Especially Those who Labor in the Word: 1 Timothy 5:17 and the Plurality of Elders

By John H. Niemelä

Dr. John H. Niemelä is Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Chafer Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from University of Minnesota and a Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. He has defended the Two-Gospel Hypothesis in Three Views on the Origin of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. Robert Thomas (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002). His e-mail address is langprof@verizon.net

Introduction

Over the years, several forms of church government have arisen. Within non-denominational American churches three models seem predominate:

1. One elder (pastor), plural deacons [1]
2. Plural elders (pastors), plural deacons [2]
3. One teaching / ruling elder, plural ruling elders, plural deacons [3]

These models translate into four leadership structures, because the third appears in two versions. Specifically, model 3A depicts a three-tier structure, while 3B conceives of the teaching / ruling elder as a first among equals in relation to the ruling elders.

Model 1	Model 2	Model 3A	Model 3B
Pastor (Teaching / Ruling Elder)	Pastors (Teaching / Ruling Elders)	Pastor (Teaching / Ruling Elder)	Pastor (Teaching / Ruling Elder)
Deacons	Deacons	Ruling Elders	Ruling Elders
		Deacons	Deacons

Many seem willing to fight to the death for their view of church leadership. Furthermore, some students, close friends, and associates of the author differ with him on this issue. So, why raise this controversy?

This is an issue where the biblical evidence consists of inferences from Scripture (rather than direct statements). [4] In such cases, believers should graciously allow the Word to work in others and let each be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5b). [5] Although the New Testament does not specify the number of elders in each congregation, no one would doubt that Paul would have a definite answer to the question, Should each local congregation have more than one elder? Twenty-first century expositors would like to know his answer. After dealing with a few important preliminaries, this article will explore an avenue that may clarify Paul’s thinking on this issue.

Preliminary Issues

Understanding the relationship between the offices of overseer and elder is prerequisite to discussion of models. It is also important to determine whether the requirement that an overseer be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) precludes any of the models.

Overseers and Elders

Overseer (bishop) [6] is a functional equivalent of elder, because Acts, Titus, and 1 Peter regard elders as overseers. The office of bishop is not higher than that of elder, contrary to the opinion of various liturgical denominations.

Able to Teach

Many assume that possessing the spiritual gift of teaching is prerequisite to being able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). This understanding would yield the following syllogism:

Major Premise: Overseers must be able to teach 

Minor Premise: Ability to teach requires having the spiritual gift of teaching 

Conclusion: Overseers must possess the spiritual gift of teaching

Although the foregoing syllogism has an internal self-consistency, it starts with an incorrect premise. The word didaktikós (“able to teach”) does not require possession of the spiritual gift of teaching. Does this term equate with possessing the spiritual gift of teaching? The following chart summarizes the four possibilities:

	Gifted to teach	Not gifted to teach
Able to teach	Case 1	Case 3
Not able to teach	Case 2	Case 4

Cases 1 and 4 need no further explanation. It is easy to conceive of one with the spiritual gift of teaching possessing aptitude for teaching or of one lacking such a gift also lacking teaching ability.

The example of Paul helps determine whether case 3 is a legitimate option. Yes, Paul identified his gift as apostleship, not specifically as teaching. Even so, teaching seems to have been an integral component of the gift of apostleship. Acts often speaks of Paul teaching (e.g., Acts 11:26; 15:35; 18:11; 20:20; and 28:31). Apostleship involved teaching, whether orally or in the writing of Scripture. Yet Ananias (rather than Paul) is the one who was able to teach in Acts 9. The neophyte apostle needed to grow in the Lord before he was able to teach anyone. Ability to teach does not bear a one-for-one correspondence with possession of a communication spiritual gift.

Case 3 describes a person who does not possess the spiritual gift of teaching but has teaching ability, nonetheless. Titus 2:3–5 focuses on spiritual maturity rather than on the spiritual gift of teaching as the basis for older women teaching younger women. [7]

the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things—that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Titus was to encourage older women to carry out appropriate ministries. Nothing here suggests that Paul speaks of the possession of specific gifts as prerequisite. Rather, older women who exhibit spiritual maturity are to teach and admonish younger women (including their own daughters). Would it not be appropriate to classify such women as able to teach? Likewise, would it not be appropriate to say that Christians who teach their own children or Sunday school classes ought to be able to teach? [8]

The foregoing consideration of four cases shows that it is unwise to equate the term able to teach with possession of the gift of teaching. Therefore, the use of didaktikós as a qualification for overseers (elders) in 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessitate acceptance of the idea that only men with the gift of teaching should be elders. Neither does it dictate accepting the one-elder-per-congregation model.

