South Woods Baptist Church

The New Testament Office of Elder

Introduction

Leadership and authority within the local church is a controversial issue among present day Baptist churches.  With the trend towards lay "team" leadership from the congregation, which has potential to usurp the office of pastor in leadership and authority, and the century old reign of the deacon body in most Baptist churches, which acts as a congress that vetoes or passes bills that the pastor attempts to "sign into law," there is significant impetus in discussing issues regarding leadership.  These two trends, though, are not the regulatory biblical pattern for leadership and authority in the local church.  This role has been given to the office of elder, alone. 

The trend away from biblical eldership began in the early twentieth century, when the capitalistic ideals of the booming industrial state began to overtake the worldview and practice of many local churches.  Efficiency became the battle cry among Baptist churches, supplanting the former battle cry of purity.[1]  Soon enough, the office of elder, which was often filled by a group of men who met the biblical qualifications, was erased as was formerly practiced, and it was replaced by a CEO type figure, who had sole influence as the leader of the church.  It was not long before the qualifications of a New Testament elder were thrown out for the sake of finding someone to lead who could have success and produce results.[2]  Churches quickly recognized, though, that this role was too much power for one person to have, so instead of moving back to having a multiplicity of elders, the existing deacon board became much like the board of directors from the business world.  They went along wherever the elder led, unless he was not producing results.  If he could not, then they took authority from him, and they began to lead the church, leaving the pastor in many instances with no choice but to follow them.

The result of this historical digression is a situation that is a far cry from the biblical office of elder.  As evangelical New Testament churches who claim to heed the authority of the inspired Scriptures, present day churches must submit to the pattern for leadership and authority revealed in the New Testament.  It must be recognized, then, that in regards to leadership and authority, the New Testament presents the function and office of elder as a requirement for New Testament churches, and this office is to be filled only by a group of men who meet the qualification requirements. 

 

Scriptural Considerations

Cultural context is a necessity when attempting to understand meanings of words and concepts.  So, when speaking of the New Testament office of elder, one must first understand the Old Testament background to the function and office of elder, since the New Testament church was closely related to the Jewish Scriptures, as well as the synagogue.  When the apostles wrote about "elders," this concept was not a new idea to them, and in fact they saw elders wherever they went.  The question we must ask is, "Does the apostles' understanding of 'elder' differ from the Old Testament understanding, and if so, in what way?

Old Testament Background

The Hebrew word for "elder" is often the adjective form used substantively, zaqen, simply meaning, "old."  This idea is also brought out by the verbal form, zaqen, "to be old," which is always translated as a passive to describe a person who is old.  The noun form, zaqan, connotes more of the image of what it means to be old, since it is usually translated "chin" or "beard" (cf. Lev. 19:27; Is. 7:20).[3] 

This term often refers to the office of elder, which was the leader of a village, tribe, or even the nation as a whole.[4]  This broad range of usage is not unusual since many Ancient Near Eastern cultures had this same office (cf. Gen. 50:7; Num. 22:7).  It was a place of respect and honor, and with the esteem came responsibility for leadership.[5]  In the Old Testament, we first see this term used before the Exodus, in Ex. 3:16, when the elders were called upon by God as leaders of Israel to go with Moses to Pharaoh and represent the nation before him.  After Moses led Israel out of the land, Moses brought together the elders so that God would pour out His Spirit on them, so that they could help Moses with the burden of leadership (Num. 11:16-25).[6]  So, we see that in Hebrew culture, an "elder" was not merely a person advanced in age, but one who was also recognized as a leader.

What did these elders do?  They functioned as judges in civil and religious matters (cf. Lev. 9:1; Deut. 19:12; 21:3-5).  They counseled kings (1 Kings 20:8-9), and helped the people of Israel (Deut. 21:19-20; Jer. 26:17-19), and were sometimes related to the priests of the nation (Deut. 21:3-6; 31:9).[7]  Ultimately, the elders of Israel were in some measure the representatives of the people before God, as well as those held responsible for the actions of the people.[8]

New Testament Designation

In the previous section, the term elder was shown to be a role of leadership among the people of Israel.  When speaking in terms of the New Testament, though, it should be recognized that the environment had changed.  Israel was no longer self-ruled to the extent they were for much of the Old Testament.  The Roman Empire had become their overlord, allowing them to retain certain rights to self rule, but mostly as a farce.  The only real power the elders of Israel had to lead the people was in insighting revolt, which is some of the impetus that pushed Pilate to give Jesus over to be crucified.  Post-resurrection, though, after the institution of the Church, this term "elder" begins to occur again; but this time, it is not only in reference to Israelite leaders, but also to leaders in the Church.

