding group of leaders patterned after the Sanhedrin, sort of a supreme court and normative teaching office for the whole movement which is unlikely to have been the case, given that the Sanhedrin was very alive and kicking at the time, not easily duplicated especially in terms of decisions concerning ‘halakah’ (way of life), for a group of Jews still under its aegis. Luke himself, in Acts, tells of the early Christians still participating in Jewish religious and civic life , in fact even obeying the orders of the Sanhedrin; how could they decide ‘halakah’, specifically regarding the admission of Gentiles, on their own? This would constitute a grave usurpation of the powers and authority of the Sanhedrin who were the arbiters determining who could join the Jewish community or not. It is worth noting that Paul, in Galatians 2, in his meeting with the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, if this refers to the same meeting as that in Acts 15, (the issue is problematical) does not mention any group of elders but only James, Cephas and John, “those reputed to be pillars”, - there is no council of elders setup. Luke retrojects elements of his own situation, when his Christian community was governed by elders, into the past, the time of early Christianity and Paul. In Acts 21:18 , on his last visit to Jerusalem Paul goes to James, "and all the elders were present." The 'Envoys' are not on the scene any more. The leading figure is James but he is accompanied by the elders and this group advises Paul what he should do to correct the unfavourable impression held by some unidentified people accusing him of leading Jews to apostacy. This episode is the last time the Christian community of Jerusalem or its leaders are mentioned in Acts. In 11:30 and 21:18 the elders are mentioned without the ‘apostoloi’, as compared to chapter 15, so the group of elders, representative of the community, in these two passages resembles more the Jewish synagogue council. In the Dispersion: At 14:23 Acts has Paul appointing ‘elders’ in congregations he had set up. This picture corresponds with Titus 1:5 but not with the community organization which emerges from the genuine Pauline letters, i.e. having a charismatic order rather than a hierarchical one. Again in 20:17, from Miletus, Paul calls for the ‘elders’ of Ephesus and delivers his farewell speech - indicating Luke's assumption that the Christian communities were governed by ‘elders’. Paul’s speech indicates Luke’s conception of the tasks of the elders, v.28 “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,* to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” They are to follow his example and protect the community against the danger of error which threatens from without (v.29) and from within (v.30) Luke reflects the ecclesiastical setup of his own time, assuming his situation already existed in the time of Paul. By placing them on the same footing as the Envoys and even claiming for them their appointment by Paul, Luke ratifies the institution of elders of his own time. Other Writings The Pastorals, not authored by Paul but are later writings in his name, present a different community order from that in the genuine Paulines. In the passages in which ‘presbuteros’ occurs the usage is not quite consistent; in 1 Tim 5:1 (and 2) ‘presbuteros’ is clearly a designation of age, opposed to ‘neôteros’ (young). Elsewhere it is a title for bearers of the office of leadership. The elders are a group, a college ( presbuterion 1 Tim 4:14) who take part in the appointment of Timothy by the laying on of hands. Titus (Tit1:5) is directed to appoint elders in every town. Here the qualities of such men is indicated, v.6 “someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious.” The Holy Spirit, here, does not choose the person for the function, as in Paul’s time, but Titus himself does it according to certain criteria. In 1 Tim 5:22 the appointment also depends on the human agent, so Timothy receives the caution to not appoint (lay on hands) too hastily. According to 1 Tim 5:17 those who discharge their office are to receive double honour, apparently referring to due respect and material remuneration, and enjoy special disciplinary protection (v.19 - charge against an elder on the evidence of two or three witnesses). V.17 seems to distinguish between functions, those who only preside and those who also preach and teach. In v. 20 Timothy is directed to rebuke, in the presence of the community, those elders who persist in their faults. This is another change from the Pauline system where discipline was the prerogative of the whole congregation not of one person. 1Peter ( another late pseudonymous writing). In 1 Pet 5:1ff. the author designating himself as a fellow elder (‘sunpresbuteros’), exhorts the elders of the communities to whom he writes, v.2 “ to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it-- not for sordid gain but eagerly. 3 Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away. 5 In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’" Although the shepherd/flock metaphor may convey a pastoral and spiritual duty, the warning against greed ( cf Tit 1:7; 1 Tim 3:8) and abuse of power also indicates the remuneration received by the officer and the administrative nature of the office. In v.5 there is an antithesis between ‘neôteroi’ (younger) and ‘presbuteroi’ (older/elder) but opinion is divided whether what is inculcated is respect to office or to age. In general the elders would be, if not necessarily the oldest people in the community, surely of mature age but sometimes there were relatively young elders such as the case of Timothy (1Tim 4:12). James (a late pseudonymous writing.) James mentions elders alone in 5:14. In case of sickness one is to summon “the elders of the congregation” in order that they may cure the sick by prayer and anointing “in the name of the Lord.” These are office-bearers of the congregation, - note the article - not charismatically endowed older men. The ‘charisma’ of healing in the Pauline letters is now tied to the institution; it is now reduced to prayer and symbolic anointing by the leaders of the congregation. 2 and 3 John ‘The elder’ is the self designation of the writer of these two letters, one to a community, ‘the elect lady’ and the other to an individual, Gaius. He seems to write 2 Jn from an other community which he refers to as ‘your elect sister’. He writes in the context of trouble regarding authority. His authority is not recognised by Diotrephes who puts himself first, and decides whom he accepts in the community or whom he throws out (3 Jn 9f). The latter seems to be an elder who took over the sole authority of the community upon himself thus indulging in monarchical leadership against whom the ‘elder’ has no effective recourse. The conduct of the opponent would have been quite impossible had the ‘elder’ been an ‘Envoy’ of Jesus; in such a conflict the author would certainly have appealed to his ‘apostolic’ status. Thus here again, in these late 1st or early 2nd century writings we get a different picture from that of the earlier period represented in the Paulines. Revelation In the visions of the author, 24 elders surround the throne of God in heaven along with the four beasts (Rev 4:4,10; 5:5,6,8,11,14; 7:11,13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4). These are heavenly beings as clearly shown by the throne on which they sit, the white robes and the crowns they wear (4:4; 11:16). The title ‘elders’ suggests that they are envisioned as God’s council of elders (cf. Is 24:23) whose functions are worship and praise of God. These have nothing to do with the government of the Christian congregations. The New Testament presents two different pictures of the organization of the Christian communities of the first century, a charismatic one as opposed to a hierarchical one. The earlier writings, the Paulines, written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE give us a view of communities, inspired by the Messianic ideals, pooling together their resources to build up their small groups, each member sharing his/her gifts for the buildup and the wellbeing of the community. The later writings, written, maybe all of them, after the separation of the Messianic Jews from the non-Messianic ones in the eighties and nineties show a hierarchical organization modeled on the Jewish system of elders with officers, a system that continued to develop into a completely institutionalised and monarchical government. * Note: the overseers (episkopoi) and servers (diakonoi)
in the New Testament will be discussed in a future article.
|
Elder translates
the Greek 'presbuteros', comparative of 'presbus' meaning
'old'. In ancient Greek, apart from the basic connotation of age, it carries
also the positive elements of importance, precedence and venerability,
hence its use as title to denote the president of colleges and assemblies
or the senior groups of various kinds like guilds and village government.