Titus 1
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
7a–c For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…
I remember as a kid when I first learned to do the “Here’s the church” game with my hands. Remember? [Fingers interlocked, pointing down] “Here’s the church…” [Index fingers pointed upward] “…Here’s the steeple…” [Thumbs opened outward] “…Open the door…” [Hands flipped over, fingers wiggling upright] “…and see all the people!”
That is a fun little memory from my childhood. I bet many of you remember it as well.
Whatever you think of the theology of it, it is indeed a theological and ecclesiological assertion! That is, it does claim to say something about what a church is. But it is pretty limited, is it not? For instance, it says nothing about the organization of the church. Of course, how could it, really?
It is interesting to see how the organization and structure of the church seems to develop throughout the New Testament and in the history of the early church. The lack of exhaustive details likely contributed to the wide range of views represented in denominations today. Yet, the New Testament does paint a picture of the internal organization of the church: of how its leadership is structured.
Titus 1 is an important chapter in this regard, specifically verses 5 and 7. You might not think that these two verses would lead to such depths of discussion and debate among Christians, but, indeed, they play their part.
Why are these two verses important? Specifically, they are important for what they say in verse 5 about “elders” and, in verse 7, about “steward[s].” Let us consider these two verses and let us place them alongside other verses in the New Testament that speak of the right ordering of the church.
There is one leading office in the church that goes by different names in the New Testament and may be filled by one or many occupants simultaneously.
Let us begin by establishing a core biblical truth that will frame everything else we say: Jesus is the head of the church. (Ephesians 1:22–23). So, when we speak of “offices” or of “leadership” in the church as those pertains to human beings, it must be understood that all of this operates beneath the headship of Christ. The church is His body. He is the pastor and elder and overseer and chief shepherd of the church!
Yet, in terms of human leadership, there is one leading office in the church. We will, of course, qualify and nuance this. The one office of leadership, beneath Christ, is not dictatorial, unquestioned, and unlimited. Yet it is given certain tasks to fulfill in terms of the leading of the church. It is referred to by different names in the New Testament. Furthermore, the question of how many people should fill this office at any one time is one that Christians have debated over the years.
This leadership office is referred to by one word in verse 5 of Titus 1 and by another in verse 7. Listen:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
The word used here for “elders” by Paul is presbuterous. It is where we get the word presbyter. The Presbyterian denomination derives its name from this word.
It is interesting to note, as Craig Keener explains, that Paul took this word “elder” from the organizational structure of first century synagogues.
In the Old Testament, cities were ruled and judged by their “elders,” those with the greatest wisdom and experience in the community. By the New Testament period, prominent older men in Diaspora synagogues were called “elders.” Although their exact role may have varied from one place to another, often a group of elders provided leadership for a synagogue (in Judea, cf. 1QS 6.8-9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Paul followed the convenient, conventional forms of synagogue leadership in his culture rather than instituting entirely foreign leadership structures.[1]
There, the word “elder” seems to have had more of a direct connotation of advance age (alongside godliness and wisdom). As it is applied to the church, it would seem that the actual age of the person plays less of a factor. In other words, one may be a New Testament church “elder” and not necessarily be advanced in years.
Then, in verse 7, this office is referred to in another way.
7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain
Here, Paul refers to “overseer.” The word he uses is episkopon. This is where we get the word “episcopal.” The Episcopalians derive their name from this word.
It is important to know two things:
- The “elders” of verse 5 and the “overseer” of verse 7 are referring to the same office.
- Other words we use are clustered around these terms. Most notably, many translate the “overseer” in verse 7 as “bishop.” (i.e., Theodoret of Cyr, in the 4th–5th century, writes of verse 7, “Here it is clear that he calls presbyters bishops.”)[2]
It is widely agreed that the “elder” and “overseer” are referring to the same office in Titus 1, though, early in Christian history, many began to argue that the “bishop” was an elder who was appointed over and above the other elders in a given region. Others reject this understanding and say that the words should ever and always simply refer to the same office. This would be my position.
It might be helpful to see a bit of a survey of how different Christians have translated and interpreted these words in verses 5 and 7 and how they see the relationship between them.