Summary of Preliminaries

This section has argued that overseers are equivalent to elders and that the requirement that elders be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) does not stipulate that every overseer (elder) must possess the spiritual gift of teaching. All of the models mentioned in the introduction to this article have survived the preliminary investigations. The next test case is 1 Timothy 5:17.

Especially Those Who Labor

The word especially has particular significance in this verse. Although a superlative adverb, its function approximates that of a conjunction. Logically, it requires a repetition of the verb, as the following addition of bracketed words indicates:

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, [9] especially [let] those [elders who rule well] who [also] labor in the word and teaching [be counted worthy of double honor]. [10]

Paul clearly differentiates those elders who labor in the word and teaching from those who do not (i.e., those whose focus is ruling). Naturally, he urges congregations to be especially generous in providing for elders who labor to exhaustion in studying and proclaiming the Word. See the following chart.

	Elders who Rule Well
Elders who labor in the Word	They are especially worthy of double honorarium
Elders who do not labor in the Word	They are worthy of double honorarium

Many regard the foregoing chart as a sufficient exposition of the passage. However, it could only be comprehensive under one assumption: that Paul did not conceive of elders who do not rule well. That hardly seems possible, since the same context allows receiving accusations against elders from two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19). Furthermore, Paul’s warning against ordaining any man too quickly (1 Timothy 5:22) implies the possibility that an unworthy man may become an elder.

The following chart allows for the possibility of finding elders who do not rule well.

Thrust of 1 Timothy 5:17

	Rule Well	Do Not Rule Well
Labor in Word	Especially worthy of double honorarium	Not worthy of double honorarium
Do not labor in Word	Also worthy of double honorarium	Not worthy of double honorarium

This translates into the following ranking of these classes of elders.

Implication of 1 Timothy 5:17

	Rule well	Do not rule well
Labor in Word	First	Third
Do not labor in Word	Second	Fourth

Another way of depicting this is in a list:

First group: rule well and labor in the Word 

Second group: rule well, but do not labor in the Word 

Third group: do not rule well, but labor in the Word 

Fourth group: do not rule well and do not labor in the Word

Everyone can understand why Paul places the first rank first. Elders who both rule well and labor in the word and teaching definitely deserve the double honorarium. The group with the fourth rank is also self-evident. They neither rule well nor labor in the word and teaching, so Paul does not urge the church to give them the double honorarium. Perhaps, they should cease being elders. [11]

The second and third ranks deserve closer attention. Paul’s wording raises a question: Is ruling more important than studying and communicating scriptural truth? If pay is based on ruling, does this mean that an elder should spend more time ruling than studying or teaching? The following chart highlights the issue in question:

Dilemma Faced by the Single-Elder Model

	Actual	Expected
Rules well and labors (esp. double honor)	1	1
Rules well; does not labor (double honor)	2	3
Does not rule well; labors (no double honor)	3	2
Neither rules well nor labors (no double honor)	4	4

Paul indicates that ruling well, not laboring in the Word, is what determines whether an elder is worthy of the double honorarium. This creates a difficulty for the single-elder model. Paul seems to deem ruling well as more important for an elder than laboring in the Word and teaching. Despite the incomprehensibility of such a conclusion it seems to be inescapable for the single-elder model. That model would not face such a dilemma if Paul had written:

Let the elders who labor in the word and teaching be counted worthy of double honor, especially [let] those [elders who labor in the word and teaching] who [also] rule well [be counted worthy of double honor].

Rewriting the verse in this way would yield the following chart, elevating studying and teaching over ruling.

What the Single-Elder Model Would Prefer

Rules well and labors (esp. double honor)	1
Does not rule well; labors (double honor)	2
Rules well; does not labor (no double honor)	3
Neither rules well nor labors (no double honor)	4

However, the verse does not read in a way that favors the single-elder model, unless the reader assumes that Paul devalues the importance of study and teaching. This realization about 1 Timothy 5:17 caused the present author to switch from favoring the single-elder model.

Solving the Dilemma

The single-elder-per-congregation model views Paul as having a two-fold expectation of each elder:

1. ruling well
2. laboring in the word and teaching

Under these assumptions, Paul would indicate that ruling well is more important than laboring in the word and in doctrine (as the prior section argues).

