Church Government Research Notes
What is a Pastor?
ποιμήν G4478 (poimēn), shepherd, pastor; ποίμνη G4479 (poimnē), flock; ποίμνιον G4480 (poimnion), flock; ποιμαίνω G4477 (poimainō), to herd, tend, fig. lead, rule; ἀρχιποίμην G799 (archipoimēn), chief shepherd, over-shepherd
Concepts: Animal; Occupation; Official, Religious; Ruler
GL The noun ποιμήν (prob. related to Sansk. pāyú-, “protector” [Frisk 2:573]) is found already in Mycenaean (po-me-ne), and it is used freq. in Homer, both lit. (meaning “herdsman” of either sheep or cattle) and fig. (meaning “leader”). Subsequently the lit. use refers specifically to shepherds (not to cattlemen), and the fig. use continues, being applied broadly; e.g., ποιμὴν λόχου means the captain of a military troop, Eurip. Phoen. 1140); political rulers are ὥσπερ ποιμένων πόλεως, “like shepherds of a city” (Plato Resp. 440d); even a storm, which one might say leads ships astray, may be described as an “evil shepherd” (Aesch. Ag. 657). It is of interest that a parallel was drawn between human shepherds (both lit. and fig.) and the divine shepherd (Plato Pol. 271e, 275b–c).
The derived vb. ποιμαίνω is found a handful of times in Homer, always in the lit. sense of herding flocks; as early as Pindar, however, it is used fig., taking on such nuances as “to guide” and “to cherish.” The noun ποίμνη, “flock,” occurs only once in Homer (Od. 9.122, apparently with ref. to goats; see line 118); later it is sometimes applied to human beings, who are herded by kings and statesmen (e.g., Plato Pol. 257c). The diminutive form ποίμνιον, first attested in the 5th cent. BC, appears to be used with the same meaning as ποίμνη (cf. id. Resp. 416a). Various other derivatives and compounds are attested.
The image of the shepherd appears in Gk. poetry, as typified by Theocritus’s Idyllia (3rd cent. BC). Pastoral terminology was very much in vogue throughout the Hel. world
Before Israel settled in Canaan, the individual tribes depended for sustenance on constant wandering with their herds and flocks. The patriarchs (cf. also Job), who owned sheep and goats along with their cattle, were nomads. The shepherd’s task was undertaken preferably by members of the family (by the daughters only in the immediate vicinity of the dwelling; cf. Exod 2:16). It was expected that the shepherds, and the servants who worked with them, would show caution, patient care, and honesty. In the dry summer on poor soil it was not easy to find new pasture at the right time as the flocks passed through lonely regions; it was also a challenge to balance grazing, watering, rest, travel. The shepherd had to care tirelessly for the helpless beasts (cf. Ezek 34:1–6). Devotion to duty was proved in the nightly guarding of the flock against wild animals and thieves. In this respect hired shepherds freq. disappointed their employers.
Before Israel settled in Canaan, the individual tribes depended for sustenance on constant wandering with their herds and flocks. The patriarchs (cf. also Job), who owned sheep and goats along with their cattle, were nomads. The shepherd’s task was undertaken preferably by members of the family (by the daughters only in the immediate vicinity of the dwelling; cf. Exod 2:16). It was expected that the shepherds, and the servants who worked with them, would show caution, patient care, and honesty. In the dry summer on poor soil it was not easy to find new pasture at the right time as the flocks passed through lonely regions; it was also a challenge to balance grazing, watering, rest, travel. The shepherd had to care tirelessly for the helpless beasts (cf. Ezek 34:1–6). Devotion to duty was proved in the nightly guarding of the flock against wild animals and thieves. In this respect hired shepherds freq. disappointed their employers.
The Origin of the Office of Elder
The office of elder originated in the Old Testament. Old Testament Israel was a patriarchal society, as were most ancient Middle Eastern societies. Respect and deference were shown to older men. Wisdom gained through long life experience was honored. An inherent authority was concomitant with being an elder of a household, village, or tribe. After the Lord had appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he instructed Moses to gather the elders of Israel together to inform them that he was about to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage and lead them into the Promised Land (Ex. 3:16; 4:29). The elders were to go with Moses to represent the people of Israel in their cause before Pharoah (3:18). After giving Moses the Law (Ex. 20–23), the Lord instructed him to bring seventy elders to the base of the mount that they might worship the Lord in confirmation of the covenant (24:1, 9–11).
Later this patriarchal cultural tradition was elevated to a spiritual office. When Moses had led the people of Israel out of Egypt and they had begun their second year of sojourn in the wilderness, he became overwhelmed with the burden of leadership. Though the Lord had led the people through the Red Sea on dry land and had miraculously provided them with water and manna, they had grown discontent and longed to return to Egypt (Num. 11:4–6). Dismayed by the people’s fickleness and ingratitude, Moses cried to the Lord like a Monday-morning pastor, “I am not able to carry all this people alone; the burden is too heavy for me. If you will treat me like this, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (vv. 14–15). The Lord did not grant Moses’ petition, but instead instituted a system of shared spiritual leadership through a plurality of elders.13 He instructed Moses to gather seventy men from the elders of Israel who were recognized and proven leaders (v. 16).14 He then demonstrated his approval of the elders by sending his Spirit upon them (vv. 17, 24–25). When the Spirit rested upon them, “they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it” (v. 25). This visitation of the Holy Spirit served as evidence of God’s hand being on them and was, in a sense, their ordination. God earlier had shown his favor to the Levites and Aaronic priests in their ordination (Num. 8; see also Lev. 8). It should be noted that the purpose of the plurality of elders was that spiritual leadership be a shared leadership. The second generation shared in Moses’ authority to command the people of God (Deut. 27:1). Joshua continued the practice of shared spiritual leadership through the elders (Josh. 8:10).
The Influence of the Synagogue
Though the office of elder as spiritual leader was instituted in the days of Moses over 1,400 years before Christ, it did not blossom until the inauguration of the synagogue system in the sixth century BC. After the Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC and deported the people of Judah, the exiles began to gather for the reading of Scripture, worship, the exposition of Scripture, and prayer.15 The exilic prophets Jeremiah (Jer. 29:1) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1, 3) referred to elders as leaders among the people of God during that time. With the spread of the synagogue system, the prominence of elders grew. After the return from the Babylonian captivity, the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel, and the resulting reinstitution of the levitical sacrificial system, synagogues continued to be established wherever Jews went in the Mediterranean world, and the rabbis (teachers) and elders grew in prominence.
The Office of Elder in the New Testament
By the time of Christ synagogues were virtually everywhere there was a Jewish community. The New Testament phase of the church was initially primarily Jewish, with the conversion of 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and the growth of the Jerusalem church to 5,000 (Acts 4:4), followed by further rapid growth (Acts 5:14; 6:7, et al.). The apostle Paul’s missionary strategy involved preaching in synagogues, where there would be some conversions among Jews and Gentile proselytes to Judaism but a greater receptivity among the “God-fearers”16 who often provided relational bridges into the pagan Gentile culture.17 The Epistle of James, most likely one of the earliest books of the New Testament, refers to the assembly of Christians for worship as a “synagogue” (a more literal translation of James 2:2).18 Of course, the New Testament phase of the church grew out of the matrix of Judaism. Though the church became increasingly Gentile as the gospel flourished among Gentiles, it rightly saw itself as the legitimate continuation and fulfillment of the religion revealed first through the Law and the Prophets, and brought to fruition by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the divine Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. First-century Christians continued to use the Old Testament Scriptures and received the books of the New Testament as they were produced. The first-century church continued the practice of accepting a plurality of elders as spiritual leaders, a practice obviously endorsed by Christ’s own apostles.
Indeed, the death of the apostle James (Acts 12:2) about AD 44 was a catalytic factor that marked a transition in the Jerusalem church.19 Up to that point the church there had been under the direct spiritual leadership of the apostles who had remained even after the stoning of Stephen around AD 35 or 36. However, about the time of the persecution by Herod Agrippa I (and James’s execution), Luke’s record begins to regularly mention elders in the Jerusalem church. Barnabas and Saul delivered the famine relief offering from the Gentile churches to the elders of Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). Elders sat with the apostles in the council at Jerusalem (15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4). A number of years later, it was to the elders of Jerusalem that Paul gave a report of his missionary endeavors (21:18). It is natural and logical that those who occupied the temporary office of apostle would turn the leadership over to those who held the office of elder, given its historic and respected origins.
Elders and Bishops Synonymous
Obviously, a key issue in the matter of church government is whether the terms “elder” (presbyteros) and “bishop” (episcopos) are synonyms in the New Testament that describe one and the same office or are distinctively different terms that describe two levels of clergy, with the bishop being of higher authority.
The term “elder” or “presbyter” (presbyteros) denotes wisdom, maturity, and authority. As already noted, in both the Old and New Testaments elders are leaders who are spiritually mature, demonstrate wisdom, and exercise spiritual oversight. The church also borrowed the term “bishop” or “overseer” (episcopos) from the Greek culture, where it was used to describe an overseer of slaves, a civil servant, or the supervisor of a construction crew; a guardian, a teacher, a scout, a supervisor, an inspector.23 It is found in the Septuagint (LXX) to describe inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters, or civil servants.24 The Hellenistic origin of the term may explain why “bishop” is only used in the New Testament with reference to the Gentile churches of Philippi (Phil. 1:1), Ephesus (1 Tim. 3:1–2), Asia Minor (Acts 14:23), and Crete (Titus 1:5). The term “elder,” then, emphasizes primarily the character of the spiritual leader, while the term “bishop” describes the role or function of the ecclesiastical officer.
