Elders: How Many?

By George E. Meisinger

George Meisinger is the president of Chafer Theological Seminary and professor in the Theology, Old and New Testament departments. He earned a B.A. from Biola University, a Th.M. in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, a D.Min. in Biblical Studies from Western Seminary and has pursued Ph.D. studies in Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological Seminary. He also pastors Grace Chapel in Orange, California. His email address is gmeisinger@socal.rr.com.

Introduction

Many Bible students go through a stage when they debate, sometimes heatedly, various kinds of church government. Let us say upfront that the Lord is more pleased with believers who faithfully serve Him while walking in the light than with those who quarrel about elders, pastors, and deacons.

This does not imply that the study of biblical church polity is useless. The point is that we should not view such a study as an end in itself, but rather as a means to organize our churches according to Scripture in order to be more effective in the work of the ministry. Good teamwork and fruitfulness depend, in part, on doing all things decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40 [1]). Therefore, we should learn what Scripture says about shepherds [2] and sheep and put it into practice.

We come from a range of churches with different governments. The Roman Catholic Church has a pope at the top, then the college of cardinals, and under them an assortment of bishops and priests. This is a hierarchical church government. The Presbyterian church has the General Assembly consisting of elders nationwide at the top, then Synods consisting of regional elders, and finally, the local church with its ruling board of elders. Because of the prominence of elders, [3] we call this a Presbyterian government.

Baptist churches usually have a pastoral staff and deacon board that manage the day-to-day spiritual and material aspects of ministry, but the congregation elects its leaders, as well as votes on other matters considered too important for just the leadership. Because the congregation votes, we call this a congregational government.

A frequent question one hears is, which kind of church government is the best? This answer is, that depends! If one of these categories of church government has men of integrity and spiritual maturity while the others do not, then it is the best church government. If they all have men of integrity and maturity in leadership, then this study will help decide which government form is closest to the New Testament pattern and thus best. [4]

In many churches, the pastor is the actual head of the church, regardless of the official church government, for several reasons:

1. He is the one with the most biblical training.
2. He is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every week.
3. It makes sense—if we follow the models of leadership in the business and military worlds—to have one man ultimately responsible.

The military and business—as important as they are—should not be the models the church follows. So, where do we begin?

One or More Than One?

The New Testament does not identify a set number of elders in a local church. [5] That should caution us not to establish an artificial number of men to appoint to leadership. The number of elders is a secondary matter. The existence of qualified men is the primary issue.

Passages indicating more than one elder per church

First: Some passages speak of elders (plural) in every church (singular). Paul appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). We find this grammatical construction [6] also in Acts 2:46 of breaking bread from house to house, i.e., in each/every house. The same construction is also used in Titus 1:5 (appoint elders in every city). Paul urged Titus to appoint elders (plural) in each city of Crete where believers assembled. [7] Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 are important because they show Paul’s policy in all the churches: he appointed more than one elder in each local church. [8]

Second: Acts 20:17 says, From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.

As Paul returned to Jerusalem at the conclusion of the Third Missionary Journey, he summoned the elders of the Ephesian church to Miletus. The noun elders is plural; church is singular. Some seek to avoid the plain meaning of this verse by suggesting that church is collective, referring to several churches. Thus, they say, each church sent its one and only elder. Several things make this view impossible:

• Acts 20:28 addresses the elders who serve together, saying, take heed to yourselves (plural). There is no biblical warrant for thinking that an elder from one church is responsible for an elder from another church (unless this is the lone example), particularly since each church is autonomous. In other words, if there is just one elder per church, then churches are not autonomous. One cannot have it both ways. There may be such a thing as autonomous churches, but one way or another, there are no autonomous elders in God’s plan. Thus, several elders within the same church are to watchdog themselves, encouraging or rebuking each other to follow sound Bible doctrine. Furthermore, a comparison of 20:28 with 20:30 shows that Paul is not talking about an individual elder seeing to himself only, but rather about elders seeing to one another. Context challenges elders to protect the flock from rogue fellow elders—elders who rise up from among yourselves. If one argues still for one elder per church, then one must delete from one’s theology the notion of the autonomous church.
• The church (singular) of 20:17 is in later verses referred to as flock (singular) (20:28–29). If Luke had meant more than one local church, he could easily have used the plural churches as he did in 15:41; 16:5. He also could have used the plural flocks. He did not. Furthermore, if we look up the word church (ἐκκλησία) in the singular, in every instance where a geographic location is in view—with the possible exception of one—it refers to a singular local church. Even Acts 9:319 may not be an exception at all if it is taken as a reference to the body of Christ. Alternatively, we may take it as F. F. Bruce does to refer “in the main [to] the original Jerusalem church in dispersion.” [10]
• Revelation 2:1–7, written about 40 years later according to traditional dating, implies there was still one church in Ephesus. [11]

