BAGIAN 8

PAUL’S LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

Before examining the letters of 1 Thessalonians and Philippians, we must address an issue that
troubles many biblical scholars. The problem is that the book of Acts and the letters of 1 Timothy and Titus
say that Paul appointed elders and include detailed instructions about elders, yet in none of Paul’s nine
letters to the churches does he mention specifically the term elder (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians). As a result of this omission, most liberal
scholars conclude that during Paul’s lifetime there were no officially designated elders in any of the churches
he founded. They maintain that Luke’s claims about elders in the Pauline churches is unhistorical and that
the letters to Timothy and Titus were written by someone other than Paul. Clearly articulating this view,
Ernst Kfisemann, a German theologian and commentator, writes, “For we may assert without hesitation that
the Pauline community had no presbytery during the Apostle’s lifetime. Otherwise the silence on the subject
in every Pauline epistle is quite incomprehensible.”I Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic theologian and author,
also asserts, “At all events Luke is making an unhistorical addition—either theologically conditioned, or based
on a tradition which had developed in the meantime—when he maintains that Paul and Barnabas ‘appointed
elders...in every church’ (Acts 14:23; cf. especially 20217-35), for this is not borne out by the letters of Paul
himself.”2 Despite what these scholars have said about the absence of any mention of elders in Paul’s letters
to the churches, elders are addressed in the opening of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, where he uses the
alternative title, overseer. Paul writes: “Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in
Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers [elders] and deacons” (Phil. 121). So it is not accurate
to say that Paul never addresses elders in his letters to the churches. To claim that Acts, even in part, is
historically unreliable and that 1 Timothy and Titus are fictitious Pauline letters is to deny the doctrine of
divine inspiration, which in short states, “All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching. . .so that the
man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3216a,17; NIV). If Luke records that
Paul appointed elders and spoke to the elders (an event to which Luke was an eyewitness), when in truth he
didn’t, then Luke’s history is detrimental to the truth and misleading to the people of God. How could the
first Christians have confidence in Luke’s historical record, which claims to have “investigated everything
carefully” (Luke 123), if it states that Paul appointed elders when in fact he did not?

Moreover, those who deny the authenticity of 1 Timothy and Titus and the historical reliability of
Acts have an incomplete, skewed picture of Paul and his churches. If we are to accurately understand Paul
and his church practices, we must trust the complete historical record as delivered by the Holy Spirit of God.
This record includes Paul’s nine letters to the churches, his inspired letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon,
as well as Luke’s inspired historical accounts. Paul’s so-called failure to specifically address the elders in his
letters to the churches can be explained by his profound understanding of the new covenant people of God.
Because all members of the local congregation are saints, priests, and Spirit-empowered ministers, all are
responsible for life in the community. Therefore, Paul’s customary practice was to address the whole
community of saints when he wrote letters to local congregations. The New Testament offers multiple
examples of this Christ-centered ecclesiology in practice:

1. On the first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas appointed a body of elders in all the churches
of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Yet in his letter to these churches, Paul doesn’t
once address the elders (assuming that the churches of Acts 13:14- 14221 are the same as those
of Gal. 1:2). Instead, Paul writes: “Brethren [brothers and sisters] even if a man [or woman] is
caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual [not just elders], restore such a one in a spirit of
gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens,
and thus fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 621,2; italics added).
2. Disorder and sin in the church at Corinth had to be dealt with, yet in Paul’s letter to the church,
he calls upon no one person or group to resolve the problems. Does this mean there was no one
to call upon? Not at all! Paul could have called upon the dedicated Stephanas (1 Cor. 16215-18);
 Gaius, in whose home the church met (Rom. 16:23); Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom. 16:23);
Crispus, a converted chief ruler of the synagogue (Acts 1828); or a number of other gifted men
and prophets (1 Cor. 125,7). He could easily have asked one'of these men to help the
congregation resolve its problems, but, as always, he addresses the entire gathering of holy
saints (1 Cor. 1:2).
3. In 1 Thessalonians 5212,13, Paul calls upon the congregation to highly esteem and love those
who take the lead and give instruction. Hence we know that some form of leadership was in
place in the church. But in his two letters to the Thessalonians, Paul never calls upon these
leading men to correct problems within the church. Instead, he says, “Therefore encourage one
another, and build up one another, just as you also are doing” (1 Thess. 5:11).
4. The letter to the Philippians best illustrates Paul’s practice of addressing the entire congregation.
Despite his brief greeting to the overseers and deacons (Phil. 121), Paul addresses the rest of the
letter (except for 422,3) “to all the saints.”
5. Peter and James also address the churches in the same manner. Each one writes to
congregations in which the presence of elders is well documented, but they always address the
entire congregation, not just the officials (James 5:14; 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1).

