Original Meaning
THE CHURCH AT Ephesus was troubled by men who taught error and, in at least some cases, lived immorally. Christians, especially women, were harassed and in need of help. In chapter 1 Paul urged Timothy both to teach truth and to live a life appropriate to his teachings. In chapter 2 he stressed the importance of conduct that befits God’s truth on the part of both men and women. Now Paul takes another step to address the problem of false teachers by ensuring that the church has leaders who are morally qualified and “above reproach.” This chapter will come to a climax with the exposition of the “mystery of godliness” in verses 14–16.
Paul’s approach to the problems at Crete was similar: He wrote Titus to appoint elders (Titus 1:5–9). At Ephesus elders were already in place (Acts 20:17), but apparently some tightening of qualifications was needed. The text of 1 Timothy does not say whether any of the false teachers were elders or deacons, but there is no hint in the list of qualifications that there were doctrinal errors among the recognized leadership. In fact, it is surprising that the qualifications only touch obliquely on doctrine; the emphasis is almost entirely on moral integrity.
Before he lists the qualifications for overseers, Paul affirms the importance of their work. “Here is a trustworthy saying” (v. 1) may refer to an important saying that circulated among the early churches or may mean simply “You can depend on this” (see comments on 1:15; see also 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8). Either way, this phrase introduces an important assertion.1 Those who desire to serve in this way are to be encouraged, perhaps as those who build the church with valuable materials as in 1 Corinthians 3:12–14, a task that is indeed “noble.”
The word Paul uses here for church leadership is episkope. It is hard to translate; “overseership” might be the best literal rendering. It describes the work or position of an overseer.2 Whether the term bishop should be employed is linked with the historical question of whether the bishopric was a post-New Testament development. Within the New Testament the word occurs in Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12, where it refers to God’s visitation and to his coming to oversee the world and, by implication, to bring judgment: It is the “time of God’s coming to you” (Luke; cf. Peter’s “the day he visits us”). The same Greek word occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Job 31:14 to signify God’s future “examination” of Job. In Job 10:12 it refers to God’s protection or care. From the idea of care comes that of responsibility, and a person who has responsibility for something is “in charge” of it, as Aaron’s son Eliezer was of the whole tabernacle (Num. 4:16).
A well-known use of the word is in Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 109:8: “Let another take his episkope.” This refers to Judas and his responsibility as an apostle. The implication is that there was an opening in the ranks of the apostles to be filled, so the word “office” may be appropriate in this case. (The difference between “office” and “function” is that office refers to a designated position that exists even if there is no incumbent at the moment.) Episkope need not, however, always imply an office.
It is noteworthy that here in 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul defines being an overseer in terms of function (“a noble task”), not of status or office. He is not encouraging people to seek status but responsibility. Whether this responsibility is also an “office” depends partly on the meaning we assign to that word.3 We should observe that no word corresponding to “office” accompanies episkope in the Greek text here. But whatever way that issue is decided, episkope does describe a position of special responsibility and leadership, as the accompanying qualifications imply.
There has been much uncertainty as to whether the term overseer is synonymous with elder (see discussion in the Introduction). In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed “elders” in each church they had established thus far. In 20:17 those whom Paul summoned from Ephesus are called “elders,” but in verse 28 he said that the Holy Spirit had made them “overseers” to shepherd the church. Obviously, “elders” and “overseers” refer to the same group in this passage. It has been argued that this use of two words could suggest that while a church may appoint elders, only the Spirit makes them overseers, but such a distinction does not seem to be the point here in 1 Timothy. Likewise, the idea that “elder” refers to the person while “overseer” refers to the work is questionable. It is precarious to identify any direct categorization of duties in the early church based on such distinctions.
Elders, of course, were well known in Judaism from the time of Moses to second-temple Judaism. There is no passage in the New Testament that radically differentiates the role of Christian elders from the Jewish ones. The word episkopos was used in the secular world to describe various kinds of responsible leadership, largely civic or financial. In Titus 1, Paul clearly refers to the same group as “elders” (v. 5) and “overseers” (v.7). Since the overseers “shepherd” the church (Acts 20:28), it is reasonable to call them also pastors (from the Latin word for shepherd), though this does not limit the work of pastoring to a body of overseers.