The Etymologies and Usages of Presbyteros and Episkopos
The word Presbyterian is related etymologically to the two Greek words, presbyteros (occurs sixty-six times in the Greek New Testament), which simply means “old(er) man” in some contexts (Luke 15:25; John 8:9; 1 Tim. 5:1) but in other contexts—those that presently concern us—means “elder” in the sense of an office holder8 (among the Jews, members of the Sanhedrin, Matt. 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 26:57; 28:12; Mark 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Luke 9:22; 20:1; 22:52; Acts 4:23; 6:12; 23:14; 25:15; among Christians, officers of the church, Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim. 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5 [perhaps 2 John 1 and 3 John 1]); and presbyterion (occurs three times in the Greek New Testament: Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; 1 Tim. 4:14), which means “body [or “council”] of elders.”9 That the Greek word episkopos (occurs five times in the Greek New Testament: Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25),10 meaning “overseer” but often transliterated as “bishop,” is not a designation of a different office from that of the elder but rather a descriptive synonym designating a function for the same office holder is made plain from Paul’s intertwining usages of the words. To the elders (tous presbyterous) of the church of Ephesus whom he had summoned to Miletus (Acts 20:17), Paul said: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopous]” (Acts 20:28 NKJV).11
Virtually the same list of qualifications that Paul gives in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 for the overseer (see 3:2: episkopon) he gives in Titus 1:5–9 for the elder (see 1:5: presbyterous) (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). When Paul described to Titus the qualifications for the elder he employed the word overseer in his description of those qualifications: “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might … appoint [ordain] elders [1:5; note the plural presbyterous] in every city.”12 … Since an overseer [1:7: episkopon] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless (Titus 1:5–7). When writing to the Philippian church, Paul addresses his letter to “all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers [episkopois] and deacons [diakonois].” Here Paul refers to two church offices, both in the plural, and by the word overseers he quite clearly intends elders since the eldership/overseership is the only office other than deacon concerning which he gives any significant instruction (compare 1 Tim. 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9). Furthermore, if Paul did not intend to refer to elders when he employed the word episkopois, then he failed to address the elders at all in his salutation to the church in Philippi, which would have been a serious oversight on his part (Phil. 1:1).
Beyond dispute, for Paul the elder was an overseer and the overseer was an elder.13 The two terms simply describe two roles of the same officeholder: as an elder this officer exercises authority; as an overseer this same officer performs the functional role of spiritual supervision and oversight. J. B. Lightfoot declares in his famous study: “It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (episkopos) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (presbyteros).”14 This means that scriptural church government is both “Presbyterian” and “Episcopal.” But because these terms clearly describe the same officeholder, the latter term must not be associated with the hierarchical meaning that has come to be attached to it in the course of church history but rather must be viewed simply as a term descriptive of the elder’s function. Scripture knows nothing of the governmental church polity of a hierarchical episcopacy, and if the church has an archbishop (or “arch-elder”), that archbishop is Jesus Christ!
I do not intend to suggest for a moment that there is unanimity of scholarly opinion on the specific form of church government that the New Testament prescribes. The simple fact that this chapter appears in this particular book is sufficient evidence of this. And anyone who knows anything at all about church history will know that at least four distinguishable forms of church government have been proposed: the Presbyterian form, the Episcopal form in its Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican variations, the Congregational form in its several variations (single-elder-led Congregationalism, plural-elder-led Congregationalism, and democratic Congregationalism), and the Erastian form in its several state-church variations. Is one of these forms the biblical form, and if so, which one?
This chapter will attempt to demonstrate that the Presbyterian form of church government alone passes biblical muster—that is, governance of the church by elders/overseers in graded courts, with these officers executing the responsibilities of their office in unison and on a parity with each other, and with the material care and service of the church being looked after by deacons (known corporately as the “diaconate”) under the supervision of the elders/overseers.
Governance by Elders/Overseers
Presbyterianism (governance by elders/overseers) has a long history in the Bible. Moses, the priests and Levites, the judges, and even the kings of Israel, were all assisted in their governance of the Israelites, with God’s permission, by the “elders of Israel” or most strikingly “the elders of the congregation” (Exod. 3:16, 18; 4:29; 17:5–6; 18:13–27; 19:7; 24:1, 9–11; Lev. 4:4–15; 9:1–2; Num. 11:14–25; Deut. 5:23; 22:15–17; 27:1; Josh. 7:6; 8:33; Judg. 21:16; 1 Kings 8:1–3; 1 Chron. 21:16; Ps. 107:32; Ezek. 8:1, etc.).
This practice of governance by elders continued within Israel into the New Testament era as is evident both from Luke 22:66 where Luke informs his readers that Jesus was brought before “the council of the elders [presbyterion] of the people [the Sanhedrin]” and was found guilty of blasphemy and insurrection, and from Acts 22:5 where Paul states that “all the council of the elders [presbyterion]” authorized him to seize Christians for trial and death—certainly not two of the moral high points in Presbyterian history, illustrating that councils of elders can err, badly at times.
Unquestionably, it was this practice of governance by elders, begun by and present within Israel from the days of Mosaism onward, that by the Holy Spirit’s direction lay behind the practice of Barnabas and Paul, wherever they planted churches, of “ordaining”15 a plurality of elders “in every church” (kat’ ekklesian) (Acts 14:23) to govern and to oversee it in accordance with the Word of God (to the extent that a given church possessed it or a portion of it). Paul would later instruct Titus to appoint16 or ordain elders “in every city” (kata polin) (Titus 1:5). Then, with the passing of the apostles from the scene, the churches were to continue to be governed by councils of elders/overseers chosen by the congregation, as the verb cheirotoneo (“elect by raised hands”) shows and as Paul’s lists of qualifications for the elders/overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 imply.
But while it is the congregation that elects its elders/overseers, Presbyterians believe that the congregation, as it prayerfully elects these elders/overseers in view of the gifts and graces with which the Holy Spirit has endowed them, must recognize as it does so that their officers’ election is Christ’s will and that in the final analysis, as Paul states in Acts 20:28, it is the Holy Spirit who is placing these men in the office of elder/overseer. Thus, “in choosing officers, the church does not grant them authority, but recognizes Christ’s authority and calling.”17 L. Berkhof writes in this regard:
The officers of the Church are the representatives of the people chosen by popular vote. This does not mean, however, that they receive their authority from the people, for the call of the people is but the confirmation of the inner call by the Lord Himself [evidenced by the candidate first “desiring” the office and then meeting the qualifications of the elder/overseer prescribed in 1 Timothy 3:1–7]; and it is from Him that they receive their authority and to Him they are responsible. When they are called representatives, this is merely an indication of the fact that they were chosen to their office by the people, and does not imply that they derive their authority from them. Hence they are no deputies or tools that merely serve to carry out the wishes of the people, but rulers whose duty it is to apprehend and apply intelligently the laws of Christ.18
This is just to say that the local congregation elects men to hold the office of elder/overseer that carries within its bosom the intrinsic authority invested by Christ himself. Accordingly, the congregation must recognize that the church is not a pure democracy: the elders/overseers, once elected, do not hold their office simply to carry out the congregation’s will. They are to rule and to oversee the congregation, not primarily in agreement with the will of the congregation but primarily in agreement with the revealed Word of God, in accordance with the authority delegated to them by Christ, the head of the church. From just this much data it is fair and safe to conclude that particular Christian churches are to be governed by spiritually qualified councils of elders/overseers who are to be chosen by the people and who are then to oversee their congregations according to the precepts of God’s written revelation.19
the ministry is for all who share in Christ’s life. That’s everybody. The pastorate is for those who possess the peculiar gift of being able to help other men and women to practice any ministry to which they are called.
“The glory of the coach is that of being the discoverer, the developer, the trainer of the powers of others. This is exactly what we mean when we use the biblical terminology about the equipping ministry.”
There is no church in the New Testament that has more than two permanent offices in its leadership structure. Philippians 1:1 addresses the bishops and deacons of that church. The Jerusalem church had elders and chose the first deacons (Acts 6:1–7). Paul gives the qualifications for bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy 3.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this evidence. First, pastor, elder, and bishop all refer to the same office. The terms are used interchangeably. Although the term pastor is commonly used today as the title for the spiritual overseer of a congregation, it was probably not intended in Scripture to be a title but to be descriptive of what an elder does. Robbins is correct when he says that it is a “metaphoric description of one who cares for and leads a flock of God’s sheep.”2 Bishop (overseer) also describes the nature of the work of the pastor-elder. It definitely does not describe a separate hierarchical office such as is found in some groups today. The most common term in the New Testament for this office is elder. This was the preferred title in New Testament times, but the titles pastor and bishop are also used for the same office. Second, there are two—and only two—permanent offices in the church: pastor-elder-bishop and deacon. No qualifications are given for any other office.
Although the church in Jerusalem had multiple elders, no number is given, nor is it described how they were chosen and deployed. Acts 4:4 does say that the number of the male (andron) believers was about five thousand.4 This means that the Jerusalem church numbered possibly as many as twenty thousand persons (including women and children). How then did they assemble for worship? Scripture says they met “publicly and from house to house” (Acts 2:46; 20:20). They did not have church buildings at that time, so it is likely that they met in homes around the city. Each of these “home churches” would need a pastor-elder to lead the group. They could have had more than one, but no one knows. The key point is that they considered themselves to be one church—the church which is at Jerusalem (see Acts 15). They were one church with many house congregations and many elders.
