Plurality of Eldership:

Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders
By: Daniel B. Wallace
Many churches today have a pastor and several deacons. This is based on a model of
ecclesiology in which it is assumed that there was one elder in the ancient church. But even those
churches that have more than one elder (the pastor being one of them) usually regard the pastor
as the de facto head of the church. This is due to two basic reasons: (1) he is the one with biblical
training, and (2) he is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every Sunday.
It seems to me that this model (either the philosophical single-elder model or the pragmatic
single-leader model) misses the mark of the New Testament teaching on this topic. The early
church had, I believe, multiple elders. The pastor would have been counted among them, but was
not over them. Indeed, all would have taught, not just one. If we can get back to this model, I
think that churches will be stronger in many ways. They will be less idiosyncratic, less
dependent on one person,1 more accountable.
The case for plurality of elders can be argued along four lines: biblical, historical, theological,
and pragmatic. At bottom, I would say that the reason the scriptures teach multiple eldership is at
least twofold: (1) mutual accountability is necessary if leaders are to avoid falling into sin; and
(2) a church takes on the personality of its leader/s: if there is just one leader, the church will
inevitably take on that man's personality, including his quirks and faults. But if more than one
person leads the church, there is the greater chance that the church will be balanced.2
I. Biblical Arguments
A. For Multiple Elders
The argument from scripture is in fact so strong that most commentators today assume it. But it
is well-articulated in G. W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New International
Greek New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 175-77 (the section called
"Excursus: Bishops/Presbyters and Deacons: 3:1-13").
The following points are relevant for our discussion:
(1) Presbyters (also translated "elders") and bishops (also translated "overseers") were
apparently the same individuals. That is to say, the two terms were synonymous.
Note, for example, Titus 1:5 ("appoint elders"), followed by v. 7 ("for a bishop must be
blameless"). The very fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a "for" shows a connection:
bishops are elders. Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were
not whom Titus should appoint? In Acts 20:17 Paul calls the "elders of the church" of Ephesus
together for a final meeting. Then, in v. 28 he addresses them as "overseers" (or bishops). Thus,
any passage that deals with bishop is equally applicable to elders.
(2) The leadership of the church from the earliest period always had elders, even if it did not
have deacons. Young churches only had elders; more mature churches had both elders and
deacons.
This can be seen by a comparison of Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-13: the Christians in Crete (where
Titus was ministering) were relatively new. The qualifications for deacons is not mentioned
because only the top level of leadership needed to be established in such a situation. But in
Ephesus the church was well established (where Timothy was ministering). Consequently, Paul
not only gives instruction to Timothy about both elders and deacons, but also says that the
leaders should not be recent converts (cf. 1 Tim 3:6 [for elders] and perhaps implied in 3:10 for
deacons). But no instruction is given to Titus about new converts because that was the only pool
from which he could draw.3 Thus, for young (and presumably small) churches, the leaders would
do the work of both elders and deacons.4
In sum, a church must have elders, but not necessarily deacons (at least at first).
(3) Elder and pastor are not the same thing in the NT. "Elder" refers to the office one holds by
virtue of appointment or election; "pastor" is a spiritual gift that one is given by the Holy Spirit
(cf. Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:7-11). One can have the gift of pastor without being an elder; and one
can hold the office of elder without having the gift of pastor.
(4) For elders, the one qualification that is other than moral is the ability to teach. Note 1 Tim
3:2 ("able to teach" [didavktiko", didaktikos]). Titus 1:9 expands on this: "he must hold firm to
the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to
confute those who contradict it."
There is much confusion about what this means.
This does not mean that an elder must have the gift of teaching, for the NT is very clear that all
believers should be able to teach. Cf. Heb 5:12 (the definition of a spiritual meat-eater is one
who is able to teach [5:11-14]; the author indicts his entire audience for not yet being able to do
this); Col 3:16; Titus 2:3.5
"Able to teach" does not mean seminary-trained or one skilled in the biblical languages. This is
evident from the fact that Gentile Christians were among the first elders (cf. Titus 1:5-9). These
men would not have known Hebrew.
It is recognized that some elders would be gifted as teachers and would especially exercise this
gift (1 Tim 5:17). Thus, the implication is that not all would teach equally. (Personally, I see in
this text justification for some of the elders to be pastor-teachers. Further, those especially gifted
in this area would want to hone such a gift by learning the scriptures as diligently and rigorously
as they could. Hence, there is justification for having seminary-trained teachers. But, at the same
time, it is evident that not all elders had this gift.)
The basic thrust of this qualification is that elders would hold to pure doctrine in guiding the
church. In other words, they would be mature men who could sniff out heresy and steer the
church in the direction it needs to go. Certainly in some especially delicate matters these leaders
would defer to others who had the gift. But the elders needed to make the final decisions about
the direction of the church.
Pragmatically, one of the ways in which such teaching could be accomplished would be for the
elders to oversee different home Bible studies. Nowadays "mini-churches" are very popular.
Such mini-churches are actually very biblical. The early church met in homes during the week.
Each home would presumably have its own elder. Thus, at least in the context of a small
gathering, the elders should be prepared to teach.
Teaching also occurs in another, less visible context. When the elders and pastor meet together,
the elders should have the freedom to state their opinions freely. To be sure, the pastor is usually
better trained in the scriptures, but this in no way gives him the right to demand allegiance to his
viewpoints. He must demonstrate that his views are biblical and submit them to the leadership.
At times, his case will not convince. (Each one of us is responsible to know the scriptures and to
examine the evidence for our beliefs.) Further, many if not most issues to be decided by an elder
board allow for a great deal of flexibility. Two positions could equally be in line with scripture.
At that point, the collective wisdom of the leadership needs to reign supreme.6
(5) The consistent pattern in the NT is that every church had several elders.
Note the following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):
Acts 11:30--elders at the church of Antioch
Acts 14:23--Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4--elders at the church in Jerusalem
Acts 20:17, 28--elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17--"elders of the church")
Acts 21:18--elders at the church in Jerusalem
Phil 1:1--the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons
1 Tim 5:17--elders at the church of Ephesus
Titus 1:5--Titus is to appoint elders in every town7
Jas 5:14--"the elders of the church"
1 Pet 5:1-2--"the elders among you"8
In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had several elders.
Note also that other more generic terms are also used of church leaders. The pattern once again is
that there are several leaders for each church:
1 Thess 5:12, 13--the congregation is to respect its leaders9
Heb 13:7, 17--heed the leaders of the church, "for they are keeping watch over your souls" (v.
17)10
The evidence is overwhelming. So strong is it that Knight, after carefully evaluating the
evidence, can argue:
An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of
church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or
commended by virtually every NT writer who writes about church leadership. . . . [For example,]
Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor either under Paul and his
associates or under Peter's ministry has a plurality of leadership . . .11
B. For Single Elders
If the case is this strong, why then do some argue for a single elder? The basic argument for this
position is theological and historical, rather than biblical. But biblically, there are five texts
which seem to suggest a single elder. We will look at these not in canonical order but from the
weakest arguments to the strongest.
(1) Revelation 2-3--there is one "angel" over each church. The word angel (a[ggelo", anggelos)
is sometimes translated "messenger" in scripture. Hence, perhaps the single "angel" over each
church is the single elder (pastor), rather than an angel.
The problem with this view is manifold: (1) a[ggelo" (anggelos) is used 67 times in Revelation.