It also seems clear that the overseers are the same people who “work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you” (1 Thess. 5:12), and who are the “leaders” in Hebrews 13:7 “who spoke the word of God to you.” In Hebrews 13:17 the author commands the readers, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch [lit., are on guard] over you as those [there is no Greek word behind the NIV “men”] who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”4 The New Testament listing of spiritual gifts and spiritually gifted persons includes those who take “leadership” (Rom. 12:8) and have “gifts of administration” (1 Cor. 12:28).
In verses 2–7 Paul sets out some significant moral requirements for the overseers. His concern that overseers be “above reproach” will be paralleled in 5:7 regarding widows, where a form of the same Greek word appears (NIV, “[not] open to blame”), and in 6:14. The meaning of this is spelled out in the following instructions, which do not describe a person totally without sin, but one morally careful and responsible. Later in the Pastorals Paul will issue moral instructions to people in three social classes and buttress each with a reference to the importance of avoiding blame and enhancing the gospel (Titus 2:5, 8, 10).
The first way for an overseer to be “above reproach” is faithfulness to his wife. As is often observed, the expression used here literally translates “man [or husband] of one woman [or wife],” but this needs careful interpretation. Does it mean “husband of but one wife” (NIV), “husband of one wife” (NASB), “married only once” (NRSV), or something like “committed to his wife” (The Message) or “faithful to his wife” (NLT)? The same expression occurs below in verse 12, where each of the translations cited uses the same terminology as here. The converse phrase occurs in 5:9, “woman [or wife] of one man [or husband],” which NIV does not translate by a phrase corresponding to the one used here, but rather by “faithful to her husband.”5
The terminology in verse 2 is equivalent to a Latin word that in its feminine form, univira, referred to a Roman woman, typically one of the noble Roman matrons. It is sometimes found as a tribute on tombstones, where it implies that the woman so honored her husband that she did not remarry. However, as divorce increased in the Roman empire, matrons were no longer assumed to have been married only once and so other terms came into use to describe their good character. Conversely, univira, still implying only one marriage, came to be used for women in lower social classes.6 These developments made the term widely available for use and thus serviceable for the new and growing Christian church. Eventually the church used it to designate those who were celibate after widowhood.7
It could be concluded from the secular background that Paul has used this phraseology to mean marriage only once. However, we must keep in mind that purity of character is the main concern of this passage and that its secular counterpart was employed as a means of honoring the character of the person. Faithfulness and honor could be expressed by refraining from a second marriage after a spouse’s death. Paul, rather than being legalistic as to whether an elder was married more than once, has chosen a phrase here indicating a standard of marriage that would earn respectability in the society within which the early church functioned. Commitment and faithfulness would speak more meaningfully to that society than just whether a man or woman had remarried after being widowed.8
The word “temperate” (nephalios) need not refer only to the use of wine; its meaning must be determined by context. In verse 11, where it refers to the deacons’ wives or deaconesses, it occurs between “not malicious talkers” and “trustworthy in everything.” It also occurs in Titus 2:2, where in a description of “older men” the list begins with nephalios and goes on to such general virtues as “worthy of respect” and “self-controlled.” The next section, addressed to older women, does not have the word “temperate,” but it specifies one area of temperance, not being “addicted to much wine.” This does not imply that women are more likely than men to be alcoholic, but is one of several illustrations that apply to both. Here in 1 Timothy 3, the word “drunkenness” appears separately in verse 3. Perhaps it is listed separately because it is not implied by “temperate” in verse 2, or it may explain what that word means.
Similarly, “self-controlled” (v. 2) is followed by “not violent” in verse 3. The latter may be implied by the former, though “self-controlled” has a broader application. It is probably best to recognize these various terms as expressing a selection of virtues similar to those in moralistic secular writings and commonly understood to represent a character that is commendable in the public eye.
“Respectable” (v. 2) enforces the fact that the overseer must have a good reputation.
Being “hospitable” was important in the first century because of the miserable travel conditions often encountered. Considerate people would be hospitable to visitors. The word implies far more than having friends over for dinner. The instructions for widows in 5:10 also include hospitality (cf. also Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9).
The phrase “able to teach” (representing one Greek word, didaktikon) refers to ability, not knowledge (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24, where, following a reference to heretics, Paul turns to the manner in which Timothy is to refute them and the ability he must have to do that). Even though teaching the truth was important at Ephesus because of the spread of false doctrine, the stress is on ability rather than on correct doctrine, which is undoubtedly assumed.9
The wording “not given to drunkenness” (v. 3) by implication allows moderate use of alcoholic beverages (cf. 5:23). The point, however, goes beyond advice regarding moderation. Along with the following words, “not violent…not quarrelsome” and “not a lover of money,” it mandates behavior opposite to the grossly offensive habits of the false teachers and other ungodly people. These expressions function to describe the character required of overseers by way of contrast. Once again, the later instructions in 2 Timothy 2:23–24 are similar: “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.” The manner of argumentation and the attitude toward money that characterize true or false teachers are such important topics that Paul will return to them with emphasis in 1 Timothy 6:3–10.
