Apr
26

Purswell’s Polity Lecture

Eldership and the Local Church

Sovereign Grace Meetings – T4G

April 12, 2010

I.  Introduction – The Importance of This Topic

1.  Convictions about eldership are crucial because of Scripture’s emphasis on it.

2.  Convictions about eldership are crucial because it is the primary governance structure in the local church.

3.  Convictions about eldership are crucial in order to withstand our culture’s anti-authority bias.

II.  The NT sets forth the office of elder as the primary governance structure in the local church.

A.  The terms “elder” (presbyteros), “overseer” (episkopos), and “pastor” (poimen) are used interchangeably to refer to the same office.

1.  Titus 1:5-9:  Paul instructs Titus to appoint “elders” (v. 5), and then in specifying the required qualities he states “for the overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…” (v. 7).  Commentators are in wide agreement that both terms refer to the same office (1).  In listing the necessary qualities for the office, Paul simply shifts to a more functional term (2).

2.  Acts 20:17-28:  Paul summons the “elders” of the Ephesian church (v. 17) and affirms that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (v. 28).  Again, Paul uses both terms to refer to the same group of people, and therefore the same office.

3.  I Tim 3:1-7:  Paul instructs Timothy concerning two offices, “overseer” and “deacon.”  The list of qualities for the overseer is in substance equivalent to that provided in Titus 1, including the responsibility to teach.  In 1 Tim 5:17, Paul speaks of the “elders” who “rule” (proistemi) and “work hard at… teaching” (didaskalia), responsibilities that correspond precisely to those given to the “overseer” in 3:4-5 (proistemi) and 3:2 (didaskitos).  This implies that the office of “overseer” in 1 Tim. 3:1 is identical to that of “elder” in 5:17 and in Titus 1:5.

4.  Philippians 1:1:  Paul addresses two groups of leaders among the church:  “overseers” and “deacons,” matching the two offices mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:1ff.

5.  Eph 4:11/1 Peter 5:1-2/Acts 20:28:  Although Eph 4:11 contains the only instance of the noun “pastor” to refer to a ministry in the church, Peter exhorts “elders” (1 Pet 5:1) to “pastor (poimaino) the flock of God,” indicating that the elder’s work is to pastor.  Similarly, in Acts 20 Paul instructs the “elders” (v. 17) to “pay careful attention to the flock (poimnion), in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” linking the office (“elder”) to the functional title (“overseer”) and to the activity (pastoring).  Finally, the linking of “pastor” and “teacher” in Eph 4:11 shows the close association of these roles consistent with the requirements of elders to teach (1 Tim 3:2:  Titus 1:9).

6.  Conclusion:  the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor” all refer to the same office in the NT. (3)  Each looks at the same office from a different vantage point:  “elder” speaks of spiritual maturity, “overseer” speaks of governance, and “pastor” speaks of care. (4)

B.  The consistent NT pattern for local church governance is elder/overseer/pastor rule.

1.  As apostles planted churches, they established elders to lead those churches.

  • Acts 14:22-23:  Part of the apostles’ “strengthening” and “encouraging” new disciples (v. 22) was the appointment of elders (v. 23).
  • Titus 1:5:  Central to “setting right” (epidiorthoo) what was lacking/left unfinished ( ta leiponta) in the churches of Crete was the appointment of elders.
  • In addition to Paul’s ministry, the general epistles also affirm the widespread existence of elders in the churches they address (1 Pet 5:1; Jas 5:14).

“Both Peter (1 Pet 5:1) and James assume the ministry of elders in the church, showing that the office was well established in the early church.  The prominent role of the elders in Acts and the description of the office in the Pastoral Epistles suggest that elders were spiritually mature men who guided the spiritual development of local congregations.” (5)

2.  Of the two established offices in the local church (elder/overseer/pastor and deacon;  cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13;  Phil 1:1), the elder is invested with governing responsibility.

