Biblical Church Leadership
by Doug Becker
The Role of Elders in the Church
Jesus is the head of the church, his body. His headship is mediated through his Apostles, those specifically chosen by Christ to be witnesses to his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 10:40–41; 13:30–31; 22:15; 1 Cor 9:1) and the instruments of his revelation (John 16:12–15). The church is built upon their ministry and teaching (Matt 16:18; Acts 1:8; 2:42; Eph 2:20–21). This is the structure set forth by Christ in the Gospels and attested to in both Acts and the New Testament Letters. Today, apostolic authority comes to us, not in the form of living Apostles, but in the written testimony of their teachings, the Scriptures.
Even in the Apostles’ day, the reality was that they couldn’t be everywhere at once, and so God gave us the church two things to extend their influence. The first is their writings, to which all our faith and practice much conform (1 Cor 14:37–38; 1 Thess 2:13). The second is godly men chosen because of their character and their ability to safeguard sound doctrine. These leaders are known in the New Testament as elders, and are appointed with the specific aim of providing leadership and teaching in local congregations (Acts 14:22–23; Tit 1:5; 2 Tim 2:1–2, 12). And so, we arrive at the following definition: An elder is a man who is entrusted with the authority to lead and teach a specific church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in accordance with the Word of God.
As far as we can tell, all the early churches had multiple elders. References to them from the earliest years of the church are scattered throughout the New Testament, and the casual nature of these many occurrences suggests that their presence is simply a given. Aside from the places referenced in the previous paragraph that focus explicitly on the appointment of elders, they are present in the central church in Jerusalem alongside the Apostles (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 21:18) and in Ephesus during Paul’s return trip to Jerusalem (20:17); they conferred eldership on Timothy through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14); their presence and roles as leaders and teachers are assumed (1 Tim 5:17, 19; Jas 5:14); church members are instructed to submit to them (1 Pet 5:5); and certain apostles even refer to themselves in this way (1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). It is also noteworthy that some of these mentions occur in letters that were to be copied and disseminated to churches in wide geographical regions (i.e., James and 1 Peter).[1]
The New Testament gives several names to the leaders of local congregations. Of these, “elder” (Gk. presbūteros) is the most common. In addition, “overseer” (episkopos) also occurs (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:7).[2] The noun “shepherd” (poimēn), from which we derive our word “pastor” occurs only once with reference to church leadership (Eph 4:11), and the verbal form “to shepherd” occurs twice (poimainō, Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).[3] Although it is difficult to draw sharp lines here, it seems that all three terms refer to the same office. Paul states that he left Titus in Crete to appoint "elders" in every town; then he says that an "overseer" must be above reproach (Tit 1:5–7).[4] In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the "elders" (v. 17) of the church in Ephesus, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Peter also says that the "elders’" job is to “shepherd the flock of God” (1 Pet 5:1–2). In light of this, the terms pastor, elder, and overseer should be regarded as all referring to the same office.
Biblical Qualifications for Eldership
There are few things more harmful to any organization than unqualified leadership. If leaders do not measure up, everyone suffers (e.g., Ezekiel 34). Leadership, therefore, should not be regarded as a right, but as a privilege and a stewardship. Because of its importance, the church should not be regarded as an institution in which everyone gets his or her turn to lead. Only those who meet the qualifications for elders should be appointed to the office. Those who do not should be content with serving in the ministry to which God has called them (1 Cor 12:14–20), understanding that being an elder does not make one a super-Christian (2 Pet 1:1), and that leadership can sometimes be a heavy burden.[5] Our roles are simply different.
A major reason we should take special care in appointing elders is that they must be trusted to make wise, godly decisions in subjective matters on which Scripture is not explicit. Should individuals divorced for unbiblical reasons prior to conversion be permitted to marry after conversion? Are the only legitimate grounds for divorce adultery and abandonment by an unbeliever? What sins are appropriate for church discipline, especially when disfellowship is on the table, and at what point has a satisfactory level of repentance been reached? How will the church implement its vision to accomplish its mission? How should the church address cultural sin and hot-button issues (e.g., transgenderism, gun control)? What is the appropriate balance between sensitivity to "seekers" and the edification of believers? Which people within the congregation should be developed to serve as future elders? In each of these areas (and many more), discretion must be used, not only in the interpretation of Scripture, but also in its wise application. The church needs men whom it can trust to navigate these issues in a way that brings glory to God, fosters the health of his church, and maximizes the spread of the gospel.
The two main lists of qualifications for elders in the New Testament are found in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9. While these are not the only relevant passages, they are essential, and three initial observations are helpful.
First, like many of the other New Testament lists,[6] these are not exhaustive. This can be seen from the simple observation that the lists are not identical.[7] Thus, churches are free to cautiously exercise discretion in requiring (or not requiring) other qualifications not mentioned in these lists, if such qualifications are deemed appropriate for its ministries.[8] Additional qualifications may also be implied by the ones that are explicitly mentioned.
Second, these lists focus on character and proven trustworthiness (although not exclusively). Disciplined men of upstanding, godly morals can be trained to increase their abilities; but men with abilities who lack character cannot be trusted to use their skills and knowledge for the good of the church. The traits given in these passages should be demonstrable over time (which is one implication of the warning against appointing new believers in 1 Tim 3:6). As practical character attributes, they will be present (or absent) in individuals on a sliding scale, and currently-serving elders must exercise discretion in determining to what extent a prospective elder meets these qualifications.
Third, all Christians should aspire to these qualifications; they are not exclusive to leadership. This is even the case with rarer examples, such as ability to teach. A man qualified for eldership is simply an exemplary Christian.
Let’s consider the qualifications for eldership as laid out in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9. For convenience, the requirements from each passage are laid out below:[9]
Above Reproach
This is first in both lists, probably because it encompasses all the other qualities and is given definition by them. Being above reproach does not mean perfection, but it does mean that the individual under consideration is of adequate knowledge and character to stand as a representative leader of Christ’s church. His character, behavior, and reputation must not drag the name of Jesus through the mud.
Being above reproach also involves exemplary character in areas that are not explicitly sinful. A good example of this from our culture would be a man living with a woman to whom he is not married (even if he is engaged or in a serious relationship). While it is certainly (allegedly!) possible to do this while not engaging in inappropriate premarital sexual behavior, such an individual, even if strong in faith, would be compromised in his ability to provide moral guidance to weaker couples lacking the extraordinary restraint to remain abstinent while living in close quarters. In an effort to justify unwise decisions, people commonly look to the examples set by their leaders. Standards for what is acceptable in a church community begin with its overseers.
A One-Woman Man
This qualification appears second in both lists. Paul’s meaning, however, is somewhat ambiguous. Literally, the text says that an overseer must be a “one-woman man” (Gk. mias gūnaikos andra). Traditional English translations have disagreed over the meaning of this expression. The KJV, NKJV, and ESV all say “husband of one wife,” which seems to exclude men who have been divorced and remarried, while the NIV and the NLT simply have “faithful to his wife,” which takes the emphasis off marital history.[10] For several reasons, the latter interpretation seems to make better sense. First, had Paul intended to exclude divorced and remarried individuals, he had vocabulary available to him to do so unambiguously. Why would he have used an expression that never indicates divorce (or lack thereof)?[11] Second, if “one-woman man” means “only ever married to one woman,” this would also apply to those who have remarried after the death of a spouse, which seems unnecessarily restrictive.[12] A third argument as to why Paul does not refer here to divorce is that Scripture gives circumstances under which a person may, in good conscience, remarry after a divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).[13] This final reason is weaker than the first two, because Jesus clearly expresses God’s preference for marriage as a lifelong, enduring covenant (Matt 19:3–9), and Paul could be setting forth the elder as an example to the flock, who does not merely abide by what is technically permitted, but who pleases the Lord in all things, including how he handles (and has handled) marital hardship. However, given the strength of the first two arguments, it is best to see this as a reference to marital fidelity.
