Congregational Leadership - “Single Bishop vs Elohim”

Scripture tells us that congregational leaders are not only necessary, but they are essential if the Body of Messiah is to function as Yeshua (Jesus) commanded. Although every part of the body is equally important, there were men in the Apostolic Writings (New Covenant) called “elders” who were given the responsibility to “direct the affairs of the assembly” (I Tim. 5:17). These men were not only to “preach and teach,” but they were to model godly lives, set the standard, and guard Scriptural truth (Titus 1:9). Therefore, it is critical that each of us understand how these men, according to Scripture, are to fulfill their responsibility to God, to us, and to each other; while not “lording it over ...but being examples to the flock” [1 Kefa (Peter) 5:3].

Scripture is very clear that in the last days “false shepherds” will come in and try to deceive and destroy believers. Therefore, we must examine not only who is leading us but how and where they are leading us. Each person is responsible for guarding and protecting against the “anti-Messiah” system that Paul said was already at work in his day (II Thess. 2:7).

Does the congregational leadership structure today resemble that in Scripture? Does it model the leadership we see in first century congregations or synagogues where Yeshua, His taught ones (talmidim/disciples), and their taught ones attended? If not, where, when, and how did we get this leadership structure? Hopefully, we’ll gain a basis from which to start answering these questions. First, a brief opinion on today’s congregational leadership and then we will examine Scripture and history.

MODERN CONGREGATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Most of today’s modern congregations and synagogues rely on one male, and in a few cases, one female, for spiritual direction. You might recognize them by their titles: Pastor, Preacher, Priest, Bishop, Reverend, Rabbi, Spiritual Leader. We’ve labeled this leadership structure “Single Bishop.” It has been in existence since the late second century; not the first century.

In this structure, the “Single Bishop” is often given the final say in all congregational matters.

Some even try to make this individual the most-spiritual, having-all-the-gifts, can-hear-from-God-more-clearly-than-others, “Man of God.” Often, they are given dictatorial authority and their authority is not to be questioned. In some congregations, this person is the “chief elder” where they are “more equal than the other equals.”

Is this the leadership structure that God had in mind for His congregations?

SINGLE BISHOP & KING

We believe that see a parallel between Israel’s desire to have one man as king (rather than God) ruling over them and modern congregation’s desire to have one man ruling over them as their “bishop.” It is our opinion that both of these stand in rejection of God’s ways; the that way He intended leadership to be for Israel when they entered the promised land and the way that He intends for us today.

First, we know that God does not change. (Malachi 3:6). Therefore, we need to constantly evaluate where we are in respect to His Word and the pattern He has set for us.

Is God opposed to a single “bishop or king” leadership structure? Can He use man’s imperfect system that was chosen nearly 3000 years ago with Saul as king and then later by the body of Messiah? We believe the answer to the first question is yes, but God’s plan for Israel was and still is that He be our only King. In contrast, the nations had ONE man ruling over all others. This is continued today under the Papal system.

As for the second question, again we must say yes, BUT, these congregations will not receive the fullness of God’s blessings and protection because their ways are not the ways of God. We should never settle for second best when our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and King of the universe.

“GIVE US A KING!”

We see in the book of Exodus where God lead Israel out of Egypt to Mt. Sinai. His plan was to make Israel a nation of priests (Exodus 19:3). Then Israel would go unto the nations; teaching them everything that He taught with Him alone as their King. But, like many today, Israel did not trust God and declined to do it His way.

After Israel entered Canaan, Israel’s elders wanted to be like the rest of the nations, following their customs and traditions, desiring a man, not God, to rule over them. So, they asked Samuel the prophet (1 Samuel 8:7) to appoint them a king (1 Samuel 8:4-5:

• “all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel...they said to him...now appoint us a king to lead us, such as all the nations have.”

God told Samuel, in 1 Samuel 8:9,19:

• “warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do…But the people refused to listen to Samuel. ‘ No!’ they said, ‘we want a king over us.’”