The next qualification, “he must manage his own family well” (v. 4), is not only more extended, but also includes an explanation. The parallel between managing one’s family and caring for the church requires careful attention. It is important to see where the point of comparison lies. There is one common element in this parallel: the ability of the overseer to guide and to care for those who are his responsibility. The elements that differ are (1) the people to whom the overseer needs to relate (family and church), and (2) the words used to describe his leadership (managing and taking care of).
The more extended households in first-century society, which included children, other relatives, and slaves, required strong household management skills. In the parallel sociological unit, the church, the leadership skill cited is to “take care of,” not to “manage.” This does not mean that there is no caring involved in management or that there is no managing involved in caring. But disaster may await the church whose leaders see themselves primarily as managers. We know from Hebrews 13:17 that church leaders were to be obeyed. Using a different word for leader, that text says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” But this emphasis is different from the present passage, where Paul stresses not authority but the caring side of leadership. Even at home the father should not discharge his duty just by giving orders. The children must not only “obey” their father; they must have “proper respect” for him. Once again the accent is on the elders’ character.
The same observation can be made with regard to verse 6, “He must not be a recent convert.” The warning is not against doctrinal immaturity, serious as that would be, but against the danger of a character flaw, “conceit.” The false teachers were “conceited,” among other things (2 Tim. 3:4), but here the conceit comes from spiritual immaturity, not from moral depravity. Nevertheless, the consequence of conceit is somber: Such people “fall under the same judgment as the devil.”
This judgment may seem severe, because to “become conceited” (typhoo) probably does not strike us today as serious or culpable. Yet the same verb appears in Paul’s description of the last days, which include such sinful attitudes as “boastful, proud, abusive…treacherous, rash, conceited” (2 Tim. 3:2–4). As Proverbs 21:4 asserts, “Haughty eyes and a proud heart…are sin.”10
Verse 7 underlines the importance, noted above, of “a good reputation with outsiders,” in order to avoid “disgrace.” But Paul also keeps in mind here the lurking danger of Satan. Even the more mature overseers (Paul is no longer speaking of recent converts) must beware of falling “into the devil’s trap.” Paul is deeply conscious of the malevolent intentions of Satan: “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).
Bridging Contexts
THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP. The selection of leaders was of crucial importance to Paul. There may have been considerable fluidity as to the form leadership took in the early churches, and even as to the terminology. It is difficult to define the terms elder and overseer, as used in the New Testament, as distinct categories of leadership. In spite of differences in nomenclature and background, they seem to have overlapped in person and duty.
What is most important to grasp is the need for recognized, authoritative church leadership. It is authoritative with regard to conveying the apostles’ teachings and with regard to the discipline of those who do not conform to them. The need for such leadership is seen in the fact that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders with amazing rapidity on the return trip of the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23), though it meant appointing people who were within the early months of their faith. Initially the selection was made by Paul and Barnabas, but the apostle Paul could not do this everywhere himself. Some provision had to be made for continuation beyond his personal presence of godly leadership in all the churches.
The deteriorating circumstances at Ephesus (and Crete) made such a provision necessary.11 The activities of doctrinally and morally deficient teachers there made the need for qualified elders obvious. As time went on and there were no longer any apostles to appoint elders, the guidelines here and in Titus provided direction. Thus, the situation at Ephesus and Crete providentially resulted in the availability of divinely inspired instructions suitable for many different churches around the world from then till now. Whether the resultant leadership is continued through a tradition of apostolic succession or not, the messages here and in Titus 1 are essential for the continuity of doctrinally sound churches.
The need for
qualified
leaders. The inclusion of the “trustworthy saying” in 1 Timothy 3:1 also underscores the importance of having qualified leaders. It is directed to those who are cautiously debating whether to be publicly available for the work. Not only should the church be looking for people who are qualified, but those with potential should be developing within themselves the qualities that will one day qualify them for the work. It is not enough for a church to hunt at the last moment for people to elect as elders at an annual meeting. It is a long-term, ongoing process. Early on in a Christian’s life one should be growing spiritually and using the Spirit’s gifts for the good of the church, with the possibility, humbly considered, of special ministry such as elderhood. Although this passage does not say so, elders and other mature Christians should be encouraging younger believers to seek God’s leading in this direction.