On occasion, people say that there was more than one church in a city. However, no passage explicitly states this. It is a matter of speculation, therefore, that early first century cities had more than one church. We are on safer ground to go with what the New Testament does in fact say than to bring in ideas that have no exegetical support, being mere conjecture.

Third: Paul addresses one local church in Philippi with its multiple deacons and overseers (Philippians 1:1). Philippians 4:15–16 clearly indicates that Paul has one church in mind, for he says that no church but the one to whom he is writing supported him at that time. Furthermore, Philippi was a small village in the first century; thus, there would hardly have been more than one local church there.

Fourth: Paul addresses the church (singular) in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1), yet refers to its leadership in the plural (5:12–13). [12] These men, Paul says, labor among you, have charge over you, and admonish you. Labor and have charge are the same verbs Paul uses to describe the ministry profile of elders in 1 Timothy 5:17. The apostle does not suggest that elders from other churches have charge over the Thessalonian church, only that its own elders do.

Fifth: 1 Timothy 5:17 points to the plurality of elders, since it mentions elders who rule and elders who both rule and teach. The word especially in this verse shows that at least two elders were in the church, one of whom only ruled and the other ruled and concentrated on teaching the Word.

It helps to explore the semantic range of the phrases containing especially (μάλιστα). [13] There is an exclusive usage, e.g., “Greet your father and especially your mother.”





In addition, the semantic range of especially also incorporates an inclusive usage: “Greet your parents, especially your mother.”





The exclusive [14] usage does not work because it disconnects those men who teach from ruling or exercising authority in the church. Such a viewpoint clashes with both Testaments, which stress not only the supreme importance of teaching God’s Word, but the authority that is inherent in teaching. [15]

Accordingly, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks inclusively of an overall category of elders within which—as a sub-category—at least one elder labors at teaching the Word. Plurality of elders is inescapable in this verse. In addition, under the qualifications for elders, the apostle is clear that all elders must have a track record of ruling their own homes well, thus demonstrating that they are able to rule the church (1 Timothy 3:4–5). Since all elders are in view, those who concentrate on teaching must also rule well in the church, as well as at home.

Preserving the distinction between elders who rule well and elders who rule well and labor at teaching has profitable ramifications:

The plurality of elders does not necessitate that all be considered equal (cf. 1 Ti. 5:17). It does, however, avoid the concept of a single ruler of a congregation and distributes authority as well as responsibility among several, thus corresponding to the Jewish community from which the office of elder was adopted. [16]

Sixth: In James 5:14, a sick person is to call for the elders (plural) of the church (singular), i.e., of his own local church. Because each church is autonomous and responsible to bear the burdens of its own members, James would not exhort a sick man to seek out the leadership of another church. Consequently, all of the elders whom the ill believer calls serve in the sick person’s church, which validates the plurality of elders.

What about passages suggesting one elder per church?

Several passages seem to suggest that one man provides leadership for a local church.

First: 1 Timothy 3:1–2 speaks of a single overseer (bishop) in contrast to the plurality of deacons in the same church (cf. 3:8 and 12). Some deduce from this passage that having one overseer, elder, or pastor is the normative New Testament practice. The most natural way, however, to understand the bishop/overseer here is generically, i.e., Paul addresses the quality of the man aspiring to be an elder, not the number who aspire. [17] The fact that the following verses point out the necessary qualifications of overseers/elders reinforces the quality view (cf. Titus 1:5–11). When Paul addresses deacons (3:8, plural), he, like any other writer, is not obligated to use the generic construction again, so he uses the plural word deacons in keeping with Philippians 1:1, where he also uses the plural overseers. [18]

Second: The biblical image of shepherd-sheep fits with the concept of one shepherd over a flock, some argue. However, why suppose that there was only one shepherd per flock? A flock had more than one shepherd in biblical times. For example, all of Joseph’s brothers watched the sheep, i.e., one flock (Genesis 37:12–14). When Christ was born, There were in the same country shepherds [plural]. .. keeping watch over their flock [singular] by night (Luke 2:8).

