What is a Biblical, Model Church?

[Catholic Crusader]

.....an elite hierarchy system where one man or group is esteemed superior to the others. The "laity" is lorded over and are mere spectators....

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but if it was, don't confuse style with substance. Yes, we have developed a little pomp and circumstance over the centuries, and a bishop's miter is tall, but every priest and bishop I have met have been nothing but polite and helpful to me. Now I admit I have never met the pope, but the little white haired man seems quite gentle to me. In fact, Google this quote:

"Servant of the Servants of God"

...and see what you get.

 

[Paidion]

The role of the Pastor would be that of a shepherd watching over the flock.

Nowhere does the New Testament speak of a person in the Church known as "the Pastor", let alone what his role would be. Indeed, the word "pastors" occurs just one in the entire New Testament: Ephesians 4:11. And in that context, it seems that pastors were just one of a five-fold ministry that God gave to the Church.

One of the main factors, if not the main factor, in having church after the early church model, is to practise Body ministry. The Spirit of God speaks through the Body of Christ. Churches must provide the freedom to every member to share a prayer, a hymn, a testimony, a talk, a revelation, a prophecy --- something to contribute. This is what builds up the Body of Christ. The apostle Paul even instructed that while someone is prophesying, if something is revealed to someone sitting by, the propheysing person is to keep quiet, and let that person speak. [I Cor 14:30]. Can you imagine that ever happening in a modern church? If someone interrupted the speaker, he would probably be kicked out of the meeting!

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Nowhere does the New Testament speak of a person in the Church known as "the Pastor", let alone what his role would be....

The word "pastor" is derived from the Latin word pastor which means shepherd. So I would say you are mistaken. When Jesus told Peter "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep", that is a pastoral role.

And, Christ’s Church is hierarchical. He chose apostles, made Peter the leader, and gave them authorities that all the other disciples did not have. Later, in Acts, the hierarchy develops further. The apostles appoint Deacons (greek - diakonos ), Priests (greek - presbyteros ), and Bishops (greek - episkopos), and each have different duties.

 

[destiny]

....
I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but if it was, don't confuse style with substance. Yes, we have developed a little pomp and circumstance over the centuries, and a bishop's miter is tall, but every priest and bishop I have met have been nothing but polite and helpful to me. Now I admit I have never met the pope, but the little white haired man seems quite gentle to me. In fact, Google this quote:

"Servant of the Servants of God"

...and see what you get.

No CC, I didn't aim that at you. lol

I choose to agree with you on the issues that we agree on and not argue about the rest. :D

 

[lovely]

All references to the work of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
The Apostolic Succession and the faith being handed down is a strong undeniable those who heard it from the Apostles belief. Actually your perspective does not exist in the early Church.

I would ask why couldn't God speak to us through His Church? I would also suggest that not only is it just human nature to learn by receiving from those who came before us but by God's design. For instance each generation does not have to reinvent the wheel for themselves they recieved the wheel learned from it developed it and passed that on. In actual practice so has every Christian recieved the faith. Even the idea of an invisible church is not of your own origin but was taught long before your birth. It's natural.

The references of God telling His people to pass the faith on to their children and their children's children throughout the Torah OT are to numerous to list and was proclaimed by His decree. The feasts and explaining the meaning of each symbol of the feast to successive generations again God's idea. The notion in the Passover that when it is celebrated even by distant generations including language that somehow mystically includes them as also present in the Exodus. I think the physical solidarity we share as a people of faith through time and one day in time is beautiful and reveals a wisdom that is unspeakably awesome.

I understand what you mean by an invisible Church but I see that there is a visible Church here on earth known in some circles as the Church militant, you can rightly suspect from my posts on other threads I also see a Church being purified and a Church Triumphant those in full beatific vision of God. All one Church the Body of Christ where neither height nor depth nor... can seperate us from the love of Christ.

That being said I was more interested in how everyone here factors in the beliefs and writings of those first Christians in the forming of your own beliefs? What value does their witness have in your understanding of the Church and how much influence do you allow them toward an understanding of a biblical model of the Church?

I also don't see Apostolic succession as mans doing but God's plan and it is believe that a Spiritual Gift of God is imparted to them in the laying on of hands. I do respect you posts immensely and I have always enjoyed reading them in all the various threads I have seen them and can see from your words that you are truly after God's own heart.