If we exclude the references in chapters 2 and 3 for the sake of argument, we see a remarkable
thing: every instance of a[ggelo" [anggelos] refers to an angel. (Unless of course pastors can
fly! cf. Rev 14:6). (2) Even if Rev 2-3 were an exception, "messenger" is hardly an appropriate
term for a pastor. Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically. But a
messenger is one who moves about. (3) The genre of the Revelation fits what is called
"apocalyptic." In apocalyptic literature there is a strong emphasis on angels. Among other duties,
they are responsible before heaven for groups of godly people. Thus, when the Lord says, "to the
angel of the church at _______, write" we have apocalyptic symbolism and imagery occurring.
Angels are evidently in view, not pastors.
(2) 2 John 1, 3 John 1--the "elder" writes to the elect lady and to Gaius. Some argue that John
describes himself in these two little letters as "the elder" because he is the lone elder at the
church. There are a few problems with this view, however.
First, the author is writing to two different people at apparently two different churches. Would he
be their elder? If so, then we have an anomalous situation unparalleled in the rest of the NT: a
single elder for at least two churches. If not, would he perhaps be the elder at the church of
Ephesus writing to Christians at other churches? That too is doubtful, because (a) why would he
not mention which church he was elder over? and (b) if he were the elder at the church of
Ephesus, what business does he have meddling in other churches' affairs?12
Second, suppose that John is actually writing to one and the same church in 2 John and 3 John. If
so, couldn't he be their elder? Not only is there, at best, a very slim chance that only one church
is being addressed,13 but such a hypothesis produces a very large problem for itself: this lone
elder apparently is an absentee elder who gives no certain evidence that he will even visit the
church, let alone teach there! (Although this is clearly his desire, he refrains from absolute
certitude.) Notice 2 John 12: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper
and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be
complete." Likewise, 3 John 10 says "if I come [to the church]" and v. 14 says "I hope to see
you."
Third, the apparent meaning of "the elder" in these two little letters seems to be the equivalent of
"the old man." The term used, in fact, can only be given a technical nuance in contexts that seem
to demand it. Presbuvtero" (presbuteros) is a word which frequently meant simply "old man" (cf.
Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 5:1). This fits well with the probable authorship of these letters (namely, John
the apostle). By the time he had settled in Asia Minor as the last living apostle, it would be quite
appropriate for him to take on a term of endearment and affection: "This letter is from the old
man."
(3) 1 Tim 3:2 (cf. Titus 1:7)--"bishop" is singular, while "deacons" (1 Tim 3:8) is plural. This
would seem to argue that there was but one bishop/elder per church, while there would have
been several deacons.
Again, such an argument has very little substance. First, it is unlikely that only one bishop is in
view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Tim 5:17 ("let the elders who rule well be
considered worthy of double honor") and Titus 1:5 "appoint elders in every town").14
Second, it is likely that the "bishop" in 1 Tim 3:2 is generic. The article is used this way in Greek
very frequently. That is, the singular is used to specify a class as opposed to an individual. J. W.
Roberts, a Greek grammarian, pointed out along these lines: "A case in point where wrong use
has been made of the generic article is in reference to 'bishop' in 1 Timothy 3:2. This has often
been used to prove the existence of the monarchal bishop at the time of the writing of the
Pastorals. A majority of the commentators, however, agree that the usage is generic." Cf. also
Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25. The generic article is actually used thousands of
times in the NT.
Third, further evidence that "bishop" is generic in 1 Tim 3:2 is found in the overall context.
(Keep in mind that the NT had no chapter or verse divisions originally. These were inventions of
later centuries.) Notice the context in which behavior in the church occurs: 1 Tim 2:8-3:13. In
2:8 Paul addresses "the men." In 2:9-10 he addresses "the women." Then, in 2:11-12 he says that
"a woman should learn quietly . . . I do not permit a woman to teach . . . a man." Paul is not here
speaking of a particular woman (otherwise he would surely have mentioned her by name), but
women as a class. In 2:15 he says "but she shall be saved . . . if they continue." Thus, there is a
free exchange of the singular and the plural here. Immediately after this Paul speaks of "the
bishop." Then, in 3:8 he addresses "the deacons." The overall context is very clearly dealing with
classes of individuals. The only time it is not, in fact, is when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve
(2:13-14), yet even here he quickly gets into the relevance for his readers in v. 15 ("she . . .
they").
C. Summary
The biblical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of multiple elders. The few passages which
might otherwise be interpreted certainly do not have to be so interpreted and, in fact, most likely
should not be. This fact illustrates a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation: do not
follow an interpretation which is only possible; instead, base your convictions on what is
probable.
The rest of our arguments are presented here very briefly since the basic one, the biblical
argument, has been addressed at some length.
II. Historical Arguments
In Ignatius (an early Christian writer who died in c. AD 117), at the beginning of the second
century, already a monarchical episcopate exists. It is interesting that Roman Catholics especially
appeal to this as a model for their practices (since they rely on the tradition found in patristic
writers like Ignatius far more than on divine revelation). Those who deny the Pauline authorship
of the pastoral epistles (i.e., 1-2 Timothy and Titus) also see the pastorals as reflecting a one-
elder situation (=monarchical episcopate) because they regard the pastorals as having been
written during the time of Ignatius. But evangelicals should not consider arguments from either
camp as weighty. In particular, if we equate either what the early church fathers practiced or
believed as totally in line with the New Testament, then we have some significant retooling to do
in our churches today. Some examples:
Didache (c. AD 100-150)--gives several regulations about baptism and fasting, much of which is
pure legalism. (For example, in one place he says, "Let us not fast as the Jews do, who fast on
Mondays and Thursdays. Instead, let us fast on Wednesdays and Fridays." In his discussions of
baptism, he argues that cold water is better than warm, etc.--all arguments that have nothing
whatever to do with the biblical revelation).
Most early church fathers (i.e., 2nd-3rd century AD) didn't have a clue about grace, eternal
security, the gospel. The church very quickly degenerated into basic legalism. It was not until
Augustine that the church recovered some of this. But then it fell into the dark ages, waiting for a
young monk from Germany to nail his protests on the door of the Wittenberg Church. Dr. Ted
Deibler (former chairman of Church History at Dallas Seminary) used to say, "the one thing we
can be certain of learning from church history is that we learn nothing from church history." He
meant by this that we are on very dangerous ground if we assume uniformly correct theology
from the church fathers.
Allegorical interpretation and eschatology: Origen and his school in particular promoted a view
of scripture which was quite fanciful.
In sum, the argument for a single leader of each church is especially persuasive to Roman
Catholics because it did occur throughout church history. Yet, such traditions can never replace
the Word of God. In fact, with the birth of the Reformation came a renewed understanding of the
priesthood of the believer which, in turn, moved away from the notion of a single leader at the
top.
III. Theological Arguments
The quirks of personality: a church becomes like its leader (a student becomes like his teacher
[cf. Luke 6:40]).
The emphasis in scripture on doing the work of the ministry in company with other believers:
e.g., Paul never went on a missionary journey by himself (Barnabas, Silvanus, Sosthenes,
Timothy, Luke were especially his traveling companions). Paul even included his companions'
names in the greetings to various churches. In fact, he regarded them unofficially as apostles (not
holding the office, but certainly functioning in that capacity). Jesus sent his disciples out two-by-
two. (This is not to say that individuals are paralyzed and can't do anything--cf. Philip
ministering to the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul in prison ministering to Caesar's household, etc. But
the ideal is ministry by community.)
This same principle is taught in John 13:35. (Knowledge of Jesus comes through his disciples in
a community effort, that is, in their love for one another.)
Accountability and our sin natures (see opening paragraph at the start of this position paper).
Each leader knows that he lacks complete balance, that there are things he continues to struggle
with. Further, even beyond the sin nature factor is the personality factor. Some pastors are detail
