The New Testament Elder, Overseer, and Pastor

By David A. Mappes

[David Mappes is a staff pastor at Bethany Bible Church and professor of Bible at Southwestern College, both in Phoenix, Arizona.]

[This is article two in the four-part series “Studies on the Role of the New Testament Elder.”]

The first article in this series[1] discussed the use of the term “elder” in the Old Testament (זָן) and the relationship of New Testament elders (πρεσβύτεροι) to elders in the Jewish synagogue. The present article discusses the use of two Greek words translated “overseer” and “pastor” in order to ascertain their relationship to the New Testament elder and discusses the question of whether church eldership is an office or a function.

The word ἐπίσκοπος (“overseer”) occurs in Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25.[2] The first four citations refer to local church offices, while the word in 1 Peter 2:25 refers to Jesus Christ as the Guardian of believers. In the first four references the term seems to be a technical title of church office and not merely a descriptive term of leadership function.[3] When used to describe church officers, it is always in connection with Gentile churches. This has led some to conclude that πρεσβύτερος (“elder”) was primarily a Jewish term used to describe Jewish church leaders and that ἐπίσκοπος was a Gentile term used to describe Gentile leaders.[4]

The word ἐπίσκοπος derives from ἐπί (“over”) and σκοπέω (“to watch or look”). The σκοπός then is a “watcher,” and ἐπίσκοπος is an “overseer,” one who is attentive to things or persons.[5] The verb ἐπισκοπέω, occurring in Hebrews 12:15 and 1 Peter 5:2, means “to look at, take care of, oversee, care for.”[6]

In the Septuagint ἐπίσκοπος depicts priestly oversight (Num 4:16), military leaders (31:14), stewards (Judg 9:28), and superintendents of those who repaired the temple (2 Chron 34:12, 17). ᾿Επίσκοπος is used once of God as the Judge of mankind (Job 20:29).[7] Josephus employed the term to refer to one who oversees or administers the affairs of another.[8] Thus the term implies general or specific oversight by political, religious, communal, military, or municipal individuals. In church leadership it designates those who are recognized officials in providing spiritual oversight to members entrusted to them.

Ποιμήν, another word used of church leadership, appears only in Ephesians 4:11 when associated with local church leadership, (though it is used seven times to describe Christ as the great Shepherd; John 10:2, 11, 12, 14, 16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25). The verb ποιμαίνω occurs four times in describing the activity of elders, who are to feed the church (John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 9:7; 1 Pet 5:2).

Perhaps the most debated aspect of church polity is the relationship between these three terms.[9] This article seeks to demonstrate that πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος, and ποιμήν refer to the same office and individuals who hold those offices.[10] The terms are used interchangeably to emphasize various functions of the same office. In postapostolic generations the terms were viewed differently, and this led to various forms of episcopacy, in which some leaders were appointed bishops over other church officials.[11]

A definite relationship exists between πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος. When Paul summoned the πρεσβύτεροι of the Ephesian church to meet with him in Miletus (Acts 20:17), he told them the Holy Spirit had appointed them as ἐπίσκοποι (v. 28).[12] Significantly the elders (plural) of the church (singular) in Ephesus are identified as the overseers (plural). In addition they are told to shepherd (ποιμαίνειν) the church.[13] Some argue that ἐπίσκοποι in Acts 20:28 refers not to a title but is merely a functional term pointing to elder responsibility. However, the elders in that verse describe the same group mentioned in verse 17.[14] The context suggests that ἐπίσκοπος is a title of office synonymous with elder (πρεσβύτερος), and the present infinitive ποιμαίνειν describes a function of the office.