Peace be with you

Hi one_lost_coin, I want to start this post off saying that I know I lack the knowledge and education that you have in many areas, and especially your gift to articulate yourself so clearly, but please bear with me anyway as you read this through. I am trying to focus more on what your post is asking, rather than what I long to say...but we may have to settle for a balance of both. :

I use early writings (which include, but are not limited to, protestant believers.) mainly to glean Spiritual Truth, and as a way to have a better understanding of the culture and practices of those people I read about in the Scriptures...If the Holy Spirit so uses them. I would say they influence my beliefs on various things a great deal, but I desire for Scripture to be the greater influence. I would also like to say that I only started this practice of reading early believer about six years ago...I am glad I did.

I agree with the principal that each generation need not re-invent the wheel. We should grow and build upon earlier teachings of believers. But, I also think that with all the information that we have been given, that we have a responsibility to grow in Christ beyond those first living stones...to come up higher spiritually so that the church can continue to completion. Those men were human and had to shed a lot of their own culture and worldly minsdset to be given over to God's Truth...they learned from the Apostles just as we do. We should 'glean' their writings for Truth, in my opinion, but not see them as infallible. Also, we should not forsake the Spirit's leading in our own lives, and the fact that we also have been given, through the Spirit, the mind of Christ...Godly wisdom. There is a down side to reading earlier writers if we do not remember our own standing in Christ, we lean on them too heavily and remain immature building carnally and not spirtually. Men can lead us astray, and reliance solely upon a model can lead us astray. Hopefully God will continue to draw us back to Him when we get off track, but sometimes that requires chastening, a breaking down, and even judgement to get us back to a frame of mind that would cause us to once again seek to glorify Him, and die to all motives that would do otherwise.

King Josiah, who found the Scriptures again after many generations, had to make many many changes in the nation because men did not heed the Word, and led the people astray. Josiah had the Godly wisdom to tear down the high places that had been allowed to be set up with each passing generation. He could have just continued on, copying his fathers, and probably would have in large degree if he had not found those Scriptures. Judges also talks about the constant judgement that had to come upon God's people because of complacency toward His Word, and the false gods that would enter in because of it. God used priests, prophets, and kings to lead His people, but in these last days, as Hebrews mentions, He has chosen Christ...who is all three and much more. God, of course, is in control. He has used this broken-ness in times past to work His plan, and to restore His children, and I have not doubt He will do that with His church as He continues to purify her and set her apart.

You believe that your church does have that Biblical model, because of Apostolic Succession. And, I am clear that you believe this is how the Holy Spirit works...and I would say that God does use models to accomplish His work...we may disagree on which is best, but both will be used in my opinion. I don't think I agree about the laying on of hands as a way to impart gifts, but I am inspired to dig deeper on the subject now that we have talked about it. I understand the Pope to be the answer for the current interpretation, and application, of Scripture, and even early church writings, for Catholic believers, but for me the Pope is not the answer...it would be Jesus Christ alone who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and is working in the church as a whole. Where is the part of the church that is not being headed up by the Pope in the scheme of things if Jesus is not the sole leader? If they are in rebellion to God's chosen leaders, then they are not the church at all and should be disregarded completely.

I can not rely upon the Pope, or even earlier church writers...even the protestant ones. I can't rely on a system that is broken and in ruins due to false teaching and division, especially protestant ones...though I long for an outward unity. Just as my husband is who I ultimately submit to, and who is the only final authority over me...the church submits herself to Jesus in the same manner. I am hidden in my husband, glorifying him, just as the church is hidden in Christ and seeking to glorify Him. We must look to Him solely for that leading...and if it means that we must re-invent the wheel a few times (Which I think we do individually no matter what model we are following), then we must. (God uses this to shed us of legalism that is founded in self, ritual, and tradition, I believe, those that are put forth in a manner that cause us to sin against God anyway) I am speaking of all denominations here.

I believe that God is working through the current state of the church, and the existing models...as many as there are...and even their splits and divisions. I believe that He uses His Spirit, His Word, Godly wisdom of other believers, and even a broken model that continues to work against outward unity. I also believe there is a bride being purified and set apart for the Groom, and that division is being used to reveal her. This unseen unified bride, that is hidden in Him, is a core remnant way under the crust below this deep, deep fracture. Her hidden beauty of unity, much like a meek and quiet spirit for a woman, far surpasses the outward one (though, in my flesh I long for something more tangible), because it is all His miraculous doing, not man's, and He will be glorified as He makes a broken vessel gloriously adorned and useful, and able to hold His fullness.

