Elders, Teachers, Chairs, and Thrones: “what they knew, and when they knew it” (Part 4): more background information

I’m continuing to look at the New Testament linkages in with such things as synagogue worship, elders, teaching, “tradition”, and how all of these elements created not only the backdrop, but the raw materials for how the early church developed during probably in its first couple of centuries.

The Pharisees banded themselves together in local fellowships or brotherhoods. Josephus estimates their numbers at about 6,000. Many no doubt followed their direction who did not belong to any Pharisaic fellowship. Moreover, many, if not most, of the scribes, the professional students and teachers of the scriptures, belonged to one or another of the Pharisaic schools and popularized their interpretations. But not all the scribes were “scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark 2:16; cf. Acts 23:9); there were others who expounded the law in accordance with Sadducean tenets, ignoring the “tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:3-5).

The “tradition of the elders” was largely designed to mitigate the rigours which a literal application of the written law would impose on people living under conditions widely different from those which obtained when the law was first promulgated. For example, the law of Exodus 16:29, “let no man go out of his place on the seventh day”, would, if literally interpreted, have prevented almost any movement outside one’s home on the Sabbath, had “his place” not been interpreted in the light of Num. 35:5 to include a distance of 2.000 cubits from one’s home, or whatever place a man might decide to nominate as his home for this purpose—the “limit of the Sabbath” or a “Sabbath day’s journey” (cf. Acts 1:12).

Sometimes, indeed, the interpretation was stretched so far as in practice to nullify the original wording of the commandment, or neutralize the force of a more fundamental commandment. This criticism was leveled by Jesus against a scribal interpretation which in effect enabled a man to evade giving material help to his parents by representing that the money which he might have used for that purpose was already devoted to God (corban). Such an interpretation, said Jesus, overrode the spirit of the Fifth Commandment, which enjoined reverence to parents (Mark 7:9-13). This interpretation of the law concerning vows (Deut. 23:21) was a specific application of the general principle that money vowed to sacral purposes must not be diverted to other uses. However, before the end of the first century A.D. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus expressed the judgement that when a vow adversely affected relations between parents and children the door was open for its annulment, and he secured the assent of his colleagues (Mishnah, Nedarim 9:1). …

Of the two dominant schools in New Testament times, the school of Shammai was credited with a stricter interpretation of the law and the school of Hillel with a milder. It is probable that the lawyers in the Gospel record, who “load men with burdens hard to bear” but do not themselves lift a finger to ease their weight (Luke 11:46), are Shammaites. But in the reconstruction of national life that followed the war of A.D. 66-73 it was the school of Hillel, under Yohanan ben Zakkai and his associates, that became dominant. The extreme Shammaite position which insisted on the fulfillment of every jot and tittle and is reflected in James 2:10 (“whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it”) is a far cry from the teaching of Rabbi Aquiba (c. A.D. 100) that “the world is judged in mercy, and all is according to the amount of the work”—that is, according to the preponderance of good or bad in human acts. This must be borne in mind when the contrast is marked between the picture of the Pharisees given in the Gospels and that found in the later rabbinical records. (F.F. Bruce, “New Testament History” (New York: Doubleday, © 1969, pg. 78-80).

“Elders in Every City” (Acts 14:23)
Roger Beckwith, in this work, focuses exclusively on [from the back cover] “the emergence and function of the ordained ministry against the background of First Century Judaism, and draws out important lessons for today’s church.” The work follows through with “chapters on the original Presbyter-Bishop, the development from Jewish Presbyter to Christian Presbyter-Bishop, the emergence of the episcopacy, the ordained ministry, and the sacraments.”

It used to be thought that the synagogue was wholly controlled by Pharisaic scribes, but it is now realized that it originally had much independence. The synagogue belonged to the townsfolk themselves (Mishnah, Nedarim 5:5; Tosephta Baba Metzia 11:23), and before the destruction of the Temple in AD70 the Pharisees were simply the most influential school of religious thought among the Jews, not the only one, and the other schools of thought also had their scribes or elders (Acts 4:5; 23:6-9). Synagogue practices, decorations and targums could diverge widely from rabbinical norms, and when, after AD 70, the beth ha-midrash, in which the rabbis expounded, became a separate place from the synagogue, a certain coolness could grow up between them. It would be a mistake, however, to draw extreme conclusions from these facts. The Pharisaic elders needed the synagogue, and the synagogue needed the Pharisaic elders, and the relationship between them was bound, on the whole, to be close.