Regardless of the number of elders there were in each city or local church, one man of God always seems to have been the pastor. The great example of this kind of leadership is found in the Jerusalem church itself. When the church met for the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15), one man presided over the meeting and led them to a decision. That man was James, the brother of Jesus. Though there were many elders, there was only one leader. The model seems to have been that there were pastor-elders over each house congregation but only one leader. One might call James the senior pastor of the Jerusalem church.
The letters to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation are illustrations of this very thing (chs. 2–3). Each of the letters is addressed to the “angel” of the church. There are many interpretations as to the identity of these “messengers,” and a firm conclusion cannot be reached. However, the vast majority of Bible commentators conclude that these are addressed to the “pastor” of the church. One could interpret the word angel or messenger as an angelic being attached to each church.5 But what sense would it make for the letter to be given from the Lord to John to an angel to the church. It is much more logical that the message was communicated to the pastor, who then read it to the church. These churches also may have had multiple elders, but there was one who was “the pastor” of the church.
The New Testament definitely teaches and illustrates that when there is a plurality of leadership, someone needs to function as the primary leader of the team.
James and the Jerusalem Elders
In terms of a primary leader, we see this beginning to happen in the church in Jerusalem when James, the half brother of Christ, emerged as the key leader among the elders in Jerusalem. When Peter was released from prison and went to Mary’s house, he definitely acknowledged James’ leadership role (Acts 12:17). Furthermore, during the council meeting when they were resolving the law/grace controversy, Peter represented the apostles (15:7–11) and James represented the Jerusalem elders (15:13–21). And years later when Paul returned to Jerusalem, he went first “to see James, and all the elders were present” (21:18). Call him what you will, James clearly served as the primary leader.
6 Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus,7 Titus of the churches in Crete.8
Although the church in Jerusalem had multiple elders, no number is given, nor is it described how they were chosen and deployed. Acts 4:4 does say that the number of the male (andron) believers was about five thousand.4 This means that the Jerusalem church numbered possibly as many as twenty thousand persons (including women and children). How then did they assemble for worship? Scripture says they met “publicly and from house to house” (Acts 2:46; 20:20). They did not have church buildings at that time, so it is likely that they met in homes around the city. Each of these “home churches” would need a pastor-elder to lead the group. They could have had more than one, but no one knows. The key point is that they considered themselves to be one church—the church which is at Jerusalem (see Acts 15). They were one church with many house congregations and many elders.
Regardless of the number of elders there were in each city or local church, one man of God always seems to have been the pastor. The great example of this kind of leadership is found in the Jerusalem church itself. When the church met for the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15), one man presided over the meeting and led them to a decision. That man was James, the brother of Jesus. Though there were many elders, there was only one leader. The model seems to have been that there were pastor-elders over each house congregation but only one leader. One might call James the senior pastor of the Jerusalem church.
The letters to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation are illustrations of this very thing (chs. 2–3). Each of the letters is addressed to the “angel” of the church. There are many interpretations as to the identity of these “messengers,” and a firm conclusion cannot be reached. However, the vast majority of Bible commentators conclude that these are addressed to the “pastor” of the church. One could interpret the word angel or messenger as an angelic being attached to each church.5 But what sense would it make for the letter to be given from the Lord to John to an angel to the church. It is much more logical that the message was communicated to the pastor, who then read it to the church. These churches also may have had multiple elders, but there was one who was “the pastor” of the church.
As the biblical story unfolds in the New Testament, it becomes increasingly clear that each local church was to be managed and shepherded by a unified team of godly men.
Governance by Elders/Overseers
Presbyterianism (governance by elders/overseers) has a long history in the Bible. Moses, the priests and Levites, the judges, and even the kings of Israel, were all assisted in their governance of the Israelites, with God’s permission, by the “elders of Israel” or most strikingly “the elders of the congregation” (Exod. 3:16, 18; 4:29; 17:5–6; 18:13–27; 19:7; 24:1, 9–11; Lev. 4:4–15; 9:1–2; Num. 11:14–25; Deut. 5:23; 22:15–17; 27:1; Josh. 7:6; 8:33; Judg. 21:16; 1 Kings 8:1–3; 1 Chron. 21:16; Ps. 107:32; Ezek. 8:1, etc.).
This practice of governance by elders continued within Israel into the New Testament era as is evident both from Luke 22:66 where Luke informs his readers that Jesus was brought before “the council of the elders [presbyterion] of the people [the Sanhedrin]” and was found guilty of blasphemy and insurrection, and from Acts 22:5 where Paul states that “all the council of the elders [presbyterion]” authorized him to seize Christians for trial and death—certainly not two of the moral high points in Presbyterian history, illustrating that councils of elders can err, badly at times.
Unquestionably, it was this practice of governance by elders, begun by and present within Israel from the days of Mosaism onward, that by the Holy Spirit’s direction lay behind the practice of Barnabas and Paul, wherever they planted churches, of “ordaining”15 a plurality of elders “in every church” (kat’ ekklesian) (Acts 14:23) to govern and to oversee it in accordance with the Word of God (to the extent that a given church possessed it or a portion of it). Paul would later instruct Titus to appoint16 or ordain elders “in every city” (kata polin) (Titus 1:5). Then, with the passing of the apostles from the scene, the churches were to continue to be governed by councils of elders/overseers chosen by the congregation, as the verb cheirotoneo (“elect by raised hands”) shows and as Paul’s lists of qualifications for the elders/overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 imply.
But while it is the congregation that elects its elders/overseers, Presbyterians believe that the congregation, as it prayerfully elects these elders/overseers in view of the gifts and graces with which the Holy Spirit has endowed them, must recognize as it does so that their officers’ election is Christ’s will and that in the final analysis, as Paul states in Acts 20:28, it is the Holy Spirit who is placing these men in the office of elder/overseer. Thus, “in choosing officers, the church does not grant them authority, but recognizes Christ’s authority and calling.”17 L. Berkhof writes in this regard:
The officers of the Church are the representatives of the people chosen by popular vote. This does not mean, however, that they receive their authority from the people, for the call of the people is but the confirmation of the inner call by the Lord Himself [evidenced by the candidate first “desiring” the office and then meeting the qualifications of the elder/overseer prescribed in 1 Timothy 3:1–7]; and it is from Him that they receive their authority and to Him they are responsible. When they are called representatives, this is merely an indication of the fact that they were chosen to their office by the people, and does not imply that they derive their authority from them. Hence they are no deputies or tools that merely serve to carry out the wishes of the people, but rulers whose duty it is to apprehend and apply intelligently the laws of Christ.18
This is just to say that the local congregation elects men to hold the office of elder/overseer that carries within its bosom the intrinsic authority invested by Christ himself. Accordingly, the congregation must recognize that the church is not a pure democracy: the elders/overseers, once elected, do not hold their office simply to carry out the congregation’s will. They are to rule and to oversee the congregation, not primarily in agreement with the will of the congregation but primarily in agreement with the revealed Word of God, in accordance with the authority delegated to them by Christ, the head of the church. From just this much data it is fair and safe to conclude that particular Christian churches are to be governed by spiritually qualified councils of elders/overseers who are to be chosen by the people and who are then to oversee their congregations according to the precepts of God’s written revelation.19
Observation 10 emerges from the plural references to leaders in various local churches throughout the New Testament world. Note the following as they appear chronologically in the biblical story:
□ The elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30).
□ “He should call the elders of the church” (James 5:14).
□ “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church” (Acts 14:23).
□ The apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23).
□ “Those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord … hold them in the highest regard” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13).
□ “Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17).
□ “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28a).
□ “Be shepherds of the church of God” (Acts 20:28b).
□ “All the elders [in Jerusalem] were present” (Acts 21:18).
□ “If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1).
□ “Now the overseer must be above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2).
□ “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17).
□ “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:19–20).
□ “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder.… Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers” (1 Peter 5:1–2).
□ “Appoint elders in every town.… An elder must be blameless” (Titus 1:5–6).
□ “Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless” (Titus 1:7).
□ “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” (Hebrews 13:17).
In this unfolding set of references to local church leaders, the overall profile demonstrates that God’s ideal plan was that every local church should be led by more than one elder/overseer. (Note the way Paul and Peter used the plural concept when referring to a single elder/overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1, 2; 5:19–20; Titus 1:5–7; 1 Peter 5:1.)
THE NEW TESTAMENT SETTING
To understand how plurality in leadership worked in the New Testament culture, we must avoid superimposing our contemporary, Western forms on first-century churches. In contrast to the multitude of “local churches” we have in a given population center, every mention of multiple leaders in the New Testament is made in reference to a single church in a single city or town. In the biblical story, there was only one church in Jerusalem, in Antioch of Syria, in Lystra, in Iconium, in Antioch of Pisidia, in Thessalonica, and in Ephesus. This is also why Paul told Titus to remain in Crete in order to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). These churches were composed of all believers who lived within a particular geographical location. Though they may have met for teaching, fellowship, and worship at different locations throughout a particular city, they were still considered one church led by a single body of elders.1
This, of course, is a totally different structural arrangement from what we have in many cultures today. If we live in a large city—or even a small town—we often encounter different groups of believers from different denominations, who meet in buildings right across the street from each other. Furthermore, each local group has its own “board of governance”—even within “groups” that are part of the same denomination in a given city.
THE MATURITY PROFILE
Here are the fifteen qualities Paul specified in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 for a qualified elder/overseer. Again, they are measures of maturity in Christ.