By the way, our respect is a mutual one, and I also see a heart of God in your posts. For me, it is the highest compliment, and I pay it back to you...but I know it is only because of God's grace to us. I wish we could agree, but I know we probably never will. I am sorry for such a long-winded response, but I wanted to give you what you asked for, and also a fuller response to the other parts of your post. The Lord bless you today.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

delete

 

[Blazin Bones]

The role of the Pastor would be that of a shepherd watching over the flock.

Nowhere does the New Testament speak of a person in the Church known as "the Pastor", let alone what his role would be. Indeed, the word "pastors" occurs just one in the entire New Testament: Ephesians 4:11. And in that context, it seems that pastors were just one of a five-fold ministry that God gave to the Church.

One of the main factors, if not the main factor, in having church after the early church model, is to practise Body ministry. The Spirit of God speaks through the Body of Christ. Churches must provide the freedom to every member to share a prayer, a hymn, a testimony, a talk, a revelation, a prophecy --- something to contribute. This is what builds up the Body of Christ. The apostle Paul even instructed that while someone is prophesying, if something is revealed to someone sitting by, the propheysing person is to keep quiet, and let that person speak. [I Cor 14:30]. Can you imagine that ever happening in a modern church? If someone interrupted the speaker, he would probably be kicked out of the meeting!

I agree that each member of the church should have the freedom to worship God as they are led, but remember that in 1 Corinthians Paul also states that there is to be order in Worship. The best way to maintain order in worship is for there to be a person who is intune with God's leading and will direct worship the way it is to be lead.

I know one pastor who regularly has two and three hour worship services because the church is free to openly discuss and worship God as they feel the spirit leading, however there needs to be one who is responsible for making sure some the time of worship does not become a time of false emotions and ego stroking because a person can seem right with God.

 

[stovebolts]

I disagree. The Bible makes it clear that there is to be a central leader in some manner. It may not be a pastor as we see it today, but there is to be a man accountable for the directions of the church. This man should be supported by the elders and deacons and should not try to act completely appart from them.

Hi Tim,

Can you elaborate on this a bit for me? Where do you find this in scripture or did I miss something?

The way I see it, the Church is a monarchy and our "Central Leader" is Christ.
Colossians 1:17-18 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him. He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.

Aside from that, I see from a first century perspective that each church was autonomous and each church was to appoint Elders (Plural) to oversee the congregation. Titus 1:5b and to appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

These Elders were appointed tasks within the church which we don't need to go into, but the point is, the Elders (again, plural) shared the responsibilities.

True, Titus was passed on this authority from an Apostle, but the Apostles were 12 in number and each of them shared in the task of spreading the good news. Peter was the to preach to the Jews, and Paul to the gentiles. Neither of them where the head of the monarchy and each of them were accountable not only to one another, but ultimately to Christ.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well, who appointed the elders? Paul was off working in other churches while Titus led the church by appointing elders. He was the guy responsible for the appointing of elders, and therefore led as a central leader representing between the church and Paul.

The idea of a pastor/central leader comes from the fact that Paul not once but twice addressed singular people in how to care for the church and it's leadership, Titus and Timothy. These men were accountable to Paul, and Paul would then relay between the churches and the council in Jerusalem.

Is it possible that Timothy and Titus were just the elders Paul knew, I suppose so, but that's not what Church tradition indicates. I will be genuine enough to say that this was taught in class, so I do not have a source to confirm this, but if you would like one, I will be glad to ask about this with my professor.

Even if these men did not serve as Pastor's do today, it does not change the fact that Paul went to them, and likewise they instructed the church. Therefore it would seem correct that at least on the individual gatherings scale, a central leader is biblical.

 

[one_lost_coin]

I disagree. The Bible makes it clear that there is to be a central leader in some manner. It may not be a pastor as we see it today, but there is to be a man accountable for the directions of the church. This man should be supported by the elders and deacons and should not try to act completely appart from them.

Hi Tim,

Can you elaborate on this a bit for me? Where do you find this in scripture or did I miss something?

The way I see it, the Church is a monarchy and our "Central Leader" is Christ.
Colossians 1:17-18 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him. He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.