As a result of these developments, “elder” becomes a word with various nuances, between which it easily moves. Basically (i) it still means an old(er) man; but it can also (ii) mean a man selected from the other elders (or even from outside their number) as a ruler or judge, because of his character and abilities; and thirdly (iii) it can mean a man specially qualified to be a judge, and also a teacher, because of his special study of the Mosaic Law. Each possesses seniority, and therefore honour, but for different reasons. Nor do these exhaust the meanings of the word. Other extensions of the first meaning are (iv) an older believer, especially one who could remember the great events of the Exodus (Josh. 24:31; Judges 2:7; Mishnah, Aboth 1:1) and (v) a man of old time (Heb 11:2; cp Matt 15:2”the tradition of the elders”, though here there is also a hint of the third meaning; and perhaps Rev 4:4 etc.).

At Jerusalem, the ancient link between elders and priests continued (Lam 1:19; 4:16; 1 Macc. 7:33; 11:23) and it is prominent in the New Testament (Matt 21:23; 26;3; 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20; 28:11f; Acts 4:23; 23:14; 25:15). Out of the link has now grown the Sanhedrin, which is the ruling council of the nation and its supreme court of justice, presided over by the high priest. Elders and chief priests are included among its seventy-one members (Matt 27:1; Mk 8:31; 14:53; 15:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 22:5), along with “scribes” and “rulers”, and these are terms which, as we have seen, probably have very similar meanings to the other two.

In rabbinical literature, the primary duty of the third class of elder (the teaching elder) is still to be a judge, and this is doubtless why we read in the New Testament of excommunications form the synagogue (Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2), and of punishments being inflicted in the synagogue (Matt 23:34; Mk 13:9; Acts 22:19; 26:11). The normal number of judges for a case, according to the Mishnah, was three, with greater numbers for more serious offences or more eminent offenders (Sanhedrin 1), and these judges were doubtless sleected from among the local community rulers and teaching elders. A baraita, or ancient quotation, of Mishnaic date, in the Talmud states that, while the Temple still stood, documents were sent from the Sanhedrin appointing men of wisdom and humility, who were esteemed by their fellow men, as local judges (Bab. Sanhedrin 88b). This looks like the confirmation of a local choice. The baraita also states that, from the local courts, judges were promoted to the higher courts.

In addition to the rulers of the local community, the archons, the synagogue had its own synagogue-ruler, the archisunagogos, or archon tes sunagogues, or sometimes more than one, responsible for keeping order in the synagogue (Luke 13:1;4) and for acting as a sort of master of ceremonies, by choosing who should preach (Acts 13:15), read the lessons or lead the prayers at a particular service. Since the form of the synagogue service depended simply on tradition, and not, like the Temple service, on Scripture, it was desirable to have someone responsible for seeing that it adhered to the accepted pattern, and the synagogue-ruler fulfilled this role. It is important to realize that he was not normally a teaching elder.

He might be a founder or benefactor of the synagogue, and he would certainly be its general administrator, if it was used for other purposes than worship, as it often was. But worship remained its main purpose, as is shown by its alternative name proseuche, place of prayer (favoured by Josephus and Philo), by its occasional name sabbateion, building for use on the Sabbath, and by the explicit statement in the Theodotus inscription that he “built the synagogue for the reading of the Law and for the teaching of the Commandments”. This being so, the main responsibilities of the synagogue-ruler would be his liturgical responsibilities, as the organizer of worship. The synagogue service was very much a lay activity. Any adult male Jew, who was capable of it, might be called up on to read the Hebrew Scriptures, supply the Aramaic translation or recite the standard prayers, though a teaching elder, if present, would normally be called upon to expound what had been read. The synagogue-ruler would, in each case, decide whom to ask.

(Roger Beckwith, “Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry” Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press ©2003, pgs 32-35.