There are, therefore, no contradictions between Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, and Paul’s letters to the
churches. The differences noted in these accounts reflect three different recipients and approaches, all of
which are essential to understanding Paul’s practices. Acts presents historical facts (what Paul did). First
Timothy and Titus address Paul’s personal assistants (church leaders, colleagues) who must act on his behalf
to deal with various groups within the church and to order the life of the church. The letters to the churches
teach and exhort the entire gathering of God’s congregation. It is to two of these letters that we now turn to
study the doctrine of eldership.

PAUL’S FIRST LETTER TO THE THESSALONIANS (5:12,13)

Because elders aren’t mentioned by name in this passage, it is often overlooked in the study of
eldership. Yet this passage is highly relevant to the subject of biblical eldership. The exhortations contained
in 1 Thessalonians 5212,13 most certainly apply to elders, or in the case of a new church, to potential elders.
The arrival of Paul and his missionary colleagues in Thessalonica is recorded in Acts 1721-9. Because of fierce
hostility to the gospel, however, Paul and his co-workers were able to stay in Thessalonica only a short
period of time—one to three months. Several months after their hasty departure from Thessalonica, they
wrote the letter of 1 Thessalonians from Corinth. The letter begins, “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the
church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace” (1 Thess.
1:1).

Although the church in Thessalonica was but a few months old and lacked its founding fathers—Paul,
Silas (probably an apostle, 1 Thess. 2:6), and Timothy (Paul’s personal assistant and special emissary)—a
group of men from within the congregation was providing leadership. Paul exhorts the infant congregation to
recognize and love these leaders: But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently
labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them
very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another (1 Thess. 5:12,13). Exactly who
these laboring brethren were, the text does not reveal. It is possible that these laboring brethren were elders
appointed by Paul and his fellow workers before they fled the city. It seems more likely, however, that they
were Spirit-empowered volunteers who were able and willing to care for the church in the missionaries’
absence. What is obvious is that some form of church leadership was in place. One didn’t need apostolic
appointment to love and sacrificially serve God’s people. In accordance with Paul’s practice (Acts 14:23), he,
or one of his representatives, would return to Thessalonica to appoint from among such proven leaders
official elders for the church.
 GIVE PROPER RECOGNITION TO YOUR LEADERS
In verse 12, the missionaries appeal to their new brothers and sisters in Christ to give proper
recognition to those who lead and instruct the congregation: “But we request of you, brethren, that you
appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you
instruction.” There is disagreement over the translation of the Greek verb eidenai, which usually means “to
know” but in this case is rendered “appreciate” by the New American Standard Bible. “To know” is certainly a
possible rendering for eidenai and is the choice of the Authorized (King James) Version. However, this
meaning seems inadequate in the context. The people would surely know those who lead and instruct them,
so the context demands a different verbal sense. Although it is difficult to be certain of the original intent,
the renderings “to acknowledge” or “to give proper recognition” fit the context well. In a similar context (1
Cor. 16215-18), Paul uses another Greek verb for “know” (epiginosko) that conveys the sense of “recognize”
or “acknowledge.” He writes, “And I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus. . ..
For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge [epiginoskete] such men” (1 Cor.
16:17,18). Immediately preceding this instruction, Paul urges the congregation to submit to all those who
devote themselves to caring for the church: Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of
Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to
the saints), that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors (1
Cor. 16:15,16; italics added).