  • 1 Tim 5:17:  “Let the elders who rule (proistemi) well…”
  • 1 Tim 3:4-5:  He must manage (proistemi) his own household well…  for if someone does not know how to manage (proistemi) his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
  • 1 Thess 5:12-13:  “…  respect those who labor among you and are over (proistemi) you in the Lord…”
  • Rom 12:8″  “…  the one who leads (proistemi), with zeal…”
  • Heb 13:7:  “Remember your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai), those who spoke the word of God to you”
  • Heb 13:7:  “Obey your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will give an account…”
  • Heb 13:24:  “Greet all your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai)…”
  • 1 Peter 5:2:  “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight (episcopeo)…”

“The function of these officials was that of bearing rule over the church….  That is to say, they are in a position where they exercise authority over their brethren….  Such passages indicate that the elders had a very real authority, and that they were to be highly respected in the Christian community.” (6)

III.  Plurality of Elders

A.  Whether by historical evidence or by precept, the unvarying pattern in the NT is a plurality of elders.

  • Every time the word “elder” appears in the context of church leaders, it is always in the plural (Acts 14:23;  15:2;  4, 6, 22-23;  16:4;  20:17;  21:18;  1 Tim 5:17;  Titus 1:5;  Jas 5:14;  1 Pet 5:1).
  • Although there is no evidence for any church with only one elder, churches with a plurality of elders existed in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30;  15:2.4 et al).  Antioch (Acts 13:1), Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra (Acts 14:23), Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and various churches in Asia Minor, including those comprising mainly Gentiles (1 Pet 1:1) and Jewish Christians of the Diaspora (Jas 1:1).  Moreover, Paul’s instruction to Titus to appoint elders in the churches of Crete fits this same pattern (Titus 1:5).

B.  Equality of Elders

1.  In every church for which we have evidence, the leaders are all referred to by the same title (elder/overseer/pastor) and all hold the same office, with no indication that one holds an authority not possessed by the others.

2.  Rather than a hierarchy of authority among elders, in the NT authority resides with the eldership as a whole.  This is seen in the fact that when elders act, they act as a body (e.g., Acts 13:1-3;  15:22-23).

3.  The equality of elders is further indicated by the qualifications for the office, which equally apply to each elder (1 Tim 3:1-7;  Titus 1:5-9).

a.  All elders must meet the same character requirements and must possess a teaching gift.

b.  Some appeal to 1 Tim 5:17 to distinguish between two classes of elders:  “ruling elders” and “teaching elders.”

  • This interpretation in essence creates another category of church leader, and one that is foreign to the text of the NT.
  • This interpretation distorts the very nature of biblical leadership as fundamentally doctrinal, leading people into a clear understanding and glad application of the teaching of Scripture.
  • In the text, Paul is either: (a) highlighting among the elders (all of whom teach) those especially gifted for and laboring diligently in this task (7);   or (b) commending those who lead well through their diligence in teaching (“Let the elders who have been ruling well be considered worthy of double honor, namely, those who work hard at preaching and teaching”). (8)

“Thus, the idea of elders who only rule is pure human invention – a teaching that demeans the elders and robs them of their God-given mandate.  All elders, then, must be armed with a knowledge of Scripture and be able to teach, judge, exhort, admonish, shepherd, and defend the flock against false teachers.  Scripture teaches that the entire eldership pastors God’s flock, not just the pastor.” (9)

4.  The result of such equality should be humility, mutual accountability, a responsibility to participate (for those tempted to passivity), and a willingness to yield (for those tempted to dominate).

C.  Differences Among Elders

1.  Different elders have different gifts (1 Cor 12), different proportionalities in their gifting, and different expressions and effects of their giftings (1 Cor 12:  Rom 12:3-8;  cf. 1 Cor 3:5-9;  Luke 11-27)

2.  Differentiation in gifts typically leads to a differentiation in role and responsibilities (1 Cor 3:5-9;  note v. 5: “as the Lord has assigned to each [his task]“).

3.  The Senior Pastor:  First Among Equals

a.  Although Scripture stresses the equality of elders, there are clearly examples where one man appears more prominent and exercises primary leadership.

  • Although 1 Tim 5:17 doesn’t create different orders of elders, it does suggest a differentiation in gifting and a greater prominence of elders more given to teaching.

b.  The wisdom of recognizing a primary leader has numerous practical benefits that are widely recognized.