On the other hand, while a divorced and remarried man may not be excluded from eldership on the grounds of this requirement, a divorce certainly raises concerns with respect to 1 Timothy 3:4, that “he must manage his own household well.” Furthermore, a man who has broken his marriage covenant for unbiblical reasons may be excluded for his disregard of the Word of God in the most important human relationship in his life, if this factored into the reasons for his divorce. Therefore, if a divorced man is being considered for eldership, the details and circumstances of his divorce must be taken into account on a case-by-case basis.
It is also sometimes claimed that "one-woman man" requires that an elder be married. By the same logic, 1 Timothy 3:4 would require an elder to have multiple children living under his roof (note the plural). However, it is unlikely that Paul would have upheld a requirement for eldership that neither he nor Jesus himself would have been able to meet (1 Cor 7:7–8). Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul encourages Christians to remain single, noting that this allows for greater devotion to the Lord (vv. 32–35).
Sober-minded
This includes, but is not limited to, what we consider today under the concept of sobriety (i.e., abstinence from intoxication).[14] It means that the prospective elder has shown himself to be clearheaded and balanced in judgment.
Self-controlled
Found both in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8, a “self-controlled” man is able to control his appetites and to say no to base impulses.
Respectable
The only other occurrence of this word in the New Testament is a chapter earlier than its mention here in 1 Timothy 3, where it is used to describe the “respectable apparel” worn by godly women. In classical Greek and the inscriptions it means “well-behaved” and “virtuous.”[15] It is difficult to distinguish this characteristic from the previous two.[16] If we accept “respectable” as the nuance, it means that people respect this man enough to listen to and follow him. He is the kind of man people want to have as their leader.
Not Quick-Tempered
See “not violent” below.
Hospitable
The word philoxenos, used in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8, is a compound of two Greek words that may be familiar to English readers: philos and xenos—a “lover of the stranger.” This insight should not be pushed too hard, since meaning is not necessarily determined by a word’s components, and is certainly not to be limited by them (as if the only kind of love denoted by philoxenos is towards whomever we deem a “stranger”).[17] Nevertheless, this is a man who loves others, and makes time for them. Does the man being considered for eldership demonstrate a willingness to wisely sacrifice things of lesser importance in order to cultivate close relationships with others, and does he do so without grumbling (1 Pet 4:9)?
Able to Teach
The next requirement for an overseer found in 1 Timothy 3 is that he is didaktikos, “able to teach,” or even better, “skillful in teaching.”[18] Paul elaborates on this quality in Tit 1:9, where he says that an elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” This mandates that an overseer not only has upstanding moral quality, but also a good knowledge of Scripture and theology, that he is able to apply these things practically,[19] and that he is able to communicate them to others. Can he recognize truth from error? Can he distinguish essentials from non-essentials? Can he show charity towards others in doing so? Not only must the overseer possess knowledge of these things, he must be able to teach them to others (2 Tim 2:2).
This does not necessarily mean that an overseer must be able to preach—that is, to publicly proclaim God’s truth to groups of people. Preaching takes additional skills that are not necessarily required for being able to teach. Can this person sit across the table from someone and communicate biblical truth to them? Can he do it over coffee, lunch, or in a small group? Can he teach, not only with his words, but with the way he lives his life? In this light, we might say that hospitality and the ability to teach go hand in hand, because such a man can be trusted to seize opportunities to meet with people and to minister to them in truth and love.
Just as important as it is that a godly man be able to teach is how he does it. Here, the additional qualities of not being quarrelsome or arrogant should be taken into account. The only other New Testament occurrence of didaktikos is in 2 Timothy 2:24–26, which teaches us that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” Paul then adds, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” This is especially important to keep in mind when we are grappling with what it means to “rebuke” those who contradict sound doctrine (Tit 1:9). There are always more than one way to say something, and our speech needs to be “gracious, seasoned with salt, so that [we] may know how [we] ought to answer each person” (Col 4:6). Rebukes can be sharp (Tit 1:13), but must be done with “complete patience” (2 Tim 4:2). Any defense of the faith should be made with such “gentleness and respect,” and such “a good conscience,” that “those who revile [our] good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Pet 3:15–16). Thus, in opposing error, an elder must be sensitive to the end goal, not simply of having one’s views vindicated—and especially not of showing himself to be smarter—but of bringing about repentance and soundness in the faith.
Occasionally, 1 Timothy 5:17 is cited to justify a distinction between teaching and non-teaching elders, since Paul here commends “elders who rule well” to be “worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” It is argued that this assumes that not all elders must teach—that some, for example, might have a purely administrative role. In light of the “able to teach” requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2 and the necessity of giving instruction in Titus 1:9, using this verse to justify the office of a non-teaching elder is probably an overreach. The operative word in this verse is labor (or toil). While all elders must be able to understand and communicate biblical truth, some will be more gifted and equipped to do this than others. And even those who lack facility in theological discourse may labor to correct their shortcomings. So, just as "rule well" is a judgment of decree (how well must they rule to be ruling well?), so laboring in preaching and teaching comes in degrees.[20] All elders should be able to do this to some extent.
Not a Drunkard
Both lists note that an overseer must not be “addicted to wine”—that is, not a drunkard. This does not necessarily mean that the man must be a teetoller, but if he does occasionally imbibe alcohol, he must do so in such a way that he does not compromise other requirements for eldership, such as sober-mindedness, self-control, and respectability. Inebriation is both unwise and sinful. It is unwise because it causes us to do and permit things that we would otherwise consider wrong. It is sinful because it both causes and is caused by a lack of self-control. Second Peter 2:19 says, “For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”
Biblically, the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not in itself sinful. This can be inferred from stories, such as Jesus’ turning of water into wine in John 2, where godly individuals either implicitly or explicitly approve of some forms of alcohol consumption. Other examples of this would include Nehemiah and Ezra’s holy day (Neh 8:9–10), Psalm 104:14–15, Jesus’ opponents’ criticism of him (Matt 11:19), and Paul’s advice to Timothy regarding his stomach condition (1 Tim 5:23).[22]
However, while it is clear that drinking can be morally permissible, there are many circumstances under which it can be unwise at best, and sinful at worst. “Whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov 20:1). It is a cause of woe, sorrow, strife, complaining, wounds without cause, and “redness of eyes” (Prov 23:29). Isaiah 5:22 pronounces, “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink.” In Ephesians 5:18, the Lord, through Paul, commands us, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."[23]
For the Christian elder, issues are even more complicated with alcohol consumption because he stands as a representative of Christ’s church and must be an example to those who observe his life. He must be able to minister to alcoholics, other Christians with weak consciences who believe any level of consumption is wrong, and unbelievers who think that Christians who consume alcohol are acting hypocritically.[24]
For these reasons, if overseers exercise their freedom in Christ to partake in alcohol, it should be done with caution and in moderation. Some will see fit to abstain entirely.[25]
It should go without saying that this requirement applies to other intoxicants as well. But the differences between them and alcohol should not go overlooked. Unlike alcohol, recreational drugs present no gray area between sobriety and intoxication, even though levels of intoxication vary. “Medicinal” properties notwithstanding, their recreational use exists solely for the purpose of getting high. In addition, the use of these substances is usually illegal, and their abuse always is. Therefore, complete abstinence should be the standard, even in private.
Not Violent but Gentle; Not Quarrelsome
“Not violent” is in both passages, with 1 Timothy 3:3 giving its rough opposite for contrast: “but gentle.” In Timothy, “not quarrelsome” or “peaceable” is added. These are all ways of describing how a man acts in the presence of conflict. Does he love both his friends and his enemies, and everyone in between? Within the church, an overseer who lacks these qualities will exacerbate division and will turn constructive dialogue into battles. Even worse, because elders set the standard for others, this will likely contribute to a culture of controversy and bullying others into submission. In determining a prospective overseer’s fitness for the office, it would be wise to observe his manner in the midst of controversy and disagreement, and even how he interacts with others on social media.
A Lover of Good
This quality, found only in the New Testament in Titus 1:8, indicates a man whose thoughts are not drawn to evil, and who is not amused by it. Does he have a fondness for what is evil, even though he technically abstains from it? Or does he truly love what is good? If a man is a lover of good, he will not need to be constantly coerced and prodded to pursue the things of God. He will pursue them because he loves them.
