Category Archives: Eldership

Should Women Preach in Our Churches?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Kevin DeYoung (original source here – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/women-preach-churches/ )

This is not an article about the case for complementarianism instead of egalitarianism. That matters, of course, but this piece is for self-identified complementarians wondering if their theology can allow, or should allow, for women preaching.

Here is the question I want to address:

Is there biblical justification, given basic complementarian convictions, for the practice of women preaching sermons in a Sunday worship service?

Most people reading this blog understand the immediate relevancy of the question posed above. I’m not going to rehearse the cases where this question has been raised or sift through recent responses online. Instead, I’m going to interact with what I think is the best case, from a complementarian perspective, for allowing women to preach. First, I’ll explain the argument for women preaching as fairly as I can. Then I’ll make a case why the argument—no matter how plausible it may sound at first—fails to convince.

Hearing Her Voice

The best argument I’ve seen for women preaching is by the Australian minister and apologist John Dickson in his book Hearing Her Voice: A Biblical Invitation for Women to Preach (Zondervan, 2014). With affirming blurbs from J.I. Packer, Craig Blomberg, Graham Cole, and Chris Wright, one can see why this has been an influential book. Even if you aren’t familiar with the book, I’m quite certain it’s influenced people you do know. Besides the commendation from well-respected evangelical scholars, Dickson’s book is a model of clarity and accessibility. In just over 100 pages, Dickson makes a thoughtful, straightforward case—as one who admits “to being a broad complementarian” (88)—for the legitimacy of women preaching sermons in Sunday services.

Not surprisingly, Dickson focuses on 1 Timothy 2:12. While the application seems obvious to many of us—women aren’t permitted to teach or to exercise authority, so they shouldn’t preach sermons—Dickson argues that we’ve misunderstood what Paul meant by teaching. “Put simply,” Dickson writes, “there are numerous public-speaking ministries mentioned in the New Testament—teaching, exhorting, evangelising, prophesying, reading, and so on—and Paul restricts just one of them to qualified males: ‘teaching’” (11-12).

At the heart of Dickson’s argument is a simple syllogism, we can summarize like this:

  1. The only thing women can’t do in worship is teach.
  2. For Paul, teaching was a technical and narrowly conceived enterprise that is not the same as our modern sermon.
  3. Therefore, women can speak in almost every way in a church service, including preaching the sermon.

So, if preaching a sermon does not count as teaching, what did Paul mean by teaching? Dickson explains:

1 Timothy 2:12 does not refer to a general type of speaking based on Scripture. Rather, it refers to a specific activity found throughout the pages of the New Testament, namely preserving and laying down the tradition handed on by the apostles. This activity is different from the explanation and application of a Bible passage found in today’s typical expository sermon. (12)

Dickson builds the case for this preliminary conclusion in four parts.

Part One. There are several different kinds of speaking mentioned in the Bible: prophesying, evangelising, reading, exhorting, teaching, and so on. We know from texts like 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 14, Romans 12:4-8, and 1 Timothy 4:13 that Paul did not treat these speaking ministries as identical. Only one of these types of speaking is restricted to men, the activity of teaching (27).

Part Two. In the ancient world, and specifically for Paul, to teach (didasko) was a technical term for passing on a fixed oral tradition (34, 45). Teaching does not refer to expounding or explaining but to transmitting words intact (33). With the close of the biblical canon, there is not the same need for teaching in this technical sense.

Part Three. In the New Testament, teaching never means explaining or applying a biblical passage (50, 54). A teacher was someone who carefully passed down the fixed traditions or the body of apostolic words from their original source to a new community of faith (57, 59, 61). Some contemporary sermons may contain elements of this transmission, but this is not the typical function of weekly exposition (64). What we think of as the sermon is more aptly called exhortation (65).

Part Four. The apostolic deposit is now found in the pages of the New Testament. No individual is charged with preserving and transmitting the fixed oral traditions about Jesus (72, 74). Our preachers may be analogous to ancient teachers, but we do not preserve and transmit the apostolic deposit to the same degree, in the same manner, or with the same authority (73, 75). The typical sermon where a preacher comments on the teaching of the apostles, exhorts us to follow that teaching, and then applies that teaching is not itself teaching. The modern sermon is, depending on your definition, more like prophesying or exhorting, both of which are open to women (75).

From Yes to No

Dickson includes academic footnotes in making his case, as well as caveats and qualifications along the way. But the gist of his argument is arrestingly simple: Teaching is not what we do when we preach a sermon. Only teaching is forbidden to women. Women, therefore, can preach sermons in our churches.

I find Dickson’s thesis unconvincing for two basic reasons. I believe his view of ancient teaching is overly narrow and his view of contemporary preaching is exceedingly thin. Let me unpack this conclusion by looking at teaching from a variety of angles.

Teaching in the Early Church

The strength of Dickson’s approach is that he rightly points to the different speaking words in the New Testament. True, teaching and exhorting and prophesying and reading are not identical. And yet, his overly technical definition of “teaching” does not fit the evidence, or in some instances even square with basic common sense. If “I do not permit a woman to teach” can mean “I permit a woman to preach because preaching doesn’t involve teaching” we must be employing very restrictive definitions of preaching and teaching.

More to the point, we have to wonder why this highly nuanced reading has been lost on almost every commentator for two millennia. In a revealing endnote on the last page of the book, Dickson acknowledges “I have no doubt that within time the word ‘teaching’ in the early church came to mean explaining and applying the written words of the New Testament (and entire Bible). That would be an interesting line of research, but I am not sure it would overturn the evidence that in 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul had a different meaning of this important term” (104). That is a telling admission. But it invites the question: “If ‘teaching’ in the ancient world clearly had a narrow meaning of repeating oral traditions, why does no one seem to pick up on this exclusively technical definition?” To be sure, the Bible is our final authority, but when an argument relies so heavily on first century context, you would expect the earliest centuries of the church to reinforce the argument, not undermine it.