QUALITY 1: “Above reproach”
Paul began the list with an overarching quality: “Now the overseer must be above reproach” (3:2a; see also Titus 1:6). In essence, this means a spiritual leader should have a “good reputation” among believers as well as unbelievers. This is why Paul concluded this list by saying that anyone who served in this role “must also have a good reputation with outsiders” (3:7), that is, unbelievers.
QUALITY 2: “The husband of but one wife”
This requirement has yielded various interpretations (described in chapter 20). We believe Paul was dealing primarily with moral purity, which is why he lists this quality immediately, stating that an elder/overseer must be “above reproach.” There is nothing that builds a man’s reputation more significantly than being faithful to one woman—his wife. However, nothing destroys trust more rapidly than immorality. In essence, Paul was saying that if you couldn’t trust a man to be loyal to his wife, you couldn’t trust him in other areas of his life, particularly in the area of honesty and integrity.
QUALITY 3: “Temperate”
With this word (from the Greek nephalios), Paul was describing a man who had a clear focus on life. He was stable and steadfast, and his thinking was clear, reflecting faith, hope, and love (1 Thessalonians 5:8).
QUALITY 4: “Self-controlled”
The translators of The New American Standard Bible chose the word “prudent.” The Greek term (sophron) literally means to be “sound in mind.” In fact, the word can be translated in various ways—to be “discrete,” “sober,” “sensible.”
QUALITY 5: “Respectable”
The most descriptive use of the word for “respectable” (kosmios) appears in Paul’s letter to Titus when he urged slaves “to adorn [kosmeo] the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect” (Titus 2:10, NASB). Our English word “cosmetics” comes from the same basic word (kosmios). In essence, Paul was teaching that our lives are to be like “cosmetics to the Gospel”—to make the Gospel attractive by the way we live our lives.
QUALITY 6: “Hospitable”
Generally speaking, “being hospitable” refers to the way we use our material possessions—particularly the homes we live in and the food we eat. All Christians are to be hospitable—but this is a quality that should characterize every spiritual leader, no matter what his resources.
QUALITY 7: “Able to teach”
Paul used didaktikos, the basic Greek for “able to teach,” only twice in his letters. The second time he used it was in his second letter to Timothy to describe how this young man should relate to those who disagreed with him (2 Timothy 2:23–25). Those who have developed this character quality are able to communicate in a nonargumentative, nondefensive, and nonthreatening way.
QUALITY 8: “Not given to drunkenness”
Most scholars agree that most references to wine in both the Old and New Testaments refer to fermented grape juice; thus Paul wrote that a spiritual leader should not be “addicted to much wine” (Titus 2:3)—since it’s impossible to be addicted to a nonalcoholic beverage. From a larger biblical perspective, Paul was saying that spiritual leaders should (1) never overindulge and over drink (Proverbs 23:29–30); (2) never cause others to sin by using their freedom in Christ (Romans 14:21); and (3) never become addicted to anything, including food (Proverbs 23:20–21)
QUALITY 9: “Not violent”
Paul warned leaders to avoid having anger out of control—physically and verbally. Such a violent person (plektes) is literally a “bruiser,” one who is “ready with a blow,” a “pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person.”
QUALITY 10: “Gentle”
Being “gentle” is in contrast to being “violent.” There are several Greek words that are translated “gentle,” and here Paul chose epieikes, a word that describes a person who is “forbearing,” “equitable,” “fair,” and “reasonable.”
QUALITY 11: “Not quarrelsome”
The New American Standard Bible uses the word “peaceable”—a person who avoids debates and arguments. This is a very basic character quality that describes a leader who is “able to teach.”
QUALITY 12: “Not a lover of money”
The Scriptures do not teach that “money” per se is evil. Nor do they teach that it is wrong to have money in abundance. This is why Paul stated that those who are selected for leadership positions should be “free”—not from money—but “from the love of money” (NASB). They must model generosity and nonmaterialistic attitudes and actions to those they shepherd.
QUALITY 13: “Manage his own family well”
If a man is married and has children, a basic criterion for determining whether he is ready for a key leadership role in the church is how well he is functioning as a spiritual leader in his home. Paul viewed a well-ordered family as the true test of a man’s maturity and ability to lead other Christians. However, there are many misunderstandings regarding what Paul meant by this requirement. We often set a standard that Paul did not have in mind. Clearly, he was thinking of grown children who were probably already married and how “wild and disobedient” behavior was affecting their father’s reputation both in the church and the nonbelieving community. (See chapter 20 for a fuller discussion.)
QUALITY 14: “Not a recent convert”
Paul warned against appointing men to leadership who were new Christians. If we do, we are setting that person up for a direct attack from Satan—and that point of attack will be pridefulness.
QUALITY 15: “A good reputation”
Finally, the overseer needed to have a good reputation in the local community. Just as a spiritual leader must have a good reputation with believers by being “above reproach” (the first quality), his reputation with outsiders must be above question.
This is the first of two very detailed maturity profiles outlined by Paul for selecting and appointing elders/overseers. When Paul left Titus in Crete to establish the church, he outlined a second list of qualifications (Titus 1:5–9). In chapter 19, we’ll compare these two criteria and look carefully at the “similarities” and the “differences.”4
1 Timothy 3:1–7
Fifteen qualifications are listed in this passage. Many have attempted to categorize these fifteen in some way, but there is no general agreement on how they should be outlined. Two facts about them are obvious, however. (1) The first seven are presented in a positive manner, while the final eight are characteristically negative. (2) The first fourteen virtues relate primarily to those in the church, whereas the final requirement relates to those outside the church. Concerning this Hendrickson says, “The prospective overseer must have a favorable testimony from two groups: (a) insiders, that is, church members, and (b) outsiders, that is those who are outside the church.”5 While there is no clear delineation of categories in the text beyond the two mentioned, some organization will be helpful in getting a handle on what is required of a prospective pastor-elder. Homer Kent’s outline is helpful for that purpose, so it will be used to clarify the requirements. The headings are: (1) general, (2) moral, (3) mental, (4) personality, (5) domestic, (6) Christian experience, and (7) reputation.6
General Qualification
The first characteristic, “blameless,” means “above reproach.” It is probably to be an inclusive term that is used to sum up all of the requirements in one. The word originally meant “not to be laid hold of.” It is used of a wrestler who does not give his opponent an opportunity to get a hold on him.7 Accusations may be made against hi m, but no grounds for them exist.
Moral Qualification
The only requirement for the office of pastor-elder that is controversial is “husband of one wife.” There are at least five views on this subject. One of them is entirely a Roman Catholic view.
Marriage-to-the-Church View. In this view the “one wife” is the church. The pastor must consider himself married to the church. About this view Kent says, “This is an obvious and rather clumsy attempt to protect the Romish doctrine of celibacy for priests. However, there is no warrant for spiritualizing this part of the passage when every other term in the list is understood literally.”8 It must be said that not even all Catholics follow this view.
Prohibition-of-Polygamy View. This view is appealing today to some because polygamy is not a problem in Western society; therefore, it does not cause any controversy over whether anyone qualifies for the ministry. The NIV translation of this verse implies by its wording that the qualification refers to polygamy: “The overseer must be … the husband of one wife.” Polygamy was certainly not accepted in the first-century church. It hardly seems necessary even to say it.
Polygamy was illegal in the Roman Empire, and even though it still occurred among the heathen and some Jews, a pastor could not be considered “above reproach” if he practiced it.9 Beyond this, if Scripture forbids polygamy for all Christians (1 Cor. 7:2), it certainly includes pastors. Polygamy is, undoubtedly, not the target of this phrase. Kelly says, “That the words are directed against either keeping concubines or polygamy, i.e. having more than one wife at a time” are “suggestions which are improbable in the extreme.”10
Exclusion-of-Unmarried-Pastors View. Though this view is mentioned as a possibility by most commentators, no one seems to hold it or defend it.11 This view is flawed on two counts. (1) Paul would not have to emphasize “one wife” if this were the case. He would only have to say that a pastor must have “a wife.” (2) Paul himself saw nothing wrong with his unmarried state (1 Cor. 7:7–8, 17). In fact, he encourages others to be happy in their situation whether they are married or unmarried. (3) Paul was unmarried at the time he wrote, but he considered himself to be one of the elders (pastors). In 2 Timothy 1:6 he reminds Timothy of the gift that was in him “through the laying on of my hands.” Add to that verse 1 Timothy 4:14, which says, “Do not neglect the gift that is in you … with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.” Paul must have considered himself part of the group of elders who laid hands on Timothy. (4) One final point against this view is this. If “husband of one wife” is taken to mean a pastor-elder must have a wife, then “ruling their children and their own houses well” must be taken to mean that a pastor must have children. Otherwise there is no consistency in the interpretation.
Prohibition-of-Remarried-Widowers View. Simply stated, this means that a pastor may marry once, but if his wife dies, he may not marry a second time. Kent points out that this opinion is very common in Europe.12 Plummer argues in favor of this view. His main arguments are these. (1) Among the heathen there was a special respect for the univira, the woman who was married to only one man in her lifetime. Therefore, he concludes, persons who did not remarry would be more respected in the community than those who did.13 Against this point Keener demonstrates that men rarely abstained from a second marriage in this case and that this view more closely mirrors the sexual asceticism urged by the false teachers than Paul’s own position.14 (2) Plummer believes that a second marriage would be a sign of weakness even though it was lawful. Against this argument the question has been asked, “Why would it be any more a sign of moral weakness to remarry after the death of a spouse than to marry in the first place?” (3) Plummer also cites several of the church fathers such as Origin, Clement, and Tertullian who support his position.15
Against this view is the fact that this is the only moral requirement listed primarily for pastors. Is the remarriage of a widower the greatest sexual sin? Certainly not. It is not even mentioned anywhere else as a problem. Kent is correct when he says, “The chief weakness of this view is the lack of harmony with the tenor of Scripture teaching on the subject of marriage.
