1-6 Bishops And Elders

The commands relating to bishops (overseers) stress that he should only be treated as such if his own family is in order (1 Tim. 3:4,5,12). This could suggest that he was the one who had converted others; for the image of our converts being our spiritual children is a frequent one (1 Cor. 4:14,17; 2 Cor. 6:13; Gal. 4:19; Tit. 1:4; Philemon 10; 1 Pet. 5:13). In the same way as a father ought to be respected by his children, so converts ought to respect those who converted them. The fact Paul had made converts and founded ecclesias was used by him as a proof that he deserved at least some respect- they were his ‘seal’, the hallmark that showed him genuine (1 Cor. 9:2). My sense is that the first century Gentile ecclesias were very similar to many Christian groups throughout Africa, Europe and Asia today; somebody was converted by a visiting preacher, and they in turn converted a group of their associates. Such groups need leadership, and the logical leader is the one who converted. This is why elders are defined in Heb. 13:7 as those who preached the Gospel to those they lead. Yet there can be a tendency for groups of converts to forget the eternal debt they owe to those who brought them to new life in Christ, just as there can be a forgetting of responsibility to our natural parents. A possible translation of Is. 8:16 is: “I will bind up the testimony, and seal the instruction by my disciples” [suggested by Dr. Martin Hengel]. The context is Isaiah speaking about his disciples in the school of the prophets he ran. The implication would be that the disciples of Divine teaching are actually the seal or credibility of the instruction / testimony which the Gospel contains. Valid converts are therefore a sign of the validity of the preacher, and are therefore a qualification for eldership. The respect afforded to such converters / leaders should, however, be qualified by their meeting of the standards Paul lays down: e.g. their own natural children should be well led by them. The integrity and manner of life of those who converted us is what inspires us to carry on. Thus Paul urges Timothy to “continue” because he knew “of what persons” he had been taught them (2 Tim. 3:14 RVmg.). The image of a father leading his children is essentially a gentle image. Note how the episkopoi were overseers in the flock, not over it (Acts 20:28 Gk. Cp. AV). It should be noted that the bishop’s qualification is that he knows how to rule his own house (1 Tim. 3:5). It may be that as with Samuel and other elders, their children or converts do not ‘turn out’ well. If this is because there was a lack of spiritual leadership, this disqualifies a brother. But if he knew how to rule, but they rebelled, then he is not thereby disqualified. Fathers cannot be held responsible for the spiritual failure of their children in all cases (Jer. 31:29,30; Ez. 18- and the example of Yahweh with Israel). Likewise, Paul was clearly a bishop and yet was single. “A bishop must be the husband of one wife” therefore requires us to again read in an ellipsis: ‘[If he is married he must be…] the husband of one wife’.

The following words sum it all up: “Jesus made authority in the fellowship dependent upon brotherly service. Genuine spiritual authority is to be found only where the ministry of hearing, helping, bearing, and proclaiming is carried out. Every cult of personality that emphasises the distinguished qualities, virtues, and talents of another person, even although these be of an altogether spiritual nature, is worldly…the bishop is the simple, faithful man, sound in faith and life, who rightly discharges his duties to the church. His authority lies in the exercise of his ministry. In the man himself there is nothing to admire”⁽²⁾ . Thus who we are makes us a father / leader- not the fact we were or were not voted in to an office. If too much focus is placed on the fact an elder has been ‘appointed’ as such, then we run the risk of the congregation and the elder becoming totally out of touch with each other. A status quo mentality develops rather than real growth; the ecclesia becomes stuck in the mire of mediocrity and even division, because the elder isn’t inspiring it forward in the way that only a true father can do.

What we have been saying here is confirmed by a closer analysis of the Greek text in the passages concerning leadership in the church. In Rom. 12:6-8, Paul speaks of he who exhorts, he who gives, he who presides- but note that the participles are used. The thought is of people doing things, rather than offices in their own right. When Paul writes to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1), the Greek nouns have no articles [syn episkopois kai diakonois]. This indicates that the ‘bishops and deacons’ weren’t seen as an established ‘office of the church’. Rather is Paul concerned with the functions of what these brethren did. It was only in Christianity’s later apostacy that the offices came to be glorified merely as offices. Note how in 1 Thess. 5:11, Paul tells the entire church to build one another up- he doesn’t leave that work to the elders. And in the next two verses, he goes straight on to tell them to respect those who labour amongst them (1 Thess. 5:12,13). There seems to be some sort of juxtaposition going on here. The flock are to take on responsibility of building each other up, but also to respect their elders.  

Whilst the idea of having a treasurer isn’t at all a bad idea, it’s perhaps significant that in the Corinthian letters, Paul makes no mention of such an office. The members were to save weekly and then hand their gathering to Paul when he comes to them (1 Cor. 16). Or in 2 Cor. 8, we read of Titus and his companions being allocated to simply collect what had been gathered up for the Jerusalem poor fund. Likewise when Paul speaks of the breaking of bread, he makes no reference to anyone leading the gathering. He places blame for misbehaviour there upon the actual members. And Paul doesn’t appeal to any ultimate overseer of the whole Corinthian church when he begs for church meetings to be conducted far better (1 Corinthians 14). I feel these omissions, even though they are an argument from silence, are significant. Another such possible argument from omission can be built from an examination of the Lord’s letters recorded in Rev. 2 and 3. The ‘Angel of the church’ to whom the letters were sent may simply refer to the ‘messenger’ of the church, who physically distributed the letters. 2 Cor. 8:23 specifically mentions such “messengers of the churches” whose task was to distribute letters from the inspired apostles. Hermas speaks of such a ‘messenger’ whose job it was to take transcripts of visions to the believers in various cities (Vision II 4.3). My point is that in this case, the Lord’s letters of Rev. 2 and 3 were directed not at a body of eldership, but directly to all members of the churches. I’m not saying there is no place for elders, but there is no place for any system of eldership or committee / hierarchical structure which devalues the individual believer or disables his or her initiative in serving the Lord. Note how the household of Stephanas in 1 Cor. 16:15 are said to have appointed themselves to ministering to the saints [eis diakonian tois hagiois]. They didn’t need any bishop or committee to ‘put them into the ministry’. They saw the need, and responded.

It seems to me that giving someone responsibility or duties beyond their real capacity to undertake can destroy their self-esteem and even them as individuals. This kind of thing happens when believers are pushed into offices of eldership by vote or political decision; if Biblical guidelines are followed, the believer who has naturally shown over a period of time that they are qualified as an elder or pastoral figure naturally becomes that figure; and therefore the problem of pushing someone into an 'office' that is beyond their capacity to handle simply never arises. For example, if a brother has preached in a country or area for some time, converted people, built them up in the faith, he is their natural elder. If another brother is moved in as 'elder' who's perhaps never set foot in the country, just because he is given that 'office', there is a real possibility that the experience will be damaging to him personally- as well as unhelpful for those suddenly and inappropriately informed that he is their 'father' in the Lord.

Notes

(2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (New York: Macmillan, 1954), p. 108. (3) Derek Tidball, Skilful Shepherds (Leicester: I.V.P., 1986), p. 106.