Another unfortunate translation is found in 1Timothy 3:1 where Paul speaks of one “desiring the office of a bishop.” The Greek word, translated elsewhere is “overseer.” There is no “office” in the text. This word and the few examples we have of an elder’s benevolent care is often confused with an administrative office.
Campbell writes, “These are in connection with Churches as settled, and as distinguished from the other orders are stationary, and were a gift to the early Church in being a supreme authority in all matters of administration.” Today’s elders are seen as “decision-makers” for local churches. They run the affairs of local churches. However, is there adequate evidence for this conclusion? Let’s delve into the texts.
There is a role that was given to the shepherds that could be seen as a work of administration. They distributed gifts given by saints for the poor among them. Acts 11:28-30 reads,
“One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.”
Barnabas and Saul took the contributions to the elders living in Judea. In Acts 4, gifts were laid at the apostles’ feet and they would distribute those gifts to meet the physical needs of the saints in Jerusalem. They may have had to exchange money for food in this case, but the job of distribution seemed to lie in the hands of the apostles. Did the apostles serve as administrators of the local church? Later, a shift is made from the “apostles” in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 4:35-37, Acts 5:2) to the “elders” in Judea in Acts 11:28-30.
The first thing of significance is that a shift is seen that supports and harmonizes with the order of “gifts” of teachers given to God’s people. The apostles head the list and start tasks that others would later relieve. For example, Acts 6 records Peter telling the saints in Jerusalem to select seven men to care for the Grecian widows so the apostles could dedicate their time to prayer and teaching of the Word (Acts 6:1-4).
Second, once the seven were selected, the apostles laid their hands on them to receive the direct influence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5-6). Even then, we know that two of these seven are seen in the role of a teacher.
Third, this task of waiting on tables was separated from the spiritual needs of teaching and equipping the saints for all areas of service. The “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/teachers” were in a separate class from those providing physical care. This is not to mean they were neither interested nor involved, but that the physical demands of people would have hindered their primary role of teaching. They were involved in extenuating cases of famine. In the event of sickness, shepherds were called to “pray, anointing with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14-16). Unlike the apostles, their work does not automatically assume the miraculous power of healing but like ourselves, can appeal to God through prayer for healing. Of course, once again, a more important need exists in the event of the sick needing forgiveness of sins. Elders would lead others in this practice of confessing and praying for one another, a practice sorely neglected in our time.
Fourth, if the apostles distributed to the physical needs of saints and are not perceived as administrators of local churches, why would we assign that role to the shepherds? Both distributed to the poor and yet, both are given the primary task of teaching. When Paul writes Timothy and Titus regarding the qualifications of the shepherds, he adds qualifications for “deacons.” The selection of the deacons corresponds to the same practice of Acts 6 and for the same reason.
Why must we assume that the mention of an elder implies they were decision-makers and administrators of local work, while the mention of an apostle or evangelist does not? The role of all three in Ephesians 4 was that of a teacher. Why wouldn’t we conclude that they continued the same work begun by the other two, i.e., teaching? The mention of elders/shepherds does not prove that the saints had formed themselves into local church organizations any more than the mention of an apostle or evangelists proves it. All we can deduce from their presence is that they, like the others, continued the spiritual work of teaching that the Spirit revealed.
The definitions and explanations that we have already presented in these pages show a distinction between the biblical role of spiritual leaders and the human development of an organization designed to control the allegiances, money, and doctrinal views of the people. Once the choice is made to place membership in a church, individuals are led into a proverbial “squeeze shoot” that influences the thought patterns and behaviors of its members. In this context, the leadership uses words that fit a position of power. Translators add words like “office” that authorizes him as the decision-maker of the organization. They run the affairs of local churches. He makes sure that the work that needs to be done is done right. This suggests that he superintends and controls the work of the organization. The problem may elude us as this is such a common thought process. It’s quite simple but for fear of miscommunication, let’s be clear that the biblical overseers were not overseeing the work of local churches. The work for which they are responsible was their work of overseeing individual souls.
This word, “overseer” (trans. “bishop”), and the few examples we have of an elder’s benevolent care is often confused with an administrative office that oversees the activities of an organization.
Taken together, it appears that all the saints served one another, just as did their Savior. No task was too menial to perform. Yet, the task that the “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers” that they were called to do was of primary importance. The real issue that needs resolving is whether these gifted men were administrators of local churches. The object of the care, teaching, and oversight is the issue, here. The choice is individual souls or a local church organization. The above passages do not describe any administrative role in a local organization to the New Testament shepherds any more than the apostles. There is no proof of a church treasury to oversee or any question requiring deliberation as to whether the saints should be helped. The reason they are involved at all is the fact that they were spiritual leaders of individuals who happen to be enduring physical hardships. This does not prove they were decision-makers for the churches or that they ran the affairs of local churches. The shepherds were living among saints. While providing spiritual care and oversight as their teachers, an emergency arose. Not only must we reject any human implication of local church oversight, but we must also make no mistake regarding their primary role as “teachers,” just as it was with the apostles in Acts 6 (dedicated to “prayer” and “ministry of the word”). The ongoing care of “daily administration” was not the task of spiritual teachers. It is for this reason that the concept of “servants” (diakonos- deacons) comes to the surface. When Paul writes to the brethren in Philippi, he addresses the letter, “To the ekklesia at Philippi with its elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). This passage follows the same pattern as Acts 6, which included the spiritual care of the apostles and the seven who oversaw the needs of the widows. The precedent set by Peter in dividing the physical from the spiritual needs in Acts 6 is recognized in this passage and as do references to the appointment of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. These works were the works of individuals, not local church officials who are given a position of power to call the shots.