Why Presbyterian Polity Is Unfaithful to the Biblical Text (or Why We're Not Presbyterian)

Our church has, from time to time, looked for a Reformed affiliation with which we would feel comfortable. Presbyterianism has come up, also from time to time, as one we should consider. Apart from taking certain issues with the Presbyterian departure from historic Christian practices, like paedocommunion, the church's universal stance before the Reformation against remarriage, etc., we take issue with their traditional polity, where they divide up elders between teaching elders and ruling elders. This seems convenient so that they only need to pay their teaching elders, and can elect men to eldership who are, frankly, laymen. Their strongest support from this idea biblically is from a single verse.

Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.

The NASB translates this text as follows:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

From this verse, it is surmised that there really are two kinds of elders: those who do the main preaching and teaching and those who just help out with ruling (and perhaps some teaching as well, but not to a degree as to be paid for it). Hence, the idea of the senior pastor is thought to be vindicated by this verse.

First off, if the verse were to be divided, it still does not support this idea. Notice, it is the ruling elders who rule well who are to be given double honor, i.e., paid. If those who teach and preach are a separate group, it must be concluded that all elders are to be paid (although I don't know how one especially pays group B within group A if the command is that all are to be paid. This is part of the problem in not understanding the word malista, which has been mistranslated here as "especially."

One could say that the ruling elders don't rule well, but then they should probably be rejected as elders, which is what Paul is really implying by saying that only the elders who are doing their jobs should be paid, and by extension, considered elders at all. This is consistent with what he says about giving financial resources to widows as well (i.e., not all widows but only those who are faithful as women who have served the church [5:3-16]).

So even in the alternative translation, Presbyterians are unfaithful to the Word of God by only paying their teaching elders. However, as I will lay out, they are unfaithful to the Word by even teaching a distinction between the elders.

Let's take a look at the important word here that the NASB and many other translations translate as "especially." The English word "especially" usually means that what has come before is a larger group and what comes after the "especially" is a more specific group, or subgroup, of the whole, that is to be distinguished from the larger group. Hence, we get the idea from this translation that there is the larger group of elders who seek to help each other manage the church, but that there is a different set of elders who work hard at preaching and teaching as well.

Another thing to notice that those who work hard at preaching and teaching is plural, not singular. One could argue that Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus and could be referring to the many elders from multiple churches in the city of Ephesus. However, Presbyterians have usually used such verses to justify multiple elders in a single church. I would agree and argue that even if there are multiple sites in a city, it is seen as one local church by the apostles, not many. I would also argue that they all seem to be in one place when depicted, not many. What this means is that there are multiple elders who are teaching and preaching in one church who then should be given double honor, not one. So, again, even if one takes malista in the traditional way, Presbyterianism is unfaithful to the text.

However, even though the word can mean something specified as distinguished from the larger group in Greek literature, the word malista, translated here as "especially," does not take upon the connotation of specifying a group within a group, but rather specifies the reference for purposes of clarification. It can be argued that the larger New Testament does not use the word this way either. In other words, the NASB, following the traditional understanding of the word, views the word as follows:

Elders › Elders (indicating a smaller group of elders within a larger group of elders)

 But the word actually conveys the following: 

Elders = Elders (indicating that the specific group clarifies the intended referent of the larger group)

In other words, the word malista specifies the preceding with a clarification of the following. For instance, if a painter came to paint my living room, he might say, "I'm here to paint your house, malista your living room. The word would mean "specifically speaking," "namely," "more specifically," etc. He is not here to paint my whole house, but specifically the living room. Thus this type of speech is used even our language.

In the case of 1 Timothy 5:17, the elders who rule/stand as guard well are the elders who work hard at preaching and teaching, i.e., that is how they guard the church well (remember the church is viewed as a household in Timothy and there are heretics trying to infiltrate it with false teaching--hence, the elders are responsible for guarding the household via teaching). There aren't two different groups here, one speaking of elders who rule and the other speaking of elders who work hard at studying the Word (lit. "the word") and teaching it. That is an erroneous understanding of the way the New Testament uses malista, which is simply an adverb expressing specification of some sort, but in this case it is specification in terms of clarification of the preceding, not in terms of specifying a group within a group.