Even after God warned them of the consequences of their decision, they still wanted a “man” as their king. Today, people still refuse to accept God as their personal King and ask a man or “Single Bishop” to intercede and make decisions on their behalf.

Yet, God did not forsake Israel. He continued to fulfill His promises to Abraham, even through man’s “king” system. But just as He had warned them, they suffered much anguish and oppression at the hands of these earthly kings. We believe that many today can testify of how they’ve suffered under the “one-man-ruler” leadership. Just imagine how different it would have been if Israel had chosen God’s way in the wilderness and not desired to be like the nations around them. Maybe modern historians would not have to mention “Christian” cult leaders like Jim Jones or David Koresh because people would not follow after one man!

MOSHE (MOSES) – MODERN CONGREGATIONAL EXAMPLE?

Some use Moses as an example to justify their “one bishop” or “one congregational leader” system. What lofty thinking! Moses was a “Messiah type” and there has only been one Moses who has led a nation from Egyptian exile, placed God’s Torah (Law) in their hands, and set up a nation’s structure as deliverer and prophet. Even then, Moses could not do it alone (Numbers 11:14). God gave him Aaron and Miriam and later 70 others to help.

We see in Deuteronomy 1:13 where God told Moses to have the people choose from among them men of respect, of good reputation, pious, to judge among them (notice the parallel between qualifications and responsibilities of elders in Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and also the rulers of the synagogue). There were seventy men in which God placed the same “Spirit” that he previously placed in Moses.

Even Joshua, at first, did not understand this concept. He became angry at two of the men who began prophesying and doing the things that he thought only Moses should do. What was Moses response to him in Numbers 11:29?

• “I wish that all of the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”

We see this being fulfilled in the Apostolic Writings as the Spirit is given to those who believe in Yeshua.

In another situation, we see Moses sent by God to speak to the “elders” of Israel (Genesis 19:7):

• “Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words of the Lord....the people all responded together, ‘We will do everything the Lord has said.’ So Moses brought their answer back to the Lord.”

Even while in Egypt, God told Moses to take the elders with him to Pharaoh (Exodus 3:18). There were other times that Moses, even as a “Messiah type,” assembled the “elders” and asked them what to do. Moses is NOT an example of the “Single Bishop” for modern churches. He was used by God to be the “deliverer of His message” to Pharaoh and Israel.

YAAKOV (JAMES) - ONE OF THE MESSIANIC SYNAGOGUE LEADERS

James, the half-brother of Yeshua, is another example that some give as a “single Bishop” congregational leader. We believe that James was “one” of the elders in the first century congregation. He is included in the group called “apostles and elders” in Acts 15. We see in James 1:1 that James did not call himself anything other than a servant of God and Yeshua.

Rabbi Paul refers to this same James as one of the pillars of the assembly along with Peter and John in Galatians 2:9. James does not refer to himself as “the Congregational Leader” of the Jerusalem congregation. With an understanding of early synagogue organization, James, according to his gifting, was probably the “Nasi” which does not resemble a 20th century Congregational Leader (one man). The Nasi’s gifting seemed to be in administration and oversight of the Torah reading along with the Chazan. He was probably part of a tribunal which the Scripture calls “rulers of the synagogue.” This tribunal was composed of 3 leaders (or elders) in the synagogue called the “elohim.” This will be discussed in more detail below.

Acts 15 is one of the most misunderstood Scriptures concerning both the relationship of God-Fearers to the Torah and James’ position in the first century body of Messiah. This is mainly because people do not read the “whole” chapter. James DID NOT make the final decision in the Jerusalem council. He was part of the “apostles and elders” present. In this situation, we often conclude that James had the final word and made the final decision.