In Philippians 1:1 Paul referred to ἐπίσκοποι and διακόνοι as church leaders. Since πρεσβύτερος does not occur in this epistle, it is difficult to argue absolutely that the elder and the overseer are identical.[15] However, if the terms are different, it would seem strange for Paul to address the overseers and deacons but not the elders.[16] While Paul could certainly refer to church workers without designating office (Rom 12:8; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12), in Philippians 1:1 he must have had in mind members of the congregation who were recognized and characterized as ἐπίσκοποι and διακόνοι; otherwise the terms would have no meaning.[17]

Further evidence for equating πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος is seen in the Pastoral Epistles.[18] Paul reminded Titus that he was to appoint πρεσβύτεροι in every city on the island of Crete. In Titus 1:6–9 Paul then enumerated the qualifications required of elders. He began with the requirement that an elder must be above reproach. After describing various domestic qualities of elders in verse 6 the apostle repeated the need that an elder be above reproach, referring this time to such a leader as an ἐπίσκοπος (v. 7).

Since the πρεσβύτεροι (plural) in verse 5 are identified by a singular indefinite pronoun τίς in verse 6, it is not surprising that he referred to the leaders again in the singular in verse 7 (ἐπίσκοπος).[19]

Either Paul used ἐπίσκοπος to introduce a new and different office or he used the terms interchangeably, as in Acts 20:28.[20] If he introduced a new office, then the conjunction γάρ has no meaning, which is not possible.[21] Brown agrees that these two terms are generally interchangeable,[22] and Beyer writes,

The qualifications of presbyters here are like those of bishops in 1 Tim 3:2ff. In fact, there is an alternation of terms in Tt. [sic] 1:7, where we suddenly have ἐπίσκοπος instead of πρεσβύτερος. This is another proof that the two terms originally referred to the same thing.[23]

No contextual evidence suggests that Paul intended to address those other than the elders in verse 5.[24] The articular, singular construction of τον ἐπίσκοπον might be interpreted to mean a single overseer in a church, but because Paul has not changed subjects, the context requires that τον ἐπίσκοπον represents the group of πρεσβύτεροι.[25]

Additional evidence for the interchangeability of these terms occurs in 1 Peter 5:1–2. Peter addressed the spiritual leaders as πρεσβυτέροι in verse 1, though in verse 2 he spoke of their responsibility to be “exercising oversight” (ἐπισκοπούντες). His close linking of πρεσβυτέροι and ἐπισκοπούντες indicates that elders (like the overseers) would exercise oversight.[26]

The shepherd imagery (ποιμαίνω) in reference to church leaders is used in conjunction with the elder-overseer in both Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2. Ποιμαίνω would be meaningful to first-century Christians who would have understood the relationship between sheep and their shepherd. The shepherd was to feed, guide, and protect the sheep,[27] that is, to “oversee” the growth and well-being of the sheep. In Acts 20:28 the overseers, who were identified as elders, were told to shepherd (ποιμαίνειν) the flock. Ποιμαίνειν is the verbal form of the noun ποιμένας (“pastors”) in Ephesians 4:11. The flock is the church, and shepherding is the responsibility of the elder-overseer. In 1 Peter 5:2 the elders are to “shepherd [ποιμάνατε] the flock of God.” The participle ἐπισκοπούντες expands the manner by which the elders are to carry out their assignment of shepherding the flock.[28]

Ephesians 4:11 has the only occurrence of ποιμήν (“pastors”) that refers specifically to individuals. Its association with the office of apostleship in the same verse strongly suggests a titular usage. This association is heightened by the use of the article τοὺς before ποιμένας, the preposition καὶ between ποιμένας and διδασκάλους (“teachers”),[29] and the fact that the definite article precedes each of the four titles for apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors.[30] However, when describing pastors and teachers the phrase omits the article before “teachers”; the phrase reads “the pastors and teachers,” not “the pastors and the teachers.” This grouping indicates a close relationship between the role of the pastor and teacher.[31]

The effect of omitting the article before “teacher” suggests that pastors and teachers make up the same class; thus they are pastor-teachers.[32] The pastor-teacher is a single office with the twofold function of shepherding or overseeing the flock, and teaching. These pastor-teachers, then, are the same group of leaders known as the elder-overseers.[33] This is supported by two observations. First, the shepherd imagery in Ephesians 4:11 is also used in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1–3 to depict the function of the elder-overseers. Second, the injunction for the elder-overseers to teach (1 Tim 3:2, “able to teach”; Titus 1:9 “exhort in sound doctrine”) is analogous to the responsibility of pastor-teachers. (The pastor-teacher may have had the gift of teaching,[34] or teaching simply describes the shepherding task.)