Take the Didache, for example. This late first century document has a lot to say about teachers. They are supposed  to “teach all these things that have just been mentioned” [in the first ten chapters of the book] (11:1). They are to teach what accords with the church order laid out in the Didache (11:2). Importantly, the Didache assumes the existence of traveling teachers, apostles, and prophets, all of whom are said to teach (didaskon) (11:10-11). It is telling that “teaching” is a broad enough term to include what prophets and other speakers do, not to mention the Didache itself.

While “teach” can certainly include the passing on of oral traditions about Jesus, it cannot be restricted to only this. As Hughes Oliphant Old explains, “the Didache assumes a rather large body of prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons who devote full time to their preaching and teaching” (The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 1:256). With full time teachers and “a daily assembly of the saints, at which the Word was preached” it is hard to imagine these various ministers engaged in “teaching” that steadfastly avoided the explanation of all biblical texts.

Of course, the true teachers were passing on the apostolic deposit, but this does not mean they were simply repeating the sayings of Jesus. In the Didache, parents are told to teach (didaxeis) the fear of the Lord to their children (4:9). The author(s) apparently does not think teaching is restricted to a highly technical definition. Nor does he think preaching is little more than a running commentary plus application. “My child, remember night and day the one who preaches God’s word to you, and honor him as though he were the Lord. For wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is” (4:1). According to the Didache, teaching is broader than transmitting oral traditions and preaching involves more than a few words of exhortation.

Teaching in the Synagogue

One of the key points in Dickson’s argument is that the Pauline conception of teaching is rooted in the practice of the Pharisees who passed on the oral traditions of their fathers (Mark 7:7). Just as the Pharisees might repeat the sayings of Hillel, so might the New Testament teacher repeat the sayings of Jesus. According to Dickson, the closest parallel to New Testament “teaching” is the passing down of the rabbinical traditions that we find repeated and piled up in the Mishnah (39).

This is an important line of reasoning for Dickson, one he repeats several times (39, 73, 100-102). The problem with the argument is twofold.

First, while the Mishnah collects the sayings of first- and second-century rabbis, these rabbis saw themselves explaining and applying the Torah. In other words, even if the Mishnah is our example of “teaching,” there is no bright line between “oral tradition” and “explaining texts.”

Second, the Jewish synagogue service provides a much better parallel to early Christian worship services than the Mishnah. After all, Paul is talking about corporate worship in 1 Timothy 2. For centuries leading up to the Christian era, the Jews had cultivated the art of preaching and gave it a privileged place in synagogue worship. According to Old, “there was a large core of dedicated men who had given their lives to the study of the Scriptures, and who prepared themselves to preach when the leadership of the synagogue invited them to do so” (The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 1:102). It makes more sense to think Paul had in mind the well-developed tradition of men doing exposition in the Jewish worship service, when he prohibits women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12, as opposed to the mere repetition of oral traditions.

Teaching in the Old Testament

What’s more, this synagogue teaching ministry had its roots in the Old Testament. Moses taught (didasko, LXX) the people the statutes and rules of God—repeating them yes, but also explaining and applying them (Deut. 4:1-14). The priests, at least some of them, were to be teaching priests (2 Chr. 15:3), going through the cities of Judah teaching (edidaskon, LXX) people the Book of the Law (2 Chr. 17:9). Ezra set his heart to study the Law of the Lord and to teach (didaskein, LXX) his statutes and rules in Israel (Ezra 7:10). Likewise, Ezra and the Levites read from the Law of God and taught (edidasken, LXX) the people so they could understand the reading (Neh. 8:8).

The practices described in Ezra and Nehemiah give every indication of already being well established. There are texts, there are teachers, there is a congregation. We have in miniature the most essential elements of Jewish synagogue services and the Christian services that would use synagogue worship as their starting point. It’s hard to imagine Paul meant to communicate, let alone that his audience would understand, that when he spoke of “teaching” he had in mind nothing of the Old Testament or Jewish tradition and was only thinking of Pharisees passing along oral sayings. In each of the Old Testament instances above, the teacher explains a written text. That doesn’t mean didasko must involve exposition, but the burden of proof rests with those who assert that it most certainly does not mean that.

Teaching in the New Testament

I agree with Dickson that the prohibition against women teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be taken in the broadest sense possible. Paul does not mean to forbid women from ever transmitting knowledge to someone else. He is addressing propriety in worship, not the sort of teaching we find from women to women in Titus 2 or from Priscilla and Aquila to Apollos in Acts 18. But just because we reject the broadest definition of teaching does not mean the only other option is the narrowest definition. Dickson would have us equate “teaching” with passing on oral tradition. That was certainly part of teaching in the apostolic age, but many of the places in the New Testament that speak of the apostolic tradition never mention didasko (1 Cor. 2:2; 3:10; 11:2; 11:23-26; 15:1-11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Thess. 4:1-2). The language instead is of receiving, delivering, or passing on.

Crucially, the Sermon on the Mount is labelled as “teaching” (Matt. 7:28-29). According to Dickson, the Sermon on the Mount is “teaching” because Jesus is correcting the tradition of the scribes and handing down his own authoritative traditions. What Jesus is not doing is expositing a text (54). Of course, Dickson is right in what Jesus is doing. He is wrong, however, in asserting what Jesus is not doing. The Sermon on the Mount is filled with Old Testament allusions, parallels, and explanations. One doesn’t have to claim that Jesus is giving a modern sermon as we might. The point is not that “teaching” everywhere in the New Testament means “exposition,” but that the two ideas cannot be neatly separated.