In Acts 15:19, we see James saying that it is, “my sentence” (KJV) or “my judgement” (NIV) or “I judge not” (Literal translation) or “my opinion” (Jewish New Testament) concerning this issue. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible gives this definition of the word “sentence” used by the KJV:

• 2019. krino, kree’-no; prop. to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by impl. to try, condemn, punish; avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

If we do not understand early synagogue organization or how the Sanhedrin and rulers of the synagogue, or “court-within-the-court” made decisions, we would conclude that James was making the final decision here. However, we believe that James was summarizing or concluding the discussion of this group (similarly, as Gamaliel did in Acts 5). James was making a strong argument for how they (apostles and elders) should respond to this situation. For in Acts 15:22 it states:

• "Then the apostles and elders with the whole church, decided... "

We continue to see plurality in their decision-making throughout this chapter. In verses 24, 25, and 27, the word “we” is used, NOT James, to send this letter concerning what “THEY” determined!

PROPHET, PRIEST, KING – ELOHIM

It’s amazing how God, in spite of us, accomplishes His will on planet earth. In addition to man’s king, God appointed a prophet and a priest to balance this system of power and authority.

Above, we saw Moses with the elders from each tribe in positions of leadership and authority. In his book, The Bondage Breaker, Dr. Neil T. Anderson states concerning plurality leadership:

• "There are historic leadership roles in Scripture; prophet (preaching and teaching), priest (pastoring and shepherding), and king (administration). Only Jesus in His perfection is capable of occupying all three roles simultaneously. I believe we need the checks and balances of plurality of elders in the church, distributing the three critical roles to more than one person. No one can survive his own unchallenged authority. Every true, committed Christian in a leadership role needs to submit himself and his ideas to other mature believers who will hold him accountable."

WHAT IS PLURALITY OF ELDERS?

Plurality of elders is the opposite of “Single Bishop” or ‘one man” leadership. It is three elders, with equal authority, serve a congregation in plurality, making decisions together as one. They operate in Ecad (unity); relying on the Ruach (Spirit) of God to bring them together in complete agreement. Each elder operates within the spiritual gift(s) that the Spirit gave him. With this type of leadership, one man is not elevated above others; checks and balances are established. We believe this is what Yeshua had in mind when he stated:

• "One is your Leader, the Messiah, and you are all brothers."

Now, we know that some will ask, “What about elders who receive “money or pay” for their service in congregations?” Paul said in I Timothy 5:17-18 that:

• "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor...For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.'"

Here Paul is addressing “financial” support for elders who are needed to direct the daily activities of some congregations, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” In this situation, serving the congregation is a full-time job that does not allow these men to work a separate job to support themselves. Still, these elders must work within the framework of plurality.

WHAT DID YESHUA SAY ABOUT PLURALITY?

In Matthew 23:6, when speaking of a sect of Pharisees and scribes, Yeshua addresses the issue of one wanting to be above the others:

• "And they love the first couch in the suppers, and the first seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the markets, and to be called by men Rabbi, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi, for One is your Leader, the Christ (Messiah), and you are all brothers. And call no one your father on earth, for One is your Father, the (One) in Heaven. Nor be called leaders, for One is your Leader, the Christ (Messiah). But the greater of you shall be your servant."

Notice where it says, “you are all brothers.” Yes, each of us are gifted differently but one is not to be elevated above the rest!

Another example of this is in Matthew 20:20-28:

• "Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Yeshua...grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left...When the ten heard this they were indignant with the two brothers...Yeshua called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be first be your slave - just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.’” (also see Luke 22:24)

The strongest example of plurality leadership was mandated by Yeshua to His disciples in Matthew 16, where He uses the terms “bind” and “loosen.” According to the Jewish New Testament Commentary by Dr. David Stern, these terms are legal terms which literally mean “prohibit” and “permit” and were used in first century Judaism within this context. In Matthew 16:18-19 He states:

• “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

This Scripture is NOT talking about prayer as many wrongly interpret. Dr. Stern states:

• “Yeshua, speaking to those who have authority to regulate Messianic communal life (vv. 15-17), commissions them to establish New Covenant halakhah (the way to walk), that is, to make authoritative decisions where there is a question about how Messianic life ought to be lived.”