“Nowhere in Scripture (including Paul’s epistles) is the remarriage of a widower after the death of the wife depicted as forbidden or even morally questionable.”16 The younger widows are advised to remarry (1 Tim. 5:14). In the light of the advice in Genesis 2:18 and Romans 7:2 (death annuls the contract), there is no reason pastors who are widowers may not remarry “in the Lord.”
Faithful-to-One’s-Current-Wife View. In most commentaries more than one generation old, this view is not even discussed as a possibility. However, it has come to be accepted by some in recent times. Keener expresses his interpretation in this way: “Rather than forbidding remarriage to those whose marriages had ended, Paul may be emphasizing that they should have been faithful spouses during the marriage.”17 He says that “husband of one wife” here refers to “a faithful and loyal spouse who is a good current marital partner.”18 It would not, in his opinion, disqualify “a capable prophet or teacher because of a bad marriage many years ago, often before his or her conversion.”19 His supporting argument is that marriage to only one partner in a lifetime was never a qualification for leaders in the ancient world. On the other hand, marital fidelity was often required.
Lea and Griffin also support this position. They conclude, “It is better to see Paul having demanded that the church leader be faithful to his one wife. The Greek describes the overseer literally as a ‘one-woman kind of man’ (‘faithful to his one wife,’ NEB).”20 According to this view, a divorced man can serve as a church leader, either as a pastor-elder or deacon, if he is thoroughly devoted to his present wife. The primary argument for this view would be that a man’s preconversion sins should not be held against him. If this conclusion is correct, then Paul’s emphasis is not to warn against divorce and remarriage, but to disqualify whoever is known to be flirtatious (interested in other women) from serving as a pastor or deacon.
There are several problems with this view. First, Keener’s argument about what was required for leaders in the ancient world is extremely weak. Obviously, the moral standards and family commitments expected for Christian leaders were far beyond that of the world of that day. There is little ground for comparison. Second, the translation “one-woman kind of man” seems to bring the qualification down to its lowest common denominator. J. N. D. Kelly observes, “This is to squeeze more out of the Greek than it will bear.”21 Certainly a pastor-elder should not be flirtatious with other women, but this is not a qualification for a pastor—this is a requirement for all Christian men. Paul says to all, “Abstain from every form [appearance] of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22), and to Timothy, “Flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). Again it should be asked, “Is that the only moral requirement that sets the pastor apart from others?” Probably not.
There is another serious defect with this position. There are a lot of unanswered questions associated with it. If a remarried man is to be accepted as a pastor-elder, how long must he have been faithful to his new wife to qualify? Three months, a year, two years, five years? Will only those divorced before becoming a Christian be qualified, or will others qualify also? Will only those who were the “innocent party” qualify, or is the qualification broader? These questions are not addressed in Scripture, which leads to the conclusion that this option was not anticipated by the writers of the New Testament.
Perhaps the strongest argument against this view is found in 1 Timothy 5:9. The same phrase, “man of one woman” or “husband of one wife,” is turned around to refer to widows who would be supported by the church. Here it reads “wife of one husband” or “woman of one man.” In this case the verse clearly does not refer to being faithful to one’s present husband because it refers to a widow. First Timothy 5:9 has generally been understood to refer to a woman who has had only one husband. If it clearly refers to a woman’s past marital record and not to her present condition (having a reputation of being flirtatious, for instance), then how can the same phrase be differently understood when applied to pastors? One must conclude that this interpretation is not a suitable answer to the question of what “husband of one wife” means.
Prohibition-of-Divorce View. This view would interpret the phrase “husband of one wife” as a prohibition of divorce and any other kind of marital infidelity. This view can be supported for three reasons. (1) It is consistent with the historical background of the first-century Roman Empire. One of the two greatest social problems in the empire in those days was the high rate of divorce. Divorce could be obtained easily by both men and women under Roman law and by men under Jewish law. Kent points out, “When congregations were organized, the overseers were chosen from among mature men, who usually were married men with families … that is why this list of qualifications was necessary. Consequently, when men were to be considered for this office, there must be no record of divorce or any other marital infidelity in the candidate, even before his conversion.”22
Otherwise, the church could be caught in a complicated or even embarrassing situation when reports about former wives, mistresses, illegitimate children, or children from other marriages came to light. Some might argue that since those things happened in the preconversion life, they should be forgiven and overlooked. It is true that Jesus’ blood can make the vilest sinner clean, and all genuine converts are forgiven of sin and accepted into the body of Christ. It does not necessarily follow that all are then qualified to be pastors or deacons, regardless of what kind of past they have had. The matter of a person’s reputation in the world cannot be overlooked (1 Tim. 3:7). For the church to have a moral impact on society, the highest standards should be upheld.
A second argument for this position is the teaching against divorce in other Scripture. Hultgren argues for this position because “remarriage after divorce was prohibited for all followers in the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 6:18) and Paul (1 Cor. 7:10–11). If that prohibition applies to all, much more does it apply in the Pastoral Epistles to those in positions of leadership.”23 According to Romans 7:2–3, the only thing which frees a person from the marriage contract is death. It reads: “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress.”
For this reason Christian marriage ceremonies for centuries past have included the pledge “till death do us part.” Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7:11 cases where separation is either necessary or imposed by the other partner: “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” It is clearly not the ideal in God’s plan to get a divorce. Therefore, the pastor who is to be a role model for the congregation should not be divorced.
Paul is only repeating the teachings of Jesus on this issue. In Mark 10:11 Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.” The principle is that God has them “joined together” and they are now “one flesh.” Even though they may be divorced according to the law, they are still “one flesh.” So the conclusion according to this view is that if a man has two living wives, he has two wives and does not qualify to be a pastor-elder.
Some might argue that there is an exception clause in Matthew 19:9 (“except for sexual immorality”). The disciples were questioning Jesus about divorce and why Moses permitted it even though God had told them not to separate (19:6–7). Jesus said it was allowed because of the “hardness of your heart.” He then repeats the same statement about divorce and remarriage being adultery “except for sexual immorality” (porneia; 19:8–9). Many have taken this to mean that adultery gives a person grounds for divorce and remarriage. However, few notice the reaction of the disciples to His statement. Their reply is, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (v. 10).
Jesus then says, “All cannot accept this saying.” In other words, whatever Jesus meant by His statement, He did not intend to make it easy to get a divorce. His disciples seemed to be shocked by His answer. This is interesting because one of the most common views of that time regarding divorce was that it was permitted on the grounds of adultery. Why did the disciples react so to His answer? Perhaps it was because Jesus meant divorce was permitted for adultery only during the period of Jewish betrothal, not after the actual wedding. This would make it a hard saying and evoke a reaction from them.
A third argument for the “not-divorced” view is its impact on the other qualifications for the office. Wiersbe argues that if the marriage has failed, a man cannot properly be said to have ruled his house well. He says: “It’s clear that a man’s ability to manage his own marriage and home indicate ability to oversee a local church (1 Tim. 3:4–5). A pastor who has been divorced opens himself and the church to criticism from outsiders, and it is not likely that people with marital difficulties would consult a man who could not keep his own marriage together. I see no reason why dedicated Christians who have been divorced and remarried cannot serve in other offices in the church, but they are disqualified from being elders or deacons.”24
The phrase “husband of one wife” is stated positively rather than negatively by Paul because it means more than just “not divorced.” It means that a man is devoted to his wife. If he does not love her selflessly as the Scripture commands, he is not following the example of Christ and would, therefore, be a poor example to the church (Eph. 5:25ff.).
Mental Qualifications
Four qualifications for the pastor-elder concern his mental capabilities. The first is “temperate” (nephalion). Its literal meaning is “sober, temperate; abstaining from wine, either entirely … or at least from its immoderate use.”25 About this word, Moulton and Milligan say, “In Greek Literature nephalios is used to refer either to altars at which only wineless offerings were made, or perhaps to cakes made in the form of an altar, free from all inclusion of wine.”26 Liddell and Scott also define the word in classical Greek usage to refer to persons drinking no wine, sober, or a drink without wine, such as those containing water, milk, or honey.27 Josephus also uses the word with this meaning.28
Metaphorically, sober may denote one who is vigilant, calm, temperate, or free from excess that would cloud his spiritual judgment. Since wine is mentioned in the next verse, it is probably intended here to be taken in this sense. Barclay says the point here is that the “Christian must allow himself no pleasure or no indulgence that would lessen his Christian vigilance or soil his Christian conduct.”29
The second word in this category is sober-minded (sophrona). This word only occurs in the New Testament here and in Titus 1:8; and 2:2, 5. Arndt and Gingrich define sophron as meaning “prudent, thoughtful, self-controlled.”30 Barclay says it is really an untranslatable word, which means there is no single English word that gives its exact meaning. Besides the translations mentioned above, it has also been rendered “of sound mind,” “discreet,” “chaste,” “having complete control over sensual desires.”31 It is derived from two words that mean “to keep one’s mind safe and sound.” It is discussed by many of the ancient philosophers, and the sum of the discussions is this: It refers to “the man who has every part of his nature under perfect control.”32 Barclay cites Jeremy Taylor who called it “reason’s girdle and passion’s bridle.”33 It describes a man in whom the Spirit of God has placed the mind of Christ.