Jesus was recognized by many as “rabbi,” an informal title meaning “teacher.” As a teacher, Jesus frequently quoted from or explained Old Testament Scripture. In fact, Old argues that Jesus’ teaching in the Temple courts at the end of his ministry was meant to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the rabbinical office. In Matthew 21-23 we see the different schools of the time—Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees—come to Jesus with their questions about the Law and Jesus answers them all (1:106). In solving their riddles and stepping out of their traps, Jesus showed himself to be the master teacher, the rabbi of all rabbis. And in this display, he constantly explained and interpreted Scripture. The first-century Jewish understanding of teaching must not be separated from the judicious interpretation of inspired texts, nor can it be restricted to “passing along oral traditions.”

Teaching in the Pastoral Epistles

But what if—despite the Old Testament background and the synagogue background and the use of “teaching” in the Sermon on the Mount and the broader understanding of teacher in the early Church—Paul choose to use a very narrow definition of teaching in the pastoral epistles? After surveying all the uses of “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles, Dickson concludes that “teaching,” as a verb and a noun, refer not to Bible exposition but to apostolic words laid down for the churches (59). Simply put, “teach” does not mean exegete and apply; it means repeat and lay down (64-65). Pauline “teaching” was never(Dickson’s word, my emphasis) exposition in the contemporary sense (74). Whatever else teaching may entail in other places, according to Dickson, for Paul it only meant laying down oral tradition.

Dickson is certainly right that “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles is about passing on the good deposit of apostolic truth about Jesus. Conservative complementarian scholar Bill Mounce, for example, has no problem affirming that 1 Timothy 2:12 has to do with “the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures” or that it involves “the preservation and transmission of the Christian tradition” (Pastoral Epistles, 126). But notice that Mounce does not reduce the Christian tradition to oral sayings only, to the exclusion of Scriptural explication. Likewise, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament argues that didaskein “is closely bound to Scripture even in the NT” (146). Later the TDNT affirms that even in the pastoral epistles “the historical connexion between Scripture and didaskein is still intact” (147).

Surely this is right. Are we really to think that when Paul insisted that the elders be apt to teach that this had no reference to handling the Scriptures or rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)? Teaching must be broader than passing on oral traditions, for how else could Paul tell the older women “to teach what is good” (kalodidaskalo) to the younger women? Or consider 1 Timothy 4:13 where Paul tells Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, and to teaching. Sure, these are not identical tasks, but on Dickon’s interpretation Timothy was to read the Scriptures, exhort from the Scriptures, and then lay down the apostolic deposit without every expounding any of the Scriptures just read.

Similarly, Dickson argues that when Paul says all Scripture is profitable for teaching, he means Timothy would privately read Scripture so that he could be better equipped to publicly pass on the good deposit, but again, without expounding a Bible passage (52-53). If this is correct, then Paul never meant for teachers to explain Bible verses in reproving, correcting, or training either. The Bible may inform these tasks, but it never involves exposition of any kind (57). This strains credulity to the breaking point. Look at the preaching in Acts. There was hardly any handing down of the good deposit that did not also explain the Scriptures. And in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul is explicitly passing along what he also received the message is not the mere repetition of verbal formulas, but the apostolic tradition that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. One does not have to equate didasko with a three-point sermon to see that transmitting the apostolic deposit can scarcely be done apart from biblical references and exposition.

Teaching in Today’s Sermon

If Dickson’s definition of ancient teaching is too narrow, his understanding of contemporary preaching is too impoverished. In Dickson’s telling, the sermon is essentially a running commentary plus application. I confess I have a very different view of what preaching entails, not because preaching is less than exposition and application, but because it is much more. The preacher is a kerux, a herald (2 Tim. 1:11). Of course, we don’t preach with the authority of an apostle, but for those qualified men called to preach they do pass along the apostolic deposit and they ought to preach with authority. Why else would Paul command Timothy—with such dramatic language and with such dire exhortations–to preach the word; to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching? (2 Tim. 4:1-2)

In the end, I believe Dickson’s approach is not only historically and exegetically unconvincing, it is practically unworkable—at least for complementarians. Egalitarians will affirm women preaching for all sorts of reasons. But complementarians who try to thread the needle and argue that “this message on Sunday morning is a sharing not a sermon” or “this woman preaching is under the authority of the session” will find that their arguments for not letting women preach all the time and in any way look exceedingly arbitrary.

At various points, Dickson admits that some preaching today may involve teaching and that the different kinds of speaking in the New Testament probably overlapped.

  • “I am not suggesting that these three forms of speech (teaching, prophesying, and exhorting) are strictly separate or that there is no significant overlap of content and function” (24).
  • “Some contemporary sermons involve something close to authoritatively preserving and laying down the apostolic deposit, but I do not believe this is the typical function of the weekly exposition” (64).
  • “I have no doubt that Timothy added to these apostolic teachings his own appeals, explanations, and applications, but these are not the constitutive or defining elements of teaching. At that point, Timothy would be moving into what is more appropriately called ‘exhortation.’” (65)
  • “I am not creating a hard distinction between teaching and exhorting, but I am observing that, whereas teaching is principally about laying something down in fixed form, exhorting is principally about urging people to obey and apply God’s truth.” (65)
  • “No doubt there was a degree of teaching going on in exhorting and prophesying, just as there was some exhorting (and maybe prophesying) going on in teaching…” (66-67)
  • “I also think that some transmission of the apostolic deposit still goes on in every decent sermon, in some more than others.” (79)

With all these elements of preaching jumbled together, how could Paul have expected Timothy to untangle the ball of yarn and know what he was supposed to not permit women to do? Just as importantly, how are we to discern when a sermon is just exhortation without authority and when it moves into an authoritative transmission of the apostolic deposit? Perhaps it would be better to see “teaching” as more or less what the preacher does on Sunday as opposed to a highly technical term that doesn’t make sense out of the early church, the Jewish synagogue, Jesus’ example, or Paul’s instructions. The heraldic event—no matter the platform provided by the pastor or the covering given by the elders—cannot be separated from exercising authority and teaching, the two things women are not permitted do in the worship service.

