Elders

James Moir Porteous (1822-1891)

1. This office was instituted and perpetuated in the Old Testament Church. As soon as men fell, the Son of God began to discharge His mediatorial office, applying His redemption by ingathering and perfecting the souls of men. Not only were individuals saved, a nation and Church were established under His direction and authority. He was the supreme Ruler, and His government, civil and ecclesiastical, was carried out by means of officers called elders.

The earliest mention of the office regards it as having a civil character. When Joseph went up to Canaan to bury his father, there went up with him ‘all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt’ (Gen. 1:7). The next mention shows that the office was established amongst the Israelites. Moses was commanded by God to go and gather together the elders of Israel, and to speak to them (Exod. 3:10). These had spiritual as well as civil duties to discharge, for to them Moses committed the divine instructions for the observance of the Passover: ‘Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said, Draw out, and take you a lamb’ (Exod. 12:21). In their organisation before the Israelites left the land of Egypt, elders were appointed, and acted according to their office. That spiritual office existed prior to the appointment of civil rulers or elders. This was when Jethro paid a visit to the camp of Israel. Then ‘Aaron, and all the elders of Israel, came to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God’ (Exod. 18:12). It was on the morrow that the advice of Jethro was given and acted upon: ‘Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers, and let them judge the people.’ Let it be observed that this advice was in subordination to the divine institution of the office: ‘If thou do this thing, and God command thee so.’ That divine sanction obtained, ‘Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, and they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves’ (18:13-26). Thus, before the Israelites came to Sinai, this office of elder, both for civil and spiritual matters, was in full operation.

That office, in this double aspect, may be traced as exercised throughout all their subsequent history. At Sinai the Lord declared: ‘Ye came near to Me, even all the heads of your tribes’–the civil rulers–‘and your elders’–rulers in spiritual matters (Deut. 5:28). In the time of the Judges, the young men of Succoth described unto Gideon ‘the princes of Succoth’–the civil rulers–‘and the elders thereof’–the spiritual (Judges 8:14). During the great famine in Samaria, because of the siege of Benhadad, ‘Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him’ (2 Kings 6:33). Following the example of Moses, Jehoshaphat set judges in the land, ‘the chief of the fathers of Israel’ (2 Chro. 19:8-11). Not only for civil judgment; there was elders who were specially associated in council with the priests. These were appointed, or ‘set for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies.’ ‘Amaziah, the chief priest, was over them in all matters of the Lord’ (2 Chro. 19:8-11). There were thus two classes of elders in Israel, ‘ancients of the people, and ancients of the priests’ (Jer. 19:1).

Notwithstanding all successive changes, this office of elder, associated with the priests in ecclesiastical or spiritual matters, continued till the time of Christ. This is proof that the office was essential. He showed that He must ‘suffer many things of the elders and chief priests.’ ‘The chief priests and the elders of the people came unto Him, as He was teaching in the temple, and said, By what authority doest thou these things?’ Jesus was led away to the high priest, ‘where the scribes and the elders were assembled.’ ‘All the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel to put Him to death’ (Matt. 6:21; 21:23; 26:57; 27:1). For the ecclesiastical offence of ‘making Himself the Christ’, ‘the Son of the Blessed’, ‘equal with God’, Jesus was arrested and tried by elders, scribes, and priests. So rulers, elders, and scribes were associated in the trial of Peter and John as to their spiritual instruction of the people, and as to the power or authority by which they professed to have healed the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts 4:2-7).

2. That this office must have been perpetuated in the Christian Church, is evident from the general principles common to both dispensations. Those, for instance, applied in regard to the Sabbath or infant baptism, are equally applicable to this office.

Firstly, Whatever the Head of the Church has instituted can only be abolished by His express authority.

Secondly, Whatever the Old Testament Church possessed, essential to it as a Church, and not a Jewish peculiarity, that was continued in the Church of the New Testament.