In summary, the three terms πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος, and ποιμήν are different names for those who occupy the same office. The πρεσβύτερος stresses godly wisdom and maturity, ἐπίσκοπος points to oversight and rule, while ποιμήν points to feeding and tending the flock.[35]

Is Eldership an Office or a Function?

A question often raised regarding New Testament elders is whether their “eldership” was an office (i.e., a formally recognized position with appropriate duties), or a function (i.e., a Spirit-energized ministry with or without a formal appointment or office). This writer views the New Testament elder as including both office and function.

To hold the office of elder requires meeting certain office qualifications (1 Tim 3:1–7). Gifts and ministries, however, are broader than one’s “office” or position. In fact one may employ gifts in ministry without holding a church office.

The office of elder involves the functions of shepherding, guiding, and teaching. In 1 Timothy 3:1 the ἐπισκοπῆς (office of overseer) is said to be a good work (καλοῦ ἔργου).[36] Thus the office is related to its function (a work). So the ministry of an overseer is at the same time an office to hold and a task to perform.[37] The office is defined in terms of the task[38]; it is an office of work.[39]

Since the qualifications for serving as an elder include being proved blameless and faithful within the Christian community, some level of prior ministry or function is required for eldership. In addition some of the qualifications (prudence, ability to teach, management of one’s home, not being quick-tempered, and others) correspond to the tasks of elders (emphasizing wisdom and dignity), overseers (emphasizing oversight and rule), and pastors (emphasizing teaching and loving care). Paul’s argument is from the lesser (function) to the greater (office). If one does not function effectively without office, how can he function effectively in office? Function is partially described by the elder qualifications, and yet function alone does not constitute eldership. Eldership inherently involves both function and office.

Does Eldership Involve One Office or Two?

The duties of the elder-overseer-pastor can be summarized in two areas: giving oversight (ruling, guiding, caring for), and teaching or preaching. Because of the emphasis on these two areas of ministry, some say there are two separate offices: some elders rule whereas others teach or preach.[40] Calvin was one of the first to articulate the distinction between teaching and ruling elders. In 1548 he wrote these comments on 1 Timothy 5:17:

From this passage it may be inferred that there are two kinds of presbyters, since they were not all ordained to teach. The plain meaning of the words is that there were some who ruled well and honourably, but who did not hold a teaching office. The people elected earnest and well-tried men, who, along with the pastors in a common council and with the authority of the church, would administer discipline and act as censors for the correction of morals.[41]

Those who defend the distinction between ruling and teaching elders appeal to 1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Timothy 5:17, and the lack of emphasis on teaching as a qualification in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.[42] As with many issues of polity, proponents of both views have been somewhat dogmatically vigorous and at times polemical in their approach, and polarization has resulted.[43]

However, different functions of eldership need not require distinct offices. An analogy is evident in the office of apostleship. Paul held this office, and yet referred to himself as a preacher and a teacher (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). He had one office (that of an apostle), and in that office he carried out various functions. His functions, in other words, did not require two separate kinds of apostleship. Also Paul intermingled office and gifts in 1 Corinthians 12; the offices of apostle and prophet are juxtaposed with the gifts of administration, teaching, and others.[44]

The only passage that would suggest a distinction between teaching and ruling elders is 1 Timothy 5:17.45 After discussing the qualifications of elders, Paul advised Timothy on how to handle problems related to the eldership. In 1 Timothy 5:17 the apostle wrote, “Let the elders46 who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” This verse raises two questions: What does “rule” (προεστῶτες, present participle of προΐστημι) mean? Are the elders who rule different from those who labor (οἱ κοπιῶντες) in preaching and teaching? The first question helps answer the second.