Prophecy and Teaching – Not the Same Thing

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Why it is important not to conflate prophecy and teaching in discussions about women preaching by Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. (original source here: http://www.dennyburk.com/why-it-is-important-not-to-conflate-prophecy-and-teaching-in-discussions-about-women-preaching/ )

In evangelical debates over women in ministry, two biblical texts have always stood as a prima facieobstacle to the egalitarian view:

1 Timothy 2:12 “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
1 Corinthians 14:34 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

At first blush, these two texts seem to settle the matter in favor of the complementarian position. After all, this is the sense adopted in the vast majority of English translations. How could they all be wrong? Clearly Paul does not intend for women to be teaching/preaching within the church, right?

Egalitarians have marshaled a variety of exegetical arguments against this prima faciereading. They argue that, despite appearances, Paul doesn’t really mean to shut down women from exercising their teaching/preaching gifts in the gathered assembly. Egalitarians point out that Paul clearly understood women to be gifted teachers (e.g., Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3). Moreover, the very same book that enjoins female silence also allows for women to prophesy to the entire church (1 Corinthians 11:5). These female prophets—along with their Old Testament counterparts like Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah—demonstrate that whatever Paul means in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, he can’t mean to impose a universal ban on women teaching men. He must mean something else.

One of the major problems with the egalitarian argument at this point is that it conflates the gifts of prophecy and teaching. For example, Gordon Fee writes:

It seems altogether likely that Paul intends “praying and prophesying” to be not exclusive of other forms of ministry but representative of ministry in general. And since “prophets” precedes “teachers” in the ranking in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and prophesying is grouped with teaching, revelation and knowledge in 1 Corinthians 14:6, one may legitimately assume that women and men together shared in all these expressions of Spirit gifting, including teaching, in the gathered assembly.1

Fee’s logic here is clear. Because Paul allows women to prophesy to the gathered assembly and because prophecy is a greater gift than teaching, then certainly he would allow women to teach as well.

This account of things, however, misses the fact that Paul treats prophecy and teaching as two different gifts and that he therefore regulates them differently in his churches. Paul never issues a blanket prohibition on female prophecy to men in any of his letters, but he does on female teaching. Why is that?

To answer that question, we have to understand what the difference between prophecy and teaching is. The gift of prophecy consists in spontaneous utterance inspired by the Spirit. Prophecy therefore consists of divine revelation. The gift of teaching, however, is different. Teaching does not consist in new revelation but in instruction based on revelation that has already been given.2

This difference between teaching and prophecy is crucial because the gift of teaching is not merely passing along information from one person to another. The gift of teaching in Paul’s writings has a certain content and mode. The content of the gift of teaching is the authoritative apostolic deposit, which is now inscribed for us in the New Testament (Col. 2:7; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2).3 This teaching therefore is done in the imperative mood. It contains explanation, but it also includes commands and prohibitions. For that reason, it is always authoritative because it instructs people what they are to believe and to do.4

1 Timothy 4:11, “Command and teach these things.”
2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”

It is very clear that when Paul has the gift of teaching in mind, he is thinking of instruction given with imperatives and commands. As Douglas Moo concludes, “teaching always has this restrictive sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction.”5

That is why Paul issues the prohibition that he does in 1 Timothy 2:12. Women must not teach men. Why? Because of the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13). The role of leader in the first marriage was Adam’s. His leadership was established in part on the basis that God created him first (a principle of primogeniture). The order of creation establishes male headship in marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), and a woman teaching and exercising authority overturns this order. After all, how can a wife submit to her husband if she is telling him what to do when she preaches? Avoiding this potential conflict is the reason why Paul bases the gender norms for teaching upon the gender norms for marriage.

This also explains why Paul commands women to be silent in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. Paul is not commanding absolute silence, or else he would be contradicting his allowance of female prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:5. No, Paul is specifically commanding female silence during the judgment of prophecies.6 What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies? Are husbands and wives supposed to suspend male headship during corporate worship? Paul’s answer to that question is a clear no.

Paul does not want anything to happen during corporate worship or in any other setting that would upset the headship principle that he so carefully exhorted his readers to obey in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. For that reason, Paul enjoins women to refrain from the judgment of prophecies. He’s not commanding an absolute silence on the part of women. Indeed he expects them to be praying and prophesying. He does, however, command them to be silent whenever prophesies are being judged. And the women are to do so out of deference to male headship.

Notice that the explanation in verse 34 indicates that headship is indeed the issue: “The women… should be in submission…” The Greek word translated as “submission” is the same one from verse 32. A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy. To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophesies. In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12.

What is the bottom line here? The fact of female prophecy in the Old and New Testaments is no argument in favor of female teaching/preaching. The gifts of prophecy and teaching are distinct in Paul’s writings, and Paul therefore regulates them differently. While Paul allows women to prophesy in the presence of men, he does not allow them to teach men (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34-36). This feature of the New Testament’s teaching about gifts and ministry is lost whenever the gifts of prophecy and teaching are conflated. This is a confusion that careful readers of scripture should wish to avoid.

—————

1 Gordon D. Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, Gordan D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 149.

2 Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are & Why They Matter (Nashville: B&H, 2018), 21.

3 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 185.

4 Indeed the standard lexicon for the Greek New Testament says that the word translated as teach means “to tell someone what to do” (BDAG, s.v. didasko).

5 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” 185.

