Elders and Deacons, Biblical Definitions and Purpose

[Paul not the apostle]

Are the Biblical definitions of Elder and Deacon the same as our English definitions? And more importantly, are their roles and responsibilities the same Biblically as we define them today? Are they the leaders of the church, held to a higher standard, or are they the administrators?

The below is a section from Don Milton's site regarding the roles of Elders and Deacons, under his posting about the "one wife" passages. I am interested in hearing opinions on his take of this issue if anyone has time.

Thanks,
Paul

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/i ... cle&sid=50[/url]

 

[Paul not the apostle]

I guess what I am asking is based on a statement that I hear often, that elders and deacons are held to a higher standard, or that we should all strive to be like them, etc., so we therefore are want to be under the same guidelines, they are the leaders of the church.

I know that the reasoning is dumb, ie, why did the apostle not just say that we should all be like such and such if we are supposed to strive to be like those people (we should strive to be like Christ, IMHO), but the issue is, what exactly are we using to define the position of elder, deacon, and bishop? I also understand that the "higher standard" logic comes from the inherent "monogamy better than polygamy" position, so it is flawed to begin with.

What are we using to define deacon, elder, and bishop when we see those words used in the Bible, and how are we defining their roles in the church.

 

[Mark C]

Don Milton's observation is an interesting one, and he is the first I've seen to make the point.

But it is yet an "additional" bit of ammunition in the debunking of the "wresting" of Timothy/Titus (a nod to II Peter 3:15-16 ) and the "mia wife" fallacy.

I have always thought that the most telling observation is that it is, at best, ONE witness (same witness, same phrase, same error - just repeated. PEOPLE DO THE SAME WITH CAPS...like SCREAMING or REPEATING somehow MAKES IT TRUE. ) --
and more importantly, it's obviously a false witness.

Why? Because it makes Paul out to be an idiot: one who doesn't know Torah. One who doesn't even know enough about the Pharasaic tradition he once followed to adequately debunk! After all, teachers (rabbis) were EXPECTED to be married; to make such a statement about "overseers" (or deacons or whatever) would simply be obvious, requiring little explanation. No more than he in fact offered!

But to CHANGE the Torah AND simultaneously break tradition to boot! Now THAT's SUMTHIN'!

I'd have thought he'd have gone into a bit more detail. After all, he certainly did elsewhere!


Blessings,

Mark