Προῒστημι appears eight times in the New Testament with five of those instances referring to the activity of church leadership. In 1 Timothy 3:4–5, 12 the Greek word depicts the domestic managerial qualifications required of church leaders, and in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 it also refers to church leaders. The verb implies a sense of discretionary management and superintendence47 in a skillful manner, wherein those under that management should be under control (ὑποταγῇ) with dignity (σεμνότητος), as stated in 1 Timothy 3:4. In other words as a man manages (προΐστημι) his home, so he would manage (προΐστημι) the church. His domestic management would indicate how he uses authority. Ruling involves proper use of authority. Peter enjoined elders not to lord it over those allotted to their care (1 Pet 5:3). In 1 Timothy 3:5 the verb “take care” (ἐπιμελήσεται) is a parallel to προῒστημι. “The picture is…of one who in uprightness of character, in wisdom, and with skillfulness manages the people under his authority.”[48]

The general superintending aspect of προῒστημι parallels the other terms that describe the function of elder-overseer-pastors. The term πρεσβύτεροι stresses aspects of godly wisdom and maturity, while ἐπίσκοποι outlines the aspects of oversight and rule.[49] The elders who rule (προεστῶτες), then, are not functionally different from the elder-overseer-pastors.[50]

The second question to address in reference to 1 Timothy 5:17 is, Who are “especially [μάλιστα] those who work hard [οἱ κοπιῶντες] at preaching [ἐν λόγῳ] and teaching [διδασκαλίᾳ]?” One important observation is that those who labor in preaching and teaching are plural. There are several teaching elders, not just one. The superlative adverb “especially” (μάλιστα) particularizes or emphasizes those who preach and teach. While the adverb indicates that those who labor in word and doctrine are also among those who rule,[51] it does not mean that all those who rule actually teach and preach. Μάλιστα “is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important, as well as the most difficult, part of their office, public teaching.”[52] Some of the elders (πρεσβύτεροι) are those who work hard at preaching and teaching. While all elders rule, not all necessarily preach and teach.

This distinction between ruling and teaching is one of function rather than class or office.[53] “The distinction of ‘teaching presbyters’ or ministers proper, and ‘ruling presbyters’ or lay-elders, is a convenient arrangement of Reformed churches, but can hardly claim apostolic sanction, since the one passage [1 Tim 5:17] on which it rests only speaks of two functions in the same office.”[54] King suggests that the dual nature is based on appointment and that an elder could be appointed to both the teaching and ruling offices.[55] However, it seems more likely that “those who work hard at preaching and teaching” refers to the gifted pastor-teachers discussed in Ephesians 4:11 who hold the same office as the elder-overseers. While all elder-overseer-pastors must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2) and exhort and refute with sound doctrine (Titus 1:9), they may not all have the spiritual gifts of teaching and exhorting (Rom 12:7).[56] Thus since the distinction is one of function, not of office or class, there is no essential difference between these two groups mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17.[57]