These being only two branches of the one Church, this office of elder was instituted by His authority in the former branch. Never has it been abrogated. It was essential to the existence of that Church, continuing in it throughout its entire history. It was not a mere Jewish peculiarity, as the rites instituted in the wilderness. It must needs then be as essential in the more recent branch. Elders, doubtless, acted as magistrates in the Jewish theocracy, but others took order with the priests in the spiritual supervision of the people. Some may have acted in both capacities, but that does not invalidate the latter office, any more than the office of civil magistrate now would prevent an individual from bearing any necessary office in the church to which he is attached. This office, to which men of esteemed wisdom were called, was the only permanent and essential office in the Jewish Church. It must therefore be as essential and permanent in the other. But we are not left to reason (a priori) what ought to be; for–

3. The office of elder was retained in the Christian Church. This fact is fully manifested. Never do we read of its formal institution by the apostles. At once the elders are recognised in the churches of Judea. The first converts to Christianity were native Jews. They were accustomed to the government of the elders. They were well acquainted with the nature of the office. They required not to be instructed to retain it. The disciples at Antioch were at no loss to whom to intrust the relief they sent to the sufferers by famine in Judea. They ‘sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul’ (Acts 11:30).

The only reference to its introduction was in the churches of the Gentiles. In these the office had, of course, no previous existence. It required to be initiated; so the same hands of Barnabas and Saul were employed for this end: ‘They ordained them elders in every church’ (Acts 14:23).

These elders were associated with the apostles in the government of the New, as formerly with the priests in that of the Old Testament Church. When Barnabas and Saul returned returned as part of the deputation from Antioch, they were received, not only by the Church at Jerusalem, but by the apostles and elders. They came together to consider the matter, determined and acted for the regulation of the churches. The apostles are found exhorting the elders to act in governing, and they are ever found so acting, as the essential and permanent officers of the kingdom. Recognised by apostles as overseers of the flock of God, they were commanded to transmit their office to other faithful men. Nothing indicates its discontinuance. Everything requires and supposes that the eldership is a permanent institution.

4. Principles are laid down for its continuance. A full description regarding the office is given for the direction of the Church. (1.) Suitable men are to be selected; (2.) Special duties are to be discharged by these officers; (3.) They are to be properly received and acknowledged by the members of the Church. No such minute directions would have been given, were that office speedily to pass away.

(From: “Jesus Christ KING of the Church”)

1. In every church a plurality of elders was appointed–When Paul and Barnabas revisited and confirmed the societies of Christians they had established, and ‘when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed’ (Acts 14:23). These churches might have very few members, because of the great difficulties with which they had to contend prevailing heathenism and persecution. Yet, in the smallest church, elders–a plurality–were ordained. There were elders in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, as in Ephesus. The first place where the gospel was preached in Europe was Philippi, a noteworthy city of ancient Thrace. There the Lord opened the heart of Lydia; there the jailer and all his house, upon believing, were baptised. A church was organised which met with determined opposition. Ten or twelve years thereafter, Paul wrote, as we have seen, to the church there: ‘Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.’ The Epistle was not sent to one bishop or elder, but to a plurality, along with the other constituent parts of the Church. In Crete, too, Paul notes down that Titus was left there for the special purpose of setting ‘in order the things that are wanting, and ordaining elders’–a plurality–‘in every city.’ By apostolic appointment, no church was to be wanting in the services of several ordained elders.

2. And there was a division of labour amongst these officers.–This was to be expected from the appointment of many. Had only one bishop or elder been appointed, the entire duties had fallen to him alone. Accordingly, it is found that–

Firstly, There were pastors who both taught and ruled. ‘Know them who labour among you, and are over you in the Lord’ (1 Thess. 5:12). ‘Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God’; ‘Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account’ (Heb. 13:7, 17). Not only in the Church of Thessalonica, wherever the Hebrew Christians are organised into companies of the called, they are recognised as having pastors, who both instruct and regulate in the Lord.