Third: In a relationship between a teacher and a disciple, one (teacher) possesses greater authority (Matthew 10:24); thus, some conclude that only one person has final authority in a local church. However, it is one thing to say that someone disciples another, even with authority, and another to say that someone is an elder with final authority in a church. The two are not equivalent. A discipler may not be an elder, but an elder must be a discipler.

Fourth: The New Testament pattern shows one believer—James—emerging into a primary role of leadership.

• The Jerusalem church seems to have recognized James as their primary leader (Acts 12:17; 21:18; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:7).
• He was an apostle and the Lord’s half brother (Galatians 1:19; 2:9).
• He presided at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13–21) and was an outstanding teacher (he wrote the book of James).
• Even Peter and Paul reported to James when in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; cf. Galatians 1:19; 2:9, 12).

Should we conclude, then, that James was “where the buck stopped”? Is his example a precedent for setting up a church government where one man is the sole authority, or dictator? No! Why?

• James was an apostle,19 not merely an elder or pastor. If we use him as a precedent, then, to be consistent, we should also use the rest of the apostles to establish our viewpoint of church leadership. However, they were unique, and their practices cannot be used for precedent setting (e.g., they exercised authority over all congregations).
• We may trace James’ prominence not to an appointment, election, or supreme authority, but apparently to his wisdom and maturity. Believers followed his leadership not because he had greater authority, but superior influence or ability to persuade. Furthermore, we should remember that the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 was not tantamount to a local church meeting. It was an assemblage from various churches to hammer out a doctrinal issue.
• We have no clear indication that James exercised authority over the other apostles or leaders of the church in any passage. Galatians 2:9 lists him as an equal of Peter and John.
• When Scripture does refer to James, it is as a man who has proven himself faithful and wise, a man to whom believers should give an ear, not as one to whom all must yield. Nor does Luke view James’ fellow leaders (the elders) as underlings. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem for theological debate. They go up to the apostles and elders, about this question (15:2). Once in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders (15:4). When debate time arrived, the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter (15:6). After Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James had their say—with James summarizing and concluding—then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church (15:22) to follow through on the decision of those gathered.

Fifth: Some say that one man (e.g., Timothy or Titus) was over a church and responsible for both appointing and rebuking elders. Yet, these young men operated as representatives of Paul—as apostolic legates. Their authority originated not in normal church polity, but in Paul’s apostleship. Some claim that Timothy was the pastor, the final authority, of the church in Ephesus. Let us see how the New Testament identifies Timothy:

• Disciple (Acts 16:1)
• Servant (Philippians 1:1)
• A servant to Paul (Acts 19:22)
• Fellow worker (Romans 16:21)
• Brother (2 Corinthians 1:1, 19)
• Man of God (1 Timothy 6:1)
• Good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3)
• Workman in study (2 Timothy 3:15)
• An apostle (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1 with 2:6)

What he is not called is elder, or overseer (though he oversaw whatever church he served), teacher (though he taught), or pastor (though he pastored). In addition, the epistles do not call Timothy an evangelist, though he was to do the work of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5).

It is best to understand Timothy (and Titus, Silas, Luke, etc.) in light of their close association with Paul. They were apostolic representatives; for this reason, their ministries were unique. For example, Titus was to appoint elders over all the churches of Crete, thus exercising authority over many churches. Today, it appears that God’s plan confines elders to one local church at a time and they should not meddle in the affairs of other churches. Why?—because the elders we do see in the New Testament function in a given local church and there is no indication of an elder functioning in more than one local church at a time. The burden of proof is on those who would have an elder ruling over more than one church.