Not a Lover of Money/Not Greedy for Gain
Put differently in each passage, these mean roughly the same thing. An elder should exemplify the wisdom of Proverbs 30:7–9:
Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.
First Peter 5:1–3 also warns against “shameful gain” (Gk. aischrokedrōs)[26] as an incentive for elders. Interestingly, Titus 1:11 cites the same thing (aischros kedros) as the motivation of the false teachers whose influence elders are supposed to counter.
One does not have to have money to be ruled by it. “The deceitfulness of riches,” which chokes the seeds of the kingdom sown in our hearts (Matt 13:22; Mark 4:19), can afflict both the poor and the wealthy. Serving God and serving money are presented by Jesus as mutually exclusive (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). This is true, whether one’s pursuit of it is successful or not. It is “those who desire to be rich [who] fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.” Accordingly, the “man of God [must] flee these things” (1 Tim 6:9, 11). Regardless of class, we all need to heed Christ’s warning, that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). Biblical texts warning about a love for money and a preoccupation with material prosperity abound (e.g., Prov 13:7; Luke 6:20; 12:16–21; Heb 13:5; James 2:1–7; 5:1–6). The man of God finds his strength in the Lord, and is able to be content in both poverty and plenty (Phil 4:9–11).
While churches have a responsibility to provide materially for those who labor over souls, sometimes, for the sake of the gospel, the overseer must labor in situations that bring about financial hardship (1 Cor 9:3–26). Being free from the love of money guards against favoritism towards the rich and enables overseers to make right decisions, even if those decisions are not financially advantageous. Church elders should display modest lifestyles in order not to bring disrepute on the body of Christ, especially in our culture, where so many look with suspicion on pastors and other Christian leaders who use other people’s generosity towards the kingdom to line their own pockets.
He Must Manage His Own Household Well
Both passages draw attention to the way the prospective elder shepherds the “little flock” of his family. In 1 Timothy 3:4–5, he must do it “with all dignity, keeping his children submissive.” Titus 1:6 adds that “his children are [to be] believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” The reason for this requirement, as is made clear in 1 Timothy, is that a man’s ability to spiritually lead his family is a good indicator of whether he will be able to lead God’s household.[27] “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much” (Luke 16:10).
“Submission” (hūpotagē) is a standard disposition of children towards their parents in the letters of Paul, and is elsewhere delineated as obedience (Eph 6:1–3; Col 3:20). The relationship is to be mutually one of dignity and respect.[28]
Care must be taken to determine whether or not a man has met this requirement. First, these verses do not apply to adult children who are no longer under their fathers’ authority. But even here, it is difficult to know to what extent an adult child walking far from the Lord owes his lack of faith to faults in his upbringing. Second, kids will be kids, although this should never be used as an excuse for a man who is failing in his duties towards his family. What it does mean is that a determination should be made based on general observation, rather than isolated incidents. The question should not be whether his children ever step out of line, but how it is dealt with when they do, realizing that a father must walk a line between strictness and fomenting resentment. Third, we must be careful about our assumptions regarding what constitutes submissiveness, dignity, and the general requirement to lead one’s household “well.” These terms can be easily twisted to justify unreasonable standards of strictness and behavior that have more to do with personal and cultural preference than they do with truly raising children in the knowledge, love, and fear of the Lord.
Upright
Titus 1:8 adds that an elder must be “upright” (dikaios). Although this term, which is usually translated “righteous,” is used technically in Paul’s writings of the Christian’s legal standing before God and her membership in the covenant community, here it is clearly ethical, indicating that the man in question abides by God’s law (a practical result of his salvation).
Not a Recent Convert
First Timothy 3:6 adds that an overseer must have a certain level of spiritual maturity demonstrated over time. Literally, he must not be “newly planted” (neophūtos). The possible consequence that Paul has in mind is not even what this may do to the church, but what it might do to the man. Namely, “he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Presumably, this may spring from flattery over being regarded as so mature so early on in his walk, or perhaps by not learning first what it means to serve. Before a man can be entrusted with a role where he is noticed, he must demonstrate faithfulness where he is not.
Holy
This is a character trait that signifies devoutness, godliness, and piety, and is not the typical word that is translated “holy” or “sanctified” (although this is implied).[29]
Well Thought of by Outsiders
If we are to accomplish our mission, we cannot afford to be oblivious of what those outside the church think of us. Therefore, 1 Timothy 3:7 says that an overseer “must be well thought of by outsiders.” Although we live by different standards and values than the world, and although we live for an audience of one, seeking to please the Lord in all things, our mission is to the world, and positive engagement with it is critical. For this reason, Paul regards separation from the world as unacceptable (1 Cor 5:9–10), and shows concern for what unbelievers think, both of our ethical comportment (Rom 2:24; 1 Thess 4:12) and of the way we conduct ourselves even within church gatherings (1 Cor 14:23–25). Such considerations also come into play with regard to the behavior of widows (1 Tim 5:14), slaves (6:1), and young women (Tit 2:5). This is a matter of wisdom (Col 4:5–6), and is a big component of the apologetic task laid out in 1 Peter 3:15–16 (also 2:15). The mature believer is able to adjust his conduct and preferences in such a way so as to maximize his effectiveness in presenting the gospel, regardless of his company (1 Cor 9:21–22, 32–33). This is why failure in this respect is viewed as a “snare of the devil” (1 Tim 3:7).
Disciplined
The final requirement from these two lists is that an elder be disciplined (Tit 1:8). Godliness does not happen automatically. Passivity and laziness lead to spiritual drift, not maturity. Therefore, the cultivation of godly habits must be a top priority. Elsewhere, Paul describes this as “pummeling [his] body to make it a slave,” comparing himself to a runner in a race (1 Cor 9:24–27).
Final Considerations
In general, church leaders are nothing more than faithful Christians who have been appointed to lead. Therefore, the entire Bible is a manual for what this looks like. But there are two other observations that are directly germane to leadership outside of the lists in 1 Timothy and Titus that also deserve mention.
The first is the example of Christ as a servant leader. Jesus tells us that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; also Rom 15:3). Using himself as an example, he taught us that the greatest among us is the servant, “not the one who reclines at table” (Luke 22:24–27). At the Last Supper, he gave a vivid example for us when he washed the feet of all twelve disciples, Judas included. In his own words:
If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done for you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than him who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them (John 13:14–17).
In the church, leaders do not to be served by others, but to be the ones who serve. We should seek overseers among those who have towels around their wastes and basins in their hands.
The other relevant set of qualifications comes to us in 1 Peter 5:1–3, where Peter, himself an elder, exhorts his fellow elders in how they are to shepherd the flock. Once again, emphasis is placed, not so much on the job description itself, but on how and why it is carried out. The effective elder does not serve “under compulsion.” He doesn’t do it simply because no one else will, or merely because it is his job. Instead, he does it “willingly.” A good elder, then, will tend to be a man who already serves the church with joy, even when he has not yet been appointed to a particular office. He does it out of love, because he wants to do it, and because the Lord has laid a burden on his heart. As mentioned earlier in a brief discussion of this text, he also does not serve for “shameful gain,” which includes, but is not limited to, financial gain. Shameful gain also includes a desire for status, or other ulterior motivations, such as trying to impress others. He is not “domineering,” meaning that he doesn’t lord his power over others, simply “pulling rank” because he is in a place of authority. Jesus taught us that, although this is the manner of Gentile rulers, “it shall not be so among [us]” (Matt 20:25). Rather, elders are to be examples of love and humility.
We recognize that nobody is perfect, and none of us exemplifies these qualities flawlessly. But these are the standards for leaders set forth in the New Testament, and for good reason. A healthy church engaged in vigorous discipleship will be used by God to produce men such as these, who will, in turn, pass on these qualities to others. God is, after all, very good at making leaders out of imperfect vessels, as he promised to do when he named Peter, of all men, as the rock upon which he would build his church. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).