Secondly, There were elders who engaged chiefly in ruling. These do not appear to have engaged in the public teaching of divine truth. In private spiritual exercises, no marked distinction was drawn. When any were sick, they were directed simply to call for the elders, who were to pray in the name of the Lord, assured that ‘the prayer of faith shall save the sick’ (Jas. 5:14, 15). That they were not all public instructors, appears from the distinctions employed to indicate their several duties. ‘Having ministry, let us wait on our ministering’; ‘He that ruleth with diligence’ (1 Cor. 12:28, 29). The special work of ruling is here carefully distinguished from that of the ministry of the Word. Express mention is also made of ‘governments’, or governors, as well as of ‘teachers’, when those officers are enumerated whom God hath set in the Church. ‘Are all apostles? are all prophets, are all teachers?’ This last question, as much as in the two preceding, indicates a special department for ‘governments’, or governors, as distinguished from ‘teachers’, in the estimation of Paul. This division of labour amongst the elders in each church is further marked in Paul’s directions to Timothy, which must be held applicable to all the churches to which he was sent. ‘Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and doctrine’ (1 Tim. 5:17). The word ‘especially’ points out that some not only ruled well, but, in addition, proclaimed the truth of God. If especial honour was to be conferred on those who performed this double duty, then there were some who had not the special labour of the Word. There were elders who confined themselves to ruling well. Doing so they were to be abundantly honoured. Those who were enabled to discharge both departments were to be specially honoured. They were entitled to this greater consideration, because of their full employment in the entire duties of the eldership. The office of bishop or elder is one; but it is for the edification of the body of Christ that the elders, according to capacity and opportunity, occupy the respective departments of that one office.

(From: “Jesus Christ KING of the Church”)

Occasion was not wanting for man’s natural love of power disclosing itself amongst the disciples of Jesus. Some desired preferment to a higher rank than the others. These last were moved with indignation. The Lord Jesus emphatically set the matter at rest. ‘Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority over them. But, it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant’ (Matt. 20:25-27). This rule of the King is for all the officers in His kingdom in every age and place. The only gradation in rank which He allows and acknowledges is zealous devotion in His service. Apostles, it is true, held an exalted position. That was a special and temporary arrangement. Their superintendence is still to be had in the principles and practices which they disclosed. After them no superiority is found amongst the ordinary ministers. The address of Paul to the Ephesian elders proves that they occupied one platform of position and power. These presbyters or elders were summoned as the representatives and rulers of the whole Ephesian Church, whatever its sub-divisions. Through them all elders were instructed, whether then living, or in aftertimes. They were overseers or inspectors who fed the flock–teachers and rulers. Bishop is the anglicised word employed for (episkopos) overseer. Those who oversaw were (presbuteroi) presbyters or elders, men of venerable parts. It was the flock of Ephesus they were to feed and oversee. Elders and flock were not subjected to one bishop. The elders were united in a common government. They were, therefore, of equal position and power. All were to feed. All were to take the oversight in view of approaching danger. The sole charge of the flock was, by the authority of God, committed to their care. Upon then unitedly was the full duty of the work of the ministry laid, under solemn responsibility.

The same equality of position and power in the elders or bishops is observable in other Churches. No higher position existed in the Philippian Church, as has been seen, than ‘bishops and deacons.’ So in all the other Churches. Therefore, let it be noted that (1.) equality in the eldership or overseers is unmistakable,–divergence was unknown; (2.) these officers were authoritatively appointed (3.) ordinarily to administer divine ordinances; and (4.) to regulate the interests of the Church, (5.) the members of the Church submitting willingly to that government. Elders or presbyters are thus the only ordinary administrators of the laws of the kingdom. They determine as to the admission of candidates for its outward privileges. They suspend, exclude, restore. They admit to or exclude from office. Every case, common or difficult, is to be adjudicated upon by them. They are to remove hindrances, devise and control helps. In a word, the government of His little flock is, by the Great Shepherd, committed to these under shepherds. Hence (1.) their rule is simply ministerial. It must be in accordance with His laws, not by arbitrary human will. And (2.) cheerful obedience is due to their authority, because the laws of Christ are merely applied to these officers. His will and authority must in them be recognised.

(From: “Jesus Christ KING of the Church”)