  • Recognizes and allows for the maximum expression of individual giftings
  • Allows for specialization among those with different gifting
  • Helps promote unity
  • Fosters decisiveness

“The unity and parity within the one office of elder helps to foster the mutual submission to one another, which in turn helps to preserve the humble servant quality of the eldership, and, at the same time, the unique Lordship of Christ.  The recognition of differing manifestations of gifts, especially in that of teaching, within the unified eldership exalts the sovereignty of Christ’s Lordship, who gives gifts as he will for  the good of his church, and helps to ensure that that most needed gift of teaching Christ’s Word will have full emphasis and free course in his church.  By this, his Word of instruction and the enabling of his Spirit, Christ orders and edifies his people, the church, the body of Christ.” (10)

D.  Plurality:  An Ideal to Work Toward

1.  Although plurality is clearly the biblical pattern, the NT can envision circumstances when a plurality is not possible.

  • Acts 14:23:  elders were appointed on the return leg of Paul and Barnabas’s journey, after the churches had matured, and not at the moment they were planted.
  • Titus 1:5:  Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in the churches of Crete, which were currently operating in their nascent stage without elders.

2.  “The Leadership Team”:  Functional and Provisional Plurality

a.  In the case of church plants, a fully developed eldership is rarely if ever possible.

b.  However, in the U.S., state law requires incorporation to benefit from certain legal protections, and also determines board composition, which can impose upon us a plurality from the outset.

c.  Any legal structure we adopt should reflect, as much as possible, our biblically informed polity.

  • Since the board has real authority, it should reflect the church’s actual governmental reality at that time.

3.  The Question of “Lay Elders”

a.  Despite Scripture’s reticence concerning the actual circumstances in various locales, it clearly teaches that spiritual leaders have the right to receive compensation for their labors (1 Cor 9:6-14;  Luke 10:7;  Matt 10:10), and indeed instructs that this be done (Gal 6:6;  1 Tim 5:17-18). (11)

b.  These are times when circumstances may render the compensation of full-time pastors difficult is not impossible (persecution, church impoverishment, etc.).

c.  Whenever possible, we desire to honor Scripture;s command to financially support elders.  Our practice in this area has resulted in numerous benefits that confirm the wisdom of the biblical command: (12)

(1)  An efficient eldership – strategic planning and decision making are greatly enhanced by having men united in schedule and venue

(2)  A connected eldership -  relationship and biblical fellowship are greatly facilitated through the benefit of working closely together

(3)  An undistracted eldership -  men are not adding the burden of governing and pastoring the local church to the demands of their vocation and family

d.  In Sovereign Grace, we strongly advocate and remain committed to building full-time, compensated teams of elders.  Although we do not prohibit lay eldership, any consideration of it should be governed by the clear Scriptural guidelines:  (1)  Any “lay” elder should fully meet the biblical qualifications for eldership, including having a gift of teaching sufficient for faithful communication of doctrine, the refutation of error, and the effective equipping of others for ministry (1 Tim 3:2;  Titus 1:9;  2 Tim 2:15, 24;  Eph 4:11 ff.).  (2)  Any “lay” elder should be sufficiently mature, gifted, and equipped to function as a pastor in the full sense of that term (with the exception of full-time hours and financial remuneration).

3.  Lay elders should not be instituted on a principle of “congregational representation” in accord with democratic principles.  Like all elders, “lay” elders represent, not the congregation, but Christ in his ministry to his body.

4.  Lay elders should not be instituted as a way for the pastor to be “in touch” with his congregation.  Pastors are charged by God to “pay careful attention to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (Acts 20:28).

5.  Once “lay” elders are instituted, it becomes very difficult to dismantle that system when the church reaches the point where it is able to support vocational elders.

IV.  Responsibilities of Elders

A.  Serve as examples (1 Peter 5;3;  1 Tim 3:2, 7;  4:12;  Titus 2:7-8)

B.  Teach sound doctrine and guard against false doctrine (1 Tim 3:2;  Titus 1:9;  cf. 1 Tim 1:3-7;  4:6, 13, 16;  6:20-21;  2 Tim 1:14;  2:2, 15, 24-25;  4:1-2;  Titus 2:1, 15;  Acts 20:20. 27;  Eph 4:11-16;  Col 1:28-29)

C.  Care for the spiritual well-being of the church (Acts 20:28;  1 Tim 3:5;  2 Tim 2:24-26;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  1 Pet 5:2-3;  Jas 5:14)

D.  Govern the affairs of the church (1 Tim 3:4-5;  5:17;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  Rom 12:8;  Acts 11:30;  Acts 20:28)

E.  Equip the church for ministry (Eph 4:11-16;  2 Tim 2:2;  Titus 2:1-14)

F.  Raise up future leadership (2 Tim 2:2;  cf. Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5-9)

V.  Selection of Elders

A.  Regardless of the mechanism for choosing elders, it is God who gives leaders to his church (Matt 9:37-38;  Acts 20:28;  Eph 4:11 ff.)