men; others are big picture men. Some love music, others have gotten little from music (C. S.
Lewis was one such man). All of us together contribute to the way the body of Christ works. But
a church that follows in lock-step with the personality and foibles of one man will always be
imbalanced.
IV. Pragmatic Arguments
Even if there were no decisive arguments for plurality of elders, the preponderance of evidence is
decidely on the side of this view. Further, in consultation with others (especially church
historian, M. James Sawyer at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary), the following principle
seems to be true: Churches that have a pastor as an authority above others (thus, in function, a
monarchical episcopate) have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top
level of leadership. In other words, it is less likely for a pastor to fall into sin if he is primus inter
parus ("first among equals" in the sense of his visibility and training, not spirituality) than if he is
elevated above the rest of the church leadership.
Thus, the case of multiple elders in the local church is solidly based on biblical, historical, and
pragmatic reasons. By having several leaders, the church is more able to take on the personality
of Christ rather than the idiosyncracies of any one man.
1 One of the measures of how mature a church is is what happens to it when the pastor leaves. If
it continues to grow, there is an underlying network of mature leadership. If it shrinks, this may
well suggest that much of the size of the church originally was due to the magnetism of a single
person.
2 This is actually quite similar to the "checks and balances" in the U.S. Constitution. This
document was written with a heavy input from Christians who understood depravity. They
recognized, I think, that the best form of government was a benevolent dictatorship, and the
worst was a malevolent dictatorship. With dictators, there is no guarantee. Hence, the second
best form of government is one in which no single branch of government and no individual is
given too much power. This Constitution was written after the Articles of Confederation
(inspired especially by Deists who believed in the inherent goodness of humanity)--which were
very weak on checks and balances--failed.
3 That these lists were a bit different on this point (and some others) indicates an extremely
important point: Much of the instruction given about church order is ad hoc rather than of
universal principle. It is our duty to discern which is which. For example, I have no strong
opinion about how the leaders of a church are to be appointed, because the NT seems to be
flexible in this regard (e.g., some churches did it by congregational vote, others had
appointments from apostolic delegates). The NT is flexible on areas that are not consequential.
4 The normal understanding of the difference in function of the two groups is this: elders are
primarily concerned with the spiritual welfare of the congregation, while deacons are primarily
concerned with the physical welfare of the congregation. Thus, elders would oversee the
direction of the church, work with the pastor (or pastors) on the spiritual needs of the church
(what they should be fed, etc.).
5 The fundamental principle of discipleship is the passing on of truth in the context of love to
faithful individuals, who in turn would do the same thing (2 Tim 2:2). The ideal is for every
member of the church to carry on this task. It is obvious (from 2 Tim 2:2) that discipleship and a
teaching ministry were not to be restricted to just pastors or those with the gift of teaching.
6 One of the first churches I was in that was run by a plurality of elders had a rather mature
pastor. He was one of the brightest and godliest men I've ever known, thoroughly saturated in the
Word of God. Yet, he did not even have a vote on the elder board. The elders frequently asked
his opinion. But he also respected their leadership. He told me once that having the elders run the
show gave him a greater measure of freedom, for it allowed him more time to work on his
messages. He didn't have to wear several hats and therefore did not get burned out in the
ministry. Further, he noted that the elders had maturity of years over him and collective wisdom
that he wanted to learn from. The man had a Th.M. degree and a Th.D. degree from a leading
seminary, yet he eagerly bowed to the leadership and wisdom of the elder board! That was
humility! In fact, every year he submitted to a rigorous personal evaluation of his life by the
elders. They asked him the tough questions, such as faithfulness to his wife, what he read, saw,
participated in, and what he did with his money and his spare time. This was not a 'big brother is
watching you' lynching; it was something this pastor volunteered for. The church grew quickly
and profoundly because of such accountability at the top levels.
7 The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is
to appoint multiple elders in every church.
8 That each church to which Peter is writing had multiple elders is likely from vv. 2-3--"Tend
[poimavnete, poimanete--a plural verb; thus, "you elders"] the flock [singular] of God that is
your charge . . . by being examples [plural] to the flock." Thus, multiple elders are linked to a
single flock each time.
9 It is most likely that only elders are in view. The reason for this is that, as we have argued
above, young churches did not have deacons but did have elders. Paul had spent only about three
weeks with the Thessalonians. But he appointed leaders before his departure. Thus, it is likely
that he appointed only elders. In the least, there is not even a hint in this text that only one elder
and several deacons were appointed.
10 Since the duties of the leaders are described in this manner, it is obvious that multiple elders
are in view (since deacons were not responsible primarily to keep watch over the souls).
11 Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 177.
12 Some denominations have a bishop over several churches and an elder at an individual
church. But John is called an elder, not a bishop. Thus, these denominations have a difficult time
basing their view on scripture.
13 In fact, many today see three churches addressed: 2 John has one in view; 3 John seems to
have Gaius' church and Diotrephes' church in view. I am presently undecided on this issue (that
is, whether two or three churches are envisioned). One of the fundamental arguments against 2
John and 3 John being addressed to the same church is that the situations are radically different:
2 John addresses the problem of heretics outside the church attempting to get in; 3 John
addresses the sin of pride already within the church by an orthodox leader. Thus, 2 John has to
do with doctrine and 3 John is about ethics and holiness. Hence, in the least two churches are in
view in the Johannine letters, and perhaps three. Is John the elder of all of them?
14 Recall that "elder" = "bishop" and that each town had but one church
http://bible.org/article/who-should-run-church-case-plurality-elders
I personally believe the most Scriptural form of church government is a plurality of elders. I also
believe that elders are essential for spiritual guidance, example, and yes, "protection" of those in
the congregation.
Consider the following verses. Note how all of them use the word "elders" or "those who rule
over you" in the plural indicating there was more than one elder in the church being written to.
Note especially Hebrews 13:17 where the importance of spiritual oversight by the elders in
specifically mentioned.
Ac 11:30 This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
Ac 14:23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Ac 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they
determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the
apostles and elders, about this question.
Ac 15:4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the
apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
Ac 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
Ac 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of
their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named
Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
Ac 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the
brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
Ac 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which
were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
Ac 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.
Ac 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who
labor in the word and doctrine.
Tit 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are , and
appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-
Heb 13:7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose
faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
Heb 13:17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls,
as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be
unprofitable for you.
Heb 13:24 Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
Jas 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
1Pe 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the
sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:
1Pe 5:5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be
submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for humility, for “God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.” (NKJV: bolding added).
http://www.dtl.org/e-mails/baptist/elders.htm