Paul’s choice of the description “noble” for the task leads us to ask in what way it deserves that adjective. We do not use this word much today. It conveys a sense of dignity that few value. Instead, during a job search we tend to look for work that is fulfilling, satisfying, financially rewarding, enjoyable, and perhaps needed in society, but without thought as to whether it is noble. The Greek word is a common one that in most contexts means simply “good,” but in such a special context has this lofty nuance, which it often had in Greek literature.
It is sometimes noted that most of the qualities required in elders are urged elsewhere in Scripture for Christians at large. Thus, the specifications of being the husband of one wife and not being a drunkard do not imply that Christians who are not elders can be polygamous or frequently intoxicated. A biblical perspective is that elders should exemplify Christian character as a model for others. Being an elder is not a right but a privilege for responsible people.
Interpreters do not agree on whether the phrase “husband of but one wife” by implication excludes women. It can be viewed in one of two ways. Either (1) the phrase was intended by the author to exclude women from eldership, or (2) it merely assumes the common circumstance that Jewish elders were male. If (1) is the case, it can be construed (a) to bar women for all time, or (b) to bar them under the conditions of Paul’s day, but (lacking an explicit prohibition) not for all time. If (2) is the case, the possibility of women elders may simply have been so slim in those days that male-oriented language was natural but not intended to be exclusive.
It should be mentioned that there is some evidence of women elders (both Jewish and Christian) by the second century. Some of the claims have been exaggerated or difficult to prove, but the evidence cannot be ruled out entirely. Whether or not women ought to be elders along with men will depend partly on one’s interpretation and application of various relevant Scriptures on women’s ministry (including 1 Tim. 2:12) and partly on the kind of ministries that elders perform in a given church. Even some who hold that 2:12 excludes women from authority over men think eldership is open to women because (1) the authority the elders have in their church is corporate and not a matter of one individual ruling over others in the congregation, and (2) the shepherding ministry of the eldership is one in which all benefit from the presence of women.
overseers and elders. We have assumed that elders and overseers in biblical times were identical, but we must keep in mind that the duties of leadership were multiple (see 1 Tim. 5:17). This may imply that there were subgroups. There was clearly a plurality of leadership (possibly within each house church, but certainly within a city) and a plurality of leadership bodies. There may have been three clearly defined groups (elders, overseers, and deacons), with the groups having overlapping functions. The overseer may have been an elder who had a significant span of authority. There may have been just one ruling body plus the deacons, with their individual members having different functions. In that case, it is possible, though it is doubtful, that some may have been known as elders and some as overseers, depending on their work.
It is noteworthy that when Paul lists several ministries in Ephesians 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers), he does not assign the title overseer or elder to any of them individually or as a group. In Romans 12:3–8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28–30 various gifted ministries are named, without indicating that the utilization of these was the particular province of elders or overseers. Those passages include the ministry of leadership (Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28). Returning to 1 Timothy, there seem to be differing functions among the elders: “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). It is possible that “especially” here has the sense “I mean” (see comments on that passage), but otherwise Paul is recognizing a specialized ministry among the elders, with some, but not all, concentrating on teaching and preaching.
We conclude, then, that (1) there was a body of leaders in each city, possibly in each house church in a city; (2) its members were known as elders or overseers, the terms possibly varying with the social situation or with function; (3) within each group were different responsibilities, including leadership (ruling, but “not lording it over” the church, 1 Peter 5:3), preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17), standing guard, and shepherding; and (4) the Spirit also distributed some of the same gifts that were requisite for these ministries to other believers who were not elders or overseers.12
Contemporary Significance
OVERSEERS (OR ELDERS) as pastors. We tend today to assess leadership with a corporate mentality. Eldership can be thus seen as an achievement, as a reward, or as an opportunity for advancement. It is all too easy to assume that the elder’s duties are parallel to those of board membership in a corporation. This can lead to a perception of elders’ meetings basically as a time for decision-making, with the executive (the CEO, as the pastor may be conceived) carrying out the directives of the board. In this scenario, it is possible for elders to consider pastoral concern and care to be outside of their sphere of responsibility and to belong instead to that of the pastor.