6 D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 151-53.

Sam Waldron Series: Parity in the Eldership and the Need for Balance

Posted on by
Reply

Original source: https://cbtseminary.org

Part 1:

We distribute a book as a Seminary that I helped to write and edit many years ago.  It is entitled, In Defense of Parity. In that short volume, I with a few other men defend the notion (which many of us hold as Reformed Baptists) that there is no official distinction to be made between the different elders of the church.  In other words, such a view of parity says that biblically all elders are pastors and all pastors are elders.  This view is based on what seems to me to be an indisputable exegetical reality.  That reality is that in the Bible the three words presbuteros, episkopos, and poimein refer to the same office in the church.  This is a little confusing because each of these three Greek words has both an older and a newer.  Presbuteros is translated presbyter in older English and elder in newer English.  Episkopos is translated in older English as bishop and as overseer in newer English.  Poimeinis translated pastor in older English but shepherd in newer English.  Parity simply asserts that all these words refer to the identical office in the church.

But to repeat myself, I am not going to spend a lot of time defending that conclusion or implication of the parity of the eldership and the equivalence of the terms shepherd, elder, and overseer with regard to referencing the same office in the church. The reason is that this conclusion is the assumption or presupposition of these blog posts rather than their thrust or focus.  Here I want to speak of my growing conviction over the years that the parity of the eldership needs to be balanced by the biblical teaching regarding the diversity of the eldership.

Part 2:

A few years ago a friend of mine mistakenly affirmed that I believed in the absolute parity of the eldership.  I informed him, and let me now inform all of my readers, that I emphatically do not believe in such a view of parity.  I believe, in fact, in three different kinds of diversity within the elders of the church.  I will argue that there is diversity of spiritual gift, financial support, and actual influence.  I believe that these three areas of diversity are much more than theoretical in their significance.  They have important practical applications with regard to how the eldership and the church does its holy business.

The diversity of elders is clearly taught in the Scriptures.  It is not, as we have seen, a diversity with regard to office, authority, or title.  But in what, then, does this diversity in the eldership consist? It consists, as I said, in a diversity of spiritual gift, financial support, and actual influence.

Consider, first, the diversity of spiritual gift.

Both the Bible and experience show that elders may have greatly varying gifts.  To think through this matter systematically, let me ask you to consider several things. First, the New Testament emphasizes the sovereignty of God in imparting those gifts.  1 Corinthians 12:11 affirms: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.”

Second, the New Testament also emphasizes (and in the same passage) the variety of spiritual gifts which the Spirit in His sovereignty imparts, and the variation given to different members of the body of Christ.  1 Corinthians 12:4-7 says: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”  This same emphasis is found in Romans 12:3-7 and 1 Pet. 4:10-11.  What is true of the gifts of the Spirit to the church in general is, of course, true for the elders of the church as well.  Here too there is variety of gift according to the sovereignty of the Spirit.

Third, there are several different gifts that are important specifically for the eldership.  Romans 12:7-8 names the gifts of teaching, exhorting, and leading.  1 Corinthians 12:28 mentions the gifts of teaching and administration.  1 Peter 4:11 mentions the gift of speaking.  But once more we must remember that God gives these spiritual gifts in varying degrees.  The parable of Jesus emphasizes this in Matthew 25:14-15.  The varying degrees of gift given to Christians and especially to ministers is also taught in Ephesians 4:7-11.  What these passages clearly teach, church history and our own experience confirm. Great diversity exists in the mix and measure of spiritual gifts given to pastor-teachers.

Now this reality has very important practical implications.  For one thing, this means that the qualifications for the eldership should not be measured in terms of the gifts of the outstanding preacher-pastor that we admire so much.  There may be lesser degrees of gift which still qualify a man for the eldership.  Similarly, we must also not limit the exercise of the highly gifted pastor by insisting on an artificial equality in the public ministry of the Word in the church.  Equality of office does not mean equality in opportunities for public ministry in the church.  This should make us accept men of more slender gifts as true elders, but also makes us feel that no artificial equality needs to be implemented in the public ministry of the church.

Part 3:

In our last post we looked at the reality that there is a diversity of spiritual gifts in true elders.  I commented that this has important practical implications for the church and its elders.  But there is also diversity in other respects, specifically there is diversity of financial support.

The New Testament teaches that there is diversity in the matter of financial support.  Some elders may be fully supported by the church.  Other elders may work at another vocation to support themselves.  Let it be emphasized that this diversity is not the product of human sinfulness.  It is ecclesiastically lawful for it to be so.  The key text here is, of course, 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Two questions must be answered with regard to this passage.  First, what is double honor? Second, to whom is such double honor to be given?

(1)       What is double honor?

Double honor in 1 Timothy 5:17 means generous financial support.  How do we know this?  Double honor in the context of 1 Timothy 5:17 is contrasted with the honor to be given to widows.  Without any doubt this honor for widows consists in financial support (1 Tim. 5:3, 4, 8, 16).  Widows are, then, to be honored, while well-ruling elders are to be given double honor—the generous financial support necessary to comfortably support a man in a leadership position who may also have a wife and children.

The financial character of this honor is confirmed by verse 18.  Here Paul cites the same Old Testament text that he used in 1 Corinthians 9:9 to teach that ministers of the gospel should live of the gospel or be generously, financially supported.  He also cites a saying of the Lord that in both Matt. 10:10 and Luke 10:7 had to do with the financial support of those who preach the gospel.

The term, double, used here is not intended literally.  It is used figuratively in the New Testament to refer to a large or generous portion of something (Matthew 23:15; Rev. 18:6).  Matthew 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”Revelation 18:6 “Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.”

In accord with its usage in the New Testament, then, double here simply means or denotes that this financial support is to be ample or generous.  The generosity with which elders should be financially supported is confirmed by the parallel passages (Galatians 6:6; 1 Corinthians 9:14).

(2)       To whom is such double honor to be given?

This financial support of the elders—according to the Apostle Paul—is not to be indiscriminately divided among or necessarily given to all elders.  Notice how the passage speaks of this matter.  Timothy and the church at Ephesus under his leadership are to focus that financial support on the elders who rule well. Among those who rule well financial support is especially to be given to those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

I think of this passage as viewing the eldership in terms of three concentric circles.  Financial support is focused on the innermost circle, may extend to the next circle outward, but does not extend to all elders in general.