Yeshua does not say that ONE will judge and the rest fall into line! He was talking to the future Messianic community leaders here.

PLURALITY IN FIRST CENTURY SYNAGOGUE

How were synagogues organized during the first century? We know from Dr. Ron Moseley’s book, Yeshua, A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, and many other sources that several men were involved in maintaining and overseeing the operation of the synagogue. As mentioned above in the discussion of James, we have the “Nasi” who was responsible for synagogue administration. He was NOT the “one Spiritual leader” but a man who had the “gift of administration” (1 Cor. 12:28). Then there was the “Chazan.” He was a public minister who taught behind a wooden podium, providing oversight of the reading of the Law along with the Nasi. The Chazan was also an overseer with other congregational duties. Besides these two men, there were the “rulers of the Synagogue” which was composed of three of the leaders (in which the Nasi was probably one) who formed a tribunal (the Elohim) for judging cases regarding money, theft, immorality, admission of proselytes, “laying on of hands,” and more.

In Restore! magazine (Autumn 1998), a magazine for restoring the Hebraic roots of Christianity, Dr. John Garr states concerning early synagogue leadership structure:

• “This synagogal community functioned with a plurality of leaders, with various functions fulfilled by men of different gifting and training.” He continues to add, “The earliest church knew nothing of leadership styles in its later Gentile counterpart, escaping the tyranny of the dictatorial bureaucrats who came to dominate Gentile Christendom. This is the price that the Gentile church paid for abandoning its Hebraic foundations in favor of Greek philosophy and Roman organizational structure.”

Many of us have suffered under the system described by Dr. Garr. One man is elevated to the “Man of God” stature where he is expected to possess all the gifts of the Spirit. So, he does not have to submit to ANYONE but himself. Then, the assembly goes as this “man” goes, and falls when this “man” falls. This is not God’s way!

In Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ by Alfred Edersheim, p. 298, Edersheim describes how more than “one man” was making Spiritual decisions within the synagogue:

• “The arrangements of the synagogue, as hitherto described...while the determination who was to read, or to conduct the prayers, or to address the people, was in the hands of the ‘rulers of the synagogue’...they were men learned in the law and of good repute, whom the popular voice designated, but who were regularly set apart by ‘the laying on of hands’....” (bolding added)

In his book Pagans and Christians, Robin Lane Fox gives another historical perspective on synagogue organization:

• “the office of bishop did not emerge in the churches of the first Christian generation. In the Gentile world, lifelong rule by a single bishop was something quite new...It was a break with the practice of Jewish synagogues...However, synagogues did need a firm authority...besides the elders, we hear of ‘rulers,’ and between them, the two must have governed the communities affairs in Gentile cities...In Christian imagery, the bishop was heir to none of these titles...while Christians spread, the Jewish communities in the same cities were not static: once again, we have lost a vital angle on the history of this period, because no books survive from Diaspora Jews in an age of change. However, even without them, we can see that these titles offer no parallel for the pattern of power in the Christian Church. There, by contrast, rule by a single leader emerged and spread as the dominant authority. Christians had taken up a type of leadership which was used by a small sect: they multiplied it in each of their communities. The church of each city looked up to its monarchical bishop, who was a leader appointed for life. ‘One God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit,’ the Christian laity called in Rome after a dispute in the mid-third century, ‘and in a Catholic church there ought to be one bishop.’ Their cry was all the more remarkable, as there had not been a hint of bishops in anything said by Jesus in the Gospels...by the 170s, there is still no sign of bishops in the churches in southern Gaul..”