That is a common and serious misconception. It is corrected by Paul’s instructions to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 (“be shepherds”) and Peter’s to elders in 1 Peter 5:2 (“be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care”). The examples of shepherding (the good shepherd in Psalm 23 and John 10 and our “Chief Shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4) also serve as correctives. As churches today take new organizational shapes and the “pastor” may become less and less involved personally with individual needs in the congregation, pastoral concern can shift to those even further removed from what should be the spiritual leadership of the elders. Therefore, the pastoral ministry of elders is vital and crucial today.
This raises the question of whether it is necessary to have an official group called “elders” who perform the identical functions of New Testament elders. Of course, denominations have for years differed in the designated names for leadership positions and in whether the pastorate is in itself equivalent to the eldership of a church. Some large churches have brought the members of the pastoral staff and “lay” leaders together in a leadership council (perhaps including women), with only some members responsible for the more traditional ministries of elders while others are involved more intensively in visitation, worship and music, evangelism, disciplining, and so on. It can reasonably be argued that such a leadership council can more effectively cover the larger responsibilities typical of many contemporary churches.
Two paradoxes. One of the paradoxes in church history is that provisions in Scripture that were intended, at least in part, to promote unity have sometimes resulted in the opposite. The Eucharist or communion, for example, in which the bread, in addition to its primary meaning, symbolizes the united body of believers, has instead been an occasion of disagreement and division. The same is true of baptism. So it is with elders, whose function includes keeping the sheep safely together. It is unfortunate that denominations have even separated from each other over the form of church government. Churches are also dividing over the issue of women elders.
Another paradox that can affect individual churches severely is that those in leadership, who should be people of character devoted to nurturing the flock, sometimes dominate it instead and demolish the aspirations of other spiritually gifted people. Authoritarian leaders have caused much damage in some house church movements and in some megachurches, as well as in churches of all sizes. Some of the denominational splits and divisions throughout church history have resulted from leadership that lacked the qualities set out so plainly in 1 Timothy 3. Scandals that rock churches can arise from neglect of the warnings against such behavior as marital infidelity, temper, quarrels, and greed. It is easy for a person who becomes heady with power to ignore the moral restrictions to which “ordinary” Christians are subject.
Is there a clear biblical order? Church leaders for centuries have been preoccupied with determining which church order best represents biblical teaching and example. Conclusions in the area range from indifference or passive satisfaction with one’s denominational practice to restless probing and experimentation. Every new missionary enterprise has had to grapple with the question as new churches were established. The same has been true of the rapid growth of independent churches in the later part of the twentieth century. The familiar example of trying to establish the shape of an elephant by feeling its various parts can be applied to trying to determine the structure of the New Testament church simply by “feeling” the various Scriptures that touch on it. We must both find the broad features that New Testament churches had in common and recognize that variations do not necessarily compromise these features.
First Corinthians 12, which stresses the charismatic work of God’s Spirit in distributing gifts to the Lord’s people, does not deal with, and therefore does not exclude, structure in church government. When we do look at passages that deal with that subject, we see leadership by elders. Recall again Paul and Barnabas’s appointment of elders as they revisted their churches (Acts 14:23). Before his final trip to Jerusalem, Paul met with the elders from Ephesus at Troas (20:13–38). It appears from Titus 1:5 that the proper establishment of a church was not accomplished until elders were put in place. While this does not mean that there was no room for individual leadership (we find that being exercised at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:13–21), the selection of leaders to deal with financial matters in Acts 6:3–6 was by the congregation, and Paul directed the entire congregation to make a decision in 1 Corinthians 5:4–5.
Plural leadership. These passages allow the conclusion that the early church usually had plural leadership. No doubt it was common that in a city with several house churches each small group had perhaps one main leader and also functioned under the plural leadership of elders in the city. Questions of structure and government are, however, too vast to consider here, and that is not the main subject of 1 Timothy 3. Nowhere does the New Testament give a complete manual on church structure. The emphasis here is on the qualifications for eldership, and the main ingredient in these qualifications, in the context of the situation in Ephesus, is Christian character.
Moral leadership. One of the remarkable social changes that will be remembered as marking the end of the twentieth century in America is that from the permissiveness of the 1960s we seemed to move to a new accountability for moral standards, particularly among public officials. Several striking examples occurred in the military. At one point even the appointment of the Joint Chief of Staff became a moral issue. The public seemed to require a higher moral standard among their elected officials than they required of themselves. Yet the recent toleration of President Clinton’s admitted moral failure indicates that a leader’s moral life is now considered less significant.