The third mental qualification is to be “of good behavior.” The Greek word is kosmion, which is used only once in the rest of the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 2:9 it is used to describe how women should dress. It is a companion word with the previous word (sophron). Barclay says, “If a man is kosmios in his outer conduct it is because he is sophion in his inner life.”34 The word means more than just good behavior; it means “orderly, honest, or virtuous.” It is often used in ancient inscriptions to praise those who had lived an honorable and virtuous life.35 It is related to kosmeo, to arrange, and kosmos, world, which is well ordered, not chaotic. Kent says, “The ministry is no place for the man whose life is a continual confusion of unaccomplished plans and unorganized activity.”36
The final mental qualification is to be “able to teach.” Since the primary function of a pastor-elder is teaching sound doctrine and refuting false teaching by expounding the Word of God, it is absolutely essential that a pastor be an effective teacher. The word didaktikon denotes one who is characterized by teaching. It is used only one other time in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 2:25 it is used to describe the servant of the Lord (with special reference to Timothy who is also an elder) as one who was “able to teach.” In this way the pastor-teacher is following the example of Jesus, who was called a “teacher come from God” (John 3:2) and who called Himself “your teacher, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8).
There is some disagreement over whether pastor-elders must have the spiritual gift of teaching. Mayer agrees that this qualification “demands a certain inherent mental capacity for teaching and assumes knowledge of what is taught.”37 However, he argues that this ability does not relate to the spiritual gift of teaching, but it is “only a natural aptitude for such.” He is arguing from the position that some pastor-elders do not teach. However, Ephesians 4:7–12 speaks of the grace-gifts that God has given to the church. In that list teaching is linked with the office of pastor-elder. He is a teacher above all else. It is difficult to imagine that God would appoint men to the task of being a teacher without spiritually gifting them to do the job. Is the church to depend on natural ability only? The church needs more than that. It needs the enabling of the Spirit in its teaching. This is what Paul was speaking to Timothy about when he said, “Stir up the gift of God which is in you” (2 Tim. 1:6). The gift of teaching is indicated by his admonitions in verse 13 (“hold fast the pattern of sound words”) and in chapter 2, verse 2 (“commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”). Every pastor should have this gift.38
Personal Qualifications
Six qualifications fit this category. The first is “hospitable.” The Greek term philoxenos is a compound of philos and xenos that literally means “loving strangers.” The word is found in Titus 1:8 in the parallel list of elder qualifications and in 1 Peter 4:9, where it is commanded for all Christians. In that day there were traveling preachers and teachers as well as other believers who might pass their way. Inns of that time were usually ungodly places and sometimes dangerous as well. Since most Christian teachers and evangelists were poor, they were dependent on the hospitality of other believers. In his official capacity as a leader of the church, a pastor-elder had the duty of keeping his house open to strangers. All believers should be “given to hospitality” (Rom. 12:13) but especially the leaders.
The second personal requirement is to be “not given to wine.” Literally, this means “not beside wine.” Thayer translates paroinos as “one who sits long at his wine.”39 Kent interprets the phrase that the pastor “must not be a drinker.”40 Most agree that the phrase is teaching moderation in this regard, because wine was the usual beverage of that day. Barclay points out, however, that the normal mixture for table wine in that day was “two parts wine to three parts of water.”41 Drunkenness was a disgrace even in pagan society. Some pastor-elders in that time were total abstainers even though water was often impure. Paul had to urge Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach illnesses (1 Tim. 5:23).
The next qualification is to be “not violent” (plekten). It has been translated “not a striker” or “not given to blows.” It refers to a man who is a “bully”42 or a “bruiser, ready with a blow; a pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person.”43 The only other place it occurs in the New Testament is in the parallel passage, Titus 1:7. The pastor should not be one who is always ready for a fight, one who strikes back when he is challenged.44
The pastor-elder must be the opposite of a bully. He must be “gentle” (epieike). This is another word that probably has no exact English equivalent, so it has been variously translated. Thayer lists its meaning as “yielding, gentle, kind.”45 Kelly uses the word magnanimous to describe its meaning. By this he means “the gracious condescension, or forbearingness, with which the Christian pastor should deal with his charges, however exasperating they may on occasion be.”46 He must be willing to surrender his own rights to avoid contention in the church. This word is also used in Philippians 4:5, Titus 3:2, and James 3:17. In these cases it is demanded of all believers, not just pastors. However, the pastor should be an example to all in this.47
The fifth personal qualification is to be “not quarrelsome” (amachon). It means more than “not violent,” but it means literally “averse to fighting.”48 This is not just a person who is not contentious but who loves peace. He keeps his temper under control. In Titus 3:2 it is translated “peaceable,” and it is an admonition for all believers.
The last personal qualification for a pastor-elder is to be “not covetous.” The Greek word is aphilarguron, which literally means “not a money lover.” He must be one who keeps material things in their proper perspective because a love for money can lead to all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). The desire for money is both an attitude and an ambition. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Luke 16:13–15 for their love of money. Paul’s admonition to all believers is to be content, both when there is abundance and when there is need (Phil. 4:11–12).
Domestic Qualifications
The candidate for “overseer” of a church must first be a good “ruler” (leader, manager) of his own household. It is assumed that he will be married and have children, though that is not required. As Mayer correctly observes, when the word oikos (house) is used to refer to a “household” rather than a physical structure where people live, it always refers to people. The emphasis is on how he oversees and leads the people in his house, who might include his wife, children, and possibly servants.49 The second phrase, “having his children in submission with all reverence,” seems to name the man’s children as the primary area for testing. If the children exhibit obedience, discipline, and respect for his authority, that is proof of his ability to lead.
The last part of the phrase, “with all reverence,” refers to how the pastor manages his household. It should be done with “dignity.” If a father attempts to control his children solely by force rather than by winning their respect, he will usually treat church members in the same manner. Hendrickson describes the father’s leadership in this way: “It must be done in such a manner that the father’s firmness makes it advisable for a child to obey, that his wisdom makes it natural for a child to obey, and that his love makes it a pleasure for a child to obey.”50 Poor leadership in the home is a bad testimony, and it demonstrates a lack of competence for the pastoral office. Leadership or management skills are necessary to lead a household and even more necessary to lead a church. In short, a pastor must demonstrate skill in leading and managing people.
Christian Experience
The candidate for pastor-elder must not be a “novice.” The term neophuton means “newly planted” or a “young plant.” Hence, it refers to one who is a recent convert to the faith. This is the only use of this word in the New Testament, but Paul does use the same metaphor of planting and watering in 1 Corinthians 3:6 to refer to converting people to Christ. The danger of choosing a neophyte (new convert) for a position of leadership in the church is vividly described. He may become “puffed up with pride” or conceited. Literally, this means “wrapped up in smoke.” He is “wrapped in the smoke of arrogance” as Hendrickson puts it,51 which leads to a clouded mental state. This same sin brought judgment on the devil and will bring ruin to the novice also. The consequences will not only be disastrous for the novice but for the church as well. No matter how gifted and promising the new convert appears, he should not be elevated to this office until he has some maturity in Christ.
Reputation
The final qualification in this list is to be “a good testimony among those who are outside.”
Among those who are not believers, he must have a good reputation. Those who have seen him at work in the secular world and who have associated closely with him often know more about his real character than do many of the church members. Beyond that, if the church is trying to win outsiders to the Lord and they choose a pastor who has a bad reputation with unbelievers, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make an impact with them. Those who know his faults would reject him and his ministry. The only winner here would be the devil.
Titus 1:6–9
The second list of qualifications for an elder-pastor is found in Titus 1:6–9. Fifteen items are listed, the same number found in 1 Timothy 3. However, the lists do not exactly coincide. Apparently these are not from a standardized list, or they would agree. Of the fifteen in Titus, most are either repeated or are synonyms for the ones in 1 Timothy. There are three notable differences. The prohibition of electing recent converts, as well as the requirement of a good reputation among unbelievers, is omitted, although they may be considered part of the meaning of other requirements. There are also some additions in Titus that are not in 1 Timothy. Only those differences between the lists will be discussed.
General Qualifications
As in 1 Timothy 3:2, one requirement is an umbrella-type word, which includes all the requirements under it. The word blameless (anegkletos) is not the same word used in 1 Timothy 3:2 but a synonym. It is actually a stronger word. It literally means “not called in question.” It implies “not acquittal merely, but absence so much as of a charge or accusation brought against him.” It means not only “unaccusable, but unaccused.”52 In other words, there is not even a hint of impropriety in his character.
