Scriptural Qualifications of Elders:

Leadership Qualifications

Introduction

Text: 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9.
The position occupied by the "overseers" (1 Pt. 5:2) of God's household obviously involves leadership.
Two specific leadership skills are prerequisite: ruling and teaching.

I. THE ELDER'S ABILITY TO RULE

"A bishop then must be . . . THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE" (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. Tit. 1:6).
1. Mias gunaikos aner = lit., a man of one woman. Three basic approaches to this are taken:
  1. An elder need not be married, but if he is, he must not be guilty of polygamy, concubinage, unscriptural divorce and remarriage, adultery, etc. In other words, a man merely must be "blameless" in regard to marriage-related sins.
  2. An elder need not be married, but if he is, he must not be a digamist, i.e. married serially.
    1. Cf. "not have been married more than once" (Jerusalem Bible; cf. Moffatt).
    2. This option has nothing to support it but Roman Catholic tradition.
    3. The NT teaches (Rom. 7:2,3; etc.) that death severs the "bond" between husband and wife, leaving the survivor free to be honorably married to another.
  3. An elder must be married, must be scripturally married, and must not be guilty of polygamy, etc.
2. Arguments favoring the first approach.
  1. Argument that the qualification is "restrictive" and not "positive" in nature:
    1. Since Paul specified one wife, his intent was only to restrict the eldership to the non-polygamists in the early church, not to positively enjoin marriage upon the elder.
    2. Paul only meant "blamelessness" in matters of sin pertaining to the opposite sex.
  2. Argument from other passages that do not exclude celibacy:
    1. "Own wife" (1 Cor. 7:2).
    2. "Wife of one man" (1 Tim. 5:9).
  3. Arguments regarding celibacy:
    1. A man can get experience "ruling" without being married.
    2. It would be arbitrary to exclude celibates, since celibacy is not sinful per se.
    3. Paul taught that celibates can serve God better in some ways - 1 Cor. 7:32-35.
    4. Paul himself was celibate and an elder. (There is, however, no evidence whatsoever in the NT that Paul was an elder.)
    5. Jesus was celibate and He was the "Chief Shepherd" (1 Pt. 5:4).
  4. Arguments from outside the Scriptures:
    1. The consensus of scholarship approves of unmarried elders.
    2. Requiring marriage would exclude some of the most "qualified" men in the church.
    3. Requiring marriage leads to absurd hypothetical conclusions.
3. However, the most natural sense of the language and the context point toward the third approach.
  1. One = more than none and less than two. Cf. Eph. 4:4-6.
  2. The language is both positive (enjoining: one wife) and negative (restricting: only one wife).
    1. If Paul's meaning was "one wife" (more than none, less than two) no wording he could have used would have been more apt.
      1. "Married" would require marriage, but would not exclude polygamy.
      2. "Not a polygamist" would exclude polygamy, but not require marriage.
    2. Only "husband of one wife" requires marriage, scripturality in the marriage, faithfulness to one's spouse, etc. and also excludes all wrongful extra-marital relationships, etc.
  3. A bachelor simply is not what the text says an elder must be: a husband.
  4. Common sense suggests several needs for an elder to be married.
  5. The man who has never been married has not experienced the primary relationship in life in which a man learns how to lead others.
    1. What about widowers?
      1. Might a man who had been married be appointed an elder?
      2. What about the case of a man whose wife dies while he is serving as an elder? Does he remain qualified even though his wife is no longer living?
    2. The safest course is to hold to the marriage qualification as it is stated in 1 Tim. 3:2 and
      Tit. 1:6 -- the elder is required to be the husband of one wife, not to have been such.
  6. The man who has failed to lead his wife well (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:19; 1 Pt. 3:7; etc.) has failed in the most fundamental, important, and challenging leadership role in life, no matter what success he may have had as a leader in his career, etc.