[1] In sum, multiple elders are mentioned as serving in Jerusalem, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, Ephesus, Philippi, the cities of Crete, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These are just the cities that are named in the New Testament. It can be reasonably assumed that the other churches were also led by elders.
[2] In older translations, this office is called “bishop.” The idea of a bishop as the head of a district of churches is present in early church history, but not in Scripture. It is generally acknowledged that this developed sometime in the second century. However, it is clear that some non-apostles had a measure of authority over multiple congregations (e.g., the Jerusalem council’s elders, as well as Timothy and Titus). Jesus is called an overseer in 1 Pet 2:25.
[3] To this we might add 1 Corinthians 9:7, although there the reference seems to be ministry in general rather than a specific leadership office. Shepherd leaders may be in view in Hebrews 13:17, which says that leaders “keep watch over your souls,” although this word, agrūpneō, is different than the shepherds’ “keeping watch” (Gk. phūlassō) in Luke 2:8. There are additional references to false shepherds (John 10; Jude 12). Peter’s apostolic ministry is spoken of by Jesus in this way in his famous instruction in John 21:15: “Tend my sheep.” Of course, Jesus is the chief shepherd (Matt 2:6; 26:31; Mark 14:27; John 10:1–18; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15).
[4] Paul distinguishes overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1 and 8, further suggesting that the term is synonymous with “elder,” not “deacon.”
[5] The classic example of this is Adam, who is called to answer for both his and his wife’s sin in Genesis 3:9. Likewise, recall James’ caution against aspiring to be teachers (Jas 3:1; see also Rom 2:17–24).
[6] Other examples would include the lists of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6–8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and 27–31, as well as the many “vice lists” (e.g., Rom 1:29–30; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–11).
[7] This has important implications for our thinking about spiritual gifts in particular, and topics covered by other lists in general.
[8] For example, submissiveness to authority.
[9] This follows the order of 1 Timothy 3, with requirements from Titus 1 rearranged to bring out correspondences, where applicable.
[10] In Paul’s cultural context, this would also have excluded men engaged in polygamy, which was not made illegal in the Roman Empire until the Lex Antoniana de Civitate in 212 AD and even later for the Jews in AD 939 under Theodosius. That this phrase should be restricted exclusively to polygamy is ruled out by the parallel expression, “one-man woman” (Gk. henos andros gūnē) in 1 Timothy 5:9. Polyandry was not practiced in the Greco-Roman world. See George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 158.
[11] For example, he could have written mē apolelūmenos (lit., “not divorced). This participle’s root, apolūō, is the common verb to denote divorce in the New Testament (Matt 1:19; 5:31–32; 19:3, 7, 8, 9; Mark 10:2, 4, 11, 12; Luke 16:8). Also available is the verb aphiēmi, which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 7:11–13. The Septuagint (LXX) also uses the verbs ekballō (“to cast out;” Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13; 30:9; Eze 44:22) and exapostellō (Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16), from which is derived the expression “certificate of divorce” (to biblion toū apostasioū; Deut 24:1, 3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8).
[12] Both 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1–3 give additional weight to this point.
[13] These two passages, providing exceptions for remarriage in the events of adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, respectfully, are the only explicit provisions for this in the New Testament. However, there may be other circumstances under which this is also acceptable, such as if the divorce occurred before the person became a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), or in cases of serious abuse or neglect of marital vows. See Wayne Grudem, What the Bible Says about Divorce and Remarriage (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021).
[14] Notwithstanding the tendency towards repetition in ethical lists, if this is all that is implied, it would seem redundant for verse 3 to add “not a drunkard.”
[15] Knight, 159.
[16] I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; New York: T & T Clark, 1999), 478.
[17] This is the first of Carson’s “Word-Study Fallacies.” He calls it “the root fallacy,” which occurs when “meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.” See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 27–32.
[18] BDAG, 240.
[19] Note how the Bible constantly draws out the practical implications of the truths it gives us.
[20] Knight (232) arrives at the same conclusion via a different argument. He notes an article by T. C. Skeat (“‘Especially the Parchments’: A Note on 2 Timothy IV.13,” JTS 30 [1979]: 173–77), where the author attempts to demonstrate from the New Testament and the parchment evidence that the adjective translated “especially” here and in other texts (Gk. malista) can often mean “that is,” yielding a meaning here that “elders who rule well . . . that is, those who labor in preaching and teaching.” Skeat’s article has also proven helpful to advocates of definite atonement (Knight included), seeking to deal with 1 Tim 4:10, which says that God “is the Savior of all people, especially (malista) of those who believe.” His article has received further support by R. A. Campbell, “KAI MALISTA OIKEIWN—A New Look at 1 Timothy 5:8,” NTS 41 (1995): 157–60. However, Skeat’s article has been widely criticized by Vern Poythress, who demonstrates that in none of the examples Skeat cites is the meaning “especially” ruled out, and some of his analysis is simply incorrect (“The Meaning of μάλιστα in 2 Timothy 4:13 and Related Verses,” JTS 53 (2002): 523–32). See also Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Problematic Texts’ for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson; Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 380–82.
This verse does not contradict our earlier observation, that able to teach does not imply preaching ability. Literally, the clause reads, “especially those who labor in word (Gk. logos) and teaching.” The KJV rightly reads “labour in word and doctrine.” The NET reads, “especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.”
[21] See also Ecclesiastes 9:7; Isaiah 25:6; 55:1; Amos 9:14; Matthew 15:11; and Romans 14:14. Other passages, such as Joseph and his brothers drinking to the point that they were “merry with wine” (Gen 43:34) should be used cautiously, since they do not seem to offer any judgment on rightness or wrongness.
[22] See also Genesis 9:21; 1 Samuel 1:14–15; 2 Samuel 13:28; Psalm 21:17; 75:8.
[23] Such unbelievers will likely not have a grasp of the Bible’s nuanced position on alcohol use, and therefore may wrongly think that Christians consider it to be forbidden without qualification.
[24] I offer the following guidelines for Christians wishing to consume alcohol:
1. If I have a problem with alcohol abuse, I should abstain.
2. If I am with someone who has a problem with alcohol abuse, I should abstain.
3. If I am with someone who thinks alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
4. If I think alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
5. If I am with someone who thinks I think alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
6. If I partake, it should only be done in moderation and not to the point of intoxication.
7. If I partake, it should only be done in accordance with the law.
8. If I partake, I should not advertise it.
9. Alcohol should not be consumed at official church gatherings.
[25] Technically, this term is an adverb (“greedily”).
[26] We noted earlier, under “one-woman man,” that this requirement does not imply that a man must have children in order to serve as an elder, only how things ought to be if he has children.
[27] Knight, 161–62.
[38] “Holy” is a puzzling translation choice for hosios in Titus 1:8 (the NLT rightly has “devout”). Usually, this English word is reserved for rendering hagios, which denotes the very specific ritual/cultic idea of holiness (i.e., God-likeness, God’s "God-ness," belonging exclusively to God). In the Septuagint, hosios occurs 41 times. In none of these is it used to translate the Hebrew word for "holy" (qōdeš). Most commonly, it translates ḥāsîd (“faithful, godly,” 27x). Other words it is used for are tāmîm (“faultless,” Prov 2:21; Amos 5:10) and its close cognate tōm (Prov 10:29; 29:10), nadîb (“noble,” Prov 17:26), zak (“clear, pure,” Prov 20:11), and ṭāhôr (“pure,” Prov 22:11). Nevertheless, the majority of modern English translations more or less consistently translate this word as “holy” in all of its eight NT occurrences (Acts 2:27; 13:34, 35; 1 Tim 2:8; Tit 1:8; Heb 7:26; Rev 15:4; 16:5).
The Role of Elders in the Church
Jesus is the head of the church, his body. His headship is mediated through his Apostles, those specifically chosen by Christ to be witnesses to his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 10:40–41; 13:30–31; 22:15; 1 Cor 9:1) and the instruments of his revelation (John 16:12–15). The church is built upon their ministry and teaching (Matt 16:18; Acts 1:8; 2:42; Eph 2:20–21). This is the structure set forth by Christ in the Gospels and attested to in both Acts and the New Testament Letters. Today, apostolic authority comes to us, not in the form of living Apostles, but in the written testimony of their teachings, the Scriptures.