B.  Because (a) eldership requires a grasp of doctrine and an ability to teach it and refute error, and (b) elders are charged with passing on sound doctrine (2 Tim 2:2;  cf.  1 Tim 1:18;  4-6,  11,  13;  6:2b-5;  Titus 1:9;  2:1,  15), then (c)  it falls to elders to identify those exhibiting character and gifting, and to equip them with sufficient biblical and doctrinal understanding that they might function faithfully and effectively as elders.  “Perpetuating the eldership is a major aspect of church leadership responsibility.” (13)

C.  In every case where elders are chosen or instruction is given as to their selection, the role falls to leaders (founding apostles, apostolic delegates/elders).

1.  Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5-9;  1 Tim 4:14;  5:22 (14)

“On their very first missionary journey the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are described as appointed presbyters in every church.  The same rule was doubtless carried out in all the brotherhoods founded later;  but it is mentioned here and here only, because teh mode of procedure on this occasion would suffice as a type of the apostles’ dealings elsewhere under similar circumstances.” (15)

2.  The oft-cited example of Acts 6 for the congregational selection of elders cannot bear the weight often placed upon it.

a.  Contextually, the thrust of Acts 6:1-7 is the progress of the word despite internal dissension (cf. v. 7).

b.  The text recounts, not the normative (or normal) structuring of the community, but a specific response to a particular issue involving cultural and racial tensions within the community.

c.  The apostles’ solution was a shrewd one that called for those involved in the complaint to work toward its solution.

d.  Far from delegating authority to the congregation, the solution was both formulated (6:3) and confirmed by the apostles, who retained authority over the process.

e.  Therefore, the incident does not involve (1)  a normative, repetitive circumstance of church life, (2) the selection of elders, or (3) the creation of a formal congregational structure that cedes authority to the congregation.

f.  In contrast to congregational polity principles, more hermeneutically-legitimate inferences from this text would include:  (1)   The word-centered priorities for a church’s leaders;  (2)  The wisdom of involving elements of a congregation most directly affected by a conflict/crisis in the solution of that issue;  (3)  The responsibility of leaders to provide primary direction for a community;  (4)  The importance of congregational affirmation of a leader’s character.

D.  The Congregation’s Role in Choosing Elders:  Counsel and Support

1.  Although elders (or, in the case of church plants, elders in concert with extra-local ministry) bear the primary responsibility for raising up new elders, the congregation plays an important role in the process.

2.  The congregation’s knowledge of and trust in a man will often be vital in determining a man’s qualification due to a number of factors:  (a)  the nature of the qualifications for eldership – related as they are to character and reputation – require personal knowledge of a man;  (b)  the reality that other church members will usually have personal experience with a potential elder, and some may know him better than the existing elders, makes the congregation’s counsel important;  (c)  the requirement that potential leaders be tested (1 Tim 3:10;  cf. 1 Tim 5:24-25) certainly involves the congregation’s experience with a man;  (d)  since the potential elder will be in a governing role and teh congregation will have a biblical obligation to follow him, the elders should do all they can to inform the congregation and to gain their support and affirmation, e.g.:

  • informal discussions with caregroup members or others in the man’s relational network;
  • discussions with caregroup leaders or other influential members;
  • announcements to the congregation to inform them that a man is being considered for eldership and to solicit any feedback that could bear upon that;

3.  As important as the congregation’s evaluation, counsel, support, and prayer are, this is different from ceding to the congregation formal authority in the process, which never appears to be the case in the NT either textually or theologically.

