Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 19 –
Feburary/2007
Pastor,
Bishop, and Elder
(1)
Ephesians 4:11; I Timothy 3:1-2;
5:17
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ONE OF THE MOST
MISUNDERSTOOD, MISINTERPRETED, AND misapplied areas of
Scripture is that of Church leadership. This is nowhere
more vivid than in the identity of three terms:
pastor, bishop, and
elder. In this two-part
article, we will briefly examine the meaning of these
terms, identify to whom they refer, and note the chief
responsibility of the position
involved.
The Meaning
of These Terms
In our
first text we read, And [Christ} gave some, apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints,
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
body of Christ.
The word
pastors (Latin pastor, shepherd)
translates the Greek poimen, which
means “shepherd.” In Classical Greek, it referred to the
herdsman who tended and cared for the sheep. It was also
used metaphorically to refer to a leader, a ruler, or a
commander. Plato, for example, compared “the rulers of
the city-state to shepherds who care for their flock.”[i]
That meaning was carried over into the New Testament. A
pastor is a man who cares for and feeds God’s
flock.
Teachers, then, is
didaskalos, which from Homer
(8th–7th Century B.C.)
onwards was
used in the sense of a teacher or tutor. The term
covered “all those regularly engaged in the systematic
imparting of knowledge or technical skills: the
elementary teacher, the tutor, the philosopher, also the
chorus-master who has to conduct rehearsals of poetry
for public performance.” This is the sense in which it
is used in the New Testament: “Men holding this office
had the task of explaining the Christian faith to others
and of providing a Christian exposition of the Old
Testament.”[ii]
So the Christian teacher is one who systematically
imparts Divine Truth and practical knowledge based on
the Word of God.
The key to
understanding both these terms, however, is that they
refer to the same office; they are not to be
separated. A misunderstanding of
this principle leads to a great deal of error. One Greek
authority makes this abundantly clear by explaining what
is called the “Granville Sharp’s
Rule”:
. . . when there are two
nouns in the same case connected by kai (and), the
first noun having the article [the], the second noun not
having the article, the second noun refers to the same
thing the first noun does and is a further description
of it.[iii]
The same Greek
scholar repeats this rule elsewhere and then
adds:
This construction requires
us to understand that the words “pastor’s and teachers”
refer to the same individual, and that the word
“teacher” is a further description of the individual
called a “pastor.” The expression, therefore, refers to
pastors who are also teachers, “teaching
pastors.”[iv]
It’s interesting that more
liberal interpreters either downplay this fact or deny
it altogether.[v] This is no doubt due, at
least in part, to the fact of little teaching and weak
leadership in such groups. To deny this fact of the
language, however, is blatant folly. The evidence is
overwhelming, and this position is held by the majority
of commentators.[vi] Martyn Lloyd-Jones excellently
summarizes this
office:
Were there two separate
offices we would expect to read, “He gave some,
apostles; some, prophets; some, evangelists; some
pastors; some teachers;” but the apostle writes, “some,
pastors and teachers,” linking the two together; and
generally speaking, these two offices are found in the
same man. They apply to a more settled state of the
Church, and have persisted throughout the centuries. The
office of a pastor is generally concerned about
government and instruction and rule and direction. It is
borrowed, of course, from the picture of a shepherd. The
shepherd shepherds his flock, keeps the sheep in order,
directs them where to go and where to feed, brings them
against enemies liable to attack them. It is a great
office, but unfortunately it is a term which has become
debased. A pastor is a man who has been given charge of
souls. He is not merely a nice, pleasant man who visits
people and has an afternoon cup of tea with them, or
passes the time of day with them. He is the guardian,
the custodian, the protector, the organizer, the
director, the ruler of the flock. The teacher gives
instruction in doctrine, in truth. The Apostle [Paul]
proceeds to elaborate this [in verses 12-15], showing
that we need to build up, and that we must not remain
“babes.” We must be protected against “every wind of
doctrine,” and the way to do so is to give instruction
and teaching.[vii]
The great 19th
Century theologian and commentator Charles Hodge
concurs, citing one historical example of those who
deviated from the Biblical precedent:
According to one
interpretation we have here two distinct offices: that
of pastor and that of teacher, but there is no evidence
from Scripture that there was a set of men authorized to
teach but not authorized to exhort. The thing is almost
impossible. The one function includes the other. The man
who teaches duty and the basis of it, at the same time
admonishes and exhorts. It was, however, on the ground
of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster
Directory made teachers a
distinct class of officers in the Church. The Puritans
in New England endeavored to put the theory into
practice, and appointed doctors [or
“lecturers”] as distinct from preachers. But the attempt
proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be
kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false
interpretation of Scripture. Pastors and
teachers, therefore as most modern commentators
agree, must be taken as a twofold description of the
same officers, who were simultaneously the guides and
instructors of the people. [See note for a further
technical discussion.][viii]
As much as I love
the Purtians, I am compelled to agree with Hodge in
pointing out their error in this
area.