The exhortation in 1 Corinthians 16216a, “be in subjection to such men,” appears to be a parallel
statement to “acknowledge such men” in verse 18b.3 So although 1 Thessalonians 5: 12 doesn’t explicitly
exhort believers to submit to those who labor among them, the exhortation to acknowledge certain people
as leaders certainly implies, as in 1 Corinthians 16:16,18, a submission to their leadership and instruction. In
other words, the people are to respond appropriately to their leadership and position. To better appreciate
Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to acknowledge these church leaders, we must remember that there
were at that time no distinctions between clergy and laity, there was no officialism, and there were no
priestly garments to distinguish certain members. Furthermore, we should not assume that anyone from
within the congregation was at this time financially supported full time in the service of the congregation.
Therefore, these humble, servant brethren (or at least some of them) could easily be overlooked and their
service underestimated. Furthermore, as the plural verbs indicate, a number of brothers provided leadership
for the church. So the missionaries’ request is that all those who labor, not just one prominent person, be
acknowledged. Those who deserve recognition are first described as “those who diligently labor among you.”
The word “labor” (kopiao) is a term used to describe manual labor (Luke 525; 1 Cor. 4:12; Eph. 4:28). It is a
strong word denoting toil and strenuous work that results in weariness and fatigue. It is a favorite Pauline
word. The phrase “diligently labor” then, reveals a vitally important aspect of eldership: hard work. In
assessing this phrase, John Calvin adds the pungent comment, “It follows from this that all idle bellies are
excluded from the number of pastors.”4 Caring for people’s spiritual welfare is stressful work. It is
emotionally draining, time-consuming, and often monotonous and discouraging. It requires a great deal of
personal dedication and sacrifice.

The prepositional phrase “among you” shows that the labor is on behalf of the local congregation,
not labor for personal employment. These brethren were working hard in the church. So a biblical eldership
is not a church board that conducts business for two or three hours a month—it is a hard-working, pastoral
body. It might appear to some readers that Paul refers to three separate groups of individuals in verse 12:
those who labor diligently, those who direct the congregation, and those who give instruction. However, the
structure of the Greek clause makes it clear that one group of individuals who discharges three functions is
the intended meaning.5 Furthermore, the second and third terrns—leading and instructing— most likely
explain the first term, “diligently labor.” These brethren, then, labor at leading and instructing. The plural
forms of these three present participles should not be overlooked. A team of men labors at leading and
instructing the congregation. Highlighting this point, Scottish theologian and biblical commentator James
Denney (1856-1917) writes: “At Thessalonica there was not a single president, a minister in our sense,
possessing to a certain extent an exclusive responsibility; the presidency was in the hands of a plurality of
men.”

These brethren worked hard to provide leadership for the congregation. The clause “have charge
over” translates the Greek word prohiste’mi, which can range in meaning from “lead,” “preside,” “govem,”
and “manage” to “support” and “care for,” or can combine the ideas of caring for and leading.7 Paul uses this
term in other places to describe a father’s management of the home, a spiritual gift, and the work of the
elders:

1. He uses prohistémi to describe a father’s management of his family, particularly the proper
control of his children: “He [the elder] must be one who manages [prohiste'mi] his own
household well keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know
how to manage [prohiste‘mi] his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1
Tim. 324,5). In this usage, prohistémi combines both the ideas of ruling and providing care.
2. Paul also speaks of the spiritual gift of leading: “And since we have gifts that differ according to
the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly. . .he who teaches, in his teaching; or he
who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads [prohiste’mi], with
diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom. 1226a,7b,8). Undoubtedly, some of
the Thessalonians had the gift of leadership and were using it for the edification of the church.
3. Of special interest is the fact that Paul uses the same term to describe the elders’ work in 1
Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders who rule well [prohistémi] be considered worthy of double honor.”