What about Timothy’s relationship to the elders at Ephesus (1 Timothy 5:19–20, 22)? Do not these verses show that he was a singular head over them? Yes, but not in the sense of a singular pastor over the elders! His discipline and appointment of elders lines up better with his role as a special apostolic appointee and representative (compare 1 Thessalonians 1:1 with 2:6; see also Titus 1:5). Moreover, Timothy did not appoint one man as a replacement for himself before moving on. He instructed the church to appoint qualified elders and deacons to carry on the ministry of the church.

When we examine possible exceptions to [plurality of elders] already described (such as Timothy or James) they present far less than the adequate proof that is needed to stand against the already accumulated weight of the plural testimony. We must allow the passages which speak clearly of local leaders by title (elder, overseer, etc.) to govern our initial decision in regard to singularity or plurality. Following this, one would not be surprised to find in the New Testament certain outstanding pastors commended by name and title for high service. And yet we have no such instance. Of the men previously examined. .. not one of them is ever called either “elder” or “bishop” or “pastor”. On what possible grounds, then, could we demand that any of them was definitely a singular local church pastor? “Upon the whole we meet with elders quite early in the apostolic age, and deacons rather later, but we find no trace of bishops in the New Testament.” [20]

Sixth: What about the angels (ἄγγελοι) of Revelation 2–3, where the apostle mentions one angel for each of the seven churches? Is each angel the pastor of a church? And do these chapters support the argument for one pastor per church? There are fatal problems with this view:

1. Every other place in Revelation where John uses angel (another 69 times [21]), it is in reference to angelic beings, not humans. Thus, the preponderance of word usage decidedly favors angelic beings in Revelation two and three. In addition, the New Testament nowhere else uses the term angel to refer to a pastor or elder. We need, therefore, strong exegetical reasons to do so here! Furthermore, to identify these angels as the pastors of churches is at cross-purposes with the basic meaning of ἄγγελοι, messenger. By nature, a messenger is someone who is sent on a mission and who, as a rule, comes, accomplishes his task, and then moves on. A pastor, on the other hand, settles in and tends his flock. He is there for the long haul.
2. Revelation 1:20 says that angel is the interpretation of star. It is better to follow the interpretation given than to invent a new one. The pastor view adds an interpretation beyond that of 1:20: Yes: Star = angel, No: Star = angel = pastor
3. Scripture describes angels as stars in numerous passages (Job 38:7; Psalm 104:4; Isaiah 14:12; Luke 10:18; Hebrews 1:7); thus, to be consistent,22 we should take the stars of Revelation 2–3 to be angels also. [23]

If we ask why God gave revelation to John, who then gave it to angels to give to the churches, evidently it was because John at the time was a prisoner in exile on Patmos (Revelation 1:9). He could not deliver the message himself; thus, by divine appointment, John dispatched seven angels who would impart it to and through believers with the spiritual gifts of knowledge or prophecy. John was in a supernatural state when he received the content of the book (Revelation 1:10); therefore, it is not shocking to see him giving it to angels to pass on.

We elsewhere discover that angels take an active interest in church life (1 Corinthians 4:9; 11:10; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:21). It is consistent, then, to interpret the angels of Revelation two and three as literal angels.

Some suppose it is unthinkable that God used angelic beings to give revelation to local churches. Why? God frequently used angels to give His Word during revelatory times, for example:

• The Law to Moses (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2)
• Prophetic revelation to Daniel (7:16–27; 8:16–26; 9:20–27; 10:1–12:13) and Zechariah (1:9; 2:3; 4:1, 5; 5:5; 6:4–5)
• To announce the birth of John the Baptist to his father, Zacharias (Luke 1:11–20)
• To announce the birth of Jesus to His mother, Mary (Luke 1:26–38), and to His stepfather, Joseph (Matthew 1:20–21)

Since the Lord frequently employed angels to reveal His Word, it is not surprising to find angels revealing the events of the book of Revelation, the crowning book of prophecy. Angels play a prominent role in the Bible’s 66th book not only in revealing prophecies to John, but also in carrying them out.24

The assumption that God would not give revelation to churches through angels is unfounded. It is exegetically inconceivable to make these angels pastors, and not angels. When the text explains and uses symbols consistently, there is no reason to make an exception unless context provides a powerful reason to do so.