Even in the Apostles’ day, the reality was that they couldn’t be everywhere at once, and so God gave us the church two things to extend their influence. The first is their writings, to which all our faith and practice much conform (1 Cor 14:37–38; 1 Thess 2:13). The second is godly men chosen because of their character and their ability to safeguard sound doctrine. These leaders are known in the New Testament as elders, and are appointed with the specific aim of providing leadership and teaching in local congregations (Acts 14:22–23; Tit 1:5; 2 Tim 2:1–2, 12). And so, we arrive at the following definition: An elder is a man who is entrusted with the authority to lead and teach a specific church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in accordance with the Word of God.
As far as we can tell, all the early churches had multiple elders. References to them from the earliest years of the church are scattered throughout the New Testament, and the casual nature of these many occurrences suggests that their presence is simply a given. Aside from the places referenced in the previous paragraph that focus explicitly on the appointment of elders, they are present in the central church in Jerusalem alongside the Apostles (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 21:18) and in Ephesus during Paul’s return trip to Jerusalem (20:17); they conferred eldership on Timothy through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14); their presence and roles as leaders and teachers are assumed (1 Tim 5:17, 19; Jas 5:14); church members are instructed to submit to them (1 Pet 5:5); and certain apostles even refer to themselves in this way (1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). It is also noteworthy that some of these mentions occur in letters that were to be copied and disseminated to churches in wide geographical regions (i.e., James and 1 Peter).[1]
The New Testament gives several names to the leaders of local congregations. Of these, “elder” (Gk. presbūteros) is the most common. In addition, “overseer” (episkopos) also occurs (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:7).[2] The noun “shepherd” (poimēn), from which we derive our word “pastor” occurs only once with reference to church leadership (Eph 4:11), and the verbal form “to shepherd” occurs twice (poimainō, Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).[3] Although it is difficult to draw sharp lines here, it seems that all three terms refer to the same office. Paul states that he left Titus in Crete to appoint "elders" in every town; then he says that an "overseer" must be above reproach (Tit 1:5–7).[4] In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the "elders" (v. 17) of the church in Ephesus, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Peter also says that the "elders’" job is to “shepherd the flock of God” (1 Pet 5:1–2). In light of this, the terms pastor, elder, and overseer should be regarded as all referring to the same office.
Biblical Qualifications for Eldership
There are few things more harmful to any organization than unqualified leadership. If leaders do not measure up, everyone suffers (e.g., Ezekiel 34). Leadership, therefore, should not be regarded as a right, but as a privilege and a stewardship. Because of its importance, the church should not be regarded as an institution in which everyone gets his or her turn to lead. Only those who meet the qualifications for elders should be appointed to the office. Those who do not should be content with serving in the ministry to which God has called them (1 Cor 12:14–20), understanding that being an elder does not make one a super-Christian (2 Pet 1:1), and that leadership can sometimes be a heavy burden.[5] Our roles are simply different.
A major reason we should take special care in appointing elders is that they must be trusted to make wise, godly decisions in subjective matters on which Scripture is not explicit. Should individuals divorced for unbiblical reasons prior to conversion be permitted to marry after conversion? Are the only legitimate grounds for divorce adultery and abandonment by an unbeliever? What sins are appropriate for church discipline, especially when disfellowship is on the table, and at what point has a satisfactory level of repentance been reached? How will the church implement its vision to accomplish its mission? How should the church address cultural sin and hot-button issues (e.g., transgenderism, gun control)? What is the appropriate balance between sensitivity to "seekers" and the edification of believers? Which people within the congregation should be developed to serve as future elders? In each of these areas (and many more), discretion must be used, not only in the interpretation of Scripture, but also in its wise application. The church needs men whom it can trust to navigate these issues in a way that brings glory to God, fosters the health of his church, and maximizes the spread of the gospel.
The two main lists of qualifications for elders in the New Testament are found in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9. While these are not the only relevant passages, they are essential, and three initial observations are helpful.
First, like many of the other New Testament lists,[6] these are not exhaustive. This can be seen from the simple observation that the lists are not identical.[7] Thus, churches are free to cautiously exercise discretion in requiring (or not requiring) other qualifications not mentioned in these lists, if such qualifications are deemed appropriate for its ministries.[8] Additional qualifications may also be implied by the ones that are explicitly mentioned.
Second, these lists focus on character and proven trustworthiness (although not exclusively). Disciplined men of upstanding, godly morals can be trained to increase their abilities; but men with abilities who lack character cannot be trusted to use their skills and knowledge for the good of the church. The traits given in these passages should be demonstrable over time (which is one implication of the warning against appointing new believers in 1 Tim 3:6). As practical character attributes, they will be present (or absent) in individuals on a sliding scale, and currently-serving elders must exercise discretion in determining to what extent a prospective elder meets these qualifications.
Third, all Christians should aspire to these qualifications; they are not exclusive to leadership. This is even the case with rarer examples, such as ability to teach. A man qualified for eldership is simply an exemplary Christian.
Let’s consider the qualifications for eldership as laid out in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9. For convenience, the requirements from each passage are laid out below:[9]
| 1 Timothy 3:1–7 | Titus 1:6–9 |
| Above reproach | Above reproach |
| One-woman man | One-woman man |
| Sober-minded | |
| Self-controlled | Self-controlled |
| Respectable | |
| Not quick-tempered | |
| Hospitable | Hospitable |
| Able to teach | Holds firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it |
| Not a drunkard | Not a drunkard |
| Not violent but gentle | Not violent |
| Not quarrelsome | |
| A lover of good | |
| Not a lover of money | Not greedy for gain |
| Must manage his own household well with all dignity, keeping his children submissive | His children are believers and not open to charges of debauchery or insubordination |
| Upright | |
| Not a recent convert | |
| Holy | |
| Well thought of by outsiders | |
| Disciplined |
Above Reproach
This is first in both lists, probably because it encompasses all the other qualities and is given definition by them. Being above reproach does not mean perfection, but it does mean that the individual under consideration is of adequate knowledge and character to stand as a representative leader of Christ’s church. His character, behavior, and reputation must not drag the name of Jesus through the mud.
Being above reproach also involves exemplary character in areas that are not explicitly sinful. A good example of this from our culture would be a man living with a woman to whom he is not married (even if he is engaged or in a serious relationship). While it is certainly (allegedly!) possible to do this while not engaging in inappropriate premarital sexual behavior, such an individual, even if strong in faith, would be compromised in his ability to provide moral guidance to weaker couples lacking the extraordinary restraint to remain abstinent while living in close quarters. In an effort to justify unwise decisions, people commonly look to the examples set by their leaders. Standards for what is acceptable in a church community begin with its overseers.
A One-Woman Man
This qualification appears second in both lists. Paul’s meaning, however, is somewhat ambiguous. Literally, the text says that an overseer must be a “one-woman man” (Gk. mias gūnaikos andra). Traditional English translations have disagreed over the meaning of this expression. The KJV, NKJV, and ESV all say “husband of one wife,” which seems to exclude men who have been divorced and remarried, while the NIV and the NLT simply have “faithful to his wife,” which takes the emphasis off marital history.[10] For several reasons, the latter interpretation seems to make better sense. First, had Paul intended to exclude divorced and remarried individuals, he had vocabulary available to him to do so unambiguously. Why would he have used an expression that never indicates divorce (or lack thereof)?[11] Second, if “one-woman man” means “only ever married to one woman,” this would also apply to those who have remarried after the death of a spouse, which seems unnecessarily restrictive.[12] A third argument as to why Paul does not refer here to divorce is that Scripture gives circumstances under which a person may, in good conscience, remarry after a divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).[13] This final reason is weaker than the first two, because Jesus clearly expresses God’s preference for marriage as a lifelong, enduring covenant (Matt 19:3–9), and Paul could be setting forth the elder as an example to the flock, who does not merely abide by what is technically permitted, but who pleases the Lord in all things, including how he handles (and has handled) marital hardship. However, given the strength of the first two arguments, it is best to see this as a reference to marital fidelity.
