(1) THE PRESBYTER-BISHOP IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES – INTRODUCTION

A local church is not just any gathering of Christians but a group of people (1) who meet recognising Christ as the authoritative Head of the church and (2) whose main aim to please God. It is not therefore free to organise itself as it pleases but must follow the biblical pattern: its membership must be recognised, regenerate, subject to discipline and have authorised leaders. When discussing church polity (government), we are speaking of the roles, duties and qualifications of those in leadership positions. This article focuses on one of the New Testament leadership groups, that of Presbyter-Bishop, as seen in the Pastoral Epistles.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

The term ‘Pastoral Epistles’ designates three New Testament letters; 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Although addressed to individuals, they are much more than personal, private letters since they deal with matters of church government. This article is written from a conservative perspective and assumes that the three letters are by the Apostle Paul and addressed to the historical Timothy and Titus. They were his co-workers whom he had left in Ephesus and Crete for a limited period in order to carry out some tasks (1 Tim 1:3, 6:20, 2 Tim 4:13, 21 and Titus 1:5, 3:12). All three letters are characterised by two main concerns that are identified by Knight (1992, p.10):

(1) ‘Paul warns Timothy and Titus about a false teaching and exhorts them to stand against it;

(2) Paul gives instructions to the Christians of Ephesus and Crete, through Timothy and Titus, concerning their conduct and church life. In 1 Timothy and Titus the latter includes instructions as to what sort of men are to be appointed to church leadership (1 Tim 3:1- 13; Tit 1:5-9; cf. 2 Tim 2:2).’

The requirements relating to appointment to church leadership in Ephesus and Crete are similar, yet the circumstances differ. In Ephesus, overseers already existed (Acts 20:17) and Timothy was to add to their number. Titus was to ensure that elders were appointed in Crete.

PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCHES

EPHESUS

By the time Paul made his third visit to Ephesus (cf. Acts 18-20) the church had become influenced by false teachers. His reaction was to excommunicate two of them (1 Tim 1:20) and then move on into Macedonia leaving Timothy to correct the error and help the church. Paul then wrote Timothy an authoritative letter (1 Timothy) explaining how he was to discharge his duties, how to deal with false teachers and outlining how the assembly was to conduct itself as the ‘household of God.’ Essential to this conduct was the quality, reputation and behaviour of its spiritual leaders.

The Ephesian church had already been governed by elders for some years but there were problems. Some had become false teachers and those who had not done so had failed to counteract the false doctrine and its effect. Paul therefore addressed the spiritual, moral and personal qualifications of presbyter-bishops in his letter to Timothy.

CRETE

It is unclear if Paul had previously planted churches on the island of Crete or if they had been established before he arrived but it seems that in either case no elders had been appointed. Therefore, on leaving Crete, Paul left Titus behind temporarily to ensure that elders were appointed. Paul also wrote to Titus authorising him to ‘straighten out what was left unfinished’ (Tit 1:5) in every church.

That Paul should leave Timothy and Titus behind in order to temporarily administer the churches shows his commitment to the establishment of good leadership and gives us a glimpse into the management and actual situation in the early churches.


BACKGROUND OF “ELDER” AND “OVERSEER”

presbuteros

It is important to attempt to understand the origin and usage of the terms presbyter and bishop. According to Merkle (2008, p.61-63) the term for elder (zaqen) in the Old Testament refers either to someone who has entered old age or to a community leader who carries out various functions. It usually occurs in the plural referring to a collective body. Merkle identifies three roles in which the elders of Israel functioned they served the nation.

1. They were a representative body which represented the people in religious or political activities.

2. After the exile, they were, along with the governor, the ruling body in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:5, 6:7, 14).

3. They had a judicial function (Deuteronomy 19:12, 21:3, 22:15). The translators of the Septuagint preferred the Greek word presbuteros to translate zaqen, using it 127 times out of 184.

In the Gospels presbuteros usually refers to the chief priests or scribes whom Jesus encountered but in Acts presbuteros refers not only to the Jewish leaders but also to the Christian elders. The latter designation first occurs in Acts 11:30 with no explanation of the new use of the term given by the author.