The seven stars of [Revelation 1:16] are the seven angels appointed to these churches. While the figure of the candlestick is not used elsewhere in the Scripture, the stars as symbols of angels are. Wherever the word star is used symbolically, it will always be a symbol of an angel. This is true in the Old Testament. This is also true in the New Testament including the various parts of the book of Revelation. [25]

Nothing in the contexts of chapters 2 and 3 requires that each angel be a single pastor over a single church. Therefore, nothing from these two chapters requires us to conclude that there should be one pastor per church. Arnold Fruchtenbaum puts it well:

Seeking something in the New Testament Church to give ground for the modern position of the Pastor, some have suggested that possibly the “angels” of the seven churches in Asia, mentioned in the first three chapters of Revelation, occupied such a position. However, there is no ground for such an interpretation. It is based entirely on supposition. It is opposed to all the other evidence, both Scriptural and historical, which is unanimous in showing that each local church was presided over by several Elders. Surely it is impossible to base, or to justify, a practice on grounds so inadequate. [26]

Summary

Importance of the Subject

Does the New Testament teach that one man should have the final say in the decision-making processes of his church? No, because we already have one Head, one Chief Shepherd, one Master—the Lord Jesus Christ who is always with His churches. Christ does not grant final authority at the human level to one pastor per church.

To the contrary, the biblical evidence shows that God grants leadership authority not to a single man, but to a group of qualified men (elders) in each church. When one man arrogates to himself sole final authority in a church, he creates a dependent congregation, looking to him for all guidance and wisdom. He in practice may become an autocrat, a replicate pope.

He genuinely may be a super-gifted believer or a prima donna. God uses such superstars (who are rare), yet he does not entrust even to them sole authority in a church. These men too easily become egotistical, domineering, and independent. They need accountability and balance. When they are not in accountable relationships with other godly elders, their quirks get worse, not better; their arrogance heightens; and their blind spots become blinder. By the way, an elder does not have to be a superstar for this to happen. Far less gifted men fall into the same pit.

Some pastors are detail men; others are big picture men. Some love music, others have gotten little from music (C. S. Lewis was one such man). All of us together contribute to the way the body of Christ works. But a church that follows in lock-step with the personality and foibles of one man will always be imbalanced. [27]

Review of Evidence

Timothy’s case does not justify a one-pastor rule. He was a special appointee of the apostle Paul; thus, he functioned as an apostolic legate. That sort of delegation of authority does not exist today because there are no apostles to delegate apostolic authority.

James emerged into his leadership role not as a final authority, but as one whose wisdom and maturity caused others to gravitate toward him for counsel. Final authority remains in the hands of the elders as a collective unit. Actually, James sets a wonderful pattern for all leaders. He does not demand authority based upon an election, human appointment, ordination, or superior knowledge. He lets people come to him for leadership based upon hard work in the ministry and wisdom for godly living.

No man can predict the numerical shape of a leadership team. God, however, has promised that he will provide for our every need. We may conclude, therefore, that the Lord will raise up the number of men needed to serve at any point in time—whatever the number may be.

Every instance of the mention of church elders in the New Testament is plural, which lends weight to the plurality position. It is conceivable that in a smaller or pioneer church, God will initially entrust one elder with leadership. As God numerically blesses the ministry of that church, however, the normal and healthy pattern is for a plurality of godly elders to emerge to feed, lead, and rule the flock.

The evidence is strong.

An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or commended by virtually every NT writer who writes about church leadership.. .. Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor either under Paul and his associates or under Peter’s ministry has a plurality of leadership. [28]

The exact number of elders at any given time is determined by the appointment of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), who works through existing elders (presbytery, 1 Timothy 4:14). They discern who is qualified to become a new elder.

It is a grave mistake for someone to take it upon himself to assume that the church needs more elders. If it does, God will provide them, indicating such through the presbytery, or the board of elders. Until then, it is folly to put unqualified men into leadership to meet an arbitrary quota.