Examination of Biblical Data

NT churches were governed by a plurality of elders who were assisted by deacons who were
appointed to serve the church in various ways. The pastor was an elder, but not all elders were
pastors, in the vocational sense of being the primary person responsible for preaching. For
example, 1 Tim 5:17 notes that “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy
of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” It may help to see
“elder” as an office and “pastor” as a spiritual gifting (Eph 4:11). In other words, the pastor is an
elder with that particular gifting.
Presbyters (also translated “elders”) and bishops (also translated “overseers”) were apparently
the same individuals; the two terms were synonymous. For example, we note Titus 1:5 (“appoint
elders”) which is followed by v. 7 (since an overseer “must be blameless”). The fact that the
sentence in v. 7 begins with a “since” shows a connection: bishops are elders. Otherwise, why
would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint? In
Acts 20:17 Paul calls the “elders of the church” of Ephesus together for a final meeting. Then, in
v. 28 he addresses them as “overseers” (or bishops). Thus, any passage that deals with bishop is
equally applicable to elders.
The consistent pattern in the NT is that each church (singular) had elders (plural). Note the
following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):
Acts 11:30--elders at the church of Antioch
Acts 14:23--Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4--elders at the church in Jerusalem
Acts 20:17, 28--elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17--"elders of the church")
Acts 21:18--elders at the church in Jerusalem
Phil 1:1--the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons
1 Tim 3:1-7--Paul tells Timothy, the Pastor, the qualifications for elders
1 Tim 5:17--elders at the church of Ephesus
Titus 1:5--Titus is to “appoint elders” in every town (The early church had but one church in
each city or
town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.)
James 5:14--"the elders of the church"
1 Pet 5:1-2--"the elders among you"
In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had more than one elder. The
evidence is overwhelming