Aside from that, I see from a first century perspective that each church was autonomous and each church was to appoint Elders (Plural) to oversee the congregation. Titus 1:5b and to appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

These Elders were appointed tasks within the church which we don't need to go into, but the point is, the Elders (again, plural) shared the responsibilities.

True, Titus was passed on this authority from an Apostle, but the Apostles were 12 in number and each of them shared in the task of spreading the good news. Peter was the to preach to the Jews, and Paul to the gentiles. Neither of them where the head of the monarchy and each of them were accountable not only to one another, but ultimately to Christ.

True Jesus is King and it is a monarchy Jesus does give His Church a Steward and gives the Steward the keys. Isaiah 22 is a good model for this to affirm Jesus statements in Matthew 16.

I think Blazin Bones makes some good quotes and points about the biblical evidence for establishment of central Church leadership. Witnessed to by the first century church and the incredible exchange of info they had with each other. They knew who was teaching what, whether or not it was accurate teaching, where they were teaching it and that they should be kept out when arriving at anothers church. Evindenced in 1,2 and 3 John as well as Jude and others. There seemed to be some real solidarity amongst them.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Let's be honest. I don't have any direct quotes, but there is logic in my arguments and they do seem to stand well when seen in light of a basic knowledge of the Scripture.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Let's be honest. I don't have any direct quotes, but there is logic in my arguments and they do seem to stand well when seen in light of a basic knowledge of the Scripture.

Well you used of the word elders they were all quotes of verses with the word elders in it. Just plug it into the word search at biblegateway and voila scripture quotes. Did you know people used to have to find the quotes by searching through a book and finding it. how primative.

How did they ever survive without computers

by the way the yankees icon is looking a little dusty. What kind of world do we live in when steinbrenner can no longer afford to buy anymore world series? ;-)

signed a pirates fan.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for your reply Timothy. I think I see what you’re getting at.
I haven’t really done any studies on Titus himself, but I know that Timothy and Paul were very close which is indicated in both of Paul’s writings to Timothy.

While I think I understand the logic in defense of a hierarchy and even agree to a large point, it seems that it only draws one leg of the picture. Take for example, Paul (who you’ve already given as an example), who was chosen by Christ as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul appointed Elders to the Gentile churches and then authorized them to appoint elders based on biblical principles. (2 timothy 3:16) But what about the rest of the Apostles and the church’s they founded? We all know about Peter and the claims of the RCC, but how many of us know about St. Mark and the Coptic church he ministered to? By what authority where these churches ordained and who was the leader in each hierarchy?

I think what I’m getting at here Timothy and the way I see it (which I'm open to learn more about), is that the Apostles themselves were bound to Scripture just as Christ was bound to Scripture. The Apostles worked together, and were accountable among each other as shown when Paul admonishes Peter by upholding Scripture. This, I believe is a pattern that works its way outward where local congregations are ran by elders, not an elder but as an eldership as a whole where the burdens and the authority is shared equally amongst them. Each church is held accountable not only by its own elders, but by the churches throughout. We can see this pattern not only within the book of Acts, but also in history when the churches came together in councils to hammer out their disagreements of scriptural interpretation. What is also shown through the biblical history of Israel, as well as what has happened with the New Testament church, is what happens when an organization claims utter authority within the hierarchy. It divides

 

[one_lost_coin]

Thanks for your reply Timothy. I think I see what you’re getting at.
I haven’t really done any studies on Titus himself, but I know that Timothy and Paul were very close which is indicated in both of Paul’s writings to Timothy.

While I think I understand the logic in defense of a hierarchy and even agree to a large point, it seems that it only draws one leg of the picture. Take for example, Paul (who you’ve already given as an example), who was chosen by Christ as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul appointed Elders to the Gentile churches and then authorized them to appoint elders based on biblical principles. (2 timothy 3:16) But what about the rest of the Apostles and the church’s they founded? We all know about Peter and the claims of the RCC, but how many of us know about St. Mark and the Coptic church he ministered to? By what authority where these churches ordained and who was the leader in each hierarchy?