Moral and Domestic Qualifications
The first requirement for the office of pastor, “husband of one wife,” is also found in 1 Timothy 3:2 (see the discussion on that passage). The second requirement is more specific than 1 Timothy. It says the pastor must have “faithful children.” This means, at the very least, that they are believers in Jesus. Children who are pagans would be a tremendous handicap for a pastor-elder. In addition, the pastor’s children must not be a source of embarrassment to their father because of unrighteous living. His children should not be guilty of “dissipation or insubordination.” Dissipation is the Greek word asotia, which describes a person who is “wasteful and extravagant and who pours out his substance on personal pleasure.”53
In Luke 15:13 it is used to describe the “riotous living” of the prodigal son. Its literal meaning is “one who is without salvation.” The second word, insubordination, describes one who is not in subjection to his father and who is undisciplined.54 It describes conduct befitting a lost sinner (see 1 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:10). In other words, it is not enough for a candidate for the pastoral office to lead his children to Christ; he must disciple them in the way of the Lord. Christianity begins at home. As Barclay says, “All the church service in the world will not atone for the neglect of a man’s own family.”55
Personal Qualifications
The next seven items are related to the candidate’s personality. (1) He must not be “self-willed” or “self-pleasing.” Kent says this word describes the “headstrong, stubborn man who demands his own way without regard for others.”56 Since a pastor’s job is to shepherd and serve the entire flock, there is no room for self-service. He must respect the rights of those he serves. (2) “Not quick-tempered” means not “prone to anger or not soon angry.” Barclay says this word, orgilon, “is not the anger of the sudden blaze, but the wrath which a man nurses to keep it warm.”57 It is purposely maintained. Such an angry man should not be chosen for this high office. (3–4) “Not given to wine” and “not violent” are exactly the words used in 1 Timothy. (See the previous discussion on 1 Tim. 3:3.)
(5) “Not greedy for money” is aischrokerde. This word is found in the qualification for deacons (1 Tim. 3:8). A similar qualification for elders is given in 1 Timothy 3:3. However, a different word, aphilarguron, is used there, which means “not a money lover.” The phrase in Titus can be interpreted in more than one way. Barclay says it “describes a man who does not care how he makes money.”58 Arndt and Gingrich give its meaning as “fond of dishonest gain.”59 In this context the emphasis is not on getting money by dishonorable dealing, but by using one’s position for financial gain. Kelly agrees that this weakness would be a special temptation to those who handled the church’s offerings and relief for the poor.60 (6) Hospitable is also listed in 1 Timothy 3:2. (7) The final qualification in this category is “a lover of what is good.” This term is very similar to the previous word hospitable, which means “a lover of strangers.” This word means either a lover of good things or of good people. In this context it probably refers to a man who loves everything that is good. Kent concludes that the overseer “should be an ally and an advocate of everything worthwhile.”61
Mental Qualification
The same word found in Titus, “sober-minded,” has already been considered in 1 Timothy 3:2. It is the Greek word sophrona.
Spiritual and Moral Qualifications
The final four requirements fit the moral and spiritual category. The first is the adjective dikaion, which means “righteous” or “just.” It is a common word in the New Testament; it occurs eighty-one times. There is some question about how it is intended in this passage. It may refer to one’s conduct toward others or to a person who lives according to God’s laws. Mayer concludes that in this context the term “describes a man who is upright in his dealings with his neighbor and does him no wrong, but these dealings are in accord with the divine standard of right as well.”62
The second qualification listed is “holy” (hosion). This refers to a man’s relationship with God. Arndt and Gingrich define it as “devout, pious, pleasing to God, holy.”63 A potential pastor-elder should be one who is pleasing to God because of his sincere reverence for the moral laws of God. A good example would be Joseph who, when tempted by Potiphar’s wife, had reverence for the sanctity of marriage and refused to sin against God by violating it (Gen. 39).
A third moral prerequisite is to be “self-controlled” (egkrate). This word is an adjective that is formed by combining the preposition en (in) with kratos (strength or power). Its literal meaning is “having strength within.” It came to mean “self-controlled” or “disciplined.”64 There is some overlap here with the fourth qualification in 1 Timothy 2:12. Sophrona (sober-minded) also includes the idea of discipline or self-control, but its emphasis is on controlling one’s mind or thoughts concerning physical appetites.65
The final requirement is that the pastor-elder must be one “holding fast the faithful word.” In other words, he must hold firmly to the Word of God. He must cling to it because he recognizes that it is trustworthy. He must not change doctrine but hold on to what he has been taught. Literally the Greek reads, “Clinging to the faithful word according to the teaching (or doctrine).” Mayer is correct when he says that teaching “probably refers to the objective body of Christian truth which is received … although its content cannot be delineated, it undoubtedly was that which was taught by Paul himself (cf. Romans 6:17; 16:17), as well as the apostles (cf. 1 Tim. 6:3).”66
Two reasons are given for the pastor’s “clinging to” the Word. He must be able to teach it in order to “exhort” or encourage the believers. He must be conversant with sound doctrine in order to give the right message. He must also be able to “convict” (refute) those who oppose sound doctrine. To be able to do this the pastor must be schooled in Christian doctrine, understand it, cling to it, and have the ability to teach it (1 Tim. 3:2). Otherwise, the prospective pastor-elder will not be able to fulfill the high purpose of his office.
Conclusion
One might say that it is impossible for anyone to qualify to be a pastor-elder after looking at the qualifications. At the very least one can say the office has extremely high requirements for anyone who wishes to fill it. Few meet the requirements, and none can meet them without the strength given by the indwelling Spirit of God. A prospective pastor must be one who walks with God and clings to His Word.
The Role of the Pastor-Elder
One factor that becomes clear as one studies the New Testament church is that there was a great deal of organization necessary to accomplish the things the early church did.
Some of the evidences of a developed organizational structure are these:
1. They had a moderator, James, who was not one of the twelve apostles (Acts 15). As Saucy points out, this shows evidence of a change from apostolic leadership in this local church to another form.1
2. They knew the number of members they had (Acts 2:11; 4:4). Someone had to be responsible to count them.
3. They had regular meetings on the first day of the week (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7; John 20:19, 26).
4. In Jerusalem they met daily both publicly and in homes (Acts 2:42, 47; 20:7). This probably had to be coordinated by someone.
5. There were prayer meetings (Acts 2:42, 47; 12:5ff.).
6. The Lord’s Supper was practiced (Acts 2:42, 46). Someone had to prepare for it and preside over its celebration in each house.
7. They practiced church discipline (Acts 5; 1 Cor. 5:4). Their procedure was probably based on Jesus’ statements in Matthew 18:15–17.
8. They took up money for the poor in their midst as well as for other needy churches (1 Cor. 16:2–3; 2 Cor. 8:1–6; 9:1–7; Acts 2:45; 4:32–37; 6:1–3). If all these collections were being taken, someone had to administer the funds. In Acts 6 the first deacons were chosen for one part of this ministry, to give money to widows who were in need. First Timothy 5:9ff. also gives instructions about the care of widows.
9. Paul commanded that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). It is very difficult to have order without any organization. He adds that contentiousness was not part of the “custom” of the churches (1 Cor. 11:16).
10. Finally, the church sent out letters of commendation for saints who moved to new locations. Letters were sent for Apollos (Acts 18:24–28) and for Phoebe (Rom. 16:1–2).
The general practice of letters of recommendation is also found in 2 Corinthians 3:1–3. Modern-day churches continue this practice. In the New Testament, however, there is no practice of sending letters for those who were not faithful to the Lord and His church.
These indications of specific organization in the early church serve to demonstrate that the structure of the church was much more complicated than most people understand. One might ask, “If all these activities and functions were being performed, why is there not more direction given about how the church should be organized?” The answer is this. When directions are given, they must be followed exactly as Scripture says. The general principles are modeled for us. Details that are not given leave us free to adapt the structure to any given context.
Mayer divides the role of the elder into four categories: (1) overseeing and shepherding, (2) governing and leading, (3) preaching and teaching, and (4) relieving and healing. He views overseeing as basic to all four of the categories.2 William Barclay concludes that the functions of the elder fall into only two main categories: administration and instruction.3 While all such divisions are artificial, they are helpful in getting a good idea of all that is included in the role of the pastor-elder. Mayer points out that at least seventeen different functions can be listed for this office, which is good reason this ministry can be called “hard work.”4
George adds a third category, pastoral duties, to Barclay’s two. This seems to be the best option for understanding the pastor’s role. His duties can be divided into these three functions: (1) instructional, equipping the saints; (2) pastoral, taking care of the flock; (3) administrative, overseeing the saints.5
In some ways these functions overlap, but in other ways they are distinct. They provide a structure for organizing a study of the pastor’s role.
At least six essential functions for elders are prescribed in the biblical story of the church. Let’s look at the description and use of each.
1. TEACHING BIBLICAL TRUTH
The specific and foundational responsibility for elders/overseers to “teach” the Word of God takes us back to the Great Commission. When the eleven disciples responded to Jesus’ command to go to Galilee and meet Him on a certain mountain, Jesus commissioned them to do two things. First, they were to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19)—initially, proclaiming the Gospel and securing conversions to Christ (converts were called “disciples” before they were called “Christians”—Acts 11:26). Second, they were to build up these disciples by “teaching them to obey everything” Jesus had taught and commanded them (Matthew 28:20).1
The Church in Jerusalem
As soon as the church was born on the Day of Pentecost, the process of teaching began. The three thousand that responded to Peter’s exposition and proclamation “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching [didache]” (Acts 2:41–42).
The Church in Antioch
When the apostles eventually heard that Gentiles had responded to the Gospel in Antioch, they sent Barnabas to assess the situation. When he arrived and discovered these “pagans” had indeed experienced God’s grace—as happened to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost—Barnabas immediately began to teach them “to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts” (Acts 11:23).2 And when Paul (Saul) joined him, these two men “taught” these disciples for a whole year (11:26).
The Churches in Galatia
When Paul and Barnabas traveled together on their first missionary journey and had “won a large number of disciples” in Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, and Lystra, they eventually returned to these three cities, “strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith” (Acts 14:21–22). Here Paul first used the basic Greek word episterizo, which also means “to establish.” He then used the basic Greek word parakaleo that he used to describe Barnabas’ teaching ministry in Antioch.