Word use of presbuteros.  Just as "elder" was a position of leadership in Old Testament Israel, its Greek counterpart presbuteros, was also a term used to refer to village officials.[9]  In the New Testament, though, this term mostly refers to a group of people who led the church.  The New Testament office of elder emerges in the early church without any explanation as to its origin in Acts 11:30.  It then appears nineteen times in reference to the leadership of the church, and in every occurrence, it is in the plural unless addressing a specific elder of the group.

In the book of Acts, as already mentioned, the term "elder" first appears in reference to leaders in the church in 11:30.  This occurrence refers to the leaders in Jerusalem to whom Saul and Barnabus took the money from the relief fund from the disciples abroad.  The next occurrence is 14:23, which in most English translations reads something similar to, "When they had appointed elders for them in every church."  This translation could be understood as they appointed elders (pl.) in every (pl.) church, lending to the idea that they had a certain number of elders, and they gave them to a certain number of churches - thus, the possibility of one elder per church.  In the Greek text, though, there is no word denoting "every."  Literally, it translates, "And appointing for them elders (pl.) corresponding to a church (sing.)," thus having the idea of a plurality of elders in each specific church.

The next six occurrences in Acts all refer to the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem.  This statistic is interesting because in each occurrence, they along with the apostles, who were in direct contact with Jesus in His earthly ministry, are shown to be making decisions, answering questions, and giving approval.  None of these three jobs could not have been done by those who were not recognized as leaders.  Also, there is no difference shown between the apostles and elders, as though the apostles were the national congress, and the elders were state senates.  Rather, they made decisions together that were binding on all disciples (16:4).

The other two occurrences of presbuteros in Acts occur in 20:17, in which Paul has called the "elders" (pl.) from the church (sing.) at Ephesus to meet him in Miletus, and in 21:18 Paul has arrived in Jerusalem and addresses "James and all the elders."  By this time, Peter and John had left Jerusalem to involve themselves with other ministries, and James was the lone apostle left in Jerusalem.[10]  Would Peter and John have left unless there was sufficient leadership to guide the church that they had worked so hard to grow?  No; rather it was that the elders were sufficient in the task of leadership, even over a congregation that numbered in the thousands (21:20), that the apostles felt able to leave.

It is interesting to note that "elder" is not mentioned from the early church history of Acts until the much later writings of the Pastoral Epistles.  One reason for this fact is the nature of the occasional epistles that Paul wrote to the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, Ephesian, Philippian, Colossian, and Thessalonian churches.  It seems likely that Paul, or whoever planted each church,  would have personally given each church instructions concerning the instatement of elders at each of their congregations, or sent word to them for that for which to look when choosing elders.  Another reason for the lack of appearance of "elder" until the time of the Pastoral Epistles is that most of the churches had some idea of what an elder was to be, because of the Jewish background in the role and office of elder.  It is to Titus and Timothy that Paul gives directories of qualifications of elders, once again for the occasion of their respective churches, each being in a mostly Gentile church. 

In these letters to Titus and Timothy, Paul gives his directions for the appointment of elders/overseers, and also for the discipline of those who fall into sin.  He uses the terms episkope, in 1 Tim. 3:1 to refer to the same office as elder to which he refers in 4:14 and 5:17,19.  In 3:2, though, he refers to the episkopos, not the office but the function - that of overseeing the congregation.[11]  One can see the parallel requirements for the office of elder (Titus 1:5-9) and overseer (1 Tim. 3:2-7).  In fact, the former text of Titus draws the lines of equality between the terms "overseer" and "elder" by beginning the paragraph in reference to the office of elder.  Paul then gives his basis for the qualifications of elder in vv. 5-6 by reasoning that the overseer must be above reproach, and continuing the list of qualifications through vs. 9.  By basing the fact that the overseer should meet the criteria in vv. 7-9 in the purpose of Paul leaving Titus at Crete to appoint elders, Paul shows that there is no difference between the two terms, other than Paul's wish to highlight different aspects of their functions among the congregation.

It should not be thought that presbuteros is a term for church leader used by Paul, while episkopos or poimen (pastor) are used by other authors.  In fact, Paul uses all of these terms in relation to the office of church leader (Tit. 1:5-9), as well as do the other apostolic authors.  James uses "elder" in referring to church leaders fulfilling their duty of prayer (James 5:14), while Peter makes reference to all three terms (elder, overseer, and pastor) in reference to the office of church leader.  In 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter exhorts the "elders," himself being a fellow elder, to "shepherd" (the verbal form of poimen) the flock, while "overseeing" (the participial form of episkopos).  He goes on to exhort the young in the church to submit to the elders. 

