Biblical Elders

Not long after God came, I was walking through a Christian bookstore with my beautiful wife when we spotted a newly published book by Alexander Strauch about Biblical eldership. I was interested in the topic of eldership because the Baptist church we had joined had elders; a feature that was not the norm in Southern Baptist circles. Our pastor had told us that he had been convicted in reading the scriptures that churches should have elders, so he had established that office within the year before we had joined. I had never heard of Alexander Strauch, and I still know very little about him. I don't even remember the name of the book, but I bought it, and read it, and re-read it.

I'll never forget what happened when I tried to share Strauch's premise with my younger brother – who, at that time, though younger, had more knowledge of the scriptures than I did. Strauch's premise was that all churches are to have a plurality of elders – a team of equal 'pastors' if you will – and that no churches were to have a single, clerical, 'Pastor' as we all understand that word. My brother rebutted that I and II Timothy and Titus were written to Pastors, and that the angels of the churches in Revelation 1:16 - 2:22 were the Pastors of the churches. I, not having a full enough grasp on the NT scriptures to answer him on those points, said, "Well, I don't know how to answer that, but he (Strauch) has an answer for it in the book."

"Yeah, well," my brother dismissed, "they always do."

I have a lot more knowledge of the scriptures now than I did then.

I have spent a lot of time looking on my own and with my family at this issue and what the scriptures actually do and do not say about it. We have searched and debated and countered and rehashed it from every angle we can find in the Bible. Certainly Alexander Strauch introduced to me the idea of elder-led churches, but what I say here I now say on my own, from the scriptures, as unequivocal and irrefutable truth of the Bible: All ekklesias are to have a plurality of elders – a team of equal 'pastors' if you will – and no ekklesias are to have a single, clerical, 'Pastor' as we all understand that word.

That is the clearly established will of God for the Body of Christ in all places and in all times.
 
Pastors
In your English translation of the Bible, you will (or should) find the word 'pastors' used precisely one time only, in Ephesians 4:11 "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers..."

Well there you have it right? Pastors right there in the Bible?

Actually, the word there translated 'pastors' should be 'shepherd'. It is, literally, 'shepherd' (or 'herdsman') and in every single other usage of this word in the NT it is translated 'shepherd', including all usages pertaining to the oversight of God's people in the ekklesia. Jesus Himself is called the 'Chief Shepherd' in I Peter 5, where he also uses the word 'shepherd' to describe the office of the elder. There Peter uses all three of the terms used in the scriptures to describe the Biblical elders: 'elder', 'overseer', and 'shepherd'. Peter writes, "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder ... Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away."

Elder: overseer: shepherd. One office. These are the terms used in the scriptures for this office.

If Peter alone does not seem sufficient to you, look at what Paul also says in Acts 20: "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the [ekklesia] ... 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the [ekklesia] of God which He purchased with His own blood.' "

Elder: overseer: shepherd. One office. These are the terms used in the scriptures for this office.

What about the term 'bishop'? Same deal as 'pastor'. The word there is literally 'overseer', and we have wrongly plugged in a post-scriptural word, 'bishop', which did not exist at that time and simply clouds up the water. There is no good linguistic ground for throwing that term into the mix, and both 'bishop' and 'pastor' should be avoided as unscriptural.

Plurality of Elders
The term 'plurality of elders' merely indicates that there is supposed to be at least two or more elders per ekklesia, as opposed to one 'Pastor', and having an 'Assistant Pastor' is not the same thing. Assistant Pastors are more like the Vice-President – there just in case something happens to the President. In the Bible, if you were using the analogy of a President, then each ekklesia would have several equal co-presidents, and no vice-presidents. 'Pastor' is a poor term to use for reasons described above, but the ekklesia of God is intended by God to have several equal 'co-pastors': not one central clerical Pastor.

Where does one see the pattern for plurality of elders?

Going back to Acts 20, Paul is in Miletus. He wants to address to leadership of the Ephesian ekklesia. He send for the 'elders' of the ekklesia. One ekklesia, multiple elders. We don't know how many, but without any doubt there are a plurality. If we back up to Acts 14:21, after Paul and Barnabus have preached the Gospel elsewhere and are returning to Antioch, they went back through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch-in-Pisidia. Verse 23 says, "So when they had appointed elders in every [ekklesia], and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
They appointed elders, plural; in each ekklesia, singular.

Going forward again to Acts 15: 2(b), "...they determined that Paul and Barnabus and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem (one ekklesia) to the apostles and elders (plural), about this question."

Paul's letter to Philippi is addressed, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the [overseers] and deacons:" Again, overseers, plural, in one ekklesia.

In Titus 1:5 Paul writes, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders (plural) in every city (singular) as I commanded you..."

James 5: 14 says, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders (plural) of the [ekklesia] (singular), and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

Very clearly, in the Bible, there is no mention anywhere in sight of a 'Pastor', and every ekklesia is to have a plurality of elders, which are also sometimes referred to as overseers or shepherds. If the churches were as obstinate on the Doctrine of the Trinity as on this clear testimony of scripture, we would have to declare the church universally heretical.