The measure of a man’s spiritual gifts in ruling and especially teaching and preaching (as well as his experience, maturity, diligence, and godliness) is related to the matter of financial support.  Of course, the church’s ability may in some cases prevent the church from doing all it should do with regard to the financial support of elders.  In such cases the priorities set by 1 Timothy 5:17 should govern the distribution of financial support to elders.

We may draw from all this a clear conclusion.  The Scriptures could not be more clear that there is diversity with regard to the financial support of elders.

Let me state plainly that voting a man in as a pastor or elder does not mean that the church has any necessary commitment to support that man financially.  Nor does it mean that they are committed to financially supporting that man at the level that they may be supporting pastors already.  Practically, all this means that a separate act of the church from the election of a pastor may be appropriate or even necessary to grant a pastor financial support.  1 Timothy 5:17 makes very clear that some elders or pastors may not be financially supported at all.  This is, then, a different issue than recognizing that a man is a qualified elder.

Part 4:

We have looked at the reality that there is diversity of spiritual giftedness in true elders and that there is also diversity of financial support.  In this post a third area of diversity among the elders will be our focus.  With regard to biblical eldership, there is also the diversity of actual influence.

It is also clear that there may be great diversity in a man’s actual influence as a Christian minister.  This was certainly true even of the highest office in Christ’s church—the office of Apostle.  Paul labored more than all the Apostles.  He had, thus, a proportionately greater influence (1 Cor. 15:10).  It also seems clear that Peter exercised a greater influence than many of the other Apostles (Matt. 16:18; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:1).

What is true of the extraordinary office of Apostle certainly must be true of the ordinary office of the pastor or elder.  The sovereignty of God in the work of salvation and the differing gifts the Spirit gives lead to differing degrees of influence for good in Christ’s church.  Of course, once more church history and Christian experience demonstrate that this is true.

The New Testament, then, teaches the plurality, the parity, and the diversity of elders in the eldership of the local church.  It is in light of these three principles that the eldership of every local church ought to be organized.  The distribution of responsibilities and ministries must be guided by each of these three principles.  The diversity of gift, influence and support must not disguise the parity of official authority belonging to each elder.  The parity and plurality of the elders should not suppress the implications of the diversity of elders in the distribution of the responsibilities and ministries in the church.  Parity of office does not require an artificial equality in the distribution of ministry or financial support.  Rather, the sovereignty of Christ in giving a diversity of gifts should be acknowledged in such matters.

One great implication of the diversity of the eldership as we have seen it in this blog series is that part of the calling of a pastor is giving the man who is to be called a clear job description.  This is especially true where the man is not to be the first or sole supported pastor of a church.  Of course, the Bible provides every elder such a job description in its explanation of the duties of the office.  These duties, however, will vary in their proportion and their weight depending on his particular gifts and specific responsibilities.  His ability to fulfill such duties will also be dependent on the time he can devote to such responsibilities.  In turn this will be dependent on whether and to what extent he is financially supported.

To re-emphasize my main point:  all of this requires that the elder-to-be must be provided a clear idea or specific, job description of the particular duties he is called to fulfill as an elder.  This is necessary in order to help a conscientious man make a responsible decision to accept the position being offered to him.  This is also necessary in order to assure that hopes are not raised by the call to the eldership which are false or unrealistic.

Part 5:

In this last post I want simply to collect a number of practical thoughts which flow out of a biblical view of the plurality, parity, and diversity of the eldership.

1.) See in the diversity, parity, and plurality of the eldership the glory of the one, supreme, and almighty Shepherd of the church!  I argue here in the same way that the Epistle to the Hebrews argues.  Cf. Hebrews 7:19-28.  Just as the limited duration and plurality of levitical priests pointed forward to the one, everlasting priest after the order of Melchizedek, so also the plurality of human pastors, the parity of human elders, and the diversity of human elders points up to the glory of the Chief Shepherd of the church.  He alone can make us perfect in every good work to do His will working in us that which is well-pleasing in God’s sight.

2.) Look not to any human pastor for everything you need.  Do not limit yourself to one pastor’s gifts or teaching.  Do not virtually say I am of Apollos! or I am of Peter! or I am of Paul!  Such a posture is both limiting to your growth and potentially divisive.  Do not look finally to any limited, human pastor, but to the unlimited Christ and His unlimited grace.

3.) Observe the constant need for humility and the perpetual danger of pride in connection with the vocation to which pastors are called.  Thankfully, I have not spent a lot of time in the typical pastors’ fraternals, but I have heard enough about such fraternals to know that they are often characterized by boasting and one-up-manship on the part of those named as Christ’s under-shepherds.  I will also confess to you that I often feel the green monster of envy rising in my own heart and need to thrust the sword of the Spirit through that monster. But equally debilitating to the minister is another monster.  The twin of the green monster of envy is the black monster of discouragement about my lack of usefulness which rises in my heart.  That monster sucks the zeal and desire to labor earnestly for Christ out of my soul.  It says to the pastors’ soul, “It will not do any good to preach.  They will not listen.  You will do no good.  You have never done any good.”  I think this black monster is also born of pride like the green monster.  What will slay both these monsters is deep humility before Christ, the seeking of grace from Christ, and the determination to simply do what Christ has called us to do to the best of our ability.