I’m continuing to provide large sections of these two works (Bruce and Beckwith); Reformed readers will find the similarities to some modern terminology to be striking (and I’m sure that the terminology is not accidental). All of this is helpful historical information in dealing with Roman Catholic arguments such as those provided by the folks at Called to Communion. I believe this information undermines the notion that there was anything at all like an “ordained priesthood” from New Testament times; such things were later developments, and thus have no “binding force” in the way that Roman Catholics claim that they do. And as such, the Reformers were warranted and justified in rejecting the “authority” of the church at the time.

Elders, Teachers, Chairs, and Thrones: “what they knew, and when they knew it” (Part 3)

This post is going to simply provide some more background information to help to flesh out the topic at hand. Continuing with Roger Beckwith, “Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry” (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press ©2003):

There have, of course, been other studies of the origin of the episcopacy since Lightfoot and Kirk, but they all build upon the same scanty New Testament and patristic evidence, and therefore reach equally disputable conclusions. It does not seem to the present writer that any improvement in the situation can be expected until the available evidence is increased, by taking account of the Jewish evidence as well. This is in fact more ample than is usually supposed. Both Lightfoot and Kirk [who have differing opinions of the development of the episcopacy], and most other writers also, recognize that Christian presbyters or elders were modeled on the elders of the synagogue. But, having recognized this fact, they fail to build upon it to any effect, and what they do say cannot be relied upon. We will now attempt to make a start in remedying this defect (pgs 26-27).

The Jewish Presbyter or Elder
The term “elder”, both in Hebrew and Greek, has the basic sense of “old(er) man”, in which sense the Hebrew zaken is used in Genesis 25:8; 1 Kings 12:8; Psalm 148:12; Proverbs 17:16; Jeremiah 31:12, etc., and the Greek presbuteros [“presbyter”] in Acts 2:17; 1 Timothy 5:1. This suggests that originally elders were men of advancing years; and that the same still tended to be the case in New Testament times is shown by the Mishnah, which says that “at sixty, one is fit to be an elder” (aboth 5:21), and by 1 Peter 5:1-5, which says, “the elders therefore among you I exhort … Tend the flock of God, exercising oversight … Likewise, ye younger, be subject to the elder”.

Throughout the Bible, seniority entitles peole to respect (Lev 19:32; 1 Tim 5:1; 1 Pet 5:5)) and age is thought of as bringing experience and therefore wisdom (1 Kings 12:6-15; Prov 4:1; 5:1). Consequently, the leading men of Israel, right through its Old Testament history, are the elders of the nation (Ex. 3:16, 18; Lev 4:15; Jdg. 21:16; 1 Sam 4:3; 2 Sam 3:17; 1 Kings 8:1, 3; 2 Kings 23:1; 1 Chron 11:3; Ezra 5:5 9; Jer 26:17; Ezk 8:1 etc). Along with the priests, they are entrusted with the written Law, and charged to read it to the peole (Deut 31:9-13). When the people settle in the promised land, and are dispersed throughout its cities, the elders of the cities act as judges there (Deut 19:12; 21:19f; 22:15-18; Josh 20:4; Ruth 4:2, 4, 9, 11; 1 Kings 21:8, 11; 2 Kings 10:1, 5), thus continuing the practice of having lay judges for lesser questions, which began in the wilderness (Ex. 18:13-26; Deut 1:9-18). The appeal judges a Jerusalem, however, are partly lay, partly priestly (Deut. 17:8-13; 2 Chron 19:8-11). [Footnote: for the Old Testament period, the Old Testament itself is our only authority. This is borne out by Hanoch Reviv’s rather opaque sociological account, The Elders in Ancient Israel: a Study of a Biblical Institution (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1989). Neighbouring nations also had elders, as the Old Testament itself witnesses (Gen 50:7; Num 22:4, 7).]

