What Is An Elder?

Honestly, I think this article will probably just end up as ‘one for the archives’. The question of what an elder is, or who should be recognised as one doesn’t find its way into too many everyday conversations (it’s hardly the most engaging conversation-starter at a dinner party, although, you know me, haha, I’m always willing to give it a crack…). 

And it’s not necessarily because people don’t care. But because eldership conversations sit within church leadership, ecclesiology, polity, and all those other more (seemingly mundane) categories, it can feel a bit removed from ordinary Christian life. So while this little trip down the rabbit hole of ‘eldership’, ‘church ministry’ and ‘who can do what’ might be interesting and helpful for a few, I think it’s unlikely to garner a cult-following on Facebook…

That being said, if you’re someone like me, who gladly affirms women in ministry, the question around eldership may still give you pause. Even some who are broadly egalitarian when it comes to women’s place in the church still land in a male-only position on eldership. They may affirm women teaching, preaching, leading ministries, serving on staff, or exercising significant spiritual influence, but still stop short of recognising women as elders.

So this actually got me thinking this week, particularly in light of the Southern Baptist Convention’s recent announcement regarding women pastors, and the resultant responses from across the ministry spectrum. Is there biblical merit for male-only eldership? Based on my egalitarian-minded stance and reading of the biblical text, I’d say no, but maybe there was something I had missed? Maybe I needed to dig a little deeper…

Putting The Cart Before The Horse

Because eldership is often included in conversations about formal roles, official titles, or authority structures, many discussions about eldership begin too late. We talk a lot about the role or the office but can tend to forget that the office doesn’t create the elder, but rather the elder creates the office.

As I mentioned, the SBC’s recent decision to ban women from pastoring brought both applause and criticism. Many believe its a decision well overdue, and that the Bible not only prohibits certain roles for women but that the SBC is to be congratulated for its faithful adherence to biblical application.

Others are deeply dismayed and troubled by what they see as the minimising and silencing of women, and, in reality, the implicit dismissal and disapproval of ministry they are already doing, irrespective of whether they hold the title or office.

And yet, while many on the more conservative side of the fence may affirm women in some leadership roles, even those more egalitarian-minded will still stop short at affirming women in eldership positions. For many, clearly, eldership is a male-only prerogative, an office that only “suitable qualified men” may fill.

But maybe we’re putting the cart before the horse. Before we decide who’s allowed to fill the ‘office of elder’, shouldn’t we be asking how and on what basis an elder is recognised in the first place?

What Is An Elder?

Biblically, an elder isn’t a church official with a position on a board, although this is often how they’re commonly described in the church world today. Biblically, an elder is someone marked by maturity, tested faith, wisdom, spiritual credibility, and a life worthy of imitation. The office matters, because the health of the church matters, but the office doesn’t create the elder. The church usually recognises those whose lives already bear the marks of eldership and those people are considered reputable, trustworthy, and sources of wisdom and spiritual leadership in the church.

Scripture doesn’t present elders as mere managers. The moment we reduce eldership to primarily a formal ‘church role’, we can start to miss the deeper biblical category. They are examples. They are shepherds. They are people whose faith has been tested over time and whose lives help steady the people of God. And, arguably, those kinds of people have always included both men and women.

The Faithful Elders Of Old In Hebrews 11

Hebrews 11:2 speaks of “the elders” or “the people of old” who were commended by faith. The word used there comes from the same word family as ‘elder’ used in 1 Timothy 3. In that context, it isn’t referring to a local church office. It’s referring to the faithful people who came before, those whose lives are held up to believers as examples of steadfast faith. And those faithful predecessors include both men and women.

Hebrews 11 includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and others. But it also includes Sarah and Rahab, and Moses’ mother (and father). It speaks of women who received back their dead, raised to life again. These women aren’t treated as secondary examples. They’re part of the great witness of faith. They belong among the faithful elders of old, those whose lives teach the people of God what faith looks like, through all the challenges and triumphs of life.

To be clear, that doesn’t mean Hebrews 11 is directly appointing women to the ‘office of elder’. It isn’t. But it does show something important. Elder language, at its root, isn’t automatically male-only language. It refers to faithful predecessors whose lives instruct the people of God, and that category clearly includes women. That should at least slow us down before we assume that the word elder itself carries an automatic male monopoly or female restriction.

Elders Are Shepherds And Examples

When we come to the New Testament church, elders are still described in terms of character, maturity, teaching, shepherding and example. In 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter appeals to the elders to shepherd the flock of God, exercise oversight willingly, and not domineer over those in their charge, but be examples to the flock. There’s no indication in this passage that Peter’s words were intended for men only.