In the context of 1 Thessalonians 5212,13, which addresses the congregation’s proper response to
those who diligently labor at providing leadership, care, and instruction, prohistémi is best translated as:
“those who take the lead among you in the Lord.” In its verbal form, lead describes what these brothers do;
it is not used as a title. E.K. Simpson, a biblical commentator and specialist in Hellenistic Greek literature,
refers to this term as being “expressive of superintendence.”8 Expositors who dispute Paul’s appointment of
elders normally render this verb as “care for” or “aid” in order to avoid any notion of a formal leadership
role. Those who affirm that Paul appointed elders and was concerned about the appointment of elders,
however, render this term as “take the lead” or “lead and care for.” The phrase, “in the Lord,” defines the
elders’ unique sphere of leadership—not in civil government, but in matters that pertain to the Lord and His
people who are in spiritual union with Him and with one another. The fact that the phrase “in the Lord” is
added only to the term “have charge over” further suggests that leading is the sense in which Paul is using
the term. These new believers must remember that some of their fellow members have authority over them
in spiritual matters. Thus these leaders should be recognized and loved for their important work. And those
who lead must not forget that their authority is “in the Lord.” Everything they do must be done in
accordance with the Lord’s authority and in the Lord’s ways. The church is not their kingdom, and they are
not lords over the people.

In addition to leading the congregation, these brethren also work hard at instructing the church.
“Instruction” translates the Greek word noutheteo, which would be better rendered “admonish.” To instruct
in the sense of “admonish” means to warn or correct improper behavior or attitudes through sound
teaching. John R.W. Stott illuminates the meaning of this word when he writes that it “is almost invariably
used in an ethical context. It means to warn against bad behavior and its consequences, and to reprove, even
discipline, those who have done wrong. Being a negative word, it is often coupled with
‘teaching’ . . .Moreover noutheteo does not denote a harsh ministry. As Leon Morris has put it, ‘while its
tone is brotherly, it is big-brotherly.”’9 Christian admonition, then, is not angry scolding. It is loving
correction and warning based on God’s Word for the purpose of protecting and building up a brother or
sister (1 Cor. 4:14). Serious shepherd elders spend considerable time dealing with people’s sins, failures, and
offenses. It is not a part of the shepherding task that men naturally like, but it is an indispensable element of
true spiritual care. James Denney emphatically underscores the need for the ministry of admonition and the
people’s proper response to those who must admonish: We are certain to bring a good deal of the world into
the Church without knowing it; we are certain to have instincts, habits, dispositions, associates perhaps, and
likings, which are hostile to the Christian type of character; and it is this which makes admonition
indispensable. But we should remember that, as Christians, we are pledged to a course of life which is not in
all ways natural; to a spirit and conduct which are incompatible with pride; to a seriousness of purpose, to a
loftiness and purity of aim, which may all be lost through willfulness; and we should love and honour those
who put their experience at our service, and warn us when, in lightness of heart, we are on the way to make
shipwreck of our life. They do not admonish us because they like it, but because they love us and would save
us from harm; and love is the only recompense for such a service. Church leaders who fail to admonish God’s
people because they are afraid that people will leave the church or stop giving financially dishonor God,
disobey His Word, and fail miserably at spiritual care.

ESTEEM AND LOVE YOUR LEADERS

In verse 12, Paul appeals to the congregation to acknowledge all those who lead and admonish the
body, and in verse 13 he appeals to the congregation to “esteem them very highly in love.” The magnitude to
which the church is to esteem its leaders is expressed by the intensive adverb “very highly,” which means
“superabundantly” or “most exceedingly.” Biblical commentator George G. Findlay (1849-1919) speaks of
this exuberant word as “the strongest intensive possible to the language. So deep and warm should be the
affection uniting pastors and their flocks.” William Hendriksen, founder and leading author of the New
Testament Commentary series, adds this masterful comment: “Note the piling up of prefixes in this word: the
ocean of esteem having reached its outermost perimeter, reaches even higher and begins to flow outward,
overflowing its banks?”2 The church, then, has a divine obligation to highly esteem its spiritual leaders. God
cares about how people treat those who are in authority. The Bible exhorts us not only to obey, but to honor
our rulers (Rom. 13:7; 1 Peter 2217). When Paul, for example, realized he had spoken rudely to the high
priest, Ananias, he apologized by saying, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written,
‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’” (Acts 2325). If the disobedience and ingratitude of people
toward their civil leaders concerns God deeply, imagine how much greater is His concern that His people
properly honor their spiritual leaders! Our natural tendency is to take our leaders for granted, forget what
they have done for us, complain rather than be thankful, accentuate the bad, and disregard the good. For
example, God gave Israel some of the greatest leaders in human history—men like Moses and David. Yet
during difficult times, the people were ready in a moment to stone both Moses and David. Due to our basic
ingratitude and complaining spirit, the Scripture exhorts us to highly honor our spiritual leaders. To the
injunction to “esteem them very highly,” Paul adds the beautiful and comprehensive phrase, “in love.” We
usually emphasize the importance of church shepherds loving the people, and that is necessary, but here
Paul turns the tables and charges the people to love their shepherds. To Paul, love is the divine glue that
holds the leaders and congregation together through all the disagreements and hurts of congregational life.