Passing the Baton
This leads us to the next step in the process—appointing elders/overseers in each of these churches, who would carry on the teaching responsibility first commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. What happened in these Galatian churches became part of the Pauline strategy. Both Timothy and Titus were to pass the baton to the elders/overseers in Ephesus and Crete who in turn were to be faithful shepherds who would “tend” or “feed” the flock of God. Note once again Paul’s words to Titus regarding those he was appointing as elders/overseers: “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9a).
2. MODELING CHRISTLIKE BEHAVIOR
In order to communicate biblical truth in all its fullness, Paul exemplified a twofold teaching approach in his own life-on-life ministry—modeling Christ’s likeness while verbally instructing believers. Again, when he wrote to the Thessalonians, he reminded them of the way he, Silas, and Timothy had utilized these two dimensions in their communication.
Their Model. “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed” (1 Thessalonians 2:10).
Their Teaching Ministry. “For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (1 Thessalonians 2:11–12).
When Paul encouraged Timothy while he was in Ephesus, he emphasized the same twofold approach:
The Model. “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).
His Teaching Ministry. “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13; see also Titus 2:7–8).
All elders/overseers were to follow this same two-dimensional communication style. This is one important reason why Paul’s list of qualifications focuses on character, not gifts, abilities, and/or skills.
3. MAINTAINING DOCTRINAL PURITY
This specific “managing” and “shepherding” function for elders/overseers is definitely an extension of “teaching biblical truth.”
Sound Doctrine
The first reference to elder involvement in resolving theological issues transpired in Jerusalem when Paul and Barnabas came from Antioch for advice and assistance. Significantly, this resolution involved the most basic doctrine in Christianity. Centuries later, Martin Luther faced the same basic issue—that we are justified by faith, not by works.
What we see in the biblical story following the Jerusalem council is that eventually the leaders in every local church became responsible for maintaining day-to-day and week-to-week doctrinal purity. This is why Paul exhorted the Ephesian elders to consistently “be on [their] guard” regarding those who would “arise and distort the truth” (Acts 20:30–31).
Paul recorded the most specific instructions regarding maintaining doctrinal purity in his letter to Titus. He was to appoint elders/overseers who not only taught “sound doctrine” but who could “refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9b). This was particularly important in Crete because false teachers were already having a destructive influence.
Able to Teach
When Paul outlined the qualifications for elders/overseers in his first letter to Timothy, he required that these men be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). However, it wasn’t until he wrote his second and final letter that he elaborated on what kind of communication he had in mind. Timothy was to “be able to teach” (didaktikos) by demonstrating the “fruit of the Spirit” as he confronted people who were leaning in the wrong direction doctrinally. Consequently, Paul wrote:
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. [2 Timothy 2:23–26]
Being “able to teach” is a character quality. Timothy was to confront “false doctrine” with a gentle, sensitive, and teachable spirit, avoiding arguments and quarrels. It’s only in this kind of Christ-centered environment that people would listen objectively and hopefully discover what is really true. Though elders/overseers were to “speak the truth,” they were always to do so “in love” (Ephesians 4:15).
Silencing the False Teachers
Having encouraged this kind of Spirit-controlled communication for spiritual leaders, Paul also drew a “line in the sand” if false teachers continued to lead people astray. He made this conspicuously clear to Titus with some very direct and deliberate instructions: “They must be silenced” (Titus 1:11). And, as Paul closed out his letter, he once again addressed this issue. Like Timothy, Titus was to “avoid foolish controversies” and “arguments and quarrels” (3:9). However, if a gentle, sensitive, teachable approach didn’t bring a positive response, Paul outlined for Titus the next step:
“Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11).
One of the specific functions, then, for elders/overseers as they “manage” and “shepherd” the church was not only to be proactive by teaching and modeling the Word of God but also to maintain sound doctrine. If a local church departed from what was true, particularly at the leadership level, the “whole body” would be subject to a lethal disease that would eventually lead to spiritual deterioration. Unfortunately, this happened in the New Testament world. Paul reminded Timothy that when Hymenaeus and Philetus began to teach false doctrines, what they taught “spread like gangrene” (2 Timothy 2:17–18).
4. DISCIPLINING UNRULY BELIEVERS
Just as fathers are responsible for disciplining children who are unruly and rebellious, so elders/overseers are responsible as “multiple fathers” in the “church family” to discipline believers who are determined to willfully violate the will of God. This process involves several levels of communication.
Admonishing
In Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, he introduced us to this concept, “to admonish” (noutheteo). Some of these believers had a false view of the second coming of Christ and were evidently using the doctrine of the Lord’s imminent return to be lazy—not to be diligent in making a living and taking care of their families. Consequently, the elders/overseers had the awesome responsibility to admonish and to warn these believers to correct their irresponsible behavior (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13; see also 1 Corinthians 4:14).
Biblical Intervention
Closely related to Paul’s instructions to the spiritual leaders in Thessalonica is his exhortation to the Galatians. Though Paul doesn’t mention elders/overseers specifically, they certainly must have been uppermost in Paul’s mind when he referred to those “who are spiritual”: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:1–2).
Here Paul was referring to a believer who was caught in a web of sinful behavior that was common knowledge within the church. Consequently, an attempt to restore this person was a task for more than one godly Christian. This is why Paul used the plural pronoun—“You who are spiritual.” Using contemporary nomenclature, this is biblical “intervention.”
Personal Offenses
During His ministry on earth, Jesus outlined a process for dealing with personal offenses.
Step 1: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Step 2: But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
Step 3: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;
Step 4: and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” [Matthew 18:15–17]
It’s difficult to know exactly what Jesus meant since the word ekklesia (“church”) was often used in the Roman culture to refer to an “assembly of leaders.” For example, when the riot took place in Ephesus, Luke recorded that “the assembly [ekklesia] was in confusion” (Acts 19:32)—referring to an unruly crowd of people that had gathered in the theater (19:29–32). Later “the city clerk quieted the crowd” (19:35) and reminded them that their concerns “must be settled in a legal assembly [ekklesia]” (19:39)—namely, a city council.
In the same way, the Jewish Sanhedrin in local synagogues was a “legal ‘ekklesia’ in Israel”—which may have been what Jesus had in mind when He told an offended individual to take his concerns to the “church.” We must remember that His target audience at this time in His ministry was His fellow Jews. Nevertheless, what Jesus outlined certainly applies to the way elders/overseers should handle personal offenses that are not resolved one-on-one. After an offended party involves one or more people in the confrontation, if there is still no response, that individual can certainly appeal to the ekklesia (the “assembly”). In the local church, the body of elders/overseers certainly comprise that “assembly.” In this sense, the elders/overseers are “the church.”
This approach is in harmony with the way the biblical story describes their shepherding responsibilities. Dealing with sin is a matter to be handled by those “who are spiritual”—not a “general assembly” (ekklesia) or a “congregation of Christians”—many of whom may be “members” of the church (the larger assembly) but who are not qualified spiritually to express an opinion about another Christian’s sin, let alone make a decision to discipline that believer. This kind of approach actually opens the door to Satan in that person’s life. That’s why Paul warned, “Watch yourself, or you also may be tempted” (Galatians 6:1b).
5. OVERSEEING FINANCIAL MATTERS
Distributing Funds for the Needy
It’s not a coincidence that the first reference to elders/overseers focused on financial responsibility (Acts 11:30). Though we’re not given any specific details as to how the Jerusalem elders distributed the money delivered by Barnabas and Saul (Paul), we can certainly “fill in the blanks” in terms of this Herculean task. They had to make sure these funds were allocated fairly and equitably to needy believers—not only in Jerusalem but also in other churches throughout Judea. Since this would have been an extremely time-consuming effort, these men must have appointed qualified assistants to help them.
Allocating Wages
Since the elders/overseers were the primary leaders in the church, they were also responsible for monitoring financial distributions among themselves. For example, when certain leaders were entitled to “double honor” (financial remuneration), this distribution needed to be managed in a fair and equitable way. Though we’re not told how they were to carry out this function, it was certainly supposed to be done properly.
Paul consistently modeled this kind of accountability. First, he at times gave up what were his “rights” to not be a stumbling block to both unbelievers and believers (1 Corinthians 9:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:9). Second, Paul bent over backwards to avoid misunderstandings when he was raising funds. For example, when he was collecting money for needy believers in Jerusalem, he did not handle the funds personally. Rather, he exhorted the Corinthians to raise the money, store it up, and keep it until he arrived, and then to choose people whom they personally trusted to transport the gift (1 Corinthians 16:3–4). Paul wanted to be “above reproach” so no one could accuse him of raising money to benefit himself. This is why he could remind the Ephesian elders/overseers with a clear conscience and full confidence that during his ministry in Ephesus, he had “not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing” (Acts 20:33). In essence, he was telling them to follow his example.
6. PRAYING FOR THOSE WHO ARE ILL
As the primary leader of the elders/overseers in Jerusalem, James introduced the important function of praying for the ill in his New Testament letter early in the history of the church. Though we’ve listed it last, it’s a very important priority function. All believers were to know that they could ask the elders/overseers for prayer regarding physical, psychological, and spiritual healing in their lives (James 5:13–16). When these spiritual leaders were not practicing this biblical injunction on a regular basis, they were bypassing an important ministry that was essential if they were going to “manage well” and “be good shepherds”
This was a major reason Paul left Titus on the island to appoint qualified elders/overseers and to silence those who were already “ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain” (Titus 1:11). As self-appointed leaders, they were doing more harm than good.