The plural-elders-per-congregation approach sees Paul as expecting all elders to rule well. He recognizes that some elders (the teaching elders) will also labor to exhaustion in the word and teaching.

Under this approach to the passage, Paul does not rebuke the ruling elders for not laboring in the word and teaching. This is the key. The single-elder model must see not laboring in the word and teaching as a rebuke, because it expects all elders both to rule and teach. However, if the fact that some elders who rule well do not labor in the word and doctrine deserved a rebuke, why does Paul still regard such elders worthy of the double honorarium?

The word kopiá (“labor”) is not a generic term for doing something. It includes the idea of wearisome effort. Consider the following illustrations: the first applies under each model, while the second applies only under plurality models.

Illustration 1: A Teaching / Ruling Elder

This elder devotes forty-five hours per week to studying, five hours to teaching, five to administrative responsibilities (singly and in conjunction with the other elders), and five to hospital visitation and other ministries to his flock on an individual basis. His sixty-hour work week focuses heavily on the word and teaching. He labors to exhaustion in the word and teaching. He does not have time for a part-time job on the side. His congregation needs to take care of the double honorarium, or his finances will soon be in shambles. If this elder needed to seek outside employment, the church would suffer loss.

Illustration 2: A Ruling Elder

This elder works fifty hours each week in a highly compensated secular profession. He attends church faithfully and studies the Word on his own. He also devotes several hours a week to elder meetings, carrying out church administrative responsibilities, teaching a Bible class, [12] and personal ministry. Assume for the purposes of illustration that Paul commended him for carrying out his elder responsibilities.

1 Timothy 5:17 urges the church to provide the double honorarium to both elders because they rule well. However, the first labors to exhaustion in the word and teaching. The second labors to exhaustion in his secular profession. The passage does not rebuke the second elder for not putting in long days studying and teaching. Paul, a tentmaker, was quite familiar with the situation facing the second elder.

How might a church pay a double honorarium to both elders? The first elder serves the church in vocational ministry that includes ruling well and laboring in the word and doctrine. This service may well be a full-time vocational ministry. The second elder rules well and is able to teach, but his is not a vocational ministry. His vocational employment is elsewhere, so that he rules well avocationally. The double honorarium for the elder whose ministry is vocational must be adequate to enable him to devote time to study and teaching. A double honorarium for the ruling elder who ministers avocationally will not yield the same size salary as that for the teaching elder. Nevertheless, the goal is to treat the ruling elder fairly.

Furthermore, the term especially in 1 Timothy 5:17 indicates that the priority is to provide an appropriate compensation to the elder who not only rules well but labors to exhaustion in the Word and teaching. In other words, if the budget does not allow for providing a double honorarium to all elders, the church should make sure that it appropriately compensates the teaching elder.

A congregation of 100 people in New Testament times would have been exceptionally large. First-century congregations met in homes, [13] rather than in single-purpose church buildings (which tend to be larger than homes). For small congregations (consisting predominantly of small numbers of non-affluent people), the double honorarium often could have constituted an economic hardship. Paul’s words allow for that possibility. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor. Some churches may lack the means for providing a full double honorarium. Such churches should be as generous as possible in paying their elders. The very fact that Paul needed to make tents testifies to the possibility that churches may have sufficient financial resources. Congregations that find themselves struggling to fulfill 1 Timothy 5:17 in the long run will benefit from doing what they can to free their teaching elder to labor in the Word and teaching rather than pursue outside employment.

Summary

The single-elder model faces a tension in 1 Timothy 5:17. If Paul’s underlying assumption were that a church has only one elder, the passage (as written) emphasizes compensating elders for ruling well (i.e., for carrying out administrative tasks), not for their teaching. If so, studying and teaching becomes secondary to ruling. It is inconceivable that Paul would emphasize ruling over studying and teaching. Nevertheless, that is the logical bottom line under this model.

On the other hand, multiple-elder models view this passage as saying that ruling is a function that all elders share. However, not all congregations can afford more than one full-time teaching elder, and some cannot fully support even one. Under the multiple-elder model, a congregation is to consider all of its ruling elders worthy of a double honorarium, but should especially focus on freeing the teaching elder from the need for outside employment. Upon attaining this, the church should aim at avoiding the muzzling of any of its oxen, including the ruling elders (1 Timothy 5:18).