In their text book, The Course of Civilization, Volume One: To 1660, Strayer, Gatzke, and Harbison on page 145, reinforce Mr. Fox’s understanding of early church plurality leadership:

• “Each early Christian community was organized as a church under a group of bishops and elders, and the churches kept up a constant correspondence with one another. During the second century this organization became tighter. In each church the group of bishops and elders was replaced by a single bishop with full authority over his church, and the bishops of the greater cities, such as Rome, began to exert authority over the others...it was an innovation as far as the ancient world was concerned. No administrative system existed for the pagan cults...” (bolding and underlining added)

Merrill C. Tenney in his book New Testament Times, pp. 235 and 314, describes early church leadership as it continued in the synagogue format:

• “The elders were teachers, pastors, and preachers who were responsible for the instruction and guidance of the church (Acts 11:30, 1 Peter 5:1-4. Although the duties of these persons seem to be clearly marked and recognized, there is nevertheless no hint of the breach between clergy and laity that appeared in later centuries.....As hostility between Christian believers and the synagogue increased, the church assumed a more distinctive character. Expulsion from the synagogue compelled it to develop its own worship and its own society.” (bolding and underlining added)

MESSIAH’S FOLLOWERS - SYNAGOGUE ORGANIZATION AND WORSHIP

Yeshua and His taught ones (including Paul) attended synagogue worship every Shabbat and high holy days, as commanded, in Leviticus 23. They were extremely familiar with synagogue structure and organization. From this, one can safely assume that Messiah and His taught ones patterned the worship of early believers in the same fashion.

This practice was assumed in Acts 15:21 when the famous Jerusalem Council was held concerning God-Fearers accepting Yeshua as Messiah and entering the Abrahamic Covenant. James summarizes the meeting by stating:

• “For Moshe has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Meaning, these “grafted-in” God-Fearers from the nations will gain their understanding of Scripture every Sabbath as they attend synagogue. And yes, ALL of the “feasts of the LORD” in Leviticus 23 apply to ALL God-Fearers as we are now PART of Israel.

In the Mark 5:22 we read:

• “Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Yeshua, he fell at his feet...” In Acts 13:14 we see synagogue rulers with Paul attending a synagogue service, “...On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, ‘Brothers, if you have a message...please speak.’”

Notice that the word “rulers” from the verse above is plural. We see this plurality in the Messianic congregation at Antioch where the leaders are meeting to make decisions (Acts 13:1). They are even named. We read that they fasted and prayed and then “they” sent out Barnabas and Paul.

In the following Apostolic Writings, we see the leaders of the nation of Israel acting in plurality during the first century. Three groups made up the Sanhedrin, Israel’s supreme court:

• “The next day the rulers, elders, and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem...they had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them.” (Acts 4:5)

• “We gave you strict orders not to teach...Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin...His speech persuaded them.” (Acts 5:27)

Here we have the apostles appearing before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. See the similarity to the Acts 15 Jerusalem council.

CONCLUSION

We believe that it was long after the Yeshua’s taught ones died that a “Single Bishop” system replaced plurality of elders in local congregations. How did this happen?

In the second century when the Roman Empire heavily persecuted the Jewish people, it resulted in the abhorrence of anything “appearing to be” Jewish. At the same time, Gentile teachers, like Marcion and Ignatius of Antioch, began to infiltrate the assemblies in the diaspora causing them to turn away from what was perceived as “Jewish ways.” But, in reality, they were deceived into turning away from “God’s ways.”

Today, we’ve been indoctrinated by the Western Christianity with its “modern” leadership structure that was passed down from Catholicism to Protestantism. Where does this leave us?

With God, it’s never to late to change. As we repent (t’shuvah) by turning back to the ways of God, He will give us strength and direction through His Spirit. Do we dare to think about the true spiritual maturity that would come to the whole body as we experience “plurality of leaders” with the variety of gifts? Study Ephesians 4:11-16 where the body of Messiah “grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

Peter, one of the taught ones of Yeshua and a fellow “elder,” said in 1 Peter 5:2-3 concerning elders (leaders). They are to:

• “Be shepherds of God’s flock...being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd comes.....”

Remember that there is only one “Chief Shepherd,” one Master, and one King over all. His name is Yeshua!