On the other hand, while a divorced and remarried man may not be excluded from eldership on the grounds of this requirement, a divorce certainly raises concerns with respect to 1 Timothy 3:4, that “he must manage his own household well.” Furthermore, a man who has broken his marriage covenant for unbiblical reasons may be excluded for his disregard of the Word of God in the most important human relationship in his life, if this factored into the reasons for his divorce. Therefore, if a divorced man is being considered for eldership, the details and circumstances of his divorce must be taken into account on a case-by-case basis.
It is also sometimes claimed that "one-woman man" requires that an elder be married. By the same logic, 1 Timothy 3:4 would require an elder to have multiple children living under his roof (note the plural). However, it is unlikely that Paul would have upheld a requirement for eldership that neither he nor Jesus himself would have been able to meet (1 Cor 7:7–8). Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul encourages Christians to remain single, noting that this allows for greater devotion to the Lord (vv. 32–35).
Sober-minded
This includes, but is not limited to, what we consider today under the concept of sobriety (i.e., abstinence from intoxication).[14] It means that the prospective elder has shown himself to be clearheaded and balanced in judgment.
Self-controlled
Found both in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8, a “self-controlled” man is able to control his appetites and to say no to base impulses.
Respectable
The only other occurrence of this word in the New Testament is a chapter earlier than its mention here in 1 Timothy 3, where it is used to describe the “respectable apparel” worn by godly women. In classical Greek and the inscriptions it means “well-behaved” and “virtuous.”[15] It is difficult to distinguish this characteristic from the previous two.[16] If we accept “respectable” as the nuance, it means that people respect this man enough to listen to and follow him. He is the kind of man people want to have as their leader.
Not Quick-Tempered
See “not violent” below.
Hospitable
The word philoxenos, used in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8, is a compound of two Greek words that may be familiar to English readers: philos and xenos—a “lover of the stranger.” This insight should not be pushed too hard, since meaning is not necessarily determined by a word’s components, and is certainly not to be limited by them (as if the only kind of love denoted by philoxenos is towards whomever we deem a “stranger”).[17] Nevertheless, this is a man who loves others, and makes time for them. Does the man being considered for eldership demonstrate a willingness to wisely sacrifice things of lesser importance in order to cultivate close relationships with others, and does he do so without grumbling (1 Pet 4:9)?
Able to Teach
The next requirement for an overseer found in 1 Timothy 3 is that he is didaktikos, “able to teach,” or even better, “skillful in teaching.”[18] Paul elaborates on this quality in Tit 1:9, where he says that an elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” This mandates that an overseer not only has upstanding moral quality, but also a good knowledge of Scripture and theology, that he is able to apply these things practically,[19] and that he is able to communicate them to others. Can he recognize truth from error? Can he distinguish essentials from non-essentials? Can he show charity towards others in doing so? Not only must the overseer possess knowledge of these things, he must be able to teach them to others (2 Tim 2:2).
This does not necessarily mean that an overseer must be able to preach—that is, to publicly proclaim God’s truth to groups of people. Preaching takes additional skills that are not necessarily required for being able to teach. Can this person sit across the table from someone and communicate biblical truth to them? Can he do it over coffee, lunch, or in a small group? Can he teach, not only with his words, but with the way he lives his life? In this light, we might say that hospitality and the ability to teach go hand in hand, because such a man can be trusted to seize opportunities to meet with people and to minister to them in truth and love.
Just as important as it is that a godly man be able to teach is how he does it. Here, the additional qualities of not being quarrelsome or arrogant should be taken into account. The only other New Testament occurrence of didaktikos is in 2 Timothy 2:24–26, which teaches us that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” Paul then adds, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” This is especially important to keep in mind when we are grappling with what it means to “rebuke” those who contradict sound doctrine (Tit 1:9). There are always more than one way to say something, and our speech needs to be “gracious, seasoned with salt, so that [we] may know how [we] ought to answer each person” (Col 4:6). Rebukes can be sharp (Tit 1:13), but must be done with “complete patience” (2 Tim 4:2). Any defense of the faith should be made with such “gentleness and respect,” and such “a good conscience,” that “those who revile [our] good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Pet 3:15–16). Thus, in opposing error, an elder must be sensitive to the end goal, not simply of having one’s views vindicated—and especially not of showing himself to be smarter—but of bringing about repentance and soundness in the faith.
Occasionally, 1 Timothy 5:17 is cited to justify a distinction between teaching and non-teaching elders, since Paul here commends “elders who rule well” to be “worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” It is argued that this assumes that not all elders must teach—that some, for example, might have a purely administrative role. In light of the “able to teach” requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2 and the necessity of giving instruction in Titus 1:9, using this verse to justify the office of a non-teaching elder is probably an overreach. The operative word in this verse is labor (or toil). While all elders must be able to understand and communicate biblical truth, some will be more gifted and equipped to do this than others. And even those who lack facility in theological discourse may labor to correct their shortcomings. So, just as "rule well" is a judgment of decree (how well must they rule to be ruling well?), so laboring in preaching and teaching comes in degrees.[20] All elders should be able to do this to some extent.
Not a Drunkard
Both lists note that an overseer must not be “addicted to wine”—that is, not a drunkard. This does not necessarily mean that the man must be a teetoller, but if he does occasionally imbibe alcohol, he must do so in such a way that he does not compromise other requirements for eldership, such as sober-mindedness, self-control, and respectability. Inebriation is both unwise and sinful. It is unwise because it causes us to do and permit things that we would otherwise consider wrong. It is sinful because it both causes and is caused by a lack of self-control. Second Peter 2:19 says, “For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”
Biblically, the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not in itself sinful. This can be inferred from stories, such as Jesus’ turning of water into wine in John 2, where godly individuals either implicitly or explicitly approve of some forms of alcohol consumption. Other examples of this would include Nehemiah and Ezra’s holy day (Neh 8:9–10), Psalm 104:14–15, Jesus’ opponents’ criticism of him (Matt 11:19), and Paul’s advice to Timothy regarding his stomach condition (1 Tim 5:23).[22]
However, while it is clear that drinking can be morally permissible, there are many circumstances under which it can be unwise at best, and sinful at worst. “Whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov 20:1). It is a cause of woe, sorrow, strife, complaining, wounds without cause, and “redness of eyes” (Prov 23:29). Isaiah 5:22 pronounces, “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink.” In Ephesians 5:18, the Lord, through Paul, commands us, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."[23]
For the Christian elder, issues are even more complicated with alcohol consumption because he stands as a representative of Christ’s church and must be an example to those who observe his life. He must be able to minister to alcoholics, other Christians with weak consciences who believe any level of consumption is wrong, and unbelievers who think that Christians who consume alcohol are acting hypocritically.[24]
For these reasons, if overseers exercise their freedom in Christ to partake in alcohol, it should be done with caution and in moderation. Some will see fit to abstain entirely.[25]
It should go without saying that this requirement applies to other intoxicants as well. But the differences between them and alcohol should not go overlooked. Unlike alcohol, recreational drugs present no gray area between sobriety and intoxication, even though levels of intoxication vary. “Medicinal” properties notwithstanding, their recreational use exists solely for the purpose of getting high. In addition, the use of these substances is usually illegal, and their abuse always is. Therefore, complete abstinence should be the standard, even in private.
Not Violent but Gentle; Not Quarrelsome
“Not violent” is in both passages, with 1 Timothy 3:3 giving its rough opposite for contrast: “but gentle.” In Timothy, “not quarrelsome” or “peaceable” is added. These are all ways of describing how a man acts in the presence of conflict. Does he love both his friends and his enemies, and everyone in between? Within the church, an overseer who lacks these qualities will exacerbate division and will turn constructive dialogue into battles. Even worse, because elders set the standard for others, this will likely contribute to a culture of controversy and bullying others into submission. In determining a prospective overseer’s fitness for the office, it would be wise to observe his manner in the midst of controversy and disagreement, and even how he interacts with others on social media.