The word appears 12 times in the New Testament. Some of them are ambiguous, and that means we interpret the ambiguous with the clearer texts. Let's look at them below:

Acts 20:38 "grieving malista over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship."

This use is ambiguous, but we can see how the translation of "specifically," rather than "especially" would work better here.

Acts 25:26 "Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you [all] and malista before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write. 

Although this one may seem to indicate specification that distinguishes Agrippa from the larger group, I would say that it doesn't. The "you" here seems to indicate the royal court, but Paul is not being brought to the royal court for the royal court to judge him. He is being brought to Agrippa specifically. Hence, this is like saying, "the government, that is, the IRS,  taxes me too much." The government here is a larger group, but by "government" I really mean the IRS specifically. Hence, I am not saying that both the government and the IRS tax me too much, but that the IRS does. In a similar manner, the "you" that refers to the members of the royal court, really is meant only for Agrippa who is a part of that court. Hence, the translation "specifically speaking," or "that is" might be more appropriate, as this is likely a case where the speaker references something too broadly, and then clarifies what he is referencing with malista.

Acts 26:3  I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; malista because you are an expert in all customs and questions among [the] Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently. 

"Specifically" seems more appropriate here, as Paul clarifies what precedes in his saying that he considers himself fortunate to make his defense before Agrippa. There is no larger group, or here, larger set of reasons why Paul feels fortunate. This is the only reason given. Hence, it is specification of why he feels fortunate to make his defense before Agrippa, specifically speaking because Agrippa is an expert in the customs and questions of the Jews.

Gala 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, malista de to those who are of the household of the faith. 

malista de here likely clarifies the referent "all men." Paul is not saying that we are to do good to everyone without exception. It's not that we shouldn't do good to everyone without exception, but I'm simply saying that this is not Paul's point here. The context indicates that Paul is referring to sharing either physical goods or spiritual goods with one another within the community. In other words, we are reaping and sowing good or evil with one another in the religious community. Hence, the statement begins with ara oun which is a double inferential that means "therefore accordingly" or just exists as an emphatic "THEREFORE" that concludes what Paul has just said about doing good to one another within the religious community. Hence, the better translation of malista de here would be "THEREFORE, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, specifically speaking, to those who belong to the household of faith." This may sound odd to some, as though Paul would exclude any of humanity from our doing good, but we must remember the context and that doing good here has to do with sharing physical goods and spiritual goods (through discipleship) that are reserved for the church alone.

Phil 4:22 All the saints greet you, malista those of Caesar's household. 

It is clear that Paul is not saying that all the saints in the world greet the Philippians, but rather all the saints who belong to Caesar's household, i.e., Rome. In fact, if Paul meant all saints, then this would include the Philippians who are being greeted. This makes no sense either way. Paul is saying that the saints who are greeting them are those of Caesar's household. Hence, malista clarifies an overly broad designation and corrects it by saying, "What I mean to say by that is . . ."

1Tim 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, malista of believers. 

This verse is an interesting one, as it basically says that God is the Savior of all men. Of course, this is placing a common phrase given to Caesar with God, so it is a bit polemic; but the point is that it would in fact still say that God is the one who saves all men, not just believers. Notice it does not say that He is the potential Savior, but that He is the Savior of all men. But that is not what this says if the word malista is translated correctly as "specifically speaking." The adverb malista is simply specifying what was too broadly spoken, i.e., "all men" with its clarification "all believers." It really should be translated, "God, who is the Savior of all men, that is, of believers."

1Tim 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own kai malista  for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. 