  7. When we really want to know about a man's leadership qualities, we look at how he has done in the deepest, most long-term relationship in his life: the husband-wife relationship. There is where we will find his true character and his true ability to lead others in a positive direction.
"ONE WHO RULES HIS OWN HOUSE WELL, having his children in submission with all reverence
(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?"
(1 Tim. 3:4,5).
1. The words used:
  1. "Rule" = proistemi = lit., to stand before > be at the head of; direct, preside over, manage; rule with care and diligence. Cf. 1 Tim. 5:17.
  2. "Submission" = hupotage = subordination, subjection. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:11.
  3. "Reverence" = semnotes = respect, dignity, seriousness.
  4. "Take care of" = epimeleomai = look after, have responsibility for; involves "solicitude expressed in forethought" (Bullinger). Cf. Lk. 10:34,35.
2. Arguments to evade this qualification are similar to those for unmarried elders.
3. The man who rules his own house well elicits obedience and respect.
  1. Cf. "able to control and command the respect of his children" (Phillips).
  2. Both elements -- ability to control and maintenance of respect -- are required.
4. It is dangerous and unscriptural to minimize this qualification, or substitute for it other types of managerial skills.
5. The church is a family relationship -- it requires family-type leadership.
"HAVING FAITHFUL CHILDREN not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (Tit. 1:6).
1. "Faithful children" (NKJV, KJV). Cf. "children that believe" (ASV; cf. NASV, NIV), his children are "believers" (RSV, ESV; NEB, TEV, Jer).
  1. What is meant by faithful "children," i.e. must a man have more than one faithful child?
    1. The term "children" can mean "offspring" or "young people," without regard to number.
    2. This is true in English as well as in Greek. A sign that says "No Children Admitted" would be understood to apply to any number of children, even just one.
    3. Many biblical texts illustrate this usage: Gen. 21:7; 2 Chron. 28:3 (cf. 2 Kgs. 16:3);
      Mt. 22:24 (cf. Deut. 25:5); Lk. 14:26; 1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 5:4,10; etc.
    4. Would Eph. 6:4 be thought to apply only to fathers who have two or more children?
    5. Most of those who believe that a man is disqualified if he has even one un-faithful child, would argue that the expression "unbelieving children" can apply when there is one such child in the family.
    6. It should be pointed out that even though a man with only one child may technically satisfy the bare legal requirement of the qualification "faithful children," the more faithful children a man has the more confidence we are able to have in his ability to lead others to follow
      the Lord.
  2. What is meant by "faithful" or "believing" children? Three questions arise:
    1. Must an elder's children be faithful Christians?
      1. Although pistos ("faithful") can mean "trustworthy" or "dependable," it is rarely, if ever, used to refer to anyone after the establishment of the church who was not a Christian. Cf. 1 Tim. 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; Rev. 2:10,13. Cf. Ac. 10:45; 16:1; 2 Cor.
        6:15; 1 Tim. 3:11; etc.
      2. Cf. apistos ("unfaithful" or "unbelieving") - 1 Cor. 6:6; 7:12-15; 14:22-24; 2 Cor. 6:14,15; 1 Tim. 5:8; etc.
    2. Must all of an elder's children be faithful Christians?
      1. Do the expressions "his own house" and "children" mean the sum of all those under a man's care as head of the household?
      2. What if some of the children are still too young to have obeyed the gospel?
      3. Of those old enough to have obeyed the gospel, what if some are faithful Christians and others are not?
    3. Must an elder's children be faithful Christians at present?
      1. What if some of an elder's children become unfaithful to the Lord after having been faithful Christians at one time?
      2. What if those who have become unfaithful did so as adults, no longer living as children under their father's authority?
      3. To what extent is a man responsible for the decisions of a child who turns out to be a "stony" or "thorny" Christian (Mt. 13:18-23)?
      4. To what extent does a child who turns away from the Lord damage his father's credibility and respect as a spiritual leader?
        
        This is an important issue that should be weighed very carefully.
        