This, then, is the heart of eldership – faithful witness and character. And, in reality, it flows from the core of Christian life, believing and confessing that Jesus is both Lord and Savior. Eldership has the added distinction of describing those whose lives display “a long obedience in the same direction”, not merely new converts to the faith but those who had been at “this Christian thing” for a good while, who have endured hardship and suffering, and whose lives are a testament to the faith they profess to hold.

Eldership, therefore, isn’t bare authority. It isn’t status. It isn’t a title that exists apart from character. Elders are shepherds under Christ, the Chief Shepherd. They are to care for the flock, guard the truth, live faithfully, and model the way of Jesus before the church. It’s leadership but it’s the upside down kind, the way of the kingdom of God, rare in a dog-eat-dog world but surprisingly common among those who truly call Jesus Lord.

Titus 1 also comments that elders are to be above reproach, faithful, self controlled, hospitable, lovers of good, upright, holy and disciplined. They must hold firmly to the trustworthy word so they can encourage sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it.

Again, the emphasis falls on tested character and faithfulness to the truth, not on a specific gender or church position.

What 1 Timothy 3 Says

Paul says that anyone who aspires to the work of overseer desires a noble task. He then gives qualifications. The overseer must be above reproach, faithful in marriage, sober minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy, and well thought of by outsiders. He must manage his household well and not be a recent convert.

These aren’t superficial requirements. They are deeply spiritual ones. They describe the kind of person whose life has been shaped by the gospel and whose example can be trusted. And this is where we need to be honest. Nothing about the aspiration to be an overseer or in the actual list of qualifications is inherently male, despite the masculine grammar (we’ll get to that in a minute).

Faithfulness isn’t male. Self control isn’t male. Hospitality isn’t male. Gentleness isn’t male. Sound doctrine isn’t male. The ability to teach truthfully and humbly isn’t male. A life worthy of imitation isn’t male.

Masculine Language Doesn’t Automatically Mean Male-Only

Of course, some will point out that the language in 1 Timothy 3 is grammatically masculine and this is true. But Greek often uses masculine grammatical forms when speaking generally, or when speaking of mixed groups (Romans 12:1, Romans 8:14, 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 3:26-28, James 1:2, Hebrews 3:1). Masculine grammar by itself doesn’t prove male-only meaning.

Hebrews 11, in particular, helps us see this. The masculine plural elder language there clearly includes faithful women. So the question in 1 Timothy 3 isn’t simply whether masculine grammar appears. It does. The question is whether the passage itself explicitly restricts eldership to men.

And that’s much harder to prove from 1 Timothy 3 alone. In fact, its often a particular reading of 1 Timothy 2, which is then read into 1 Timothy 3, that does a lot of the heavy lifting in interpreting this passage in this way (see the ‘1 Timothy 2 Lens’ below).

“Husband Of One Wife”

The phrase most often used to argue for male-only eldership is “husband of one wife” or, as the Greek literally translates, “a one-woman man.” On face value, there seems to be something to this. But many scholars comment that this phrase is best understood as a requirement of covenant faithfulness, not a biological restriction. Paul clearly isn’t saying every elder must be married, must have children, or, by extension, must be male. If we read it that woodenly and literally, then single men, widowers, childless men, and even Paul himself would be excluded.

The point is that an elder must be faithful, sexually pure, morally trustworthy, and proven in the ordinary responsibilities of life. And that that makes a lot of sense in the context of the whole passage. Paul is giving character qualifications for those who would be recognised as shepherds of the church. He isn’t writing a job description built on maleness. He’s describing the kind of person who can be trusted to lead and guide the people of God.

And The Women Likewise

The same chapter also includes the phrase “women likewise” in 1 Timothy 3:11. This is often translated as “their wives,” but the word “their” isn’t actually in the Greek. Additionally, the Greek word for women and wives is the same. The phrase can simply mean “women likewise.”

In context, “women likewise” most naturally refers either to women serving in recognised ministry, probably women deacons, or to women connected to the deacon qualifications. This makes better sense than reading it as a character requirement for the wives of male deacons. If Paul meant deacons’ wives, it’s strange that he gives specific qualifications for them but says nothing similar about elders’ wives. That inconsistency suggests Paul isn’t simply pausing to assess the wives of male office holders, but is addressing the women who are themselves serving in a recognised and accountable leadership ways.

And this is significant. It demonstrates that women were and are included in recognised service and leadership in the church, and that the same character qualifications must apply to them as for the men. Paul speaks of women who must be dignified, not slanderers, sober minded, and faithful in all things. It shows that 1 Timothy 3 isn’t opposed to women serving in serious, recognised ways.

It doesn’t resolve the eldership question entirely but it does demonstrate that Paul’s focus is on character and spiritual maturity, not gender, and that the evidence for prohibiting women from 1 Timothy 3 is much thinner than advocates care to admit.