John Chrysostom (4th–5th cent.): v.5, elder / v.7, bishop[3]
Jerome (4th–5th cent.): v.5, presbyters / v.7, bishops (The church was originally governed by “a common counsel” of presbyters, but one was, in time, “elected to preside over the others.” [i.e., as a bishop])[4]
Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th–5th cent.): v.5, elders or presbyters / v.7, bishop (“…at this time ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ were interchangeable and…some were put in charge of towns, some of whole regions.”)[5]
William Fulke (16th century): v.5, elder / v.7, bishop (Elders and bishops are the same “in preaching the word and administration of the sacraments…yet in government…he is only called a bishop which is…chief in government, to whom the ordination or consecration of by imposition of hands was always principally committed.”)[6]
Edward Leigh (17th century): v.5, presbyter / v.7, bishop (These words are used “indifferently in the same sense.” The word “bishop” “is indifferently given” in the New Testament “to all teaching elders, that is pastors and ministers…”)[7]
David Bentley Hart (modern): v.5, elder / v.7, supervisor[8]
Scot McKnight (modern): v.5, elder / v.7, mentor[9]
Craig Keener (modern): v.5, elder / v.7, steward [“household managers”] (“‘In every city’ meant that the different house churches in each city would each have their own leaders.”)[10]
Denny Burk (modern): v.5 elder / v.7, overseer, elder [footnote: “Or bishop; Greek episkopos”]
Here we see how two little words in two verses open the door for a great deal of conversation and discussion and debate! But for our purposes, let us rest simply on this fact: the “elder” of verse 5 is the “overseer” of verse 7. There is widespread agreement on this fact. However, historically, there are two questions that the church has wrestled with.
- Does the plural usage of “elders” in verse 5 mean that congregations must have a plurality of elders?
- Should the “overseer” of verse 7 have developed into the office of “bishop” in the way that it did in the Catholic and other churches (i.e., as a lifted-up elder who is over a group of other elders in a given region)?
Concerning whether or not churches should have a single elder (which is what most Southern Baptist churches have today: a sole pastor) or plural elders is an interesting question. Titus is clearly instructed to “appoint elders in every town.” If “every town” is intended to have one congregation, then that would seem to be evidence that local congregations should be led by a plurality of elders. Indeed, elders is usually used in the plural in the New Testament. Consider:
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:23)
Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. (Acts 20:17)
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14)
The above references along with the plural usage in Titus 1:5 appear to be examples of elders who (a) are joined with other elders in a congregation and (b) are not so-called merely because of age. Other references are a bit more ambiguous on these points, and some may question even these. However, it would seem that the norm was having a plurality of elders in each congregation.
Southern Baptist theologian Danny Akin, in his article defending the single-elder-led congregation, himself acknowledges, “The argument for a plurality of elders, pastors, overseers, leaders is easier to make based upon the biblical evidence.”[11] Even so, he argues, as do others, that the single-elder model is still viable, that the “Bible never specifies a precise number of elders for a local congregation,” and that many of the verses marshalled to argue for a plurality of elders are not overly clear (i.e., In Ephesus, in Acts 20, when Paul met with “the elders,” was there one church with many elders or numerous house churches with their own individual elder?) What is more, Akin asserts:
It is likely that in the early stage of the church’s history, church government and polity were not highly developed. Local congregations were loosely knit groups. It is extremely probable that there were a variety of church governmental arrangements. Each church would have organized itself taking into consideration its own unique context and situation.[12]
Other considerations: In what ways can church staffs fulfill the biblical roles of elders, even if those staffs have a “Senior Pastor”? In what ways can other leadership teams (i.e., an Administrative Team, for instance) fulfill the role of elder? If the role of a team of elders is fulfilled, must the language of “elder” be present? What of very small churches in which there simple are not enough qualified people to serve as elders? If a plurality of elders is adopted, then what model should be adopted: A lead elder among others (i.e., a “first among equals”)? All elders having equal authority? Elders with different tasks: Preaching, administrative, shepherding, etc?
I would propose the following: It is likely the case that church governance is more of an issue of wisdom or foolishness than an issue of sin or righteousness. Even so, the evidence that the early churches were led by a plurality of elders is pretty substantial, enough so to suggest that no sole elder should have unquestioned, isolated authority. If other structures within a congregation are going to fulfill the role of elders, then they should truly do so. But if that is going to happen, the question of why the proper biblical terminology of “elders” is not simply and openly acknowledged and applied ought to be asked.