First Timothy 3:1–13 sets forth a standard of behavior that, while not different from that which all Christians should live by, is to be more rigorously monitored among elders and deacons. The only qualifications besides those regarding morality, family responsibility, and reputation in the community are those relating to teaching and doctrine. Elders should be “able to teach” (v. 2), and deacons must “keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (v. 9). Even these requirements are set without a break in the midst of behavioral requirements, and the deacons are not only to understand truth but hold it “with a clear conscience “(cf. 1:5, 19).
Appointing overseers. In view of these qualifications, how can a church determine who should serve as overseers or elders? It might be easier if the main qualifications were skill in leadership as demonstrated by success in business and powerful public speaking, for these would be obvious. No doubt in many churches elders and deacons have been chosen because of such prominence. But how does a church find those who have the less obvious spiritual and moral characteristics?
I know of one church that tried to avoid the pitfalls of a popular election by stressing the importance of recognizing those on whom God had put his approval, using the following means. On the Sunday before the annual meeting, the sermon was devoted to the nature of leadership in the church and the kind of people whom God chooses for that leadership. The qualifications for elders and deacons were clearly laid out. When the congregation came to the annual meeting, they were given an unusual ballot. At the top were words from the Pastoral Letters on the qualifications for elders and deacons. The congregation was asked to think of people who met those qualifications, whose lives reflected the values in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
From among those who were thus deemed worthy by these criteria they were to list names as they thought appropriate in response to one or more of three questions that followed. One question was (as best as I can remember it), “Whom do you respect enough to follow and obey as an elder?” The next question, “From whom have you learned the Word of God? Who has taught you Scripture and doctrine privately or publicly?” A final question was, “To whom would you go if you needed counseling in your spiritual life? Who has ministered to you in a pastoral way?” Different names could be entered with respect to the different questions.
The advantage of doing this is obvious. It focuses on the life and ministry of elders rather than on the popularity of well-known church figures. It also helps one to avoid simply choosing friends. In the church I have just referred to were some healthy surprises when this was done. Naturally, no one procedure will be appropriate in all churches. Inevitably as a church grows it becomes harder and harder for people to know who would best function as an elder.
The same church just mentioned addressed this latter problem at a later stage in its history in two ways. Prior to an annual meeting the congregation was invited to send nominations to the elders, who then considered these, added any proposals of their own, and made the “nominations” known to the congregation. After the congregation responded, if a person who was not chosen as an elder was nevertheless mentioned by a significant number of people, that individual was interviewed by the elders and, if there seemed to be potential, was invited to attend the elders’ meetings for one year as an “elder in training.” (They were excused from the meeting when confidential issues were discussed.) By the next annual meeting the reputation of that gifted person was usually strong enough to bring a majority response from the congregation. This avoided some of the problems that arise when nominations are accepted from the floor, which makes it difficult to screen any whose qualifications are questionable without embarrassment to a proposed nominee or to the nominator.
This system was not perfect, of course, and required further modification, but it is worth mentioning to provide ideas that may be useful as we attempt to rescue the sacred matter of identifying the elders of God’s choice from the hazards of a political process. A modified procedure could be followed for deacons.
Can a divorced person be an overseer or elder? In the attempt to apply this passage about elders to the church today, the matter of remarriage after divorce enters more often than the question of remarriage after bereavement. Positions may vary as widely from each other as the following: (1) A person who has been divorced cannot be an elder even if not remarried, because divorce indicates some failure in the relationship. (2) Those who have remarried after divorce are ruled out simply because they have been married more than once. This position is usually taken more strongly regarding someone whose former spouse remains unmarried. (3) Such a person may be an elder if the divorce occurred before conversion. (4) Such a person may become an elder if fault lies with the former spouse, especially if that spouse committed adultery or committed abusive or perverted acts. (5) Such a person may be an elder only after making earnest attempts at reconciliation. (6) Divorce in itself does not prevent service as an elder. (7) Those who have been divorced and remarried may serve because God forgives and heals, and perhaps also because such persons can effectively counsel others because of their experience.
The issue is too complex for a full and responsible treatment here, but the following observations may be useful. (1) On the one hand, conversion makes a difference because the person is new in God’s sight. On the other hand, marriage is a social, not just a Christian relationship, and while the person may be renewed, the circumstances have not changed and one or two families may continue to be adversely affected.