N0 group of elders is perfect. All elders have weaknesses, and each believer has a unique perspective
on how elders should operate. As a result, there is always some degree of tension between leaders and
followers. Even the best elders are inevitably accused of pride, wrong judgment, doing too much or too little,
moving too slowly or too quickly, changing too much or not enough, and being too harsh or too passive. As
commentator EJ. Bricknell observes, “The exercise of authority is always apt to provoke resentment.”l3
Difficult situations arise in which leaders cannot avoid angering some part of the congregation. Conflict
between leaders and the led can at times become severe. Ultimately, however, God uses these conflicting
situations to show us our pride, selfishness, and lovelessness. Paul E. Billheimer, well-known radio Bible
teacher and author, is right in noting that the local church—with all its problems, stresses, and conflicts—is
actually a testing ground for our growth in love and preparation for future ruling with the Lord: The local
church, therefore, may be viewed as a spiritual workshop for the development of agape love. Thus the
stresses and strains of a spiritual fellowship offer the ideal situation for the testing and maturing of the all-
important qualification for sovereignty. Most controversies in local congregations are produced, not
primarily by differences over essentials, but by unsanctified human ambitions, jealousy, and personality
clashes. The real root of many such situations is spiritual dearth in individual believers, revealing lamentable
immaturity in love. Therefore the local congregation is one of the very best laboratories in which individual
believers may discover their real spiritual emptiness and begin to grow in agape love. This is done by true
repentance, humbly confessing the sins of jealousy, envy, resentment, etc., and begging forgiveness from
one another. This approach will result in real growth in the love that covers

Believers who love their shepherds will have greater understanding and tolerance for their
shepherds’ mistakes. In love, believers will view difficult situations in the best possible light. In love, believers
will be less critical and more responsive to the elders’ instruction and admonition. It cannot be emphasized
enough that the best thing a congregation can do for its leaders is to love them. Love (and only love) suffers
long (1 Cor. 13:4,6). Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 428). In his remarkably penetrating booklet, The
Mark of the Christian, Francis Schaeffer reminds us that the real issue to be dealt with in most of our conflicts
is not the issue at hand but our lack of Christlike love toward our fellow Christians: I have observed one thing
among true Christians in their differences in many countries: What divides and severs true Christian groups
and Christians—what leaves a bitterness that can last for 20, 30, 40 years (or for 50 or 60 years in a son’s or
daughter’s memory)—is not the issue of doctrine or belief that caused the differences in the first place.
Invariably, it is a lack of love—and the bitter things that are said by true Christians in the midst of differences.
Love and esteem are due leaders “because of their work.” Leaders are not to be loved and esteemed
because they are older men, hold special religious titles, have received an apostolic appointment, or have
winning personalities. Rather, they are to be loved “because of their work.” This point is all too easily
overlooked. Leon Morris, one of the most prolific biblical commentators of this century, ably captures the
idea when he states: “A special kind of love within the brotherhood is love for the leaders; they are to be
loved because of their work, not necessarily because of their personal qualities.”16 Caring for people’s
problems, handling their seemingly endless complaints, refereeing interpersonal conflicts, confronting sins,
and encouraging people toward maturity in Christ is work indeed. It nearly buried Moses, a man of enormous
strength and ability. So pe0ple need to understand that leading a church is tough work. Only a few people
are able or even care to bear this weighty responsibility. Those who do it certainly deserve to be loved and,
as Leon Morris wisely points out, followers have significant responsibilities in the leader-follower
relationship: It is a matter of fact that we are often slow to realize to this day that effective leadership in the
church of Christ demands effective following. If we are continually critical of them that are set over us, small
wonder if they are unable to perform the miracles that we demand of them. If we bear in mind “the work’s
sake” we may be more inclined to esteem them very highly in love.