http://providencechurch.info/documents/lone_star/20070915_elder_plurality.pdf

Plurality of Elders
The office of elder appears to be part of the New Testament ekklhsia since its inception. In
Acts 11:30 Luke casually mentions the elders of the church in Judea, “This they also did, and
sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” In Acts 6, Luke describes the beginning
of the office of Deacon. In Acts 11, Luke treats the matter of elders as being too commonplace
and too well known to merit additional attention.34 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders almost
immediately on their first missionary journey.
So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended
them to the Lord in whom they had believed (Acts 14:23).
Both B. J. Lightfoot and William Ramsey claim the significance of this passage is in Luke’s
usage of it as a summary of Paul’s customary method of organizing newly planted churches.
Lightfoot writes: “On their very first missionary journey the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are
described as appointing presbyters in every church. The same rule was doubtless carried out in
all the brotherhoods founded later; but it is mentioned here and here only because the mode of
procedure on this occasion would suffice as a type of the apostles dealings elsewhere under
similar circumstances.”
William Ramsey comments: “It is clear, therefore, that Paul everywhere instituted elders in his
new churches; and on our hypothesis as to the accurate and methodical expression of the
historian, we are bound to infer that this first case is intended to be typical of the way of
appointment followed in all later cases.”35
He encouraged Timothy and Titus to remain in Ephesus and Crete and do the same (1 Tim. 1:3;
3:1; Titus 1:5). The ekklhsia in Jerusalem already had an established and functioning group of
elders at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Elders appear as part of the normal
structure of other early New Testament assemblies (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1).
Two Greek words are used to refer to the office of elder: Presbuteros and Episkopos. The term
Presbuteros denotes a “senior” or “mature” person.36 The term Episkopos conveys the idea of
“oversight” or “superintendence.”37 The two terms are used interchangeably in the New
Testament and refer to difference aspects of the same office.
Radmacher writes:
It is true that some have concluded that “bishop” refers to the office, while “elder” has more to
do with the man. Others, however, believe that “elder” relates to the dignity of the office while
“bishop” describes the duties.38
In Acts 20:17 Paul calls for the elders (presbuteros) of the assembly at Ephesus. In Acts 20:28
Paul claims that God made them “overseers” (episkopos), to shepherd the church of God. In
Titus 1:5 Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint “elders” (presbuteros) in every city. In Titus 1:7
Paul immediately claims that a “bishop” (episkopos) must be blameless. The context of this
passage shows that Paul is clearly referring to one and the same office. In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul
speaks of the man who desires to the office of “bishop” (episkopos). In First Timothy 5:17 Paul
states that the “elders” (presbuteros) who rule well should be counted worthy of double honor.
Lightfoot writes:
It is 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” (presbuteros).39
Plurality
The New Testament evidence points to a plurality of elders in each local assembly.
Acts 11:30 “This they also did and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”
Acts 14:23 “So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”
Acts 15:4 “And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the
apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.”
Acts 20:17 “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.”
Acts 21:18 “On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were
present.”
Philippians 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ
Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”
First Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”
 Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are
lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.”
Hebrews 13:7 “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you,
whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct” (cf. Heb. 13:17, 24).
James 5:14 “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.”
1 Peter 5:1 “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed.”
Most of these passages specifically refer to the plurality of elders in a single local assembly.
Some of these passages may refer to more than one congregation, such as a city, but the plural
term “elders” is still used. There are a few places in Scripture where the term elder is used in the
singular (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7). The general instructions of each book and the context of each
passage make it clear that Paul taught that a plurality of elders should be appointed in each
location. The term “bishop” (episkopos) is used in the singular in each of these passages to stress
the individual qualifications that each overseer must possess. It is not unusual for Paul to use the
generic singular in reference to widows, elders, and believers.
Boice writes:
The church did not install merely one person to do this job but several. In fact, there is no
reference anywhere in the New Testament to the appointment of only one elder or one deacon to
a work. We would tend to appoint one leader, but God’s wisdom is greater than our own at this
point. In appointing several persons to work together, the church at God’s direction provided for
mutual encouragement among those who shared in the work as well as lessened the chance for
pride or tyranny in office.40
Getz writes:
Multiple leadership in the church is a New Testament principle. The “one man” ministry is a
violation of this important guideline. The Scriptures frequently stress the “mutuality of the
ministry.” No local church in the New Testament was ruled and managed by one person.
Plurality of elders appears as the norm.41
Stabbert writes:
It is concluded after examining all the passages which mention local church leadership on the
pastoral level, that the New Testament presents a united teaching on this subject and that it is on
the side of plurality. This is based on the evidence of the seven clear passages which teach the
existence of plural elders in single local assemblies. These passages should be allowed to carry
the hermeneutical weight over the eight other plural passages which teach neither singularity or
(sic) plurality. This is a case where the clear passages must be permitted to set the interpretation
for the obscure. Thus, of the eighteen passages which speak of church leadership, fifteen of
them are plural. Of these fifteen, seven of them definitely speak of a single congregation. Only
three passages talk about church leadership in singular terms, and in each passage the singular
may be seen as fully compatible with plurality. In all these passages, there is not one passage
which describes a church being governed by one pastor.42
One objection to the plurality of elders comes from an odd interpretation of the first chapters of
the book of Revelation. The phrase “And to the angel of the church of…” appears seven times in
Revelation 2 and 3. Some believe that this angel is the senior pastor of each local assembly.43
This can only be seen by reading something into the text that is not there. No where in the entire
New Testament is there any mention of a senior pastor having authority over a local
congregation.
 The word “angel” comes from the Greek word “aggellos.” Aggellos can refer to either a human
or divine “messenger.” There are a few instances in the New Testament where the word aggelos
does refer to a human messenger. John uses the word 100 times and it always refers to heavenly
or divine angels. There is no reason to believe that Revelation 2 and 3 would be the lone
exception.
Ladd writes:
The expression, angels of the seven churches, represented by the seven stars in the hand of
Christ, is difficult, especially since each of the seven letters was addressed to the angel of each
respective church. This fact has led many commentators to conclude that the angel stood for the
bishop of the church. This would be a good solution to the problem except for the fact that it
violates New Testament usage. Aggelos was not used of Christian leaders, and in the seven
letters, neither angels nor bishops were rebuked. Another meaning of aggelos is “messenger,”
and the “angels” are taken to be the seven messengers who carried the letters to the seven
churches of Asia. If this is so, it is difficult to see why the letters were addressed to the
messengers rather than the churches themselves. The proper meaning of the word angel, and the
natural idea is that churches on earth have angels in heaven who represent them. However, the
feature of angels symbolizing or representing men is lacking in all apocalyptic literature. Some
have felt that the angels are guardian angels of the churches. It is best to understand this as a
rather unusual symbol to represent the heavenly or supernatural character of the church.44
Some believe that early assemblies had “readers,” who received and read letters to the
congregation. They believe that it was this “messenger” in each local assembly whom John
addressed his seven letters. That some local assemblies had readers may be true. That all seven
of these churches had readers is far from certain. Even if this “messenger” was a man, there is
nothing in the text to suggest that this human messenger was the “pastor” or “bishop” of the
congregation. Revelation 2:1 is addressed to the angel/messenger of the church of Ephesus. We
know from Acts 20:17 that the assembly at Ephesus had a plurality of elders.
34
Donald L. Norbie, New Testament Church Organization, p. 36.
35
Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1986) p. 73.
36
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 706.
37
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 299.
38
Earl Radmacher, “The Question of Elders,” Paper (Portland: Western Baptist, 1977) p. 4.
39
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, p. 93.
40
James M. Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press,
1986) p. 632.
41
Gene Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974) p. 121.
42
Bruce Stabbert, The Team Concept (Tacoma: Hegg Bros., 1982) p. 25.
43
Robert Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995) p. 242.
44
George Eldon Ladd, The Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) p. 35.
http://theoslog.com/pluralityofelders.html

PASTORAL MINISTRY-ELDERS
To try to avoid leadership, and a leader among leaders, is to avoid not only a fact of life but a
spiritual principle.