(2) On the one hand, even if the proposed elder was converted and even if major fault lay with the former spouse, divorce may indicate some personal flaw, lack of wisdom, or other characteristic in the proposed elder that needs counseling and healing. On the other hand, such consideration should apply to any elder candidate, because avoidance of divorce does not guarantee that the individual, the marriage, and the family are healthy.
(3) In today’s complex society, blame is often hard to determine, and the state of a former spouse is likewise sometimes elusive. If the question is not only whether the former spouse has remarried but has had relations with another person, the whole matter becomes very cloudy.
(4) Is the ideal that an elder has had a perfect marriage and is an outstanding example, or has he had an imperfect marital experience, perhaps even because of former sin, and can therefore identify with and be a help to others in the church likewise troubled?
It is possible to be legalistic in such matters, and one does not want to legislate regarding internal church decisions on the pages of a commentary. This much, however, can be suggested: The standard that an elder should be “blameless” surely refers to one’s present life. Paul himself writes of his former sins as forgiven, so that he could be an apostle. At the same time, sometimes a divorce and remarriage produce continuing effects that can hinder the testimony and work of an elder. Some matters may need to be cleared up before considering such a person for eldership. An elder who has gone through sin and forgiveness, divorce and remarriage, may indeed be a more wise and understanding counselor. At the same time, one does not have to be an elder to provide counseling.
Whether or not a person has been divorced is not the major issue. That issue is whether the individual’s life and care of his family now exemplify Christianity. It needs to be said too that there are times when a person’s life is complex enough that one of the many other opportunities for ministry should be pursued rather than eldership. However, the testimony of a godly person who has survived a divorce clearly brought about by the former spouse, especially before conversion, may be a strong example of God’s grace.
One further question is whether a person who has never been married can be an elder. Since in New Testament times an elder would have probably been a married male, it is not strange that the wording of the qualifications reflects that reality. It is true that a person who has never been married lacks experience that can be valuable in counseling, but that person may, through celibacy, have demonstrated a valuable self-discipline. Singleness need not be considered a barrier to eldership. The text does not make such a statement but deals rather with character and purity of sexual relationship.
Children. The matter of an elder candidate whose children are not only unbelievers but are living in disrespectful rebellion is difficult. This calls into question whether there are flaws in parenting that may render an elder unqualified to care for the church. A parent is not necessarily responsible for the fact that a son or daughter has not yet become a Christian; that is an individual decision that not even a parent can control. The parent may, nevertheless, have been so unfair and inconsistent that the child has recoiled against adopting the same faith. Family relations are so complex today that instances of parental abuse, or of “false memory syndrome” on the part of one who claims to have experienced child abuse, make it even more difficult to determine whether an elder candidate should receive sympathy or be rejected. Once again, it is vital that an elder be respected by children and in the community.
The importance today of having elders who are capable teachers. The nature and influence of postmodernism adds to the importance of the qualifications for elders. When the statement of Christian truths (even the apologetic defense of the faith) gains little response from today’s “pagans,” the demonstrated reality of truth in the lives of those who represent the church becomes all the more important. We Christians know that truth is important and that Scripture contains the saving gospel, but in order to communicate it to our world we must prove that it is genuine through its effectiveness in our lives.
With the combination of scandals about preachers and the critical pronouncements against the “gospel truth” popularized by the media in recent decades, this has become all the more crucial. Elders need to know and respond to these circumstances by more diligent study of God’s Word and its doctrines, by sharpening their teaching skills, by understanding the times, and by applying the truth in their lives as well as in their teaching. It is no longer enough (if it ever was) for preachers and professors simply to address such issues. Others, especially those who have responsibility for the oversight of the church, need to give their minds, hearts, and lives to this task of living in the present world.
It may seem that, given the recent history of confrontations between so-called liberals and evangelicals or, in the early decades of the 1900s, between modernists and fundamentalists, that it would be harder today than formerly for those whose doctrine is not sound to escape being called into account. We also have the advantage of a number of excellent, theologically sound seminaries whose faculties, alumnae, and alumni are well equipped to identify heresy and deal with it. Nevertheless, it is still possible for churches to reduce the amount and intensity of their doctrinal preaching to the point where congregations are not able to deal knowledgeably with doctrinal issues. It is therefore urgent that elders be well taught, alert, and “able to teach.”
Elders are also needed to keep an even hand in the assessment of trends in today’s evangelical world. Differences of opinion on some important doctrines are growing even among evangelicals. While one hopes that pastors are well apprised of these matters, some may not be. And pastors who are theologically alert should make sure that elders also, if not formally educated in theology, are at least well taught on basic biblical and theological topics.