LIVE IN PEACE
It is not easy to live in peace, even with fellow Christians. Satan does all he can to create warfare and
division among God’s people, and Christians often help him by acting in pride and selfishness rather than in
humility and love. In fact, so many churches are marked by fighting and quarreling that a church at peace
seems like an oasis in the desert. Yet the testimony and spiritual growth of a church is intricately tied to the
measure of peace it enjoys. So Paul appropriately concludes his exhortation with a command directed to
both the leaders and congregation: “Live in peace with one another.” The relationship between a
congregation and its leaders always involves a delicate tension that can easily erupt into misunderstanding,
ill feeling, or even division, such as occurred many times between Moses and the people of Israel. Both the
leaders and the led must be fully aware of potential conflicts and their solemn duty to conscientiously work
for peace. Thus the New Testament repeatedly exhorts and teaches Christians about the importance of
peacemaking: 1) Blessed are the peacemakers (Matt. 529); 2) Be at peace with one another (Mark 9250); 3)
So then let us pursue the things which make for peace (Rom. 14:19); 4) Live in peace (2 Cor. 13:11); 5) Being
diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3); 6) And let the peace of Christ rule
in your hearts (Col. 3:15); 7) Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every
circumstance (2 Thess. 3:16); 8) And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who
make peace (James 3:18); 9) Let him seek peace and pursue it (1 Peter 3:11). Concerning the New
Testament’s emphasis on peace, biblical scholar F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892) writes that Paul “is giving instruction
on the very essence of membership when in each of the nine Epistles addressed to Ecclesiae [churches] he
makes the peace of God to be the supreme standard for them to aim at, and the perpetual self-surrender of
love the comprehensive means of attaining it.”18 Despite certain debatable details, the main points of Paul’s
exhortations to the church at Thessalonica are perfectly clear: to acknowledge and esteem in love those who
work hard at leading and admonishing the church. Furthermore, his plea goes out to all members of the
church—leaders and congregation alike—to work for peace. This divine instruction is all too easily forgotten
when we face the pressures, hurts, and conflicts of life. Referring to the need to obey this inspired
exhortation, Scottish commentator John Eadie (1810-1876) writes, “On obedience to it depended, in no small
measure, the peace and the spiritual prosperity of the church.”

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS (1:1)

Unlike 1 Thessalonians, which was written to an infant church, Philippians was written to a church
that was more than ten years old. It was a model of spiritual maturity and faithfulness. At the time he wrote
Philippians, Paul was under house arrest in Rome (A.D. 60-62). The Philippians dearly loved Paul, and while
he was in custody they sent a generous loving offering and their personal envoy, Epaphroditus, to
communicate their love to him. Paul responded by writing the letter of Philippians. Among Paul’s letters to
the churches, Philippians is unique in that Paul greets both “the overseers and deacons” in his salutation:
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including
the overseers and deacons (Phil. 121). Paul’s brief mention of overseers and deacons provides a wealth of
valuable information for our study on eldership. It confirms, as Luke states, that elders were established in
the Pauline churches. It also confirms that there were elders in the churches of Macedonia (Europe), not just
in Asia Minor and Palestine as Acts records. The most likely reason Paul mentions the overseers and deacons
in his opening salutation is that they had a special part in initiating and organizing the church’s financial
contribution to him. Perhaps a letter, signed “the overseers and deacons,” accompanied the offering. For
example, in the letter to the churches of the Gentiles from Jerusalem, the apostles and elders (representing
the whole church in Jerusalem) wrote: “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings” (Acts 15 :23). If the Philippian overseers
and deacons followed the same practice, then Paul acknowledges their special part. Of course, there may
have been other reasons for greeting the church officials in this manner, but this seems to be the most
obvious. Paul’s usage of the terms overseers and deacons indicates a generally accepted recognition of
official designations for church leadership positions (offices). Some commentators, however (usually those
who reject Luke’s record of Paul’s appointment of elders), claim that the terms overseers and deacons are
used functionally to designate all the people who supervise and serve the local church. They deny that Paul is
referring to specific church offices. They support this view by the absence of the definite article before the
terms overseers and deacons. But the absence of the definite article in Greek is insufficient reason to assign a
purely functional sense to these terms. The context itself makes the terms definite. If Paul wanted to speak
generally, he would not have used the noun forms as he did. He would most likely have used the participial
forms, overseeing and serving.

