church2The Character of Elders
The writers of the New Testament have much to say about church elders, but their emphasis is not on what these church leaders should do, but on what sort of people they should be. In fact, writes Roy Zuck, “contrary to the notion that the central thrust of the Pastorals was to establish the order of the church, 2 Timothy does not include a single reference to church offices or its leaders’ qualifications. The positions of leadership described were not the hierarchical positions reflected in the first few centuries following the New Testament, nor were they the capacities filled by Paul’s associates sent to help clarify and qualify other men for the leadership of their assigned churches. Rather, the functions described most closely resemble the early church at Jerusalem where the Twelve served with a body of “presbyters” (Acts 11:30; 15:2) and when Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches of Cilicia (14:23). Two dominant themes emerge from the Pastorals: first, the church is best served by leaders who model lifestyles of integrity; and second, a major responsibility of the leadership is to uphold the sound doctrine of the gospel of the grace of God.”[1]
If you have come from churches where the leaders are godly, mature men, this emphasis might surprise you, but not all church leaders are godly, mature men. As I researched and listened to stories in order to write this book, I learned about a deacon who recently left his church because the pastor was using the church credit card for personal expenses. When confronted with this unethical practice, the pastor not only defended himself, but he removed the deacon from his office. What were the church members to think? Without a full investigation of the matter, it might have looked like the deacon was in the wrong and falsely accusing the pastor, when in fact the pastor was the thief and a liar as well. And a liar will not hesitate to tell another lie to cover up his offenses . . .
So the early church wisely placed a great deal of emphasis on a leader’s character.
Scripture tells us that aspiring to the office of an elder is a noble pursuit (1 Tim. 3:1). While a specific age requirement was not set forth, a certain level of natural and spiritual maturity was expected. Illustrations of this are seen in the qualifications that refer to marital and parental functions and the fact that a novice was not to be appointed (1 Tim. 3:4; Titus 1:6).[2]
In two passages, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, scripture clearly outlines the sort of men elders are to be:

“Faithful is the saying, If a man seeks the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knows not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:1–7)

The first qualification this passage teaches is that one must desire this position. He must not be pushed into it, but must desire to be an elder.[3]
The second qualification is that he must be above reproach.[4] Circumstances in his life should not invite valid criticism.
The third qualification is that he must be the husband of one wife, or literally, “a one woman man.” The Greek phrase can be interpreted in two ways: it might mean “one wife ever,” which is the implication of the same type of construction found in 1 Timothy 5:9. If so, this could be applied in two ways. First, if a person were divorced and remarried, this would disqualify him from the job of an elder; and secondly, if a person were widowed and remarried, this would also disqualify him from being an elder, because an elder should have only one wife ever. Yet a second way to take this passage is to interpret it as specifically against adultery or polygamy, and therefore would not exclude a single man or a remarried widower. The Greek phrase could be interpreted either way, so one must tread lightly and every local church must make its own decision about what it feels this passage means and not make exceptions to the rule. Problems inevitably arise when a church acts inconsistently.[5]
The fourth qualification of an elder is to be temperate. He should not be given to excesses in habit or mood. He should be mentally alert and able to make sound judgments.[6]
The fifth qualification is that he must be prudent. He must be sensible and of sound mind. He must have self-control and not be impulsive.[7]
Sixth, he must be respectable. He must be characterized by good behavior and have a well-ordered life.[8]
Seventh, he must be hospitable.[9] He must exhibit a love of strangers and a love of hospitality to all people, not only to those close to him.
Eighth, he should be able to teach. This does not necessarily require the gift of teaching, but he should have a basic ability to teach.[10] Pastors with the gift of teaching should focus on teaching; pastors with the gift of administration should focus on administrating. Pastors with the gift of helping, or service, should help and serve.
Ninth, a pastor should not to be addicted to wine. Literally, the Greek term means “no one who sits too long at his wine.” This verse does not teach that an elder must practice total abstention. It simply means that he should not be characterized by drunkenness or any form of over indulgence. If he knows how to partake of wine in moderation, he qualifies.[11]
Tenth, he should not be a striker or given to physical violence. Men who are guilty of wife or child abuse do not qualify.[12]
Eleventh, he should be gentle and patient with everyone.[13]  No screaming at people in the privacy of an office–and this includes other elders/pastors.
Twelfth, he should not be contentious or likely to provoke an argument.[14]
Thirteenth, he should not be a lover of money or characterized by covetousness or greediness.[15]
Fourteenth, his children are to be in subjection[16]. He should be able to rule his own house. If a person is not able to discipline his children, what will he do if he must exercise church discipline?
Fifteenth, he must not be a new believer because he must not be spiritually immature. If a person were placed in a position of authority before he is spiritually ready, he might be filled with pride, the same sin that brought about the fall of Satan.[17]
And the sixteenth qualification is that he must have a good reputation with those outside the church. He must be of good repute with the people in the world, the people outside the church. They may not respect his beliefs, but they should respect his conduct and his way of life.[18]   I’d like to add that in order to have a good reputation outside the church, pastoral candidates should KNOW people outside the church. Really. Too many clergyman live in a religious bubble and don’t even know or fellowship with their neighbors.
If elders are appointed who meet these qualifications, the church should have an effective eldership. Problems do exist among elder ruled churches, but the fault is not with this biblical form of church government. The problem lies with unqualified elders.[19]
We find a similar list of qualifications in Titus 1:6-9:

“If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober minded, just, holy, self controlled; holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.

This passage lists seventeen qualifications of an elder. Since some of these repeat the characteristics in the above passage, I’ll only mention the additional qualities.
An elder must not be self willed, pleased with himself, or arrogant. He must not be easily angered. He should love that which is good. His thoughts, attitude, and behavior should be concerned with good and positive things, not negative. He should be characterized as a sensible person, knowing how to reason things out. He should be devout, living a life characterized by holiness. He should perform his duties to God and practice practical holiness. He should have believing children. The Greek term does not necessarily require the children to be believers in Christ because the Greek word could simply mean “faithful” or “reliable” children.[20]
He should not be characterized by rebelliousness, but should be characterized by a spirit of submissiveness to the Word and to the will of the other elders who may overrule him at times. He should hold solid doctrine. He should know what the solid doctrines of the Word of God are and be able to exhort others in biblical teaching. This means not only teaching biblical doctrine, but also refuting false doctrine. If someone starts to teach false doctrine in the church, an elder should be able to take the Word of God and prove that they are deviating from the truth, then teach sound doctrine in its place.[21]

If your church is considering the ordination of a young man, or hiring another pastor, no matter what his title, consider the biblical qualifications of eldership before making that decision. Most churches make a potential minister sit before a board to be examined on doctrinal issues and other questions before agreeing to ordain or hire a pastor, as well they should. Interview a potential elder’s neighbors; ask to see a recent credit report. Verify an applicant’s educational records and call previous employers, no matter what the job. Some churches today hire private investigators to do a background check because it’s far better to be sure than sorry.
If the above steps seem extreme or intrusive, they are simply a way to ensure that a potential elder meets the scriptural qualifications in family, finances, reputation, and integrity. If a man is proved worthy of the office of elder, then set him apart for ministry through ordination.
The Bible speaks clearly about men appointing or ordaining other men to ministry according to God’s will. God has provided both subjective and objective features to help the church determine whether ministry is God’s will for a man’s life. Apart from the basic criteria in 1 Timothy and Titus, however, Scripture says little about the how-to’s of ordination.Therefore, the church has a God-given liberty to design a practical process leading to ordination, so long as the process includes what the Scripture dictates.[22]
Some reject formal ordination because they believe that God, not man, ordains men to ministry. As long as a man’s life and ministry are validated by the biblical standard, Scripture does not fault this approach if it includes the biblical basis for testing/certification.[23]
With equal liberty, others focus on a direct ordination process. Still others follow a more indirect route, using the state licensure period as part of the process leading to ordination. Scripture allows for either, assuming it incorporates the essence of ordination into the process.[24]
Peter wrote to the elders: “Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, nor for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:2-5).
What is a pastor’s reward for his work and ministry? A crown of glory at the judgment seat of Christ. The Chief Shepherd will reward the under-shepherds who cared for the flock and fed His beloved sheep.
As church members and lay people, we are to respect the elders who watch over and care for the church. Any accusation against a pastor must be considered by the other pastors only after adequate verification by two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:20). But accusations must be considered, and if valid, the sinning elder is to be reproved “before everyone so that the others may take warning.” Paul warned that no one is exempt, and church members are not to show partiality in judging the actions of elders (1 Timothy 5:21).
By requiring verification from two or three witnesses, Paul was not urging special treatment for the elder, but urging fair protection from capricious accusations. The church leader should enjoy at least as much protection as the ordinary Jew had under the law (see Deut 17:6; 19:15).[25]