At the same time, because of the ease with which individual Christian opinion-makers can accrue, through publishing and various other media, a popularity and a perceived authority in matters that may lie beyond their expertise, elders must be aware of the influences on the congregation from outside the church. It is also possible for such opinion-makers to usurp the doctrinal authority of the local church. They can also unjustly diminish the reputation and consequently the ministry of leaders with whom they disagree, even where the issue may not be one of essential doctrine. In recent years matters in such diverse fields as political opinion, women’s ministry, Bible translation, and church music have been addressed publicly and sometimes divisively and without sufficient knowledge. Elders can protect the flock of God from such detrimental influences as well as from heresy.
The message of the Pastoral Letters for us today is not only identification of a particular kind of heresy, whether it deals with myths or genealogies, the misuse of the law, or other deviations, but also—perhaps even more important in some circumstances—with the way such deviations are to be addressed. It will become increasingly clear in the study of the Pastorals that how the sound teacher confronts heresy shares the spotlight with what heresies to confront.
1. Some have proposed that the “faithful saying” in this passage refers to the preceding verse (2:15) about women, but that verse does not seem to be the kind of statement, either in form or in content, that would be quoted as a weighty dictum.
2. Translations include “office of a bishop” (KJV), “position of a bishop” (NKJV), “office of overseer” (NASB), “office of bishop” (NRSV), “leadership” (REB), “leadership in the church” (The Message), “an elder” (NLT), along with the NIV’s “being an overseer.”
3. There has been much discussion on the various types of leadership and authority (including the status of holding an “office”) that exist in society, especially since the work of Max Weber. See especially Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) for a stimulating analysis of these issues with regard to the Pauline churches. In New Testament circles, there has been a long running discussion about two kinds of leadership, charismatic and official. Some have thought these virtually mutually exclusive, with the Corinthians church being an example of charismatic leadership and the (allegedly later) Pastorals reflecting the official. Others have noted that there is organization discernible in 1 Corinthians 12 and charismatic activity in the Pastorals (endowment of a spiritual gift at the laying on of hands, 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). Probably these two types of leadership were overlapping. For a useful summary and conclusion see Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Charismatic versus Organized Ministry?”, EvQ 52 (1980); 195–214. The KJV employs the word “office” in several contexts where it does not occur in the Greek text (Luke 1:8–9; Rom. 12:4; 1 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 7:5). The influence of that version over the centuries has led generations of readers to suppose that a formal office existed in each of these cases. That circumstance makes it unfortunately easy to think primarily in terms of office rather than of function in the present passage.
4. See also 1 Peter 5:1–2, where Peter (calling himself a “fellow elder”) addresses church elders and encourages them not only in terms of their ministry (“be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers”), but also in terms of their character (“not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve”).
5. The NLT has this terminology of faithfulness in all three passages; NASB has “husband of only one wife” in 3:12 and “wife of one man” in 5:9; KJV has “husband of one wife” or equivalent phrase in each place; NRSV translates the idiom “married only once” consistently.
6. Majorie Lightman and William Zeisel, “Univira: An Example of Continuity and Change in Roman Society,” Church History 46 (1977): 25–26.
7. Ibid., 30–32.
8. See the discussion along similar lines but with an application to widows in the comments on 5:9.
9. By contrast, the section about elders in Titus 1:9 does not have the adjective didak- tikos but deals instead with the doctrinal integrity of the elder in a different environment of false doctrine.
10. Some see here an allusion to the ruler of Tyre in Ezek. 28:1–19, where some of terminology sounds as though it is really describing Satan (as in vv. 12–14, “you were the model of perfection…you were in Eden…you were anointed as a guardian cherub”). The point of comparison is Paul’s terminology here regarding conceit and falling under “the same judgment as the devil.” Ezekiel reports God’s judgment, “In the pride of your heart you say, ‘I am a god’” (v. 2), and “you have come to a horrible end and will be no more” (v. 19).
11. Later on, the increasing threat of heresies in the early church occasioned both the further clarification of doctrine and the establishment of a single leader over the others, to whom was given the official title of bishop.
12. We do not know the extent to which the early Pauline and non-Pauline churches were uniform in their practice. Therefore a subsidiary question (which we cannot discuss here) is whether church structure was less developed and more flexible in the Corinthian church than in the churches addressed in the Pastorals.