According to Mappes (1997, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 613, p.88) scholars such as Lightfoot argued that this absence of definition ‘was because of the counterpart of elders in synagogues’. Mappes agrees that church eldership was based on eldership in synagogues but points out that there is disagreement among scholars on the similarities between the two and notes the ‘paucity of information regarding the synagogue elder’. On the basis that it is known that synagogue elders functioned as a ‘collegium’, that they were responsible for the well-being of the people, that they had authority and were responsible for the care and communication of the scriptures he concludes that ‘while the synagogal eldership did influence church eldership, the influence was of a general nature.’

Campbell (2004, p.21f) argues that there is no difference between Christian elders and Jewish elders because in each case the designation is just a cultural reference to someone who was respected in the community. He notes that ‘Israelite society was tribal and patriarchal’ and that at each level (tribes, clans and families) leadership was given to the senior males whose functions were accordingly ‘deliberative, representative and judicial’. He emphasises (2004, p.25) that “elders” is a collective term for the leadership and that ‘the word “elder” never occurs in the singular, referring to an officeholder’.

episkopos

Regarding the origin of the term episkopos Mounce (2000, p.165) says that the issue is “shrouded in mystery”. Merkle (2008, p72), identifies three views of origin: as (1) the Old Testament (Isaiah 60:17b) (2) the Greek Societies, or (3) the Jewish mbaqqer (spiritual leader) of the Qumran community but again admits a ‘paucity of evidence.’ One must therefore conclude that how the title arose is uncertain.

ONE ROLE OR TWO?

In any discussion of New Testament church leadership the issue of terminology arises. In the Pastoral Epistles two terms are used; presbuteros (“elder”) and episkopos (“bishop”). Beckwith (2003, p.46ff), commenting on the appointment of presbyters by Paul and Barnabas in the first Gentile churches and referring to Paul’s meeting with the presbyters of Ephesus recorded in Acts chapter 20 says:

‘These are presbyters whom, in accordance with his policy, he had doubtless appointed himself on one of his visits to Ephesus earlier in his second missionary journey. It is here, in verse 28, that we first find presbyters called by their other name of episkopoi, bishops or overseers. Elsewhere in the New Testament, presbyters are referred to in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5:17, 19; Tit 1:5), in James 5:14 and in 1 Peter 5:1, and, by their other name of ‘bishops’, in the Pastoral Epistles again (1 Tim 3:1f; Tit 1:7) and in Philippians 1:1. As presbyters they taught, and as bishops they exercised oversight.’

Having pointed out that the two titles are interchangeable Beckwith henceforth refers to the Christian ‘Presbyter-Bishop’, an appropriate and convenient designation that is therefore used in the title and body of this paper.

The emphasis on this dual role of teaching and oversight in the Pastoral Epistles has led some to say that two separate offices are in view; one a ministry of teaching, the other a ministry of ruling. An early exponent of this viewpoint was Calvin (1548, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom.html) who wrote of 1 Timothy 5:17:

‘We may learn from this, that there were at that time two kinds of elders; for all were not ordained to teach. The words plainly mean, that there were some who “ruled well” and honourably, but who did not hold the office of teachers.’

The following reasons have been offered in support of this view:

1) In the Pastoral Epistles “bishop” is always in the singular, whereas (with the exception of 1 Tim 5:19) “the presbyters” is always in the plural.

2) The use of the definite article “(“the”) in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 (ton episkopon) suggests that one bishop is above the presbyters.

3) All bishops are responsible to teach (1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:7) but not all presbyters have this responsibility (1 Tim 5:17).

4) It is unlikely that two separate terms would refer to the one office.

The following have been presented in support of the view that the two terms are synonymous:

1) That the terms are clearly used interchangeably may be demonstrated in three texts; Acts 20:17-19, Titus 1:5, 7, 1 Peter 5:1-2.

2) If presbyter and bishop are two separate offices one would expect Paul to give a list of qualifications for each. In 1 Timothy 1:3-7 and in Titus 1:7-9 the necessary qualifications for bishops are given but presbyters are also mentioned in 1 Timothy (5:17-25) and in Titus (1:5). If presbyter is a distinct office from bishop one would expect the qualifications for such to be clearly stated.