Derek Prime and Alistair Begg

On Being a Pastor, Moody Press, 2004, p. 219.

Leadership in the church should always be shared – that is one reason that the apostolic pattern
was to appoint a plurality of elders rather than a solitary elder in all the churches (Acts 14:23).
But leaders too need to recognize one of their number as leader. This is an inbuilt principle of
life, and we should not despise it. Husband and wife are equal, but leadership naturally rests with
the husband. Children are equal in a family, but the oldest is looked to first when a crisis occurs.
In some situations there may be one elder or spiritual leader who is actually called “the pastor,”
who will be expected to lead his fellow leaders; and in others there will be a team ministry. But
in every team there has to be a leader.

Derek Prime and Alistair Begg

On Being a Pastor, Moody Press, 2004, p. 218.

Ministry as depicted in the New Testament was never a one-man show. That does not preclude
the role of a dominant leader on each team. Within the framework of plurality, there will
invariably be those who have more influence. The diversity of our gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4)
means all people are differently equipped. Therefore a plurality of leaders does not necessitate an
absolute equality in every function. In even the most godly group of leaders, some will naturally
be more influential than others. Some will have teaching gifts that outshine the rest. Others will
be more gifted as administrators. Each can fulfill a different role, and there is no need to try to
enforce absolute equality of function.

John MacArthur
The Book on Leadership, 2004, p. 168.

Someone has said that more is learned from what is “caught” that “taught”… Though it is
certainly important to communicate God’s Word didactically, it’s what people see in our lives
that gives weight to our words. That is why the qualifications for elders are so important. If we
are to “teach the Word of God” effectively, we must simultaneously “live the Word of God.”

Gene Getz
Elders and Leaders, Moody, 2003, p. 267.

The true shepherd spirit is an amalgam of many precious graces. He is hot with zeal, but he is not
fiery with passion. He is gentle, and yet he rules his class. He is loving, but he does not wink at
sin. He has power over the lambs, but he is not domineering or sharp. He has cheerfulness, but
not levity; freedom, but not license; solemnity, but not gloom.
C.H. Spurgeon
28.573.

The Bible clearly models a plurality of elders in each local church. Though it never suggests a
specific number of elders for a particular congregation, the New Testament refers to “elders” in
the plural in local churches (e.g., Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). When
you read through Acts and the Epistles, there is always more than one elder being talked about.

Mark Dever
Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Crossway, 2000, p. 215-216.

Their [godly elders] humility makes them difficult to offend; their holiness makes them easy to
trust; their gentle speech makes them easy to hear as sources of correction or critique; and their
hospitality provides a context for spiritual encouragement and edification.

Mark Dever and Paul Alexander

Why Character is Crucial, taken from The Deliberate Church, © 2005, Crossway Books, a
division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois 60187, p. 154, www.crosswaybooks.org.

It may be wise to recognize men who are already qualified and are already doing elder-type work
rather than to “make” men elders simply by training them.

Mark Dever and Paul Alexander

Looking for a Few Good Men, taken from The Deliberate Church, © 2005, Crossway Books, a
division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois 60187, p. 137, www.crosswaybooks.org.

An elder is simply a man of exemplary, Christlike character who is able to lead God’s people by
teaching them God’s Word in a way that profits them spiritually.

Mark Dever and Paul Alexander

Looking for a Few Good Men, taken from The Deliberate Church, © 2005, Crossway Books, a
division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois 60187, p. 140, www.crosswaybooks.org.

What are the practical benefits of having more than one elder?
It balances pastoral weakness.
It diffuses congregational criticism.
It adds pastoral wisdom.
It indigenizes leadership.
It enables corrective discipline.
It defuses “us vs. him.”
Mark Dever and Paul Alexander
Excerpted from: The Importance of Elders, taken from The Deliberate Church, © 2005,
Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois 60187, p. 133,
www.crosswaybooks.org.

The most extraordinary things about the biblical prerequisites for elders is that they are not all
that extraordinary.

D.A. Carson
Quoted in: Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church, © 2005, Crossway Books, a
division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois 60187, p. 149, www.crosswaybooks.org.

We cannot sit back and wait for the sheep to lead. A few will, but by and large they are looking
to us for direction, feeding, and leadership by our stepping out courageously in faith.

Curtis C. Thomas
Practical Wisdom for Pastors, Crossway Books, 2001, p. 95.

Plural leadership is the norm for every church: “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.”
“Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular. It indicates multiple elders serving each
church on Crete (1:5). Each reference to local church elders demonstrates plurality as the New
Testament practice (see Acts 14:23; 15:22; 20:17 that show this same pattern of plurality). Paul’s
reason for plurality within even small congregations makes sense. It provides accountability,
support, and encouragement, increased wisdom, and diversity of gifts to increase ministry
effectiveness.

Phil Newton
Elders for the Church, September 2008, Tabletalk, p. 68. Used by Permission.

Our Good Shepherd has become the model for under-shepherds. His great concern is the good of
the sheep. A good shepherd gives himself to the sheep. A thief comes to get something form the
flock – wool or mutton. Jesus our Lord made every personal claim subservient to the blessing of
his flock, even to giving His life that they might live.

Walter J. Chantry
The Shadow of the Cross – Studies in Self-Denial, 1981, p. 59, by permission Banner of Truth,
Carlisle, PA.

Plurality Of Elders - Presentation Transcript

Nathan S. Riese
presbuvteroV – (elder/presbyter)
Spiritually mature leader of the church
ejpivskopoV – (overseer/bishop)
One who oversees and looks out for the church, bearing responsibility of the church
poimhvn – (pastor/shepherd)
One who feeds, guides, cares for the flock

Acts 20:17 – Paul addresses “elders”

Acts 20:28 – These elders “oversee” and “pastor”
1 Peter 5:1 – Peter exhorts “elders”
1 Peter 5:2 – These elders are to “pastor” while exercising “oversight”

Acts 11:30—elders at the church of Antioch

Acts 14:23—Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4—elders at the church in Jerusalem
Acts 20:17, 28—elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17—"elders of the
church")
Acts 21:18—elders at the church in Jerusalem
Philippians 1:1—the church at Philippi has overseers
1 Timothy 5:17—elders at the church of Ephesus
Titus 1:5—Titus is to appoint elders in every town
James 5:14—"the elders of the church"
1 Peter 5:1-2—"the elders among you"

