The Office of Ruling Elder

[ChristopherPaul]

What are the distinctions between this office and that of Teaching Elder?

Are the qualifications the same for both?

Does the Pastoral quiz apply to Ruling Elders? If not, how do we test their understanding of scripture and doctrine?

 

[MW]

A ruling elder is (or should be) restricted to ruling. The fact that he is a ruling elder should imply nothing concerning his ability to teach publicly, seeing that he has not undertaken any course or examination in this regard. This is indicated in the shape of your question, which distinguishes ruling and teaching elders as two offices. To make them one office with two functions would require the Presbyterian system to be overhauled.

 

[BuddyOfDavidClarkson]

I'm curious what the biblical justification is for subdividing the office of Elder into a ruling and a teaching office?

Originally posted by armourbearer
A ruling elder is (or should be) restricted to ruling. The fact that he is a ruling elder should imply nothing concerning his ability to teach publicly, seeing that he has not undertaken any course or examination in this regard. This is indicated in the shape of your question, which distinguishes ruling and teaching elders as two offices. To make them one office with two functions would require the Presbyterian system to be overhauled.

 

[MW]

OT church: rulers distinguished from priests.

NT church: ruling gift distinguished from teaching gift, Rom. 12:6-8; teachers distinguished from governments, 1 Cor. 12:28; elders are described as ruling, and some additionally labouring in word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5:17.

 

[BuddyOfDavidClarkson]

Originally posted by armourbearer
OT church: rulers distinguished from priests.

This is tough ground to make a case from. The High Priest also had a had more elaborate outfit, should we then make one Elder wear a more expensive suit?

Originally posted by armourbearerNT church: ruling gift distinguished from teaching gift, Rom. 12:6-8;

Paul's point in this text is for Christians to exercise whatever gifts there are given. To carry your point even further, one would have to make the claim that it's not possible for anyone to have any combination of the gifts listed in that text.

Originally posted by armourbearerteachers distinguished from governments, 1 Cor. 12:28;

The intent of this passage is to show the priority of the offices.

Originally posted by armourbearerelders are described as ruling, and some additionally labouring in word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5:17.

The passage you quote here should certainly be used to indicate that the ruling/teaching are inseperably part of the office of Elder. Notice what the
text says:

1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

In other words, Paul is saying that all Elders rule and preach/teach, but the church should be careful to give them double honor if they rule well and expecially if they word hard at preaching/teaching.


Also, consider the qualifications for the office of Elder:

I Tim 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?);

Notice in verse 2 that Paul says he must be "...able to teach" and then notice the qualification in verse 4 with an explanation in verse 5. In other words, the man must administrate/rule his own home well because he's going to be expected to administrate/rule the church as well.

Paul is making it clear here that the office of Elder combines both ruling and teaching.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by armourbearer
A ruling elder is (or should be) restricted to ruling. The fact that he is a ruling elder should imply nothing concerning his ability to teach publicly, seeing that he has not undertaken any course or examination in this regard. This is indicated in the shape of your question, which distinguishes ruling and teaching elders as two offices. To make them one office with two functions would require the Presbyterian system to be overhauled.

So a RE does not have to be able to teach? Should only TE teach the classes as well as teh public preaching?

I am not clear as to the qualifications of the RE versus the qualifications for the TE.

James White, whom I understand is Baptist but nonetheless, is not an ordained minister but a ruling elder. This qualifies him to publish books and speak publically to the church does it not?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Here are a few resources on the subject of the office of ruling elder which may be useful:

An Essay, on the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church by Samuel Miller

A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons by James Guthrie

The Elder and His Work by David Dickson

Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government, see "Other Church-Governors"

Presbyterian Reformed Church Form of Church Government

1578 Scottish Second Book of Discipline

The Name, Nature and Fuctions of Ruling Elders by Thomas Smyth

The Presbyterian Elder: The Duties of the Ruling Elder by Paul S. Wright

[Edited on 7-22-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Thank you Andrew

 

[Arch2k]

Samuel Miller's book (Andrew linked to it above) on the ruling elder is quite good, and pretty much convinced me of the three-office view. I recommend it.

 

[MW]

Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson

OT church: rulers distinguished from priests.

This is tough ground to make a case from. The High Priest also had a had more elaborate outfit, should we then make one Elder wear a more expensive suit?

The point is that the OT provides an example of the two functions of ruling and teaching being distributed into two offices. If the church is substantially one through the ages, such examples should not be relegated to mere historical fact. Sacerdotal dress was undoubtedly ceremonial, but the duty to teach knowledge was a moral requirement.

NT church: ruling gift distinguished from teaching gift, Rom. 12:6-8;

Paul's point in this text is for Christians to exercise whatever gifts there are given. To carry your point even further, one would have to make the claim that it's not possible for anyone to have any combination of the gifts listed in that text.

That the gifts are not being treated absolutely, but as they are exercised by distinct members, is clear from the context of the passage. The analogy of the body, v. 4, and its application in v. 5, shows that the diversification has reference to the functionary which exercises the gift. The subsequent exhortation of verses 6-8 is made to the functionaries to exercies their different gifts according to the grace given to them. Hence one who teaches and one who rules must be seen as different functionaries.

teachers distinguished from governments, 1 Cor. 12:28;

The intent of this passage is to show the priority of the offices.

In order to show priority there must be an acknowledged distinction.

elders are described as ruling, and some additionally labouring in word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5:17.

In other words, Paul is saying that all Elders rule and preach/teach, but the church should be careful to give them double honor if they rule well and expecially if they word hard at preaching/teaching.

This can hardly be his meaning. If it is the elder's duty to preach/teach, then it is his duty to labour in it. One set apart to teach who does not labour in it is not worthy of any honour. Archippus must be urged to take heed to fulfil the ministry which he has received in the Lord.

By using "malista" the apostle is clearly referring to a subset of elders who additionally labour in word and doctrine. Thus there must be elders who do not labour in it, but who only rule. These are ruling elders, according to the Presbyterian order.

Notice in verse 2 that Paul says he must be "...able to teach" and then notice the qualification in verse 4 with an explanation in verse 5. In other words, the man must administrate/rule his own home well because he's going to be expected to administrate/rule the church as well.

Paul is making it clear here that the office of Elder combines both ruling and teaching.

1. The passage does not suggest anything concerning public instruction or the nature of the instruction to be given. Aged women are to teach the young women, Titus 2:4. All mature Christians are to have teaching ability, Heb. 5:12. This does not imply that they are to teach publicly.

2. The qualifications the apostle provides are moral. It would be strange if he now required an ability to teach as a pre-requisite to the office. It is likely that "didaktikos" is being used in the sense of a willingness to teach.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Part One of George Gillespie's Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland is on Ruling Elders and that part of the work is available as a free PDF from the Naphtali website at:
http://www.naphtali.com/pdf_files.htm

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The complete edition of George Gillespie's An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland in the Points of Ruling Elders, and of the Authority of Presbyteries and Synods is available online here.

 

[KMK]

Rev. Winzer, could it be said that all elders 'rule' by definition, but only some of them 'labor in' and are 'gifted in' teaching?

I am currently reading Biblical Eldership so this thread is of interest to me.