Functions within the office of Elder.  Since it is evident that Paul, as well as the other apostles, use differing terms and contexts to highlight various functions of the New Testament church leader, it is helpful to find out what functions there are specific to the office of elder.  There are three main functions that subsume all of the duties of the church leader, and all of them are fulfilled by the office of elder: Ruling, Caring, and Instructing.[12]

The function of ruling was an important one in the early church.  Since the apostles were not able to be everywhere at all times, the new church plants needed some way to keep order.  The primary way that rule was established was by the elders, who along with the apostles judged in matters of faith and practice (Acts 15:1-6).[13]  Elders who ruled well were to be given special honor (1 Tim. 5:17), and the congregation was to obey the elders because as leaders they would give account for those who followed them (Heb. 13:17). 

The function of caring is a given seeing as the quality of love is the underlying motive of all that Christians do; if it is the duty of the congregation, then it is especially necessary that the church leaders are in the process of caring for others.  Paul encourages the elders from Ephesus to shepherd the flock by guarding them from "savage wolves" that would come later, presumably teaching unsound doctrine (Acts 20:28-29).  James point to the caring function of the elder when he tells the recipients of his epistle to call for the elders when they are sick, so that the elders may come pray over him and anoint him with oil.  Peter also urges the elders to shepherd the flock, proving to be examples for them (1 Peter 5:1-3). 

Finally, the function of instructing is important for the office of elder because it is the primary way that the other two functions are disseminated.  All elders/overseers are to be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2), but there are some of the elders who seem to have the specific job of pastor/teacher (1 Tim. 5:17).  Titus 1:9 is telling of the importance of instruction in the function of the elder.  While listing the qualifications for an elder, Paul says, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it."  In doing this function, the elder will care for his flock (since those who contradict sound doctrine are shown in vs. 11 to be upsetting whole families), while at the same time rule over it (since the elders will be the judges of faith and practice within the sphere of the church).

Qualifications of an Elder.  The office of elder is not one to be filled by anyone simply wishing to perform the duties of it.  While it is a noble task to aspire to be an elder/overseer (1 Tim 3:1), the office must be filled by men who meet specific guidelines for leadership within the bounds of the local church.  It is interesting to note that other than being a man and the qualification of being apt to teach, every other qualification should be carried out by all believers in the church.  D.A. Carson has quipped that, "this list of characteristics is most notable for being not very notable at all."[14]  The very reason, then, that an elder must meet these qualifications is that he is to be an example to the flock of how they should live there lives (1 Tim. 4:12; 1 Pet. 5:3).  If an elder is accused of not meeting these requirements after being installed in the office, then Paul gives Timothy directions on how the church is to discipline the sinning elder (1 Tim. 5:19-20), since he would no longer be qualified for office, and would thus no longer be an example of Christian living to the church.[15]

There are two lists of qualifications given in the New Testament for the appointment of elders, and Paul is clear that to be an elder, a candidate "must" (dei - necessary) possess these qualities.  1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 give at least 22 qualifications that can be categorized into four groups: personal character, public testimony, family, and ministry.[16]

The first category, personal character, includes such characteristics as temperance (1 Tim 3:2), prudence (2), not an alcohol abuser (3), not confrontational (3), gentle (3), not an arguer (3), free from greed (3), not a new believer (6), not selfish (Tit. 1:7), and not easily angered (7).  He is to love what is good (8), be just (8), devout (8), and self-controlled (8).  This list emphasizes the disposition of the candidate not just towards others, though this does seem to be the thrust of the list, but it also emphasizes the elder's dependence on God and sanctification by Him.

The second category, public testimony, ensures the desired reputation of Christ and His church.  The elder is to be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6), hospitable (3:2), and having a good reputation with those outside (3:7).  This category is closely related to the first in that many of the things he is not to be from the first category would act as disqualifying him from the second as well.  The abuse of alcohol and an angry reaction will go far in defaming the reputation of oneself, let alone the perfect character and name of Christ.  "The point of leadership in the church is to bring glory to God by commending the truth to outsiders."[17]

The third category, that of family, is important to show the ability of the elder candidate in handling confrontation, but also in dealing gently with those in his care.  He is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6).  This qualification is not a reference to polygamy, since it was not a practice of the first century Greco/Roman world.  Instead of having multiple wives, it was common in the culture to have adulterous affairs, which is more likely what this qualification is describing - marital faithfulness to one's wife.[18]  He is to manage his household well, both spiritually and physically (1 Tim 3:4-5).  He is to keep his children under control with dignity (3:4), thus leading in God's grace to believing children who are not reckless (Tit. 1:6).  It is important to note that all pronouns related to the qualifications of an elder are masculine.  He is to be a good husband and father, and thusly will be qualified for the task of leadership in the local church.  Women are not allowed to be considered for the office of elder because Paul instructs Timothy in 2:12 that he does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, and he roots this doctrine in the order of creation.  Whatever is meant here by authority, it is clear that teaching is involved, and as was stated earlier, teaching is a primary function of an elder.[19]