The interpretive advantage of a plurality of elders view is that it does not see Paul as emphasizing ruling (administration) over studying and teaching. This agrees with Paul’s focus on understanding and using Scripture in life.

This article has not sought to argue for one plurality model over another because 1 Timothy 5:17 is not the place for resolving some of the finer points. Paul could have easily explained the model that underlies what he wrote, but he is not explicit. Thus, modern interpreters must seek out any clues contained in verses such as 1 Timothy 5:17. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5b).

Notes

1. This model is common in Baptist churches.
2. Plymouth Brethren assemblies employ this model, but often purposely limit compensation for elders, believing that outside employment is desirable.
3. Presbyterians favor this model. Presbúteroi is the Greek word for elders.
4. First Timothy 5:17 is the central passage for the present author, but that is not the only passage he would cite. Those who favor the single-elder per congregation model often assert that any given city may have contained many congregations, so the phrase “the church of _____ [city name]” may refer to a number of autonomous house-churches. While passages exist, where this is a real possibility, Acts 14:23 speaks of elders (plural) according to the church (singular). Of course, proponents of the single-elder per congregation model suggest that many congregations may have existed in those cities. This is based on an assumption that Paul and Barnabas planted multiple congregations in Perga, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe in Acts 13–14. However, riots forced them to leave several of these cities after short ministries. It is easier to conceive of Paul and Barnabas planting a single congregation in each of these cities. Acts 14:23 weighs against the single-elder-per-congregation view.
5. Scripture citations are from The New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982), unless noted otherwise. First Timothy 5:17 is always the author’s own translation.
6. Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 5:2 speak of the office of epískopos (“overseer,” “bishop”). This term serves as a functional equivalent to elder, since Acts 20:17 and 28 show that elders are men whom the Holy Spirit has made overseers (cf. Titus 1:5–7 and 1 Peter 5:1–2).
7. For a male writer to assign an age to the terms older woman and younger woman is a risky proposition. The following makes the necessary point without entering into that controversy. By definition, a mother is an older woman in comparison to her daughter. Certainly, Paul would not say, “The only mothers allowed to teach their daughters are those who possess the spiritual gift of teaching.” Readers will hold one of two positions regarding women possessing the spiritual gift of teaching: (1) no women have the spiritual gift of teaching or (2) some women have the spiritual gift of teaching. Those holding the former position must conclude that Paul regarded some who lack the spiritual gift of teaching as indeed able to teach. Certainly, those holding the latter position would not imagine Paul viewing mothers without the spiritual gift of teaching as unable to teach their own daughters.
8. Similarly, most would differentiate the spiritual gift of evangelism from doing evangelism (2 Timothy 4:5 does not imply that Timothy possessed the spiritual gift of evangelism).
9. 1 Timothy 5:18 explains verse 17 in terms of the need to compensate workers. Thus, the double-honorarium in verse 17 is financial. In addition, the paragraph preceding this passage includes 1 Timothy 5:3: Honor widows who are really widows. Honor is a financial concept here. Paul is concerned that elderly women who lacked a husband, children, and grandchildren would be destitute. Thus, verse 3 urges financial assistance for qualifying widows, but verse 4 withholds it from widows whose children or grandchildren could support them.
10. Translation by author. The word for teaching (or doctrine) is didaskalía, which has the same root as didásk (“to teach”). The term teaching elder arose under the multiple-elder models from this word in this verse. Thus, translating the verse with teaching rather than doctrine preserves the link between the teaching-elder models and this verse.
11. Such a man is not making a contribution because he fails to rule well. On the other hand, Paul did not necessarily expect all ruling elders to labor to exhaustion in the word and in doctrine.
12. Although this elder does study and teach, he labors to exhaustion in secular employment (i.e., tentmaking). While diligent and worthy of double honorarium, he does not labor to exhaustion in the word and teaching. Paul does not rebuke a ruling elder for tentmaking. Furthermore, budgetary realities may require the teaching elder of a small congregation to find outside employment. Nonetheless, Paul would encourage congregations to seek to minimize the time any teaching elder would devote to tentmaking.
13. The following Pauline passages mention churches meeting in homes: Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2. Possibly, 2 John 1:10, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house nor greet him,” does so as well. If a local congregation was meeting in the home of the recipient of 2 John, the word home could have had a double meaning: (1) home and (2) the church assembled in that home.