May we also
add that the whole point of the “shepherd” imagery
(poimen) is that
he meets all the needs of the sheep: care,
feeding, protecting, exhorting, etc. To divide pastors
and teachers into two offices destroys the entire
picture. This would have been crystal clear to readers
in Paul’s day. The idea of one shepherd who fed the
sheep and another who tended to their needs would have
been totally foreign to them because a shepherd does
both. May we further add that I Timothy 5:17
clearly puts the two functions together: “Let the elders
that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”
“Labour” is kopiao, so the idea is literally “to labor to the point
of exhaustion in word and teaching.” These two functions
define the teaching shepherd.
To understand the
term pastor fully, it is essential that we also understand
two other terms, how all three of these relate to each
other, and how they came to be used throughout church
history. Few terms are more misunderstood today than
these.
First, is the
term elder, which has Jewish origins. The usual
Hebrew word is zaqen, which was used to refer to the leaders of
Israel, such as the seventy tribal leaders who assisted
Moses (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1) and through whom Moses
communicated with the people (Ex. 19:7; Deut. 31:9). The
elders of Israel were mature men. They were heads of
families (Ex. 12:21); God-fearing men of truth and
integrity (Ex. 18:20-21); full of the Holy Spirit (Num.
11:16-17); and were impartial and courageous men who
could be counted on to intercede, teach, and judge
righteously and fairly (Deut. 1:13-17).
The New Testament
uses the Greek presbuteros
(English “presbyterian”), which basically means “one who
is advanced in years or of mature age.” How old exactly
we do not know, but the main emphasis in Israel and the
early Church was maturity.
This word was the only commonly used Jewish term that
was free from any connotation of either the monarchy or
the priesthood. So since the early church was Jewish, it
was only natural for this concept to be
adopted.
Second, is
the term bishop, a term that in our day has been
encumbered with a lot of ecclesiastical trappings. As
we’ll see in our next section, however, in the New
Testament the term bishop (which we find, for
example, in that list of leadership qualifications in I
Timothy 3:1-7) refers to the same person as
pastor and elder. The Greek is episkopas
(English “Episcopal”), which means “overseer, guardian.”
Its basic roots are in Greek culture. Emperors appointed
bishops to oversee captured or newly-formed cities. I
also read that it’s possible that it had roots in the
Essene Jews of the Qumran community. The Essenes
preached, taught, presided, exercised care and
authority, and enforced discipline. In either case, the
idea is basically the same. The Biblical usage is that
elder
refers to the man’s person, that is, his character, while
bishop
refers to his position, that is, a ruler and guardian.
The Identity
of These Terms
A major issue in
Church history and today is in the division over whether
elder and bishop refer to the same person
or different people. But there is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever that biblically they refer to the same
person. While that sounds like a
very narrow and dogmatic statement, it is merely
historical fact that cannot be disproved. Ninetieth
Century Church historian Philip Schaff, for example,
writes:
The terms elder and bishop
denote in the New Testament one and the same office,
with this difference only, that [elder] is borrowed from
the Synagogue, [bishop] from the Greek communities; and
that [elder] signifies the dignity, [and bishop
signifies] the duty.[ix]
Another 19th
Century historian, E. De Pressense, provides further
light:
This identity of the
office of bishop with that of elder is so very apparent
in the New Testament that it was admitted by the whole
ancient church, even at the time of the rise of the
episcopate . . .[x]
The “episcopate” refers to
the practice of a bishop ruling over many churches and
their pastors or priests. In other words, even when this
practice arose, men knew full well that it was not
taught in the New Testament. In short, the rise of the
episcopate occurred in deliberate departure from the
Scriptural precedent. Still another 19th
Century writer, J. M. Hoppin, adds:
. . . [these
terms] stand for essentially the same office, and are
employed as convertible terms. . . . Neither can it be
proved . . . from the New Testament that a higher
official standing was assigned to one than to another .