Notes

1. David A. Mappes, “The ‘Elder’ in the Old and New Testaments,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (January-March 1997): 80-92.
2. The related word ἐπισκοπή is a “visitation” (Luke 19:44; 1 Pet 2:12) or position or office as an overseer (Acts 1:20; 1 Tim 3:1) (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 299).
3. An example occurs in Philippians 1:1 where Paul addressed his letter to the ἐπίσκοποι and διακόνοι of the church. The title depicts the function of oversight but it still remains a title. Many scholars argue that these terms refer to a general function and not a specific office. Some argue that ἐπίσκοπος is never used as a title (Fenton John Anthony Hort, Christian Ecclesia: A Course of Lectures on the Early History and Early Conceptions of the Ecclesia and One Sermon [London: Macmillan, 1914], 212–13; Thomas Lindsay, Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries [New York: Doran, n.d.; reprint, Minneapolis: James Family, 1977], 165–66; and Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 32 [Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1961], 171–80). This conjecture is normally predicated on an errant view that the charismatic endowment to function and church office were not simultaneous but opposite. It also fits into the late dating of the Pastoral Epistles that its advocates espouse. However, given the genre of epistolary literature and the fact that one can have office without full historical-canonical development of that office, ἐπίσκοποι and διακόνοι refer to the office title of those who so functioned.
4. Gene A. Getz, “Church Leadership: A Biblical and Pragmatic Perspective,” Words Fellowship: A Journal of BILD International 1 (Fall 1988): 37-38; J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1879), 96; F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 416; and George W. Knight, “The Number and Functions of Permanent Offices in the New Testament Church,” Covenant Seminary Review (Spring 1985): 111-16. Hillstrom writes, “Just as the spiritual leaders in the Jewish churches were identified as elders, so in the Gentile churches the leaders were called bishops” (Leonard H. Hillstrom, “The New Testament Teaching on Church Elders” (Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1980), 72. Some writers postulate that the list of moral qualifications is associated with the term ἐπίσκοπος (primarily Gentile church leaders) and not with the term πρεσβύτερος (primarily Jewish church leaders) because Gentiles would not have understood moral qualifications associated with the synagogal eldership that were adapted to form church eldership. This fact may be partially true. However, the term “elder” does occur in reference to Gentile churches.
5. L. Coenen, “ἐπίσκοπος,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:188.
6. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 299.
7. In writings dated before the New Testament ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are not used together.
8. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 10.53; 12.254; 16.321; idem, The Jewish Wars 3:124.
9. Perhaps the best historical critique and description of current critical scholarship on this issue is James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 1–179.
10. “The terms PRESBYTER (or Elder) and BISHOP (or Overseer, Superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference, only that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek Communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1: Apostolic Christianity [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 491–92 (capital letters his).
11. While one cannot be dogmatic about the development of this early episcopacy, it in part resulted from the desire to maintain a unified church after the apostles died, to combat heresy, and to elevate highly gifted and unique individuals.
12. Lovestam and Hemer provide a good overview of this section in Acts and its literary integrity (Evald Lovestam, “Paul’s Address at Miletus,” Studia Theologica 41 [1978]: 1-10; and Colin J. Hemer, “The Speeches of Acts: The Ephesian Elders at Miletus,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 [1989]: 77-85).
13. No evidence suggests that the elders in Acts 20:17 were a unique elder group qualified to oversee other elders.
14. The anarthrous construction of ἐπίσκοπους and articular construction of τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους are not sufficient evidence to argue for a nontitular use of ἐπισκόπους. Titles are considered to be definite and so they do not require the definite article. As A. T. Robertson writes, “The article is frequently absent in titular expressions” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 1397).
15. “This is not a casual reference but a formal salutation in an official letter addressed to the church. In such a greeting it seems incredible that the order of presbyters should be passed over, forming as it did the backbone of local organizations…the presbyters are to be thought of as the same persons as the bishops” (Leon Morris, Ministers of God [London: InterVarsity, 1964], 72).
16. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, 99; and John C. Moore, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, ed. H. A. W. Meyer, trans. and rev. William Dickson (Edinburgh: Clark, 1875), 9–10.