We cannot predict how the Holy Spirit will prepare and lead individuals into leadership, since He works like the wind. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going (application of John 3:8). Thus, it is better not to establish arbitrary numbers of church leaders. Maybe God has given to a church eight qualified men. Should we then put into leadership two unqualified men to conform to the arbitrary number of ten? That would violate the Word. What if God gives to a church twelve qualified men? Are we to keep two qualified men away from leadership because it would put us over the arbitrary number of ten? That would quench the Holy Spirit!

Each church should trust the Lord to raise up the right number of elders when it needs them. When the existing elders faithfully teach the Word, God is faithful to raise up enough men who are qualified, motivated, and equipped. The church should encourage all of them to serve. Churches that honor the Word will usually grow to the point that the congregation requires more than one elder to fulfill the total ministry requirements.

In his concluding paragraph, giving an explanation and defense of elder government, Strauch says:

The concept of the church as a brotherhood of free men; as a ministerial body; as one people; and as a humble, servant community is unrealized in most churches. The issue, then, as always, is simply faith and obedience to God’s Word, which means honoring Him above our thoughts and traditions and being loyal to our great God. To be sure, the incorporation of biblical eldership into the local church is not the cure-all for every problem. In fact, a church may experience even greater difficulties if it tries to establish a biblically functioning council of elders. Nevertheless, faithful obedience to our Lord is the true measure of success and the only thing that counts for eternity. [29]

Finally, the following is a pragmatic argument for plurality of elders:

In consultation with others (especially church historian, M. James Sawyer at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary), the following principle seems to be true: Churches that have a pastor as an authority above others (thus, in function, a monarchical episcopate) have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top level of leadership. In other words, it is less likely for a pastor to fall into sin if he is primus inter parus (“first among equals” in the sense of his visibility and training, not spirituality) than if he is elevated above the rest of the church leadership. [30]