VI.  The Role of the Congregation in NT Polity

A.  Congregational Submission

1.  Generally speaking, there is no fundamental distinction among believers in Christ’s body.  Under the new covenant, there is no mediating class of leaders between God and his people (Jer 31:31-34), but all Christians – elder and congregation alike – have equal access to God through Christ (Gal 3:28), are “priests” of God (1 Pet 2:9), possess the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts (Acts 2:17-18;  1 Cor 6:19;  2 Cor 1:22), receive illumination from teh Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-16), and all other spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph 1:3 ff.).

2.  Yet, God orders and gives leaders to his church.  The congregation’s submission to Christ finds expression in its submission to godly elders (1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  1 Pet 5:5).

  • All ministry to the church is ultimately Christ’s own ministry and, as gifts from God, elders are an extension of Christ’s ministry to his people. (16)

3.  This is a voluntary submission which must not be coerced, and which assumes that elders are faithfully leading the congregation in obedience to God’s word.

  • God’s word circumscribes the elder’s authority.  Only Scripture can bind the conscience to the Christian, and we forfeit our authority when we deviate from God’s word.

4.  The idea that human authority in the church rests with the congregation is a more democratic ideal than a biblical one.

a.  Throughout salvation – history, God’s normal pattern has been to exercise his rule through appointed leaders.  The rule of the people or the congregation is conspicuous by its absence.

b.  Biblical texts that specifically address the notion of authority with respect to the congregation and its leaders unanimously affirm elder rule and congregational submission.  The relationship is never reversed.

  • The congregation respects (lit. “know”:  oida (17)):  1 Thess 5:12
  • The congregation esteems (lit. “think, consider,: hegeisthai (18)):  1 Thess 5:13
  • The congregation obeys (peitho):  Heb 13:17
  • The congregation submits (hypeiko):  Heb 13:17

c.  Texts dealing with church discipline undoubtedly demonstrate the role and responsibility of the congregation in this process, but not in a way that excludes or diminishes the elders’ role.

(1)  Matthew 18

  • Matthew 18 as a whole deals with relationships within the community of God’s people.
  • The issue of church discipline necessarily involves the action and participation of the church community, but this says nothing about the role of the church’s leaders in the process.  Indeed, if the text had specified the role of elders, it would have sounded suspiciously anachronistic at this point in Jesus’ ministry (19).  The likely frame of reference for Jesus’ listeners would have been the Jewish culture where such matters where handled by the elders of the city or synagogue (20).
  • The mention of “two” and “two or three” at least suggests the involvement of leaders/judges in resolving the offense (21).
  • However Matt 18 is interpreted, we are obligated to account for the NT’s teaching on specific church officers and their authority in governing the affairs of the church.

“This excommunication, as we have proved before, is an act of church authority exerted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:  and if so, then it is the act of the officers of the church….  for there is no authority in the church, properly so called, but what resides in the officers of it.” (22)

(2)  1 Corinthians 5

  • Similar principles apply as mentioned above on Matthew 18:  while the text emphasizes the congregation’s (necessary) role in church discipline, it simply does not specify what role the church’s leadership should play.
  • Paul’s address of the entire church is particularly relevant given the church’s apathy and permissiveness toward the scandalous behavior in view.
  • We must keep in mind the ad hoc nature of this epistle.  Paul’s focus on the entire congregation throughout this letter likely reflects a conflict between Paul and the entire church that the letter is intended to address (23).
  • Paul addresses this entire letter to the congregation.  If we deny elders a leadership role in church discipline on teh basis of 1 Cor 5, then we must also deny them a role in the Lord’s Supper (ch.  11), the church’s gatherings in general (chs. 12-14), etc.

“In the name of those obvious truths, what are these elders for if the King and the Head of the church does not intend for them to govern the congregations over which he has placed them? (24)”

B.  Congregational Solidarity

i.  Because elders are fundamentally a part of the congregation themselves, the relationship between elders and the congregation is meant to be one of joyful unity.

  • While elders must meet certain character qualifications, those qualifications are traits commanded of all believers.
  • Elders have a responsibility to teach, but they like the congregation stand under the authority of God’s word.
  • Elders are to proclaim and guard the gospel, but all believers are to stand firm in one spirit and strive together for the faith of the gospel (Phil 1:27)

ii.  Pastoral instruction and leadership should seek to win a congregation’s glad affirmation and forge a congregational solidarity through its manner of leadership.

a.  Humble instruction

b.  Informative communication

  • Alerting the church to evidences of grace
  • Educating the church as to the fruit of its life, serving, and giving
  • Involving the church appropriately in the leadership’s thinking and plans

c.  Proactive deployment (Eph 4:11 ff.)