3) According to the Pastoral Epistles presbyters and bishops have the same functions; they both rule (manage) and teach. 1 Timothy 3:4-5 states that a bishop must rule his own household before he is fit to take care of the church. 1 Timothy 5:17 mentions presbyters who “rule well”. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:2 a bishop must be ‘apt to teach’ and 1 Timothy 5:17 refers to presbyters who ‘labour in preaching and teaching’.

4) Two distinct offices are not required in order to carry out different functions of
eldership/oversight.

On balance it seems more likely that the two terms represented the same office and that ‘elder’ has more the holder’s character in view, whereas ‘overseer’ his function. It is likely that at first the Christian Jewish assemblies favoured the term presbuteros and the Gentile congregations the term episkopos but that in the course of time both came to be used to describe the church leaders.

A PLURALITY OF PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

The New Testament does not legislate for a specific number of presbyter-bishops in any given congregation but it does clearly envisage a plurality of overseers in every local assembly (Acts 14:23, 15:22, 20:17, Philippians 1:1, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1). This was also true of the assemblies in Ephesus and Crete. In 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul refers to ‘the elders who direct the affairs of the church well’ and told Titus (1:5) to ‘appoint elders in every town as I directed you.’ “Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular, thus indicating multiple elders serving each church on Crete. Plurality of leadership within even small assemblies makes good sense as it ensures accountability, mutual support and shared experience from qualified men.

A NOBLE TASK/DESIRING THE OFFICE

The apostle introduces his list of qualifications for ‘overseership’ in 1 Timothy with the formula ‘faithful is the saying’. ‘Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task’ (1 Timothy 3:1). This is one of five such sayings in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim1:15, 3:1, 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8).

‘Overseership’ or ‘the office of a bishop’(KJV) translates the Greek
word episcope and ‘it represents the position and function of an overseer’ (Strauch, 1995, p186).

‘Noble’ or ‘fine’ translates the word ‘kalos’ and has the idea of ‘excellent’ or ‘worthwhile’.

It is not known where the saying originated but it does suggest that there was a widespread view that oversight of a local assembly was a noble work. Paul is here commending the role of presbyter-bishop as significant and worthy of respect and appreciation on the part of the congregation. Such a fine work demanded a special type of person.

Paul’s requirements that a bishop be ‘the husband of one wife’ (1 Tim 3), and that a woman must not exercise authority in the church (1 Tim 2) make it clear that candidature for the role of presbyter-bishop was open only to males. Getz (2003, p123ff) argues that this is because Paul followed the “Household Model”, viewing the family as a prototype for the church. There was thus a strong emphasis on male leadership with a requirement for presbyter-bishops to be men who manage their own families well (1 Tim 3:4-5).

Paul is drawing an analogy between the role of husband and the role of elder. If a man displays incompetence in the management of his own children at home how would he be a suitable candidate for the additional challenges of leading the church? Just as a husband is to lead his wife and a father is to lead his family, so qualified presbyter-bishops are to lead the family of God; the local church.

Those qualified to undertake this ‘noble task’ would be obvious to all from ongoing evaluation of their life and work. This is the thrust of 1 Timothy 3:10, ‘And let these [deacons] also [like the overseers] first be tested’, of which Allen (1983, p.22) says: ‘Here it is not a period of probation or a formal examination….but a constant observation and scrutiny of the man and the work he is already doing.’

APPOINTING PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

The only verb in the Pastoral Epistles that conveys the idea of appointing is
‘kathistemi’ in Titus 1:5 where Titus is told to ‘appoint elders’ but this verse does not expand on the formalities surrounding the installation of presbyter-bishops. There appears to be no hint of ordination as we know it today although some understand ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands’ in 1 Timothy 5:22 as referring to formal appointment to office rather than to restoration of the repentant offenders of verse 20.

Someone who aspired to the task of oversight (1 Tim 3:1) and matched the
qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 would have been publicly chosen either by the congregation or selected by the existing presbyter-bishops fulfilling their scriptural role in ‘managing’ the local church (1 Tim 3:5, 5:17).