Here is a list of every scripture on the subject (at least that I have found) so you can look at it for yourself. Please, please do look into it for yourself. I hope you will read them all over and over, mark them in your Bible, and search diligently for any scriptural basis to counter what I have said here.
• Matt 23: 6-12
• Acts 11: 30
• Acts 14: 23
• Acts 15: 2
• Acts 15: 4
• Acts 15: 22
• Acts 15: 23
• Acts 16: 4
• Acts 20: 17-38 (elder: overseer: shepherd)
• Acts 21: 18
• Eph 3: 11
• Phi 1: 1
• I Tim 3: 1-7
• I Tim 4: 14
• I Tim 5: 17-19
• Titus 1: 5-16 (also note the use of 'elder' and 'overseer' as equivalent here)
• James 5: 14,15
• I Pet 5: 1-5 ('elder': shepherd: overseer)

Addendum: In Eph 3:11, striking the improper term 'pastor' in favor of 'shepherd', note the following:
"And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers." The structure here indicates that shepherd and teachers are the same, speaking of the same office, i.e. "...some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some shepherds-and-teachers."
That would leave Four scripturally authentic terms for this office: elders, overseers, shepherds, teachers. But NOT the invalid 'pastors' or 'bishop'.

With this in mind see also:
• Gal 6:6
• I Tim 2: 12
• I Tim 3: 2
• I Tim 5:17 ('doctrine' = 'teaching')
• Titus 1:11
• James 3: 1
• Also the entire letter of I Timothy, considering that it is written to establish proper government in the ekklesia, and thus proper 'doctrine' or teaching, and to refute wrong teaching: go through and mark every single usage of the words teach or teaching or doctrine (or any such) in this letter.


Of Angels and Epistles
So now, going back to the beginning, what about my brother's point that I and II Timothy and Titus were written to Pastors, and that the angels of the ekklesias are the Pastors of the ekklesias? Actually, these are much easier to deal with than many of you may be thinking. Both are, with apologies to all concerned, ignorant assumptions born of our unbiblical Pastor-minded frame of reference.

I and II Timothy and Titus have, it is true, been generally referred to as the 'Pastoral Epistles', but not by Paul or elsewhere in the NT. He wrote nothing in them of any sort. To some extent this description does fit well enough as Paul was giving instruction on governance in the ekklesia. This, however, by no means indicates that Timothy or Titus were 'Pastors' as we consider that term. This is a fairly common assumption, but a groundless one, especially in view of the fact that you simply cannot find 'Pastors' in the NT scriptures at all. In point of fact Timothy and Titus were not pastors, they were apostles. No, not The Apostles, but they were apostles, sent ones, or 'ambassadors'. In his previously referred to book, Alexander Strauch called them 'Apostolic Delegates'; a term which fits well enough though it does sound a bit officious. I have heard some refer to Timothy and Titus as, "members of Paul's ministry team", which also is a very reasonable description. Luke calls them simply 'Paul's travel companions'. Regardless of how you exactly parse the name for them, they were both members of a group of men who travelled with Paul at his command, a group which also included John Mark, Luke, Trophimus, Tychicus, Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, Gaius of Derbe, Epaphroditus, Demas, Crescens, Artemas and others. These men were used by Paul wherever he had need of them, and a careful look at the Acts and the Pauline letters – including I and II Timothy and Titus – will show that they were constantly being sent out by Paul and called back to him, or left behind for a time to finish things up, or sent ahead to prepare for Paul to rejoin them later, etc., etc. Wherever they went they carried the weight of Paul's authority, acting on his behalf, and the most obvious biblical term that I can find in the scriptures to describe them is 'apostles'. But they certainly were not 'Pastors'.

Likewise, I have heard others besides my brother interpret the, "angels of the seven ekklesias" in Revelation chapters one and two as, "the Pastors of the seven ekklesias". This too seems a compelling interpretation from our unbiblical Pastor-minded frame of reference, but it has a couple of notable problems. First, Jesus Himself gives the interpretation of the 'seven lampstands' as being the 'Seven Ekklesias', and the 'Seven Stars' as being the 'Seven Angels of the ekklesias'. If Jesus tells us that the interpretation of the seven stars is seven angels, what is our basis for deciding that Jesus' interpretation is in need of further interpretation? Put another way, as the notes for this section in the Nelson Study Bible state, "it would be unlikely to interpret one symbol with another symbol." If so, why does Jesus leave us still to guess the actual meaning of the second symbol (angels) that the first symbol (stars) represents? If we are free to assume that Jesus' interpretation of the stars is actually a symbol needing further interpretation, what then do we say about the parallel symbolism of the Lampstands? Does this also mean that Jesus' interpretation here is open to further interpretation? If we can demonstrate a Biblically sound reason to interpret the interpretation as being still another symbol rather than the actual interpretation, what basis do we have for deciding that the proper interpretation of the interpretation is 'The Pastors' of the seven ekklesias?

And, after all that, even if we do interpret 'angels' here as really meaning some human being in the seven ekklesias, how do we determine who he is, especially in view of the fact that there are clearly and without any doubt no genuine references to any 'Pastors' in the early ekklesia?

Of course, one may well ask, as I at first did, why on earth Jesus would have John write messages to literal, spiritual angels, which does seem a bit odd. Why exactly I cannot say, and I am not stating authoritatively that this is the case, but it would not be without scriptural precedent. In the Prophets, God had both Isaiah and Ezekiel write messages to Satan himself (Isaiah 14: 3-21 and Ezekiel 28: 11-19). Further, especially in the NT, including the revelation, stars are symbolic of literal, spiritual angels; so it would be quite consistent biblically to symbolize the 'seven angels' with 'seven stars' and to interpret them thus.

Regardless, even if we do interpret the 'angels' as being some man in each of the ekklesias, Jesus does not say who that is. It could be some particular elder within the elders. It could as easily be some prophet in the ekklesia. It could even be someone else who holds no particular office, or a combination of all three depending on the particular ekklesia. But to say that it is 'The Pastor' is simply scriptural ignorance as it says no such thing here, and there is no such person anywhere else in the NT.