4.) Be careful not to impose on the eldership your limited, human ideas and structures.  The study of the church and the various views of the eldership that have developed in it is cluttered with views of the eldership which are simply too limiting.  What views am I talking about?  There is the notion that you can have only one pastor in a church.  There is the notion that you can have only one bishop in a church.  There is the notion that you must have a senior pastor who hires and fires the other so-called pastors.  There is the notion that you can have only one supported pastor.  There is the notion that you can impose on the eldership the cookie-cutter view which says that there are only two kinds of elders:  teaching elders and ruling elders. There are other sorts of defective views as well.  Some who get a hold of the biblical vision for the parity and equality of elders go to extremes as well.  Since all elders are equal, then all must have equal profile in the church.  They must all preach or teach or lead equally.  They must be supported equally.  Others who hold the parity of the eldership actually conclude that no elders at all should be financially supported.  Perhaps this was the extreme which Paul was combatting in 1 Timothy 5:17. Others conclude that only missionaries or traveling evangelists should be supported, but not ordinary elders.  All of these views are based on a one-sided and imbalanced view of the eldership which takes one part of the biblical teaching to an extreme and ends up denying other aspects of the biblical teaching.  We must hold together the plurality, the parity, and the diversity of the eldership!

5.) Make sure your church is a good steward of the gifts of its elders. One of the saddest things about the limiting views which I just listed in the previous observation is that often it means that some elders’ gifts are not fully utilized in the church.  Or it means that some men who should be elders are not even recognized by the church.  Or it means that to exercise their God-given gifts men are forced to leave their church to find a place of ministry.  If only there had been in the church a biblical vision for the eldership, if only there had not been the humanly limited views of the eldership that prevail in so many places, the church might have been blessed and God’s kingdom advanced.  But no!  The limited views of the eldership dictated by human wisdom had to be honored; and God’s blessing on the church through gifted men was lost.

The Limits of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Richard Holdeman – Called to faith in 1987; to marry Amy in 1989; to coach college hockey in 1992; to have daughters in 1996; to teach at I.U. in 1997; to pastor the Bloomington Reformed Presbyterian Church in 2005. (original source here)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12, NKJ)

Last year at about this time our congregation hosted Rosaria Butterfield to speak to our community about how to love people struggling with their sexual identity in ways that honor the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our event was held at a large church in town, and Dr. Butterfield’s talks were well-attended. It was a challenging and edifying couple of days for the evangelical churches in our community. Notably absent from our gatherings were men from some of the more conservative churches in our community. In what I suspect was an effort to honor God’s word through Paul (quoted above), the leaders of these congregations encouraged women to attend but did want their men coming to be taught by a woman.

While I applaud the desire to be biblically faithful, the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teaches that men can never be taught by women is not warranted by this text. Paul’s prohibitions against women teachers have a context. They are not absolute prohibitions. For starters, reading the verses surrounding those quoted above shows us, without question, that the context of the requirement for silence is the church. Paul here is not making any comment about women teaching in schools or universities or in other settings. Paul is also not addressing whether a woman could teach men about the process of childbirth (say, in Lamaze class) or the intricacies of organic chemistry (say, in a graduate chemistry program) or the details of budgeting (say, in a personal finance class).

I have known men, who objected to women teaching adult men in ANY setting, but this is simply not what Paul is talking about. It is a perversion of this text to insist that women are never to teach men.

Ok, back to Dr. Butterfield. She was speaking in a church about spiritual issues. Does that mean her speech is prohibited if men are in the audience? Once again, we must look more closely at the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. It is helpful to note that Paul later writes in 1 Timothy: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17, NKJ). He describes the office of elder as having a two-fold function. There is a ruling function in which elders act with the judicial and governing authority given to them by Christ as His under-shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4) and there is an authoritative teaching function, which is especially the work of the teaching elder/pastor (2 Timothy 4:2).

In light of this description of the work of the eldership, it seems that what Paul is doing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is excluding women from serving in the office of elder, in which they would need to have judicial authority over men and women. Paul is also excluding women from the authoritative teaching office of the church – the pulpit ministry, which is the responsibility of the eldership (Acts 20:28-31). If we allow Paul to define what he means by teaching and authority within the book of 1 Timothy, we have a clear context in which to evaluate his prohibitions against women teaching or having authority over men. What Paul is actually teaching here is that women may not serve as ruling or teaching elders in the church. What Paul is NOT doing is saying that there is an absolute prohibition against women having any responsibility within the church or being able to do any teaching within the church setting.

What do I mean? It is not a requirement for all Sunday school classes to be taught by elders. Sunday school is not the same as the authoritative teaching ministry of the pulpit. The elders are responsible for everything that is taught publicly in the church but they may delegate some teaching in non-pulpit settings to other qualified individuals in the congregation. In our church we often allow younger men, whom we think have potential to become ruling elders, to get experience teaching a Bible study or Sunday school class. This always happens under the oversight of the elders, who are ultimately responsible. In the same way, there may be circumstances when a woman has a special expertise that would make her the most qualified person to teach a class or Bible study (also under the oversight of the elders). One recent example comes to mind when we had a husband and wife team teach a class on parenting. Perhaps a woman might have expertise in financial planning or stewardship that would make her the best person to teach a class on that subject. I believe she can teach in the church (even classes with men in them) without violating what Paul is forbidding in 1 Timothy.

A number of years ago I preached a sermon series through a book of the Bible, in which I consulted a dozen commentaries. The most helpful commentary was written by a female professor of theology. We are to welcome the truth wherever we find it. I did so, and my congregation benefited from it.

I also think that women can have real responsibility (i.e., authority) in the church that does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America we affirm that the office of deacon is open to women. In talking about the qualifications for the office of deacon, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:11, “Likewise, women must be…” (literal translation). Deacons are ordained officers of the church. They serve under the authority of the elders. They have real responsibility that includes benevolence, mercy ministry, budgeting, finance, and facility maintenance (among other things). This is an authority of sorts but it is not the type of judicial/ruling authority that Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Understanding that Paul is addressing particularly the functions of the eldership in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 will help us resist the tendency in conservative, Reformed congregations to go beyond scripture in imposing limitations on the service of women in the church and the culture. We can uphold biblical standards and resist the feminizing forces in our world without reflexively restricting Christian women in the exercise of the myriad gifts they’ve been given by our Lord. The church faces enough challenges without unnecessarily imposing limitations on her members.

