What did church leadership look like in the first century?
“The general norm in the first century seems to be that churches were led by multiple elders/overseers/pastors. Some see this plurality as a command. I’m not sure it quite rises to that level.” - DBTS Blog
- 402 views
Further, to be consistent, all elders should be paid. I think that is the point of what Paul is getting at 1 Timothy 5. While it is certainly permissible for a church to have volunteer elders, I don't think it should be the norm.
1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
Here’s how I read this verse:
“who rule well” means that there is an evaluation going on and of the elders, the ones who lead the best are eligible for “honor.” Honor certainly refers to money for work
“especially…labor” - labor means to work hard, and virtually always indicates full time work.
“Double” here means (I believe) twin, or equal. IOW, an equal or equivalent wage.
So I see this verse as pointing out that some elders should be paid. If their leadership is exceptional and they are working full time.
This is circular, of course. The church shouldn’t be calling an elder to work that hard if his work isn’t good and if they’re not going to pay him.
So logically, the church calls multiple elders, some of whom give better quality work. Just as the parable of talents good performance, received by the body, results in more work. And the best are eventually asked for full time work with pay.
Discussion