“The normal responsibility for and authority of leadership in the NT rests with the bishops-elders-pastors;  but if they are interested in pursuing biblical patterns of leadership, they will be concerned to demonstrate observable growth not only in their grasp of truth but also in their lived discipline (1 Tim. 4:14-16).  They will comprehend that spiritual leadership, far from lording it over others (Matt 20:25-28), is a balanced combination of oversight (1 Tim. 4:11-13;  6:17-19;  Titus 3:9-11) and example (1 Tim. 4:12;  6:6-11,  17-18;  1 Pet. 5:1-4) which, far from being antithetical, are mutually reinforcing.  By the same token such leaders prefer not to dictate terms but to lead the church into spiritually minded consensus.  Whereas Christians are encouraged to support and submit to spiritual leadership (e.g. Heb. 13:17), such encouragement must not be considered a blank check if churches are responsible for and have the authority to discipline false teachers and to recognize an antecedent commitment not to a pastor but to the truth of the gospel.”  (25)

C.  Congregational Recourse

1.  Although authority in the local church is given to elders, they are not to be insulated from the congregation’s appropriate observations and concerns.

2.  Because Scripture affirms the right of church members to bring legitimate allegations concerning an elder (1 Tim 5:19-21), a church’s polity must provide a clear and effective avenue by which such allegations can be evaluated.

3.  Clear communication about such avenues of recourse will foster both a healthy accountability and an atmosphere of trust.

  • A number of Sovereign Grace churches accomplish this by utilizing the “Relational Commitments” developed by Peacemaker Ministries in commitment classes, etc.

VIII.  The Relationship Between the Congregation and Extra-Local Ministry

A.  Primary authority in the local church resides within the local eldership

1.  We believe the authority Paul exercised over the churches he planted was unique (and even he was reluctant to exercise it;  cf. 2 Cor 10-13;  esp. 10:1-2, 8-9, 13-18;  11:1, 16-17, 21, 30-31;  12:1-14;  19-21;  13:1-4, 6-9).

2.  Beyond Paul’s own authority, the NT indicates no formal, ecclesiastical hierarchy to which churches were in submission.  The picture seems to be that elders were given by God to care for their own churches (e.g., Acts 20:28;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17).  (26)

3.  When apostolic ministry planted churches, it raised up and appointed local leaders and entrusted those churches to their care (Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5;  cf. Acts 20:28).

B.  Extra-local ministry fosters unity among churches, unites them in a common mission, and provides a source of voluntary accountability and partnership.

1.  Although local churches in the NT appear to be self-governing, they do not view themselves as independent (nor were they encouraged to — cf. 1 Cor 11:16;  14:33, 36).

2.  The churches’ relationships with apostolic ministry helped to foster a vibrant sense of unity and cooperation with other churches that took many forms:

3.  The churches in the NT might best be characterized as possessing a qualified independence within a network of interdependence.

  • They are fundamentally self-governing, but they are strengthened and protected by their relationships with apostolic ministry and other churches.
  • They acknowledge their interdependence and express their solidarity through a voluntary accountability, mutual dependence, and active cooperation.

4.  In Sovereign Grace, our desire is to emulate this pattern in our various relationships:

  • The elders of each church have the responsibility to govern the affairs of their respective churches.
  • The churches of Sovereign Grace unite together around a common doctrinal commitment and a common mission, fostered and facilitated by relationships with each other and with Sovereign Grace.
  • Churches express their relational unity and interdependence with Sovereign Grace through affirming its doctrinal commitments, partnering together in the proclamation of the gospel, inviting its counsel and accountability, and investing in its mission.

IX.  Conclusion

  • In a radically autonomous culture, biblical eldership gives us faith to lead.

    • ____________________________________________________

     

Endnotes:

(1) That the term “overseer” is singular in v. 7 is of no consequence. It should be taken as a generic singular, in keeping with the switch to the particularizing singular in v. 6 (“if anyone”).

(2) So, e.g., I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1999), 159; George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 290; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 390.