Allowance for Plurality

Generally accepted as Biblically legitimate, even among those who have single-elder local
churches
At least some of the verses listed must have been local churches with plural elders
Many Baptist churches have a Pastoral staff
Many churches have an elder board

Ephesus
There were no buildings large enough to fit the Christians in Ephesus
Estimated 100,000 Christians in this one city therefore “church of Ephesus” = the many house
churches of Ephesus
Thus Paul was writing to these different pastors (plural) of different house churches (plural)
within the one Church (singular) of Ephesus

Ephesus
Exegetical Problems
It is based on suppositional estimation, not exegesis
What passage is there that says that there was one pastor per house church? There is none
Who is an example of a single pastor of any house church in Ephesus? There is none
Just because there may have been many “house churches,” the fact still remains that there were
plural churches with plural elders being appointed in each church by Paul (Acts 14:23).
Revelation 1-3
“ Messengers/angels” of Revelation 1-3 are representatives of the various cell groups of the
larger church of the city
There is an allowance for the single-elder local church because the letters in Revelation were
written to the angel/pastor of each local church

Sounds plausible, but not exegetically substantiated

Every other place in Revelation where John uses “angel ” (another 69 times), it is in reference to
angelic beings, not humans . Thus, the preponderance of word usage decidedly favors angelic
beings in Revelation 2-3
The NT nowhere else uses the term angel to refer to a pastor or elder, so there would have to be
substantial contextual reasons for these angels to be called pastors
A messenger is someone who is sent on a mission and who, as a rule, comes, accomplishes his
task, and then moves on. A pastor, on the other hand, settles in and tends his flock. He is there
for the long haul.

Not exegetically substantiated

Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically. But a messenger is one
who moves about.
The genre of the Revelation fits what is called "apocalyptic." In apocalyptic
literature there is a strong emphasis on angels, making that the primary inference.
Revelation 1:20 says that “angel” is the interpretation of “star.” It is better to follow the
interpretation given than to invent a new one. The pastor view adds an interpretation beyond that
of Revelation 1:20.

Not exegetically substantiated

Scripture describes angels as stars in numerous passages (Job 38:7; Psalm 104:4; Isaiah 14:12;
Luke 10:18; Hebrews 1:7); thus, to be consistent, we should take the stars of Revelation 1–3 to
be angels also
Why did John give his revealed message to angels to give to the churches?
Evidently it was because John at the time was a prisoner in exile on Patmos (Revelation 1:9). He
could not deliver the message himself; thus, by divine appointment, seven angels were
dispatched who would impart the message to the churches. John was in a supernatural state when
he received the message (1:10); therefore, it is not shocking to see him giving it to angels to pass
it on.

Not exegetically substantiated

We elsewhere discover that angels take an active interest in church life (1 Corinthians 4:9; 11:10;
Ephesians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:21). It is consistent, then, to interpret the angels of Revelation 1-3
as angelic beings, not as pastors.
Some might say that it is unthinkable to have angels give messages to churches. Why is that?
The Law to Moses (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2)
Prophetic revelation to Daniel (7:16–27; 8:16–26; 9:20–27; 10:1–12:13) and Zechariah (1:9; 2:3;
4:1, 5; 5:5; 6:4–5)
Announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to his father, Zacharias (Luke 1:11–20)
Announcement of the birth of Jesus to His mother, Mary (Luke 1:26–38), as well as to Joseph
(Matthew 1:20–21)

1 Timothy 3:1-14
The singular use of the word overseer in contrast to the plurality of the word deacons
“ Bishop”/”overseer” should be seen as a generic term
Paul is speaking qualitatively, not quantitatively
Cf. Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25
The generic article is actually used thousands of times in the NT
“ Deacons” does not also need to be used in the same numeric generic construction again
Note: Philippians 1:1 – “overseers” (plural) and “deacons” (plural) –this is not a generic case, but
specific addressees

Timothy and Titus

Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors.
Timothy
Disciple (Acts 16:1)
Servant (Philippians 1:1)
A servant to Paul (Acts 19:22)
Fellow worker (Romans 16:21)
Brother (2 Corinthians 1:1, 19)
Man of God (1 Timothy 6:1)
Good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3)
Workman in study (2 Timothy 3:15)
An apostle (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1 with 2:6)
But Never a pastor/overseer/elder

Timothy and Titus

Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors.
Timothy
It is unlikely that only one bishop is in view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Timothy
5:17. Who are these plural elders if Timothy is the Pastor?
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor
Timothy was there to teach “how one ought to behave in the household of God” (3:15) until Paul
returned (4:13). This shows that Timothy was, on a temporary , apostolic basis, one who was
delegating to others the pastoral work of teaching
He did teach, oversee, and lead, but that does not necessitate the conclusion that he was the
single-elder of a local church

Timothy and Titus

Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors
Titus
Paul’s brother (2 Corinthians 2:13)
Partner and fellow worker with Paul (2 Corinthians 8:23)
One who acted in the same spirit and took the same steps as Paul (2 Corinthians 12:18)
Uncircumcised Greek (Galatians 2:3)
Paul’s true child in a common faith (Titus 1:4)
But Never a pastor/overseer/elder

Timothy and Titus

Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors
Titus
Appointed elders in each town.
If Titus is an example for today’s polity as a single-elder (instead of as only an apostolic
representative), then should not the pastors today also be choosing elders for other churches in
other towns?
If Titus is an example for a single-elder-led church (and is therefore a bishop), is he then the
bishop of churches from every town?
If there are elders being appointed into these churches, then Titus cannot be the single elder of a
church.
Titus is following as Paul commanded him and exercised his authority as a representative of
Paul, not as the Pastor of a local church

1 Thessalonians
Paul addresses the church (singular) in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
Refers to its leadership in the plural (5:12–13)
“ These men,” Paul says, “labor among you, have charge over you, and admonish you.” “Labor”
and “have charge” are the same verbs Paul uses to describe the ministry profile of elders in 1
Timothy 5:17

Hebrews 13
The readers’ leaders were plural in number:
“ Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those
who must give account” (Hebrews 13:17)
The readers were not to obey just one leader, but more than one

Plurality is allowed
Each passage referring to specific elders is always in the plural
There are direct examples
Many who allow single-elder-led local churches admit that plurality is the NT norm and
preferable