Notes

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all citations are from The Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).
2. English translations of the New Testament employ several terms for church leadership: (1) elder or presbyter (πρεσβύτερος [presbuteros]), e.g., ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NABWRNT; (2) bishop or overseer (έπίσκοπος [episkopos]), e.g., ASV, ESV, GNT (“church leader”), and (3) pastor (ποιμην [poimn]), e.g., ASV, NASB, NIV.
3. The Greek term for elder is πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros).
4. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 111, assert that “biblical precedents may sometimes be regarded as repeatable patterns—even if they are not understood to be normative” (italics theirs). They go on to caution, however, that “it is moot to argue that all Christians in every place and every time must repeat the pattern or they are disobedient to God’s Word” (ibid.). Fee and Stuart show a hesitancy to rely on New Testament precedents: “The decision as to whether certain practices or patterns are repeatable should be guided by the following considerations. .. . the strongest possible case can be made when only one pattern is found (although one must be careful not to make too much of silence), and when that pattern is repeated within the New Testament itself” (ibid., 111-12). This article contends that we find only one repeatable pattern in the New Testament.
5. Elders, overseers, and those who pastor denote the same men, the terms being synonymous for all practical purposes. For example, Paul calls for the elders of the church in Acts 20:17 and a few verses later refers to them as overseers (20:28). In addition, they shepherd (pastor) the church (20:28). Furthermore, in Titus 1:5 Paul urges Titus to appoint elders, and then in 1:7 says, an overseer must be blameless. Daniel B. Wallace, “Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders,” in Prof’s Soapbox, http://www.bible.org/docs/ soapbox/soaptoc.htm (accessed June 1, 2004), says, “The very fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a ‘for’ shows a connection: bishops [overseers] are elders. Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint?”
6. The construction is κατά plus the accusative.
7. See similar uses of κατά in Acts 5:42 (daily); 15:21, 36 (every city); and 20:23 (every city). This is the distributive use of κατά with a singular noun to denote “in every ______.” Cf. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 107; Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963), 268; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923; reprint, Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 606; George Benedict Winer, A grammar of the idiom of the New Testament: prepared as a solid basis for the interpretation of the New Testament (Andover: Draper, 1869), 500. For other examples of the distributive use of κατά with a singular noun, see Luke 8:1, 4; Acts 2:46; Titus 1:5.
8. William Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literature [BAGD] (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, c1979 [Logos Library System CD-ROM]) gives the following examples: κατά “As a distributive (Arrian, Anab. 4, 21, 10 κατὰ σκηνήν=tent by tent) κατ᾿ οἰκίαν (οἶκον) in the various houses. .. Ac 2:46b; 5:42. Likew. the pl. κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους εἰσπορευόμενος 8:3. κατὰ τὰς συναγωγάς 22:19. κατὰ πόλιν (Jos., Ant. 6, 73) from city to city IRo 9:3, but in every (single) city Ac 15:21; 20:23; Tit 1:5. Also κατὰ πόλιν πα̑σαν. .. Ac 15:36; κατὰ πα̑σαν πόλιν 20:23 D. κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην Lk 8:1.”
9. It is singular in the critical text; the Majority Text is plural.
10. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 208.
11. If we accept a pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation, which some evidence suggests, still, one local church existed in Ephesus from which came a number of elders to visit Paul (John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 221–253.
12. The author of Hebrews also states that his readers’ leaders were plural in number: Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account (Hebrews 13:17).
13. Dr. John H. Niemelä, professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Chafer Theological Seminary, shared this information with me. Tim Nichols, also of the CTS Greek department, added insights.
14. It should be noted that the exclusive view would validate plurality of elders because a local church would have at least one elder who rules and one who teaches.
15. Cf. Matt. 7:29; Titus 2:15; 1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Cor. 10:8.
16. Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 150.
17. Wallace, “Who Should Run the Church?” says “The article is used this way in Greek very frequently. That is, the singular is used to specify a class as opposed to an individual. J. W. Roberts, a Greek grammarian, pointed out along these lines: ‘A case in point where wrong use has been made of the generic article is in reference to ‘bishop’ in 1 Timothy 3:2. This has often been used to prove the existence of the monarchal bishop at the time of the writing of the Pastorals. A majority of the commentators, however, agree that the usage is generic.’ Cf. also Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25. The generic article is actually used thousands of times in the NT.”
18. Wallace, “Who Should Run the Church?” says, “further evidence that ‘bishop’ is generic in 1 Tim 3:2 is found in the overall context.. .. Notice the context in which behavior in the church occurs: 1 Tim 2:8–3:13. In 2:8 Paul addresses ‘the men.’ In 2:9–10 he addresses ‘the women.’ Then, in 2:11–12 he says that ‘a woman should learn quietly. .. I do not permit a woman to teach. .. a man.’ Paul is not here speaking of a particular woman (otherwise he would surely have mentioned her by name), but women as a class. In 2:15 he says ‘but she shall be saved. .. if they continue.’ Thus, there is a free exchange of the singular and the plural here. Immediately after this Paul speaks of ‘the bishop.’ Then, in 3:8 he addresses ‘the deacons.’ The overall context is very clearly dealing with classes of individuals. The only time it is not, in fact, is when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve (2:13–14), yet even here he quickly gets into the relevance for his readers in v. 15 (‘she. .. they’).”
19. This assumes that 1 Corinthians 15:7–9 numbers James among the apostles, isolating him because of his prominence among them in Judea. Galatians 1:19 clearly identifies James as an apostle.
20. Bruce Stabbert, The Team Concept (Tacoma, WA: Hegg Bros., 1982), 44.
21. J. B. Smith, Greek-English Concordance (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1955), 3.
22. Here is a legitimate use of the hermeneutical principle theologians call the analogy of Scripture.
23. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., TDNT, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 86–87, state, “Since elsewhere in the Apocalypse ἄγγελοι are always angels, the latter [view that angel means angel] seems more likely. This is supported by the fact that in New Testament days the [overseer] was always regarded as a member of the community and never exalted above it, as would be demanded by the conjunction of images, i.e., community-candlestick, [angel]-star. On this ground, too, the reference would seem to be to angels representing the communities. These correspond to the angels of the nations already found in Judaism, and to Michael as the angel of Israel, but also to the description of angels, common to the whole Book of Revelation, as mediators of the divine action.”
24. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah (Tustin, California: Ariel, 1999), 11.
25. Ibid., 15.
26. A. R. Hay, The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary (Audubon, NJ: New Testament Missionary Union, 1947), 241.
27. Wallace, “Who Should Run the Church?”
28. George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, in NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 177.
29. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1988), 24.
30. Wallace, “Who Should Run the Church?”