The 1 Timothy 2 Lens

The argument for excluding women from eldership doesn’t actually come from 1 Timothy 3. There’s just not enough weight in the text to draw that conclusion. It comes from reading 1 Timothy 3 through an interpretation already drawn from 1 Timothy 2.

1 Timothy 2 is often the go-to passage that many Christians read as a permanent universal ban on women teaching or exercising authority over men in the gathered church. Not only that, many also read Paul’s words to be reiterating a hierarchical creation order, in which men are responsible for authority and leadership. There are many reasons why this interpretation of the text is problematic, and that a “plain reading” simply doesn’t take into account the context of the letter, the cultural background, and some odd (and seemingly random) inclusions in the passage by Paul.

However, once that conclusion – that Paul is commanding a permanent teaching or speaking ban on women, within an established creation order of male authority and leadership – is accepted, 1 Timothy 3 is then often read through that lens. The masculine language is treated as decisive and specific, not because 1 Timothy 3 clearly prohibits women from eldership, but because a male-only conclusion has already been drawn from 1 Timothy 2. But we should be honest about what’s happening there. The prohibition isn’t plainly stated in 1 Timothy 3. It’s imported from a particular interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.

As a quick summary, 1 Timothy 2 is one of the most debated passages in the New Testament. It sits within a letter concerned with false teaching, deception, public conduct, worship, and the health of the church in Ephesus. Crucially, it isn’t a letter setting out a complete structure for church leadership, but rather setting out good practice in terms of teaching and discipling in the church at Ephesus.

Faithful Christians disagree about whether Paul is giving a permanent restriction on all women in all churches, or whether he is addressing a particular Ephesian situation involving false teaching, unlearned women, and disorder in that local context. I unpack more of that here and give reasons why I don’t believe a permanent ban on women teaching or preaching is Paul’s intent here.

But if 1 Timothy 2 is read as a pastoral letter dealing with a particular church issue (false teaching) in a local context (Ephesus), not a restriction on women holding leadership roles within the church, then 1 Timothy 3 by itself doesn’t contain a clear prohibition against women elders.

That means we need to read it with greater care, especially when one debated passage is potentially being used to control the meaning of another. The lens we bring to the text matters. If we read 1 Timothy 3 through an incorrect conclusion already drawn from 1 Timothy 2, we may end up treating the qualifications as though they say something they don’t actually say.

The text of 1 Timothy 3 gives us qualifications of character, doctrine, maturity, household faithfulness, and public credibility. It doesn’t say, “A woman may not be an elder.” At the very least, we should admit that.

Christ Forms Elders Before The Church Recognises Them

The church doesn’t need leaders who merely hold office. It needs elders in the deepest biblical sense. It needs mature believers whose lives have been formed by Christ, whose doctrine is sound, whose character is tested, whose homes display faithfulness, whose words build up the church, and whose example points people to Jesus.

Scripture gives us women who fit that description. Sarah believed the promise of God. Rahab acted in courageous faith. Deborah judged Israel with wisdom. Huldah spoke the word of the Lord to the nation. Priscilla helped instruct Apollos more accurately in the way of God. Phoebe served the church. Junia was noted among the apostles. Older women in Titus 2 are commanded to teach what is good and train other younger women in godliness. The biblical story isn’t embarrassed by faithful women. It doesn’t hide them. It honours them.

While it’s true that in the highly patriarchal, male-oriented world of the first century church, elders were probably more likely to be men than women, naming that reality isn’t the same as describing a prohibition. Scripture itself gives us the names of remarkable women in and around this period who taught, served, corrected, hosted churches, carried apostolic messages, laboured in the gospel, and acted with the kind of spiritual maturity and courage we rightly associate with eldership.

So when we ask whether women may be elders today, we shouldn’t begin with denominational tradition, reaction against what we might perceive as feminist culture, or fear about what others might think. We should begin with Scripture.

We should ask, firstly, what an elder is. We should ask what qualities the New Testament requires. We should ask whether those qualities are restricted to men by the text itself. And we should be willing to say what 1 Timothy 3 actually says, examining whether this rings true in light of Scripture’s broader witness.

Biblically, elders are to be mature, faithful, able to teach, sound in doctrine, gentle, hospitable, respected, and worthy of imitation. These are the marks of a shepherd under Christ. I certainly know a few good men and women who fit that description and are worthy of the descriptor of ‘elder’.

The office doesn’t create the elder. It’s not a role to be filled or a job description to be advertised. The church recognises those whom Christ has already formed. And if Christ has formed such maturity, wisdom, faithfulness and courage in women, we should be very careful before declaring that Scripture forbids what the text itself doesn’t plainly prohibit.