I think what I’m getting at here Timothy and the way I see it (which I'm open to learn more about), is that the Apostles themselves were bound to Scripture just as Christ was bound to Scripture. The Apostles worked together, and were accountable among each other as shown when Paul admonishes Peter by upholding Scripture. This, I believe is a pattern that works its way outward where local congregations are ran by elders, not an elder but as an eldership as a whole where the burdens and the authority is shared equally amongst them. Each church is held accountable not only by its own elders, but by the churches throughout. We can see this pattern not only within the book of Acts, but also in history when the churches came together in councils to hammer out their disagreements of scriptural interpretation. What is also shown through the biblical history of Israel, as well as what has happened with the New Testament church, is what happens when an organization claims utter authority within the hierarchy. It divides

A problem I see with some of that is the scripture recorded what had happened but the happening came first the bishops where in place before the letters were written about bishops. Council at Jerusalem occurred and was authoritative upon all before the decision was recorded in Acts not to mention it changed what gentiles had to do which they had no scripture to guide them through at the time, only the Holy Spirit. The Apostles had authority given them by Jesus (you are already aware of John 20 and the various other verses that support the Great Commission even the verse that is known as the Great Commission) and they acted with this authority and were listened to because of it.

I think Blazin Bones perspective holds up remarkably well.

 

[stovebolts]

I'm certainly not arguing against Tim's Perspective. I'm simply exploring it and trying to understand things a bit clearer is all.

A problem I see with some of that is the scripture recorded what had happened but the happening came first the bishops where in place before the letters were written about bishops.

Of course something has to occur before it's recorded as either authoritative or historical :wink: I'm not seeing the significance. Can you help me see something here that I may not be seeing?

The Apostles had authority given them by Jesus (you are already aware of John 20 and the various other verses that support the Great Commission even the verse that is known as the Great Commission) and they acted with this authority and were listened to because of it.

I agree, it was "The Apostles", not "The Apostle". An Apostle, in agreement with the Apostles who are in agreement with Scripture and under the sole authority of Christ appointed Elders, not an Elder. The way I'm putting it together, is that those Elders in turn were given the authority by the Apostles, to appoint Elders. (Am I misunderstood here?) Thus, the authority of the Apostles were handed down to Elders, who in turn handed that authority down to Elders similar to how Jesus handed a portion of his Authority to the Apostles. Accountability always marches toward scripture and Christ as the final authority. To that I'm sure we all agree.

But more to the point of a model Church. Would it be safe to say that a model church is ran by a group of Elders working together while sharing the burden and authority of the local church?

Is it safe to say that the local church, should be able to authoritatively and autonomously make decisions for their congregation and the community (With the Bible as it's rule and the Holy Spirit as it's guide) it serves without having to gain approval from a single individual or an institution hundreds, or even thousands of miles away?

 

[one_lost_coin]

I'm certainly not arguing against Tim's Perspective. I'm simply exploring it and trying to understand things a bit clearer is all.

Of course something has to occur before it's recorded as either authoritative or historical :wink: I'm not seeing the significance. Can you help me see something here that I may not be seeing?

I agree, it was "The Apostles", not "The Apostle". An Apostle, in agreement with the Apostles who are in agreement with Scripture and under the sole authority of Christ appointed Elders, not an Elder. The way I'm putting it together, is that those Elders in turn were given the authority by the Apostles, to appoint Elders. (Am I misunderstood here?) Thus, the authority of the Apostles were handed down to Elders, who in turn handed that authority down to Elders similar to how Jesus handed a portion of his Authority to the Apostles. Accountability always marches toward scripture and Christ as the final authority. To that I'm sure we all agree.

But more to the point of a model Church. Would it be safe to say that a model church is ran by a group of Elders working together while sharing the burden and authority of the local church?

Is it safe to say that the local church, should be able to authoritatively and autonomously make decisions for their congregation and the community (With the Bible as it's rule and the Holy Spirit as it's guide) it serves without having to gain approval from a single individual or an institution hundreds, or even thousands of miles away?

The point of the pointing out the obvious was to highlight their authority and maybe stem off a possibility of someone reading along as interpreting it as they were following a guidebook that was given to them rather than being a Church properly instituted with authority by our Lord that the Scriptures came out of. More than likely unneeded to be mentioned.

I think we are close but I would add that in the early Church there would have been an understanding that Bishops of Church's although in charge of their Church still were to maintain and hold to Church teaching. Maintaining a true visible and spiritual unity in Solidarity with the community they were appointed and with each other. As Paul and others attest to working tirelessly toward and which has already been pointed out above.