17. Moisés Silva, Philippians, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 40–41; and Hermann W. Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 616.
18. While Campbell overstates the fact of the interchangeability of πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος, most scholars who adhere to Pauline authorship agree. He writes, “The interchangeableness of the term presbyter with that of bishop, is now held by all” (Peter Colin Campbell, The Theory of Ruling Eldership or the Position of the Lay Ruler in the Reformed Churches Examined [Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1866], 21). Towner agrees when he writes, “The terms elder and overseer were interchangeable” (Philip H. Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary Series [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994], 226).
19. John P. Meire, “Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 323-45.
20. Additional support for the interchangeability of these terms is seen in 1 Timothy 3:1–2 and 5:17. Paul probably wrote Titus and 1 Timothy less than two years apart. Both Timothy and Titus were to establish church order and facilitate the appointment of church leaders. The spiritual qualifications for πρεσβύτεροι in Titus 1:6, the ἐπίσκοπος in Titus 1:7–9, and the ἐπίσκοπος in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 are remarkably similar. First Timothy 5:17 speaks of remuneration and discipline of elders, with no mention of elder qualifications. Since Timothy was probably in Ephesus, where there were elders (Acts 20:17), it is strange that Paul did not list elder qualifications if the πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοπος were different offices (Marvin E. Mayer, “An Exegetical Study of the New Testament Elder” [Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1970], 42).
21. Harvey postulates that πρεσβύτεροι must refer to old men (because of the lexical meaning) and that ἐπίσκοπος refers to the office of appointment. Hence Paul was telling Titus to choose among the older members those who have character worthy of church leadership (A. E. Harvey, “Elders,” Journal of Theological Studies 25 [October 1974]: 318-32). However, Harvey does not address Acts 20:17 or 20:28, and πρεσβύτερος in 1 Timothy 5:17 refers not simply to old men but to men in church office.
22. Raymond E. Brown, “Episkopē and Episkopos: The New Testament Evidence, Theological Studies 41 (June 1980): 322-38. “The interchangeability of presbuteros and episkopos is seen not only in the Pastorals (Titus 1:5–7; 1 Tim 3:1; 5:17) but also in Acts 20:28” (ibid., 333). Later Brown argues that while the ἐπίσκοπος is an elder, he was probably one of the ruling elders mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17. While Brown does see a distinction of function between the πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοπος, it is not a distinction of title or office.
23. Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” 617.
24. There is nothing in any of the Pastoral Epistles to suggest that one overseer was to exercise oversight over a group of πρεσβύτεροι or that each community was restricted to one overseer. See Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 32–33; Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 2 vols. (reprint, New York: Books for Libraries, 1972), 1:445; George W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 152–55, 287–92; John Legg, “Eldership: The Biblical Doctrine,” Banner of Truth 75 (December 1969): 8-18; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 157-66; and Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 83–90.
25. Norbert Brox, “Historische und theologische Probleme der Pastoralbrief des Neuen Testaments. Zur Dokumentation der frühchristlichen Amtsgeschichte,” Kairos 11 (February 1969): 89. In this “generic construction” the singular article and noun represent all that belong to a group (James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek [New York: University Press of America, 1979], 70). Matthew 18:17 has a similar generic use of the article.
26. This evidence is somewhat weaker than that in Acts 20:17 and 20:28 because ἐπισκοπούντες is not a noun and because of the weak manuscript support for the participle ἐπισκοπούντες (which appears in the Western text and in Latin and Syriac translations but not in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus). However, even in light of the weak manuscript evidence, the fact that a scribe could use ἐπισκοπούντες as a description of elder function lends at least some support to the interchangeability of terms.
27. J. G. S. Shepherd (“The Shepherd-Ruler Concept in the OT and Its Application in the NT,” Scottish Journal of Theology 8 [1955]: 406-18), and Jerry R. Young (“Shepherds Lead,” Grace Theological Journal 6 [1985]: 229-35) provide heart-warming and helpful information on the shepherd imagery.
28. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Counsel for Christ’s Under-Shepherds: An Exposition of 1 Peter 5:1–4, ” Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December 1982): 330-41.