Why Discipleship Works with a Plurality of Elders

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Josh Buice (original source here)

In Acts 6:2O, Jesus’ inner circles was known as “the twelve.” They were serving as the pastors for the early church as it was growing rapidly. However, when a problem arose among the church, servants were established to wait on the tables in order to free up these men to give their full attention to the Word of God and prayer.

The pattern of ministry all throughout the New Testament is clearly established upon a plurality of elders leading and a plurality of deacons serving. Although this is not an blemish-free ministry pattern, it does provide for the most healthy scenario for discipleship in the local church.

Deacons, Elders, and Discipleship
When pastors are free to give themselves to the Word of God, the church will benefit drastically. The pastors who put more priority on pragmatics and less priority upon the study of God’s Word cannot expect their church to rise above their leaders. Interestingly enough, in Acts 6, the early church became united through the deacon ministry and this allowed the pastors to immerse themselves in God’s Word. As the Word of God increased, souls were saved in the community. Consider this pattern over against today’s church growth pragmatism that typically downplays doctrine.

Behind every great group of pastors is a great group of deacons. When deacons serve to the glory of God in the local church, the pastors can spend necessary time in prayer for their people. A church that places little emphasis upon prayer is often a direct reflection of their leaders. Such a church marches on in the power of pragmatism rather than the power of the Holy Spirit. No matter how much technology increases and how efficient we become with modern ministry tools—nothing can stand in the place of the power of prayer. Pastors who pray well often lead well. Pastors who spend time praying for disciples and teaching new disciples how to pray will go forward in the power of God. Prayer is essential.

Discipleship as an Intentional Goal of Ministry
Beyond the need for pastors to work in tandem with deacons for the work of discipleship, pastors must likewise plan and work with intentionality to disciple the church. It is the goal and responsibility of pastors to equip the church for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12). Pastors are not entertainers or leaders of ministry events—pastors are shepherds who oversee and equip believers to live the Christian life faithfully.

One single pastor who tries with all of his heart and soul to equip the entire church on his own will fail. If the church is larger than a small group, help is required to faithfully shepherd and equip the saints. This is why God designed the church to be led by a plurality of elders who would share the burden, responsibility, and work together in the effort of equipping the church to stand strong, love passionately, and reach their community with the gospel. Intentionality in the area of teaching, conversations, and being an intentional example to the church is vitally important (1 Pet. 5:3).

The greatest single pastor will not be nearly as strong as the wisdom of a collective body of pastors who put their minds together and serve as a single unit to lead the church. The weaknesses of one pastor is strengthened by the strengths of another pastor who works alongside him in the life of the church. This provides the pastors the ability to make well rounded disciples who become strong and vibrant disciple makers who multiply year after year.

Why does a football team have multiple coaches? Why does a business have multiple layers of team members who work to make the company successful? Although we never build theology on logic alone, such logic stands firm upon the foundation of God’s Word that points out the pattern of a plurality of elders who serve in each local church throughout the Scriptures. A plural group of men investing their time and energy in making disciples will always lead to a more healthy and robust church. Mark Dever writes:

The Bible clearly models a plurality of elders in each local church. Though it never suggests a specific number of elders for a particular congregation, the New Testament refers to “elders” in the plural in local churches (e.g., Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). When you read through Acts and the Epistles, there is always more than one elder being talked about. [1]

While a plurality of elders does not serve as a bullet proof defense against all church related errors, it does create a natural culture for disciple making. Be grateful for your pastors. Often a local church has a diverse group of men who lead, and this is a healthy pattern that often compliments the elders and strengthens the entire church. How is your church doing in the area of discipleship? How could you pray for your pastors as they lead in this upcoming year?

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 215-216.

Appoint Elders in Every Town

Posted on by
Reply

You and I were never meant to do Christianity alone. The Church is not only being built by our Lord Jesus but is His provision for each one of His children – a place where each of us can be nurtured, protected and carry out our differing ministries in the body. C. H. Spurgeon called the Local Church “the happiest place on earth.” I agree. At least this is what it should be.

When Christ, the Good Shepherd, raises up a Church, He also raises up under shepherds. They are His provision for us. While other words (such as “elders”) are frequently used in the New Testament to describe the leaders in a Church, the word ‘pastors’ is only seen once. It occurs in Ephesians 4:11 and the original meaning is really ‘shepherds’ which is the how the ESV renders it.

I often think about my responsibilities as an elder and rightly so. It is a massive privilege and responsibility and one that I will give an account to the Lord for one day. (Heb. 13:17) There is never a day when that thought does not cross my mind.

Along that line, I was thinking about Paul’s words to Titus 1:5, namely, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—”.

Other translations bring out the original meaning perhaps a little more clearly by saying, “set in order what was unfinished and appoint elders in every town..”, “set in order the things lacking and might appoint elders in every town, as I directed you..”, “put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town…” The message is clear that until elders are in place, something is very lacking in the formation of a local Church. Whenever we see the word “elder” in the New Testament, unless it is speaking of the qualifications for an elder (where we would expect the word to be used in the singular), it is always used in the plural – “elders”, rather than “elder”. Even here, Paul did not write “appoint an elder in every town” but “appoint elders…”

Dr. Michael Kruger writes,

“The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).

A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.”

He continues:

“But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:

1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”

2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.

3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).

In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.

What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.

This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:

The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.”

I don’t believe a Church with merely one elder in place is a scriptural Church.. not yet anyway… and if this is the case, as Paul’s words to Titus here say, something is still left unfinished; something needs to be set in order. Again, as imperfect as they are, elders are Christ’s provision for the sheep He loves so dearly.

I say all this to say that behind the elders seen in a local Church is the Lord Himself (now unseen), who has raised up these men for our mutual edification. The elders are in no way “better” than others – that is for sure – they are simply men ordained by God to fulfill a function in the Body as under-shepherds, under the Chief Shepherd.