        Sometimes the unfaithfulness of a child impairs a man's reputation and undercuts the credibility of his leadership and teaching even when the unfaithfulness was not the result of parental failure. Cf. Gen. 34:30;
        Lev. 21:9; etc.
        
        Consider the principles in Prov. 28:7; 29:15; etc.
      5. What if a man's faithful children are no longer living?
2. "Not accused of dissipation or insubordination."
  1. Asotia = lit., not to be saved > debauchery, riotous excess, reckless and profligate living.
    Cf. Lk. 15:13; 1 Pt. 4:4.
  2. Anupotaktos = lit., not made subject > unruly, undisciplined, rebellious, out of control.
The controversy that too often surrounds these qualifications should not divert our attention from the importance of what is plain.
1. We should not make the matter more difficult than it really is.
2. Regarding a prospective elder's family, we must straightforwardly decide whether -- at the present time -- the man does or does not possess these two qualifications:
  1. Is he one who (1 Tim. 3:4,5) rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence?
  2. Is he one who (Tit. 1:6) has faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination?
3. If a prospective elder has the latter qualification, but he also has one or more children who are not faithful to the Lord, we should simply ask:
  1. Are the unfaithful children that he has an indication that he does not rule his own house well?
  2. And, even if he does rule his own house well, is the man's influence so affected by the unfaithful children that he has that his work as an elder would be handicapped?
4. These questions are not very hard to answer in most cases.

II. THE ELDER'S ABILITY TO TEACH

"ABLE TO TEACH" (1 Tim. 3:2 - NKJV, ESV). Cf. "apt to teach" (KJV, ASV), "an apt teacher" (RSV).
1. Didaktos = skillful in teaching. Cf. 2 Tim. 2:24.
  1. Cf. "a ready teacher" (Bas), "a capable and qualified teacher" (Amp).
  2. The "aptness" of a man to teach would involve:
    1. What he teaches.
    2. How he teaches.
    3. Consistency between his teaching and his life.
    4. His disposition to teach.
  3. The last point is important. "Apt to teach" involves not only skill, but willingness and promptness to teach, corresponding to the readiness to learn of the "teachable" student (cf. McGarvey).
  4. In considering a man's ability to teach, we should remember that there are various kinds of teaching, both public and private. Cf. Ac. 20:20.
  5. Although 1 Tim. 3:2 does not require every elder to be skilled at public teaching, the value of such preaching and teaching by elders has probably been underemphasized.
2. Teaching is one of the most vital functions of the elder/shepherd/overseer.
  1. Presbyterianism makes an erroneous distinction, on the basis of 1 Tim. 5:17, between "teaching elders" and "ruling elders."
  2. The "evangelistic oversight" theory erroneously teaches that elders must personally do all the preaching after they are appointed. However, elders may teach personally and also use the services of other teachers and preachers.
3. It is wrong to dilute this qualification and merely appoint "the best we have."
"HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HAS BEEN TAUGHT, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict" (Tit. 1:9).
1. The elder needs a firm grasp of sound doctrine (wholesome, healthful teaching). Cf. 2 Tim. 1:13; 3:14.
  1. He must be skilled in it himself. Cf. Hb. 5:12-14.
  2. He should also require it from the pulpit, in classes, etc. where he is an overseer.
2. "Exhort" = parakaleo = to give instruction; stimulate faith, encourage, comfort.
3. "Convict" = elegcho = to bring to light, expose, point out.
  1. The idea is "confute" (RSV), rather than "convince" (KJV).
  2. Those who "contradict" (i.e. gainsayers, objectors) must be identified, examined fairly, and either corrected or put to silence - Tit. 1:10,11.
  3. Cf. Ac. 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2:2; etc.
4. To fulfill his responsibility, the elder must not only be able but also willing to "exhort and convict those who contradict."

Conclusion

Leadership involves influencing other people for good.
In both ruling and teaching, the elder must be qualified to influence the local congregation for good.

Send This Page to a Friend