The nouns episkopos and, to a lesser extent, diakonos were recognized, official designations in Greek
society. Ernest Best, former professor of biblical criticism at the University of Glasgow, makes this point
emphatically clear: I say “officials” because episkopos at any rate could not have been used in any other way
than as a designation of an office. . .. A first century Greek could not have used it in a purely functional sense
without suggesting that the person who exercised oversight held “official” status. There is also some, though
less, evidence that diakonos was used in the same way. The fact that one was certainly used in the sense of a
group of officials implies that the other was also.20 Finally, there is obvious similarity between the joint use
of the words overseers and deacons in this passage and those found in 1 Timothy 3:1-l3. Both letters were
written in the early to mid sixties (AD. 62- 66). We know there were overseers and deacons at Ephesus during
this time (1 Tim. 3:1-13), so it is likely that there were officially recognized overseers and deacons at Philippi
as well. The interpretation, then, that assigns merely a functional sense to Paul’s usage of overseers and
deacons in this instance is confusing and nearly meaningless. It is also significant that only two separate
groups of officeholders, “overseers and deacons,” appear in Paul’s salutation to the Philippians. Some fifty
years after Paul’s letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote a letter to the church at Philippi in which he gave
instructions concerning the leaders of the church. Polycarp, who was born around AD. 70 and died AD. 156,
was the overseer of the church in Smyrna in Asia Minor. He was a disciple of John the apostle and a
distinguished martyr for Christ. It is immensely relevant to us that in his letter to “the Church of God which
sojoumeth at Philippi” (ca., AD. 115), Polycarp refers to only two groups of officials: elders and deacons. He
comments considerably on elders, even mentioning one elder (Valens, who had fallen into sin because of
greed) by name: Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submitting yourselves to the
presbyters [elders] and deacons as to God and Christ. . .. And the presbyters also must be compassionate,
merciful towards all men, turning back the sheep that are gone astray, visiting all the infirm, not neglecting a
widow or an orphan or a poor man: but providing always for that which is honorable in the sight ofGod and
ofmen, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons, unrighteous judgment, being far from all love of
money, not quick to believe anything against any man, not hasty in judgment, knowing that we are all
debtors of sin

Polycarp makes no mention of a chief overseer (bishop) in his letter, demonstrating that there was
no such individual at Philippi. In fact, although Polycarp was called “the overseer of Smyrna” by his friend
Ignatius,22 he refers to himself simply as Polycarp in his own letter to the Philippians. He clearly places
himself with the elders: “Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him.”23 From these two letters, we can
conclude that in Paul’s day and for the next fifty years there were only two recognized groups of officials at
Philippi: overseers (who are elders) and deacons. There is no evidence of the three office bearers that are
found in the second century (overseer, elders, and deacons).24 Paul’s usage of the plural nouns indicates
that Philippi had a plurality of overseers and deacons. The use of “overseers” (plural) has profound
implications. In one stroke, the plural form utterly confounds later theories of church government. However,
in their efforts to explain away the plurality of overseers in the church at Philippi, some scholars claim that
there were several congregations in Philippi, each of which had a single overseer. But this view has no basis
in the text or in the historical record, as we have already shown (see chapter 7, page 142). Fifty years after its
founding, Polycarp writes to the church (not churches) at Philippi and counsels it to submit to its deacons and
elders. Although Paul singles out overseers and deacons for special mention in his greeting, he speaks to the
whole community throughout the body of the letter. Without this brief, introductory reference, there would
be no way to know, either from the rest of the letter or from Acts, that the Philippian church had overseers
and deacons. It is clear that the overseers and deacons are accorded no elevated status above the
congregation. The letter is written “to all the saints. . .in Philippi,” and the terms “overseers and deacons” are
subjoined to this phrase. The shepherds can be mentioned after the sheep because they are also part of the
sheep. They are first among equals, not clerics over lay pe0ple. Contrasting the obvious organizational
changes that took place in the second century with Philippians 121, John Eadie succinctly concludes: “The
mention of episkopoi in the plural, and the naming of both classes of office-bearers after the general body of
members, indicate a state of things which did not exist in the second century.”