(3) Most likely, the term “elder” was taken over from OT and contemporary Jewish usage, while “overseer” derives from the Greco-Roman world. “Shepherd” has a rich OT background as a term for leaders of God’s people.

(4) For a book-length treatment of the equation of “elder” and “overseer,” see Benjamin L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church (Studies in Biblical Literature 57; New York: Peter Lang, 2003).

(5) Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 237.

(6) Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: InterVarsity, 1964),76-77.

(7) Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006, 362.

(8) So Mounce, Epistles, 308: “Paul is speaking of elders, namely, all the overseers who teach.” Also Marshall, Epistles, 610-612; Knight, Epistles, 232. These commentators render Malista as “that is,” or “namely,” a common meaning of the word (e.g., Titus 1:10; 2 Tim 4:13; poss. 1 Tim 4:10). Although Merkle, Elder, 154-156, draws no conclusion on this point of interpretation, he affirms that only one office with the same general requirements is in view: “As a rule every candidate for this office was to have some abilities in teaching” (154). For a thorough discussion on contextual and interpretive issues, see Mounce, Epistles, 306-309.

 

(9) Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1986), 247.

(10) 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,” Presbyterion 11 (1985),11-12. Although Knight ultimately argues for two orders of elders wrongly, in my view he nevertheless is careful to configure this within an overall unity and parity among elders, which makes his formulation more sound than others.

(11) Ronald G. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 293, comments on Gal 6:6: “Here, then, we have probably the earliest extant evidence for a form of full-time or nearly full-time ministry supported by the congregation in the early Church.” Cf. also H. Beyer, TDNT 3.639, who notes that the verse “confirms the validity and necessity of a professional teaching ministry in the congregation,” a ministry obviously continued in Paul’s later ministry as reflected in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 5: 17-18).

(12) These benefits have been drawn from Dave Harvey’s outline “Team Ministry,” as used in the SGM Pastors College, p. 4.

(13) Strauch, Eldership, 75. Even a congregationalist such as Merkle acknowledges the critical role elders must play in the selection of new elders; see Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 201-202.

(14) 1 Tim 5:22 refers to the commissioning of elders, continuing the overall treatment of eldership that spans I Tim 5:17-25. For a compelling argument as to the unity of this section, see John P. Meier, “Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 35 (1973), 325ff. Meier is followed by, e.g., Mounce, Epistle, 304; Marshall, Epistles, 608. See also Knight, Epistles, 231.

 

(15) J. B. Lightfoot. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1894), 193 (cited in Strauch, Eldership, 72-73.

 

(16) For treatments that touch on such theological underpinnings of ministry, see Morris, Ministers, 11-38; R.B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 120-136; Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 281-347.

(17) The verb “to know” has the sense here of “take note of with a view to respecting and appreciating.” G.K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 160.

(18) “The combination of this verb “consider” with the adverb “quite beyond all measure” (hyperekperissoul) yields the sense reflected in the NIV. The Thessalonians should think about them in the highest way possible, and so hold them in highest regard.” Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 250-251.

 

(19) Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 279, acknowledges this: “Jesus does not explain how we should air our grievances before the church; after all, he has not yet given any teaching on church structure.”

(20) So Robert Reymond, in Perspectives on Church Government, ed. Chad Owen Brand & R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 199.

(21) Donald A Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33b; Dallas: Word, 1995), 533, cites evidence (m. Sanh. 1: 1; h. Sanh. 7a; h. Ber. 6a) for the possibility that this represents a three-member court. See also David L. Turner, Matthew (BENTC; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 446.

(22) John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, abr. and ed. John Huxtable (London: Camelot, 1947), 113. Cited by L. Roy Taylor in Who Runs the Church?, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 166.

(23) See Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1987), 6-15, for a defense of this background.

(24) Robert Reymond, Perspectives, 200.

 

(25) D.A. Carson, “Church, Authority in the,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 230.

(26) Even such a Reformed theologian as Berkhof confirms this: “Reformed Church government recognizes the autonomy of the local church. This means: (1) That every local church is a complete church of Christ, fully equipped with everything that is required for its government. It has absolutely no need of it that any government should be imposed upon it from without. And not only that, but such an imposition would be absolutely contrary to its nature.” L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 589.

Posted by Carole Polity Subscribe to RSS feed