A Lover of Good
This quality, found only in the New Testament in Titus 1:8, indicates a man whose thoughts are not drawn to evil, and who is not amused by it. Does he have a fondness for what is evil, even though he technically abstains from it? Or does he truly love what is good? If a man is a lover of good, he will not need to be constantly coerced and prodded to pursue the things of God. He will pursue them because he loves them.
Not a Lover of Money/Not Greedy for Gain
Put differently in each passage, these mean roughly the same thing. An elder should exemplify the wisdom of Proverbs 30:7–9:
Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.
First Peter 5:1–3 also warns against “shameful gain” (Gk. aischrokedrōs)[26] as an incentive for elders. Interestingly, Titus 1:11 cites the same thing (aischros kedros) as the motivation of the false teachers whose influence elders are supposed to counter.
One does not have to have money to be ruled by it. “The deceitfulness of riches,” which chokes the seeds of the kingdom sown in our hearts (Matt 13:22; Mark 4:19), can afflict both the poor and the wealthy. Serving God and serving money are presented by Jesus as mutually exclusive (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). This is true, whether one’s pursuit of it is successful or not. It is “those who desire to be rich [who] fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.” Accordingly, the “man of God [must] flee these things” (1 Tim 6:9, 11). Regardless of class, we all need to heed Christ’s warning, that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). Biblical texts warning about a love for money and a preoccupation with material prosperity abound (e.g., Prov 13:7; Luke 6:20; 12:16–21; Heb 13:5; James 2:1–7; 5:1–6). The man of God finds his strength in the Lord, and is able to be content in both poverty and plenty (Phil 4:9–11).
While churches have a responsibility to provide materially for those who labor over souls, sometimes, for the sake of the gospel, the overseer must labor in situations that bring about financial hardship (1 Cor 9:3–26). Being free from the love of money guards against favoritism towards the rich and enables overseers to make right decisions, even if those decisions are not financially advantageous. Church elders should display modest lifestyles in order not to bring disrepute on the body of Christ, especially in our culture, where so many look with suspicion on pastors and other Christian leaders who use other people’s generosity towards the kingdom to line their own pockets.
He Must Manage His Own Household Well
Both passages draw attention to the way the prospective elder shepherds the “little flock” of his family. In 1 Timothy 3:4–5, he must do it “with all dignity, keeping his children submissive.” Titus 1:6 adds that “his children are [to be] believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” The reason for this requirement, as is made clear in 1 Timothy, is that a man’s ability to spiritually lead his family is a good indicator of whether he will be able to lead God’s household.[27] “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much” (Luke 16:10).
“Submission” (hūpotagē) is a standard disposition of children towards their parents in the letters of Paul, and is elsewhere delineated as obedience (Eph 6:1–3; Col 3:20). The relationship is to be mutually one of dignity and respect.[28]
Care must be taken to determine whether or not a man has met this requirement. First, these verses do not apply to adult children who are no longer under their fathers’ authority. But even here, it is difficult to know to what extent an adult child walking far from the Lord owes his lack of faith to faults in his upbringing. Second, kids will be kids, although this should never be used as an excuse for a man who is failing in his duties towards his family. What it does mean is that a determination should be made based on general observation, rather than isolated incidents. The question should not be whether his children ever step out of line, but how it is dealt with when they do, realizing that a father must walk a line between strictness and fomenting resentment. Third, we must be careful about our assumptions regarding what constitutes submissiveness, dignity, and the general requirement to lead one’s household “well.” These terms can be easily twisted to justify unreasonable standards of strictness and behavior that have more to do with personal and cultural preference than they do with truly raising children in the knowledge, love, and fear of the Lord.
Upright
Titus 1:8 adds that an elder must be “upright” (dikaios). Although this term, which is usually translated “righteous,” is used technically in Paul’s writings of the Christian’s legal standing before God and her membership in the covenant community, here it is clearly ethical, indicating that the man in question abides by God’s law (a practical result of his salvation).
Not a Recent Convert
First Timothy 3:6 adds that an overseer must have a certain level of spiritual maturity demonstrated over time. Literally, he must not be “newly planted” (neophūtos). The possible consequence that Paul has in mind is not even what this may do to the church, but what it might do to the man. Namely, “he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Presumably, this may spring from flattery over being regarded as so mature so early on in his walk, or perhaps by not learning first what it means to serve. Before a man can be entrusted with a role where he is noticed, he must demonstrate faithfulness where he is not.
Holy
This is a character trait that signifies devoutness, godliness, and piety, and is not the typical word that is translated “holy” or “sanctified” (although this is implied).[29]
Well Thought of by Outsiders
If we are to accomplish our mission, we cannot afford to be oblivious of what those outside the church think of us. Therefore, 1 Timothy 3:7 says that an overseer “must be well thought of by outsiders.” Although we live by different standards and values than the world, and although we live for an audience of one, seeking to please the Lord in all things, our mission is to the world, and positive engagement with it is critical. For this reason, Paul regards separation from the world as unacceptable (1 Cor 5:9–10), and shows concern for what unbelievers think, both of our ethical comportment (Rom 2:24; 1 Thess 4:12) and of the way we conduct ourselves even within church gatherings (1 Cor 14:23–25). Such considerations also come into play with regard to the behavior of widows (1 Tim 5:14), slaves (6:1), and young women (Tit 2:5). This is a matter of wisdom (Col 4:5–6), and is a big component of the apologetic task laid out in 1 Peter 3:15–16 (also 2:15). The mature believer is able to adjust his conduct and preferences in such a way so as to maximize his effectiveness in presenting the gospel, regardless of his company (1 Cor 9:21–22, 32–33). This is why failure in this respect is viewed as a “snare of the devil” (1 Tim 3:7).
Disciplined
The final requirement from these two lists is that an elder be disciplined (Tit 1:8). Godliness does not happen automatically. Passivity and laziness lead to spiritual drift, not maturity. Therefore, the cultivation of godly habits must be a top priority. Elsewhere, Paul describes this as “pummeling [his] body to make it a slave,” comparing himself to a runner in a race (1 Cor 9:24–27).
Final Considerations
In general, church leaders are nothing more than faithful Christians who have been appointed to lead. Therefore, the entire Bible is a manual for what this looks like. But there are two other observations that are directly germane to leadership outside of the lists in 1 Timothy and Titus that also deserve mention.
The first is the example of Christ as a servant leader. Jesus tells us that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; also Rom 15:3). Using himself as an example, he taught us that the greatest among us is the servant, “not the one who reclines at table” (Luke 22:24–27). At the Last Supper, he gave a vivid example for us when he washed the feet of all twelve disciples, Judas included. In his own words:
If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done for you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than him who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them (John 13:14–17).
In the church, leaders do not to be served by others, but to be the ones who serve. We should seek overseers among those who have towels around their wastes and basins in their hands.
The other relevant set of qualifications comes to us in 1 Peter 5:1–3, where Peter, himself an elder, exhorts his fellow elders in how they are to shepherd the flock. Once again, emphasis is placed, not so much on the job description itself, but on how and why it is carried out. The effective elder does not serve “under compulsion.” He doesn’t do it simply because no one else will, or merely because it is his job. Instead, he does it “willingly.” A good elder, then, will tend to be a man who already serves the church with joy, even when he has not yet been appointed to a particular office. He does it out of love, because he wants to do it, and because the Lord has laid a burden on his heart. As mentioned earlier in a brief discussion of this text, he also does not serve for “shameful gain,” which includes, but is not limited to, financial gain. Shameful gain also includes a desire for status, or other ulterior motivations, such as trying to impress others. He is not “domineering,” meaning that he doesn’t lord his power over others, simply “pulling rank” because he is in a place of authority. Jesus taught us that, although this is the manner of Gentile rulers, “it shall not be so among [us]” (Matt 20:25). Rather, elders are to be examples of love and humility.