Here we have another instance of a conjunction appearing with the adverb that may function with it. I actually think that kai may go to the preceding clause and should be translated as "even," but nonetheless, it's irrelevant how we take it here. It is clear that "his own" refers to "those who belong to his household." There is simply no way to say that "his own," i.e., that which he possesses or belongs to him in terms of family could possibly refer to some larger group of people who belong to him and then "his household" refers to a smaller group of people, as that would basically be saying that he is responsible for his extended family, and if he doesn't provide for all of them, he has denied the faith. This would be an impossibility for most people and completely absurd. But, again, this is not what Paul is saying. The broad and ambiguous phrase is clarified by the specification of malista. The Christian is only responsible for his own household. Anything else places an impossible burden on him and he would be in absolute despair as Paul would be declaring that he is worse than an unbeliever for not taking care of people outside his household.

1Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, malista those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 

We'll leave this one, since it's the one we're discussing.

2Tim 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, malista the parchments. 

How exactly is Timothy "especially" bringing back anything? How does one "especially" bring something of a group that he's already bringing. Please note, he did not say, "Especially remember to bring . . .", but "especially bring." This is just nonsense. Obviously, the parchments are the books to which the apostle is referring, and malista clarifies that for Timothy. Hence, Paul is saying, "bring the books, that is, the parchments."

Titu 1:10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 

Again, is Paul referring to all sorts of rebellious men and empty talkers everywhere, or is he just referencing the Judaizers here. It's likely the latter.

Phle 1:16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, malista to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Again, Philemon is a beloved brother specifically in reference to how Paul thinks of him.

2Pet 2:9-10  [then] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, malista those who indulge the flesh in [its] corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,

Peter is talking about the same false teachers here who engage in heresy and sexual immorality. It has been the theme in Chapter 2 the entire time (v. 2). There isn't another group of people to which he is making an analogy with the fallen angels. This is it. Hence, malista specifies the "unrighteous" that precede it as those who indulge in the flesh and its corrupt desires and despise authority. Those for whom judgment is reserved are the unrighteous, i.e., those who indulge in the flesh and despise church authority.

Most modern scholars have come to this same conclusion. The first study was done by a scholar named T. C Skeat, who looked at both secular Greek literature and the examples I gave above of the NT texts. George Knight in his New International Greek New Testament Commentary on the Pastorals argued the same. Other Greek scholars, like Mounce, I. Howard Marshall, etc. have done the same. Poythress, being a Presbyterian, attempted to argue against this view by saying that we shouldn't change our definition of a Greek word we've already understood to mean something else (perhaps the oddest argument I could possibly think of). This assumes some sort of set authoritative meaning of the word. Poythress' attempted refutation remains unconvincing as it does not adequately address the problems of such a translation I have stated above.

What this means is that malista in 1 Timothy 5:17 does not mean "especially" in the sense that the preceding group of elders describes one group and the following elders describe another group within that group. In other words, they are not two different groups, but that too broadly made reference to "elders' that might have been misconstrued as older men or men respected within the community needed to be clarified by specifying what the apostle meant by saying "elders who rule," and he does so by employing the word malista and saying that these elders rule well by their working hard at preaching and teaching. Thus, there is no Scriptural support for a hierarchy within the eldership, and there is no Scriptural support, therefore, for the idea of a senior pastor/teaching elder in distinction from ruling elders.

The text, therefore, should be translated as follows:

The elders who faithfully stand guard are to be understood as worthy of double honor, that is, those who labor in word [i.e., prayer or study of the Word] and teaching. 

Hence, faithful elders who stand guard/rule are the same people as those who labor in word and teaching. There is no other group, and they are plural.

This also, then, explains why within the qualification of all elders is the need to be a "skillful teacher" (1 Tim 3:2), one who edifies with "teaching that is free from error" and capable of refuting "those who contradict it" (Titus 1:11). That's a description of a rabbi. Does that sound like most ruling/lay elders to you? It hasn't been my experience either. Hence, Presbyterianism is not an option for us, as we are unwilling to bend to such unfaithfulness, and it seems now that the many compromises made by Presbyterians is being judged by God as evidence of His giving them over either to be confounded by their unbiblical traditions on even weightier matters and/or to the acceptance of sexual immorality and gender disorder in their midst. Hence, we keep looking.