A more formal heirachy tending towards unity can be understood in seeing the terms episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon). An overseer/bishop would have a main church as we can imagine in the big city and as the good news spread outward would depend on elders/priests to take the eucharist out to the country as needed. as these remote communities got more people converted they would be a community large enough to have there own elder/preists more established by the overseers/bishops the bishops would travel to these communities to preside over baptisms etc... these overseers/bishops also met in Church councils when needed to settle questions that naturally arise to seeking God's will to teach the truth discern the faith and maintain unity in this faith. These councils were binding and produced the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the Creed.

The independance of overseers/bishops can be seen in the dissenters of these councils such as nestorius who rejected the decrees. As an aside in the record of the "Travels of Marco Polo" as he went further east he ran into many of these types of quasichristian communities such as the nestorians and manachieans and some others I don't remember that had to get far enough away to not be persecuted for there failure to get on board but they were still around. It was one of the many things I found fascinating in that book.

I believe I got all that right in such a short paragragh. The class I learned it in was taught on a day I was tired and I zoned out a few times. It figures I would one day need to know it better.

 

[stovebolts]

That was pretty good One_Lost_Coin. Thanks for sharing.

I do have one question though, are you saying that you see a difference between the role of a bishop and the role of an elder? I was taught that they were the same role and the words were used interchangeably.

Look at these verses and tell me how you read it.

Snipits from Titus 1

An elder ( presbuteros ) must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer ( episkopos ) must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain...

 

[Blazin Bones]

I would contend that these roles are not the same. As we know, when the words are translated into english we get two different terms. Some would suggest that they would be the same, but Church history would indicate otherwise. The idea of elders was borrowed from the Jewish heirarchy, in that these people were responsible for teaching others the proper way to live in the faith.

The reason that a distinction in the two roles should be made is because of one other possible translation for epikipos - a guardian. In light of this, it is logical to equate the role of overseer with the responsibility of making sure the teaching of the faith is done right. This is why the character must be blameless, because God's word at the time of the apostles was being skewed in so many ways, there was a need for trustworthy individuals who could put a foot down and proclaim the truth of God. This is probably where the Catholic church eventually turned to only letting bishops and clergy study God's word. In their eyes it made protecting against perversions of the Scripture a bit easier.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for your understanding Tim. Do you then see the verses that I posted from Titus 1 as speaking to two different individuals? The way I read it, is that an Elder also takes on the role of Bishop. In essence, Paul is speaking about one person serving two roles.

Historically I do know that these roles were divided within the hierarchy, and to that I really need to ask the question.

In your post you stated,

This is probably where the Catholic church eventually turned to only letting bishops and clergy study God's word. In their eyes it made protecting against perversions of the Scripture a bit easier.

According to Jewish tradition, a child would start to study the written Torah at age 5 or 6. By the time the child was around 10, he would have the entire Torah memorized verbatim. If the child was talented, he then went on to memorize the entire Tanak as well as learning the Oral traditions of study and the art of askign questions. The best of the best from there would seek out a Rabbi and learn his yoke. If a child was not good enough to make a Rabbi’s yoke, the Rabbi would send him home to learn the family business. (Think about this and how Jesus picked his disciples, weren’t some of them learning their fathers business?)

I didn’t spend a lot of time searching the web for an appropriate article, but through skimming, I think this one’s got a pretty good overview.
http://www.cometozion.org/Torah%20Scholar.htm

Take a quick look at Psalm 119 keeping the article in mind.
(NIV)
9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By living according to your word.
10 I seek you with all my heart;
do not let me stray from your commands.
11 I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.
12 Praise be to you, O LORD;
teach me your decrees.
13 With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.
14 I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.
15 I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
16 I delight in your decrees;
I will not neglect your word.

Keeping Jewish oral and written tradition in mind, I don’t think the early church did anyone any favors by secluding the scriptures to the clergy, even if their motives were good.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Neither do I Jeff. I was simply pointing out that this may be where the early RCC got the idea.

It's a matter of interpretation to decide whether or not the role of elder and overseer/bishop/now Pastor are the same. I will make this distinction though, Church history never equates a known Pastor as an elder. Titus never recieved the title, nor does Timothy. John claims the title elder for himself in his epistles, but this is probably to distinguish himself from a younger John Mark. It doesn't take much of a logical leap to say that since the prominent church leaders are never described as elders, that the role is separate from that of the overseer.