Concerning whether or not there is biblical evidence for the historical evolution of the overseer into the position of bishop as it is known today, I believe there is less of a case to be made. We simply do not see in the New Testament the concept of “a bishop” as it is seen in, say, the Catholic church.
Robert Reymond has passed along J.B. Lightfoot’s statement:
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” (presyteros).”
To which Reymond adds:
…because these terms clearly describe the same officeholder, [episcopal] must not be associated with the hierarchical meaning that has come to be attached to it in the course of church history but rather must be viewed simply as a term descriptive of the elder’s function. Scripture knows nothing of the governmental church polity of a hierarchical episcopacy, and if the church has an archbishop (or “arch-elder”), that arch-bishop is Jesus Christ.[13]
Even here, I would hesitate to say that the mere presence of the office of bishop is a sin, if that office does not violate the New Testament picture of a healthy church. Is it possible for there to be a bishop who gives guidance to the elders of a region without that bishop becoming autocratic? That is likely the case, but, it must be added, authority overly-invested in a lone individual is something that must be guarded against.
In all, we must seek to be faithful to the New Testament picture of the church: to honor what is clearly stated and to approach with wisdom those areas that seem less clear.
That one leading office appears alongside another serving office.
Let us make two further but quicker observations. These do not arise from Titus, but from the rest of the New Testament. The first is that the leading office of elder is assisted by another serving office in the church, that of deacon.
In Philippians 1, the two offices are clearly spelled out:
1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
And, in 1 Timothy 3, the qualifications for the two offices are put one after the other.
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be…
8 Deacons likewise must be…
It is important to note that the qualifications for elder in Titus 1:6–9 are consistent with those of 1 Timothy 3. So, while Paul does not mention deacons to Titus, that does not mean they were not needed in the church of Crete. It simply means he had reasons for feeling that he did not need to spell the deacon qualifications out in this case.
That the New Testament church recognized two offices is important for us to remember: elders and deacons.
Neither of the two offices negates congregational governance.
And there is another dynamic that is very important for us not to miss: congregationalism. None of these offices effectively shut down the congregation’s own voice in the leadership and governance of the church. There are more passages than these that reflect healthy congregationalism, but consider the following.
In Acts 6, the congregation is brought into the process of choosing the deacons.
2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.
In 1 Corinthians 5, the congregation is brought into the process of church discipline.
4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
In Matthew 18, Jesus likewise depicts the congregation as involved in the process of church discipline.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Some seek to summarize New Testament church leadership like this: elder-led, deacon-served, congregation-governed.
Perhaps that is helpful, though what exactly is meant by each of those words is a very important question!
This much seems clear: Governance and leadership do matter. Church structure functioning must be approached with bible in hand and the Holy Spirit in our hearts. We must not raise structure to the level of a first-tier issue, but neither is it unimportant. Each congregation should see to it that the scriptures are not violated and that Christ is honored in the way that the congregation is organized! Finally, the goal is not proper structure per se. It is rather healthy and proper organization for the safety and well-being of the body of Christ so that it can proceed in unity and peace with its great calling to be salt and light to the world!
[1] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (IVP Bible Background Commentary Set) (p. 626). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Gorday, Peter, ed. Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Gen. Ed. Thomas C. Oden. New Testament, Vol. IX (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.287.
[3] Gorday, Peter, ed. Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, p.285.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid. and 287.
[6] Gatiss, Lee, and Bradley G. Green, eds. 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Gen. Ed. Timothy George. New Testament XII (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), p.274.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Hart, David Bentley. The New Testament. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), p.429.
[9] McKnight, Scot. The Second Testament: A New Translation (p. 241). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
[10] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 626.
[11] Akin, Daniel L. “The Single-Elder-Led Church” Perspectives on Church Government. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), p.64.
[12] Akin, Daniel L. “The Single-Elder-Led Church,” p.26.
[13] Reymond, Robert L. “The Presbytery-Led Church.” (Nashville, TN: ), p.92–93.