29. According to the Granville Sharp rule, if two substantives are connected by καὶ and both have the article, they refer to different persons or things. If the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person or thing as the first (James H. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979], 70). Wallace, however, points out that the Granville Sharp rule is less consistent with plural substantives (Daniel Wallace, “The Semantic Range of the ‘Article-Noun-Καί-Noun Plural Construction’ in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 4 [Spring 1983]: 59-84). He considers that the use of the one article for both substantives “sets them apart from the other gifted leaders” and that Ephesians 4:11 “seems to affirm that all pastors were to be teachers, though not all teachers were to be pastors” (idem, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 284–85).
30. The identification of the pastor-teacher in Ephesians 4:11 with the office of elder-overseer does not mean that all pastoral ministries must be viewed as official “offices” in the church. However, the nature of the pastor-teacher in Ephesians 4:11 most likely refers to an elder with the gift of teaching.
31. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 578.
32. George W. Knight III, “Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study,” Covenant Seminary Review 11 (Spring 1985): 1-12. “The Acts passage indicates by its usage that all the elder/bishops have a shepherding or pastoral responsibility and may be designated pastors. When we ask of the Ephesians 4:11 passage, who are the pastors, we may answer from Acts 20:28 and context that they are the elder/bishops” (ibid., 10). Cf. Greg Wasser, “Pastor-elder-overseer,” Calvary Baptist Theological Journal 4 (Spring 1988): 61-75.
33. Thomas Witherow, “The New Testament Elder,” British and Foreign Evangelical Review 84 (April 1873): 203. The New Testament writers also referred to church leaders as those who “spoke the word of God to you” (Heb 13:7), as “leaders” (v. 17), and as those who “diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction” (1 Thess 5:12).
34. F. S. Malan, “The Relationship between Apostolate and Office in the Theology of Paul,” Neotestamentica 10 (1976): 53-67; and Walter Schmithal, The Office of the Apostle in the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).
35. Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, 204-5. Schweizer goes too far when he puts the Spirit and office in antithesis.
36. As Patrick Fairbairn writes, “It is not merely a post of honor, or a position of influence…but a work of active service, and one that from its very nature brings one into living fellowship with the pure and good” (The Pastoral Epistles [1874; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980], 136).
37. Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Charismatic versus Organized Ministry,” Evangelical Quarterly 52 (1980): 205.
38. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 154-55.
39. Johann Eduard Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, ed. H. A. W. Meyer, trans. David Hunter (Edinburgh: Clark, 1861), 138.
40. Those who hold to a dual nature of eldership are normally divided into two categories. The first group advocates that both ruling and teaching elders are referred to as πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοποι, and both are ordained. In addition, they advocate that ruling and teaching elders rule jointly. The teaching elder has additional functions of acting as God’s public ambassador in word and sacrament (R. L. Dabney, “Theories of Eldership,” in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, ed. C. R. Vaughan [Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1981], 2:119–27; and Peter Colin Campbell, The Theory of Ruling Eldership on the Position of Lay Ruler in the Reformed Churches Examined (Edinburgh: Blackwood & Sons, 1866). A second group argues that while the ruling elder is a scriptural officer, he is never referred to as a πρεσβύτερος or ἐπίσκοπος. Hence ruling elders are not presbyters. Those who hold this view normally accentuate the divine calling of the teaching elder who is often referred to as “the minister” (Dabney, Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, 129-31; Belden C. Lane, “Miller and Eldership: A Knickerbocker Goes to Nassau,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 6 [1985]: 211-24; Cornick, “The Reformed Elder,” Expository Times 98 (May 1987): 235-40; and Torrance, “The Eldership in the Reformed Church,” Scottish Journal of Theology 37 (1984): 503-18.
41. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 10: The Second Epistle of the Apostle to the Corinthiansand the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. David Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T. A. Small (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 26. There is some ambiguity in Calvin’s distinction between teaching and ruling elders. He alluded to “some who ruled well” but who did not hold the office of teacher. Calvin did distinguish the office of teacher from that of elder, though it is difficult to see how much he understood the teacher as a distinct officer who was assisted by elders (R. E. H. Uprichard, “The Eldership in Martin Bucer and John Calvin,” Evangelical Quarterly 61 [1989]: 21-37). Schaff suggests that Calvin intended a distinction in function but not in office (Schaff, Apostolic Christianity, 497).