We recognize that nobody is perfect, and none of us exemplifies these qualities flawlessly. But these are the standards for leaders set forth in the New Testament, and for good reason. A healthy church engaged in vigorous discipleship will be used by God to produce men such as these, who will, in turn, pass on these qualities to others. God is, after all, very good at making leaders out of imperfect vessels, as he promised to do when he named Peter, of all men, as the rock upon which he would build his church. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).
[1] In sum, multiple elders are mentioned as serving in Jerusalem, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, Ephesus, Philippi, the cities of Crete, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These are just the cities that are named in the New Testament. It can be reasonably assumed that the other churches were also led by elders.
[2] In older translations, this office is called “bishop.” The idea of a bishop as the head of a district of churches is present in early church history, but not in Scripture. It is generally acknowledged that this developed sometime in the second century. However, it is clear that some non-apostles had a measure of authority over multiple congregations (e.g., the Jerusalem council’s elders, as well as Timothy and Titus). Jesus is called an overseer in 1 Pet 2:25.
[3] To this we might add 1 Corinthians 9:7, although there the reference seems to be ministry in general rather than a specific leadership office. Shepherd leaders may be in view in Hebrews 13:17, which says that leaders “keep watch over your souls,” although this word, agrūpneō, is different than the shepherds’ “keeping watch” (Gk. phūlassō) in Luke 2:8. There are additional references to false shepherds (John 10; Jude 12). Peter’s apostolic ministry is spoken of by Jesus in this way in his famous instruction in John 21:15: “Tend my sheep.” Of course, Jesus is the chief shepherd (Matt 2:6; 26:31; Mark 14:27; John 10:1–18; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15).
[4] Paul distinguishes overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1 and 8, further suggesting that the term is synonymous with “elder,” not “deacon.”
[5] The classic example of this is Adam, who is called to answer for both his and his wife’s sin in Genesis 3:9. Likewise, recall James’ caution against aspiring to be teachers (Jas 3:1; see also Rom 2:17–24).
[6] Other examples would include the lists of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6–8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and 27–31, as well as the many “vice lists” (e.g., Rom 1:29–30; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–11).
[7] This has important implications for our thinking about spiritual gifts in particular, and topics covered by other lists in general.
[8] For example, submissiveness to authority.
[9] This follows the order of 1 Timothy 3, with requirements from Titus 1 rearranged to bring out correspondences, where applicable.
[10] In Paul’s cultural context, this would also have excluded men engaged in polygamy, which was not made illegal in the Roman Empire until the Lex Antoniana de Civitate in 212 AD and even later for the Jews in AD 939 under Theodosius. That this phrase should be restricted exclusively to polygamy is ruled out by the parallel expression, “one-man woman” (Gk. henos andros gūnē) in 1 Timothy 5:9. Polyandry was not practiced in the Greco-Roman world. See George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 158.
[11] For example, he could have written mē apolelūmenos (lit., “not divorced). This participle’s root, apolūō, is the common verb to denote divorce in the New Testament (Matt 1:19; 5:31–32; 19:3, 7, 8, 9; Mark 10:2, 4, 11, 12; Luke 16:8). Also available is the verb aphiēmi, which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 7:11–13. The Septuagint (LXX) also uses the verbs ekballō (“to cast out;” Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13; 30:9; Eze 44:22) and exapostellō (Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16), from which is derived the expression “certificate of divorce” (to biblion toū apostasioū; Deut 24:1, 3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8).
[12] Both 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1–3 give additional weight to this point.
[13] These two passages, providing exceptions for remarriage in the events of adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, respectfully, are the only explicit provisions for this in the New Testament. However, there may be other circumstances under which this is also acceptable, such as if the divorce occurred before the person became a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), or in cases of serious abuse or neglect of marital vows. See Wayne Grudem, What the Bible Says about Divorce and Remarriage (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021).
[14] Notwithstanding the tendency towards repetition in ethical lists, if this is all that is implied, it would seem redundant for verse 3 to add “not a drunkard.”
[15] Knight, 159.
[16] I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; New York: T & T Clark, 1999), 478.
[17] This is the first of Carson’s “Word-Study Fallacies.” He calls it “the root fallacy,” which occurs when “meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.” See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 27–32.
[18] BDAG, 240.
[19] Note how the Bible constantly draws out the practical implications of the truths it gives us.
[20] Knight (232) arrives at the same conclusion via a different argument. He notes an article by T. C. Skeat (“‘Especially the Parchments’: A Note on 2 Timothy IV.13,” JTS 30 [1979]: 173–77), where the author attempts to demonstrate from the New Testament and the parchment evidence that the adjective translated “especially” here and in other texts (Gk. malista) can often mean “that is,” yielding a meaning here that “elders who rule well . . . that is, those who labor in preaching and teaching.” Skeat’s article has also proven helpful to advocates of definite atonement (Knight included), seeking to deal with 1 Tim 4:10, which says that God “is the Savior of all people, especially (malista) of those who believe.” His article has received further support by R. A. Campbell, “KAI MALISTA OIKEIWN—A New Look at 1 Timothy 5:8,” NTS 41 (1995): 157–60. However, Skeat’s article has been widely criticized by Vern Poythress, who demonstrates that in none of the examples Skeat cites is the meaning “especially” ruled out, and some of his analysis is simply incorrect (“The Meaning of μάλιστα in 2 Timothy 4:13 and Related Verses,” JTS 53 (2002): 523–32). See also Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Problematic Texts’ for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson; Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 380–82.
This verse does not contradict our earlier observation, that able to teach does not imply preaching ability. Literally, the clause reads, “especially those who labor in word (Gk. logos) and teaching.” The KJV rightly reads “labour in word and doctrine.” The NET reads, “especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.”
[21] See also Ecclesiastes 9:7; Isaiah 25:6; 55:1; Amos 9:14; Matthew 15:11; and Romans 14:14. Other passages, such as Joseph and his brothers drinking to the point that they were “merry with wine” (Gen 43:34) should be used cautiously, since they do not seem to offer any judgment on rightness or wrongness.
[22] See also Genesis 9:21; 1 Samuel 1:14–15; 2 Samuel 13:28; Psalm 21:17; 75:8.
[23] Such unbelievers will likely not have a grasp of the Bible’s nuanced position on alcohol use, and therefore may wrongly think that Christians consider it to be forbidden without qualification.
[24] I offer the following guidelines for Christians wishing to consume alcohol:
1. If I have a problem with alcohol abuse, I should abstain.
2. If I am with someone who has a problem with alcohol abuse, I should abstain.
3. If I am with someone who thinks alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
4. If I think alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
5. If I am with someone who thinks I think alcohol consumption is wrong, I should abstain.
6. If I partake, it should only be done in moderation and not to the point of intoxication.
7. If I partake, it should only be done in accordance with the law.
8. If I partake, I should not advertise it.
9. Alcohol should not be consumed at official church gatherings.
[25] Technically, this term is an adverb (“greedily”).
[26] We noted earlier, under “one-woman man,” that this requirement does not imply that a man must have children in order to serve as an elder, only how things ought to be if he has children.
[27] Knight, 161–62.
[38] “Holy” is a puzzling translation choice for hosios in Titus 1:8 (the NLT rightly has “devout”). Usually, this English word is reserved for rendering hagios, which denotes the very specific ritual/cultic idea of holiness (i.e., God-likeness, God’s "God-ness," belonging exclusively to God). In the Septuagint, hosios occurs 41 times. In none of these is it used to translate the Hebrew word for "holy" (qōdeš). Most commonly, it translates ḥāsîd (“faithful, godly,” 27x). Other words it is used for are tāmîm (“faultless,” Prov 2:21; Amos 5:10) and its close cognate tōm (Prov 10:29; 29:10), nadîb (“noble,” Prov 17:26), zak (“clear, pure,” Prov 20:11), and ṭāhôr (“pure,” Prov 22:11). Nevertheless, the majority of modern English translations more or less consistently translate this word as “holy” in all of its eight NT occurrences (Acts 2:27; 13:34, 35; 1 Tim 2:8; Tit 1:8; Heb 7:26; Rev 15:4; 16:5).
Recent
Archive
2025
2021
2020
September
2019
January
November
Categories
no categories