. . so that we conclude that these titles all denote the
ordinary office of the ministry, as different phases of
one office, viewing it from different historical points
of view.[xi]
Going back further,
one of the greatest theologians who ever lived was the
17th Century Francis Turretin, a direct
descendent of the 16th Century Reformers. His
mammoth three-volume Institutes of Elenctic
Theology (which I have the
blessing to own) were the fruit of some 30 years of
teaching at the Academy of Geneva. He dedicates several
pages to this important issue. Here are a few
highlights:
Bishop and presbyter
[elder] are everywhere in Scripture taken for one and
the same (so that the difference is only in the name,
not in the thing—bishop, with regard to his office and
function; presbyter, with regard to his age and
dignity), the same characters and the same functions are
ascribed to both. . . . We read in Scripture of no
ordination of a bishop apart from that of a presbyter .
. . the ancients [Church Fathers] do not attribute
this distinction to divine right, but to human
custom.[xii]
Turretin then goes on to
detail the witness of the Church Fathers, some of whom
I’m going to mention in a moment.
Going back even further,
John Calvin (writing of course in the 16th
Century) maintained that Scripture uses “bishops,”
“presbyters,” and “pastors,” interchangeably, and then
details some of the particulars of the issue.[xiii]
The reason we make so much of
this is because very early in Church History men
deliberately departed from this unmistakably clear
biblical truth. As Turretin put it earlier, this
distinction did not come from “divine right,” but from
“human custom.” In other words, this did not come by
Divine revelation but by human
reason. Men took it upon themselves, by human reason
alone, to create a distinction where God never made one
and to alter the very foundations of Church order. Men
decided that a bishop was to be superior to a priest,
elder, or pastor. In fact, this was no doubt the first
serious departure from the Word of God after the
apostolic days. J. M. Hoppin again tells
us:
. . . the system
[of one bishop over] a plurality of churches or of a
district . . . began to appear as early as the second
century and was fully established in Cyprian’s time
[i.e., the beginning of the third
century].
Is it, therefore, any wonder why
we have today every conceivable ministry, program,
church office, and method that men can think of? Why? Is
it by “divine right?” No. It’s because once men began
changing what God designed, they continued doing so
until what we have today does not even resemble the
biblical model.
If that evidence is not
enough, the most devastating witness to this change was
the 4th Century Roman scholar Jerome, who was
unarguably one of the greatest students of the Biblical
languages in the early centuries of the Church. He
states quite boldly and against all the traditions of
his day that bishops and elders were originally the
same. He wrote:
A presbyter [elder] and a
bishop are the same . . . the churches were governed by
a joint council of the [elders]. . . . If it be supposed
that this is merely our opinion and without scriptural
support that bishop and [elder] are one . . . examine
again the words the apostle addressed to the Philippians
[1:1, where Paul addresses his letter to bishops and
deacons]. Now Philippi is but one city in Macedonia, and
certainly in one city there could not have been numerous
bishops. It is simply that at that time the same persons
were called either bishops or [elders].[xiv]
But Jerome was not alone.
Even before him, the Church Father Hilary stated the
same truth. Contemporary theologians of Jerome (such as
Chrysostom), as well as his successors (such as
Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret) all
acknowledged this fact of Scripture.
So what happened? Again,
Jerome gives us the answer. Commenting on the Epistle to
Titus, he writes:
A bishop is the same
as a presbyter [elder]. And before dissensions were
introduced into religion by the instigation of the
devil, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul,
and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common
council of presbyters. Afterwards, that the seeds of
dissension might be plucked up, all oversight was
committed to one person. Therefore, as [elders] know
that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him
who presides, so let bishops know that they are greater
than [elders] more by custom than in consequence of
our Lord's appointment, and
ought to rule the Church for the common good (emphasis
added).
While the motive was
pure, the action was still wrong. Let us ask a simple
question: does it
make sense to combat error by using another
error? It’s preposterous! The
way to deal with error is to use the
Truth.
So again, we see
here a deliberate, calculated departure from the
authority of the Word of God, a departure that formed
the beginning of a clerical hierarchy that continues to
this day even in many Protestant and some Evangelical
denominations. In his book, Biblical
Eldership, Alexander Strauch,
provides a concise historical summary:
At the start of the
2nd Century, the overseer (bishop) presides
over one local church, not a group of churches. Thus he
is called the monarchial bishop. Through the centuries,
inordinate authority became concentrated in the bishop.
Unchecked by the New Testament Scriptures, his
role continued to expand. The bishop became a ruler over
a group of churches. Some bishops emerged as supreme
over other bishops. Eventually they formed councils of
bishops. Finally, in the West, one bishop emerged as
head over every Christian and every church. But in the
churches of the New Testament period, there was no
clearly defined, three office system. Instead, there
were only two offices as found in Philippians 1:1 . . .
elders and deacons.[xv]
If I may make an
application here, the more I study and observe the
Church, both in history and the present, the more I am
convinced that most of the problems in Christianity
were and are rooted in this early
departure from New Testament Truth. This one change
altered the entire course of Church History. When men
departed from Biblical authority concerning church
order, other problems were inevitable, inescapable, and
incalculable. That one change set the
precedent that it was no longer
Scripture alone that matters, rather man’s opinion about
what “fits our needs,” or what “will work best in our
situation.” Instead of God’s Word alone being absolute
and sufficient, it is considered relative and
inadequate.