IDENTIFYING THE OVERSEERS

The first Gentile Christians and their leaders utilized the common Greek title, overseer (episkopos),
to describe their community leaders. The term was a well-known designation of office equivalent to our
word superintendent. In the Greek New Testament, episkopos appears four times to describe local church
officials: 1) And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. . .. “Be on guard
for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopoi], to
shepherd [pastor] the church of God” (Acts 20:17,28a); 2) Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to
all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers [episkopoi] and deacons (Phil. 1:1); 3)
An overseer [episkopos], then, must be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2a); 4) For the overseer [episkopos] must
be above reproach as God’s steward (Titus 1:7a).

So who are the church overseers? It is evident from the rest of the New Testament that the
individuals referred to as overseers are the same as those called elders. Although both terms apply to the
same body of men, elder reflects the Jewish heritage that stresses dignity, maturity, honor, and wisdom,
while overseer reflects a Greek-speaking origin that stresses the work of oversight. The following Scriptures
confirm that the terms overseer and elder were used interchangeably in New Testament times:

1. Acts 20:17,28. Luke writes that Paul sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus. But in the
sermon to the same elders, Paul says that the Holy Spirit made them—the elders—“overseers.”
This plainly indicates that elders and overseers represent the same group of leaders.
2. Titus 125-7. In verse 5, Paul mentions his previous directive that Titus appoint elders in every
city. In verse 6, Paul begins to list the elders’ qualifications and interjects the word “overseer” in
verse 7. Since there is no clear indication that Paul has changed subjects, “overseer” must be
another term for elder.
3. 1 Peter 521,2. Peter exhorts elders to oversee the church. Since elders oversee the local church,
they are also overseers.
4. 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:17-25. In 1 Timothy 5217, Paul speaks of the leading role and great value of
“elders who rule well. . .especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” But in 1
Timothy 3:1-13, he lists the qualifications of overseers and deacons, making no mention of
elders. All the questions are resolved when we understand that the word “overseer” in 3:1 is a
generic, singular form for overseers, and that “overseers” is used interchangeably for elders.
Thus, 1 Timothy 3 and 5 refer to only two groups of men—elders and deacons.

Unfortunately, the terms elders and overseers, which occur interchangeably in the New Testament,
later came to refer to two completely separate officials: the overseer and the council of elders.26 Jerome,
one of the greatest students of the original biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew) in the early centuries of
Christianity, boldly asserted against all the traditions of his day that bishops and elders originally were the
same: A presbyter and a bishop are the same...the churches were governed by a joint council of the
presbyters. . .. If it be supposed that it is merely our opinion and without scriptural support that bishop and
presbyter are one...examine again the words the apostles addressed to the Philippians. . .. Now Philippi is but
one city in Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could not have been numerous bishops. It is simply
that at that time the same persons were called either bishops or presbyters.27 Jerome was not the only early
biblical commentator to affirm that elders and bishops were originally the same. J.B. Lightfoot writes: But,
though more full than other writers, [Jerome] is hardly more explicit. Of his predecessors the Ambrosian
Hilary had discerned the same truth. Of his contemporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all acknowledge it. Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on the epistles
containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is
affirmed. In the succeeding ages bishops and popes accept the verdict of St. Jerome without question. Even
late in the medieval period, and at the era of the reformation, the justice of his criticism or the sanction of his
name carries the general suffrages of theologians.28 I conclude with Lightfoot’s classic evaluation: “It is a fact
now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament
the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (episkopos) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’
(presbyteros).