42. Charles Hodge, Church Polity: From Contributions to the Princeton Review, selected and arranged by William Durant (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1878), 263–99; Robert G. Rayburn, “Three Offices: Minister, Elder, Deacon,” Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review 12 [Fall 1986]: 105-14); Lane, “Miller and Eldership,” 211–24; David Cornick, “The Reformed Elder,” Expository Times 98 (May 1987): 234-40; and John M’kerrow, The Office of the Ruling Elders in the Christian Church: Its Divine Authority, Duties, and Responsibilities (Edinburgh: Oliphant and Sons, 1846).
43. The issue of ruling and teaching elders was heatedly debated in the controversy between the Old School and New School Presbyterians; hence much discussion on the issue is somewhat dated. Torrance discusses the development of the ruling elder’s office in the Reformed Church (The Eldership in the Reformed Church [Edinburgh: Handsel, 1984]). Moore and McGill also discuss the development of and the debate on the ruling elder (William E. Moore, “Is Election for a Limited Term of Service Presbyterian and Constitutional?” Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review 1 [1872]: 231-46; and Alexander T. McGill, “Tenure of the Elders Office,” Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review 1 [1872]: 568-89).
44. It is difficult to determine if διδασκάλους in 1 Corinthians 12:28 refers to the office of teacher or the gift of teaching. If it refers to office, it nevertheless does not invalidate the argument that Paul intermingled gift and office. If διδασκάλους does refer to an office, it probably is a reference to the pastor-teacher, mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, who has been identified as an elder-overseer. Romans 12:6–8 certainly suggests that a gift of teaching (as opposed to office) does exist.
45. “The distinction of teaching presbyters or ministers proper, and presbyters or lay elders, rests on a single passage (1 Tim 5:17), which unquestionably admits a difficult interpretation; especially since Paul in the same epistle (iii:2), expressly mentions ability to teach among the requisites for the episcopal or presbyterial office” (Campbell, The Theory of Ruling Eldership, 50-51).
46. As previously stated, some scholars argue that Paul simply had in mind older men since he used the word πρεσβύτεροι. However, the context indicates that Paul was addressing leadership within the church. He referred to these πρεσβύτεροι as those who rule, teach, and preach (1 Tim 5:17–19). In addition he outlined discipline procedures (vv. 19–21) and ordination procedures (v. 22) associated with this same group of πρεσβύτεροι. The same word πρεσβύτεροι is used in Titus 1:5 (where the context has similar themes of church leadership, regulation, and function) and throughout Acts (11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18) to describe church leadership.
47. Bo Reicke, “προΐστημι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6 (1968), 700–703.
48. Harvey J. Newton, “A Study of the Principal Greek Words Describing the Function of the Elders” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976), 70. Morris writes, “The minister ought to regard himself as no more than a servant to his people, but this people should regard him as a shepherd over the flock. Great harm is done when the minister thinks of himself as supreme over the flock, or when the people regard him as no more than their servant” (Leon Morris, Ministers of God [London: InterVarsity, 1964], 77).
49. Witherow, “The New Testament Elder,” 203.
50. “The distinction implies with certainty that teaching was not a universal function of the Elders at Ephesus. On the other hand, the language used does not suggest that there were two separate and well-defined classes: Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders” (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 196-97 [italics his]).
51. Robert G. Gromacki, Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 143.
52. Campbell, The Theory of Ruling Eldership, 59. There is no support for M’kerrow’s view that μάλιστα suggests a class distinction (The Office of the Ruling Elders in the Christian Church, 95).
53. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 77–79; Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles, 213-17; Gordon Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 128–29; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 231-33; Knight, “Two Offices,” 1–12; John Legg, “Eldership: The Biblical Doctrine,” Banner of Truth, December 1969, 12–13; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 679–82; Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 195; Morris, Ministers of God, 76-77; Greg Wasser, “Pastor-elder-overseer,” Calvary Baptist Theological Journal 4 (Spring 1988): 70-71; and Witherow, “The New Testament Elder,” 205–8.
54. Schaff, Apostolic Christianity, 496.
55. David King, The Ruling Eldership of the Church (New York: Carter and Brothers, 1868), 14–43.
56. The fact that elders have multiple functions including teaching, exhorting, and refuting does not require that the church have three separate classes of elders (teaching elders, exhorting elders, and refuting elders).
57. “The distinction intended is therefore not official but personal” (Campbell, The Theory of Ruling Eldership, 59).