Putting all three
terms together, then, elder refers to the man’s
character,
bishop refers to his position, and
pastor (and “pastor-teacher”) refers to his duty.
If we now reference other
Scripture, there is again no question that all these
refer to the same office and person. Acts 20:28
declares:
Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood.
This is part of
Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders, so he addresses
them by this title. He tells them that they are
“overseers” (bishops) and that they are to “feed”
(poimen, shepherd) the Church of God.
Likewise, Titus 1:5 speaks
of appointing elders, verse 7 calls the same men
bishops, and verse 9 speaks of the duty of this man,
namely, teaching. Peter does the same thing. In I Peter
2:25 he views Jesus as Shepherd (feeder) and Overseer
(ruler), while in 5:1-4 he uses the words “shepherd the
flock,” “elder,” and “overseers.”
We’ll conclude next
time with the chief responsibility of this
office—teaching.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
*
*
*
The television performer
watches his ratings, the politician his votes, the
public speaker his applause, but the prophet who speaks
for God is not governed by such response. He delivers
his message though it may fall on deaf ears and gain him
only scorn and maybe a prison cell. Amos did not rate
with the bigwigs of Bethel, nor did John the Baptist win
applause in the courts of Herod. The forerunner had
crowds but he stepped aside and left the center of the
stage to One greater than himself. We live in a day when
men will not endure sound doctrine but look instead for
pleasant ticklers of itching ears. Is there not
somewhere a coming prophet who will forget comfort and
security and status and retirement benefits for the
loneliness of a Jeremiah, the perils of a Savonarola,
the conflicts of a Luther, to speak for God in these
last days? [William] Barclay says that the settled
ministry has always resented wandering prophets who
disturb their congregations. So the wilderness voice is
not welcome either at home or abroad. But his reward is
in the approval of God and the verdict of
history.
Vance
Havner
Pepper and
Salt, pp.
104-105
NOTES
[i]
Colin Brown (General Editor), The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
(Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 3, p.
564.
[ii] Brown, Vol. 3, p. 766,
768.
[iii]
Cited
by Kenneth Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles
In The Greek New Testament (Eerdmans, 1952), p.
195.
[iv]
Kenneth
Wuest, Chapter
IV, “Greek Grammar and the Deity of Christ,”
Treasures from the Greek New
Testament (Eerdmans, 1945).
[v] E.g., Andrew Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians (Word
Publishing, 1990), p.
250.
[vi] This position held by the
majority of theologians and Ephesians commentators:
e.g., Augustine, Barclay, Blaikie, Chrysostom, Boice,
Gordon Clark, Hendrickson, Hodge, Eadie, Earle, Grant,
Grudem, Hoehner, Hughes, Chafer, Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur,
Robertson, Roustio, Sproul, Stedman, Vaughn, Vincent,
Wiersbe, Wood (“often coordinated in
the same person”), and
Wuest.
[vii] Martyn Lloyd-Jones Christian Unity (Baker), p.
193.
[viii] Hodge, Ephesians, pp. 120-1. He continues: “It is
true the article is at times omitted between two
substantives referring to different classes, where the
two constitute one order—as in Mark 15:1 (KJV); the
elders and scribes formed one body. But in such a list
as that contained in this verse, the rules of the
language require “of the teachers” if the apostle had
intended to distinguish the teachers from the pastors.
Pastors and teachers, therefore, must be taken as a
twofold name for the same officers, who were both the
guides and instructors of the
people.”
We
should also mention John Eadie’s excellent discussion
(Ephesians, pp. 303-4). As he points
out, “those who make a distinction” between the two
“vary greatly in their definitions.” After outlining
several, he concludes that “none of these distinctions
can be scripturally and historically
sustained.”
[ix] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1,
p.491-2.
[x] E. De Pressense, Early Years of Christianity
(1890).
[xi] J. M. Hoppin, Pastoral Theology
(1884).
[xii] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1997), Vol 3, pp.
200-3 (emphasis
added).
[xiv] Faith of the
Early Fathers, Vol. 2,
p.194
[xv] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis
and Roth Publishers, 1995), p. 310, Note 26 (emphasis
added).