The lay judges in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1 are selected for their wisdom, piety and integrity. Similarly, the choice made among the elders in Numbers 11:16-30, so that seventy of them may share the burden of ruling with Moses, probably reflects a recognition that age does not bring wisdom invariably. Indeed, a wise youth is better than a foolish old king (Eccles 4:13). And one who studies and obeys God’s Law has more understanding than the aged (Ps 119:100). This recognition continues in the intertestamental literature. Wisdom befits the aged, and elders ought to be wise (Ecclus. 6:34; 8:8f; 15:3f), but even the young are honoured if wise (Wisdom 4:8fl, 13; 8:10) and are treated as elders (Susanna 45, 50). Judges are men specially selected from among the elders (Susanna 5f; 41), and so too are rulers in 1 Maccabees 12:35, the elders of the people who consult together with Jonathan Maccabeaus are clearly a chosen ruling council of the nation. This council comes to be called the gerousia, eldership (Judith 4:8; 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; Acts 5:21; also Antiochus III in Josephus, Antiquities12:3:3 or 12:138). In Judith 6:14-16; 8:10f; 10:6, the three named rulers of the city are themselves elders, but on occasion they call together the whole body of the elders. In the view of Josephus, a city should have seven rulers or judges, assisted by two officers from the tribe of Levi (Antiquities 4:7:14, 38, or 4:214, 287; War 2:20:5, or 2:570f), the latter perhaps to provide that expert knowledge of the Law of Moses which the Old Testament expects the priests and Levites to possess.

The choosing of rulers and judges from among the elders, according to their wisdom and probity, and the treating of even the young as elders if they possessed the same qualities, led in the intertestamental period to a situation where eldership was a seniority acquired as much in other ways as it was by years. Thus, the elders said to have been chosen from each tribe to translate the Pentateuch into Greek are marked not so much by age (Letter of Aristeas 122, 318) as by virtuous life and by knowledge and understanding of the Law of Moses (32, 121f, 321). They now include both laymen and priest (184, 310), but now with a large lay majority – a fact which calls for a word of explanation.

After the return from the exile, the work of Ezra the Scribe had placed the Pentateuch at the centre of national life, with much less of the previous distractions of syncretism. The study of the Pentateuch became the primary qualification of the new succession of “scribes” (or Scripture-scholars) which Ezra inaugurated. Ezra was himself a priest, which was appropriate, because the priests and Levites had a special duty to teach the Law of Moses (Lev 10:10f; Deut 33:10; Mal 2:6f, etc.), as well as to judge cases by it. However, for reasons of which we cannot be sure, but probably because the priests and Levites chose to concentrate on their ceremonial duties, in the following centuries the study and teaching of Scripture was taken over almost entirely by laymen, who came to be known as elders. In the early second century BC, Ben Sira speaks of wise “scribes” (Ecclus. 38:24 – 39:11), wise “elders” (Ecclus. 6:34; 8:8f; 25:3-6) and “wise men (Ecclus 3:29; 18:27-9; 27:11f; 37:22-6) without any apparent distinction.

In the Alexandria of the first century AD we still find priest as well as elders teaching on occasion, by expounding the Scriptures to the people in the synagogue on the Sabbath (Philo, Hypothetica 7:13), but in Palestine the task of teaching seems to have passed over entirely to the elders, who are called by this name in Luk3 7:3, in a Jerusalem synagogue inscription of the period (the famous Theodotus inscription), and regularly in the rabbinical literature, but in the New Testament are usually called “scribes”, “teachers of the Law” or “lawyers”. They are addressed by the title “rabbi”. The fact that the people were used to being taught by the scribes or elders is reflected in Matthew 7:29, where we are told that Jesus taught the people as one having authority, and “not as their scribes”. Though their work is voluntary, they have achieved a recognized position in society almost equal to that of the priesthood.

The elders teach on occasion in the Temple (Luke 2:4-6) but have their great centre of influence in the local synagogues (Matt 23:6; Mk 1:21f; Luke 5:17; 6:6f; 7:3-5; Jn 12:42), where they could reach people much more readily. By the first century, as literary and archaeological evidence shows, there were synagogues virtually everywhere in the Roman world where any substantial number of Jews were living, and services were held there every Sabbath day (cp. Acts 13:14-44; 15:21). The fact that few synagogues dating from the first century have been excavated perhaps means that (like the oldest Christian churches) they tended at first to be built of less durable materials than stone. Nevertheless, putting archaeological and literary evidence together, in almost a score of places in Judaea synagogues dating from the first century have been identified, and in the Dispersion many more, dating from even earlier times (Beckwith, pgs 28-32).

Just as a side note, I think that the Bible reference tagging functionality that James has incorporated in this site is working fabulously well, especially for a posting with a lot of Scripture references, such as this one. Simply hovering over the highlighted verse will bring up the citation.