Singularity is unsubstantiated
There is not one non-generic passage referring to a singular elder
There is no example of a single elder of a local church
The prooftexts given for the single-elder model are not exegetically confirmed
The argument against plurality regarding plurality of elders in each church is a secondary
inference, while plurality is a primary inference
Again, many who allow single-elder-led local churches admit that plurality is the NT norm and
preferable

The irreducible minimum cannot be shown exegetically to be only one elder per church
Therefore, each able local church should strive to have more than one elder as soon as possible
Err on the obvious

We now consider the matter of the "plurality" of elders. No one man has the responsibility to
shepherd a congregation. It is given to two or more men jointly. A man can be an elder but never
the elder. To use another term, that a man can be a pastor but he can never be the pastor —the
term "pastor" being properly used for an elder of the church not for the preacher or evangelist.
Wherever we read about elders in the scriptures, there is always a plurality of elders in a
congregation, never just one.
Occasionally someone will raise an argument to the effect that a plurality of elders, while
desirable, is not mandated, and a church may have one elder where only one man is qualified.
The argument is that the plural "elders" can accommodate the singular, one elder. So this is the
main matter for our attention on this page.

DOES "ELDERS" INCLUDE ONE?

I'll be the devil's advocate for a while and give you an "argument" to the effect that the plural
term "elders" can accommodate the singular one elder.
THE ARGUMENT TO BE ANSWERED
If I tell you that in my street there are telephones in every home, cars in every driveway, and
garden gnomes on every lawn, I am not saying that every home has more than one phone, every
drive has more than one car, every lawn has more than one gnome. I am using accommodative
language which does not exclude the possibility that here or there a drive might have only one
car, a house only one phone, or a lawn only one gnome. If someone asked me, "Are there
children in every household?" and I answered yes, I would mean that each household includes at
least one child. Likewise, in the term "elders in every church" there is nothing (just in the term
itself) to exclude the possibility of a church with only one elder. The plural accommodates
(includes) the singular.
Now if Paul had said, "Appoint elders in the church at Phoenix," or if Luke had said, "They
appointed elders in the church at Iconium," we would be justified in saying that means "a
plurality of elders" were appointed in those particular churches. But Paul refers at once to several
churches. "I left you to appoint elders in every city." Luke's terms are similarly generalized:
"They appointed elders in every church." Because the one generic statement covers several
churches, then we must regard the plural as accommodative of the singular. So the argument
runs.
We have no right, continues the argument, to change the inspired term "elders in every church"
by adding words of our own, thus making it read "a plurality of elders in every church." By
itself, as it stands, the term "elders in every church" may be taken as meaning one or more elders
in every church. We have no right to make it exclude the singular by adding qualifying words.
REPLY TO THAT ARGUMENT
We must acknowledge that this argument would have merit, indeed would be conclusive, were
there no other scripture but the statements of Paul and Luke referred to. If all we had to go on
were the statements in Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23, we could not insist on a plurality of elders in
every church.
However, we find other scriptures that show that churches had a plurality of elders, and we have
no scripture to demonstrate that any church ever had but one elder. So, to answer the argument
above, we will look now at the extra information that shows that there should be a plurality of
elders in each congregation of Christ, and, in the case of "elders in every church" the plural does
not accommodate or include the singular.

REASONS FOR A PLURALITY OF ELDERS

When we look at passages that reveal the pattern of eldership, what shape is it? No elders, one
elder, or a plurality of elders? The last in that list is the observed New Testament pattern of
authorized church government insofar as it concerns elders. Wherever we find examples and
references, we find a plurality of elders in a congregation. It follows, therefore, that we should
try to achieve the same thing in our local church if we wish to be "a church after the New
Testament pattern."
EXAMPLE CHURCHES
In the list of local churches below, there is a plurality of elders in each case.
Acts 15:2 Jerusalem,
Acts 20:17,28 Ephesus,
Php 1:1 Philippi,
1Th 5:12-13 Thessalonica.
Here we have examples of single churches with a plurality of elders. We have no examples at all
of one-elder churches. Admittedly, the elders at Jerusalem might have been from "churches
throughout all Judea" (Acts 9:31) and one might complain that there might have been only one
elder in some of those churches. That "might have been" may weaken the Jerusalem example a
little, but it does not strengthen the argument for single shepherd churches.
DISTRIBUTED MINISTRY
In Ephesians 4:11-16 and 1Corinthians 12:12-31, the congregation is conceived of as a body
growing by means of a ministry distributed among several persons: some apostles, some
prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and so forth. There is no one ministry, and in any
particular ministry there is no one minister. The pattern is clearly a plural and distributed
ministry. The congregation is served by many ministers, including "some pastors" not one pastor.
SINGLE CHURCHES, SEVERAL SHEPHERDS
1Tm 5:17; Heb 13:7,17; Jas 5:14; 1Pe 5:1-5. These passages do not appear to have a number of
churches in view, but rather have in view the circumstances within a local congregation. The
concept in these passages is of folk in a church being subject to leaders (plural). The concept of a
one-elder church, a flock with one shepherd, does not emerge. The writers have in mind that a
member of a local church looks to several shepherds for leadership and help.
THE PRESBYTERY
In 1Timothy 4:14, the term "presbytery" or "eldership" is a collective noun, and by that we mean
a noun like the word "flock". When we say "flock" we think of a group of sheep or by way of
metaphor we think of a congregation of saints. In the same way, "presbytery" conjures up an
image of a group, in this case a group of elders. Since the presbytery is within the local
congregation, the congregation has a group of elders. The collective concept of the presbytery is
carried into the symbolic visions of Revelation in which the four-and-twenty elders appear (Rev
4:4).
Author's note: There may somewhere be a New Testament church, which has among its meagre
membership only one man who qualifies as an elder, a deacon, or an evangelist. That church
might decide that appointing him is one step closer to the scriptural pattern of government, and
that it is better to be a church with one official appointment than a church with none. The
intention of that church is to grow toward a plural ministry and eldership. They may consider
that having one appointment to an office, whilst still unsatisfactory, is nevertheless nearer to the
goal, and more satisfactory than having no appointments at all. I have not addressed that
approach on this page, but have simply stressed that the New Testament pattern of
congregational government is not "no elders", nor "one elder", but "a plurality of elders".
http://members.net-tech.com.au/sggram/f687.htm