HERE 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 pāstor, shepherd) translates the Greek poimēn, 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.”[1] 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 (8^th–7^th 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.”[2] 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.[3]

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.”[4]

It’s interesting that more liberal interpreters either downplay this fact or deny it altogether.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7]

The great 19^th 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.][8]

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 (poimēn) 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 kopiaō, 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.[9]

Another 19^th 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 . . .[10]

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 19^th 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.[11]

Going back further, one of the greatest theologians who ever lived was the 17^th Century Francis Turretin, a direct descendent of the 16^th 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.[12]

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 16^th Century) maintained that Scripture uses “bishops,” “presbyters,” and “pastors,” interchangeably, and then details some of the particulars of the issue.[13]

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 4^th 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].[14]

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 2^nd 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.[15]

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” (poimēn, 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

ISSUE 19 – Feburary/2007

Pastor, Bishop, and Elder (1)

Ephesians 4:11; I Timothy 3:1-2; 5:17

The Meaning of These Terms

The Identity of These Terms