A final qualification category is that of ministry, and it has to do with the duty of teaching and confronting.  An elder must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2), though he may not formally teach as the pastor/teacher would.  In his dealings with others he must hold fast the word of truth (Tit. 1:9) and exhort with sound doctrine (9), while refuting those who contradict the truth (9).  This category of qualifications directly effects the elders main function of instruction.

 

Implications for Present Day Churches

When concordances have been examined and word studies finished, there is an excellent argument to be made for a plurality of elders in each local congregation in the early church.  "Wonderful.  Now what?," may be the question that arises.  As stated in the introduction, as a result of business models being transplanted into the leadership model of the primitive church, present day churches are a far cry from the biblical ideal.  The church is not to be indifferent concerning these matters of authority and leadership.  God has spoken through the apostles as to how the church is to be structured, and the inspired Word is sufficient in teaching us what we are to do in attaining and keeping with those ideals.

When the practice of having a plurality of elders began to decline in the early 20^th century, an interesting phenomenon occurred.  Instead of simply having a single elder, another group began to take over the function of elder in the local congregation - those in the office of deacon.  Usually the pastor was not called from within the local church, but was a paid worker of the church.  The deacons, though, were already members of the church. They were there through it all, even when the pastor resigned.  This homogeneous group of the deacons became the body to which the congregation looked for answers to questions and for decision making.  Before long, the deacon board was a formidable assembly with which a very few number of pastors would wish to conflict.

The reason for mentioning this phenomenon is that it evidences that it is rare that leaders in the church lead alone.  The functions needed for church leadership are too broad for one person to meet all needs, and meet them well.  Thus, when a formal leadership is lacking, an informal leadership rises to meet the need.  In the case of most Baptist churches, the informal leadership took root in the deacon body, and if not there, in other influential people in the church. 

This blurring of offices, though, is not healthy in the local church.  If anything, it is detrimental.  Now, instead of having distinct groups attending to both leadership and service, leadership is handled by those holding the office who should be in charge of service, leaving service to be relegated to last priority.  Thus, service in the local church is rarely done well.  The two offices of elder and deacon are essential for the health of the local congregation.  It is not normative, and thus up to the local churches decision whether or not to follow Scripture's teachings on the issue.  Paul spoke clearly to Timothy as to his desire for leadership and service functions and requirements, and it was thus binding on the churches.  It is also binding on present day churches.

Another implication, if not an inevitable detail, is that the qualifications for elders stated in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are essential for church and leadership health.  It has been noted, though, that these qualifications are actually the requirement of all believers, except for the fact that elders are to be men and they must be qualified to teach.  In addition to this observation, it also should be noted that prudent churches would not simply look for these qualities.  Every Christian should have these traits.  When looking for a leader in specific cultural and interpersonal contexts, though, it may be necessary to add qualifications to the list.  An example of this need can be seen in churches in Northwest America who have a hard time finding pastors who can lead their churches well in evangelism, while at the same time guard the flock from savage wolves.  The problem is not the qualification directories in Scripture; these men qualify.  The problem is the cultural context in that part of the country is vastly different from that which one would experience in the Southeast section of the country.  It would be wise for the church who is looking for a leader to then search for an elder who does meet the minimum requirements, but then on top of them he should be able to handle a dry spiritual environment; not having "visitors" every Sunday at the service, thus making personal relationships with the outside world a necessity, and thus validating the qualifications of having elders who are above reproach.

A final implication of the biblical office of elders is that if a church is not currently under this leadership model, then one must be slow, but deliberate, in change.  Far too often change has been the funeral dirge of new pastors who want to claim a war in the name of sufficiency of Scripture, but who are rampaged by a congregational army which has been taught for three or more generations that their current model of church leadership is sufficiently scriptural.  We must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves as pastors in the current church culture.  Paul's desire for elders to be examples for the congregation is a helpful tool in achieving this slow, but deliberate, change.  Go to a church and love them.  Live for God's glory, and the church's good, and they will trust that you have their best interests at heart.  Though the road will not be divest of bumps and potholes (some requiring a complete halt while the road is fixed), it will none the less be a path in whichever direction you lead them.  May we lead with God's Word as our guide, the Holy Spirit as our carriage, and godly leadership as our destination.