Who were the persons before whom the public rebuke took place? It could have been either a group of elders or the entire congregation. The word “publicly” (literally, “before all”) appears to suggest a group wider than merely the assembled elders. Probably the entire congregation was to learn of the rebuke. Third, who were the “others” who would “take warning”? Some link them with the entire church. Other interpreters refer the term to the remainder of the elders. Probably Paul had the entire church in view. The open rebuke Paul proposed was intended to promote the fear of God within the congregation. Paul did not envision a vendetta, but he wanted to avoid partiality toward important leaders and provide fair treatment for all.[26]

Scripture says a pastor is worthy of double honor, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” What does that mean—double helpings at the fellowship dinner? When we consider that Paul goes on to talk about wages (1 Tim. 5:17-18), we understand that he is telling the church that pastors should be paid enough that they don’t have to worry about meeting the mortgage payment in addition to caring for the church body.

The commendation Paul directed for the dutiful elder was “double honor.” The term “honor” does not refer merely to an honorarium, but the failure to give proper pay would imply a lack of honor. The idea of “double” may refer to the double portion the oldest in the family received (Deut 21:17). It probably consisted of the twin benefits of honor or respect and financial remuneration. The fact that pay was at least included shows that those who gave leadership to spiritual affairs could expect financial support from the church (cf. 2 Cor 11:8–9; Gal 6:6).[27]

John MacArthur explains that pastors need to be honest about their financial needs:
If a pastor is serving a congregation that is capable of paying a sufficient wage but does not, the pastor should be up-front and honest with whatever board is responsible for pastoral salaries. Or if unusual expenses (not caused by the pastor’s own foolish ways) occur and the pastor is in a financial bind, he owes it to the church to make that need known to the appropriate board. Having to find other forms of occupation would take his time and energy away from the needs of the ministry.

The pastor has only a certain amount of time, energy, and mental toughness, and the ministry deserves it all. I know what I’m talking about because I fell into the trap of trying to always provide for myself, at the expense of my time, attention, and the work of the Gospel. I was too proud in those early years of ministry to let the church bear the load. I wanted to take care of all of it myself, and I fell into a pattern of independence. In retrospect, that was wrong. On occasion the church could not do more, but that should have been the board’s decision, not mine alone. Don’t make the mistake I did. Make your legitimate needs (but not greeds) known.[28]

More than thirty years ago, I married a youth pastor fully knowing that his salary would be found at the bottom of the salary “totem pole” of nearly any church. I knew I would have to find some kind of job to help pay bills, and I was right—in the early days of our marriage, my husband’s salary alone would never have covered our expenses.
I don’t mind working because I enjoy my work and I’m used to it, but truthfully, I could be a much bigger help in my husband’s ministry if I didn’t have to work. But millions of other women could say the same thing, including hundreds of other women who are married to a pastor.
It wasn’t until I had an occasion to interview Gayle Haggard that I realized things could—and probably should—be different. As she told me about how she and her husband, Ted, built New Life Church, she mentioned, almost off-handedly, that every pastoral staff member at New Life started out with the same base salary. Their salary would increase from year to year, but the only reason Ted had earned the largest salary was because he’d been on staff longer than anyone else.
Something clicked in my brain as I realized how fair and right that system was. Why not pay all pastors the same base salary? Does one man have a greater calling than any other? Of course not. Does God consider one more valuable than another? No. Does one bear greater responsibility than another? Perhaps . . . the Bible does say that pastors who preach and teach are especially worthy of double honor. But how could anyone say that a pastor who teaches adults is worthy of more renumeration than a pastor who teaches impressionable, tender children?
And consider the idea of responsibility. When my youth pastor husband takes busloads of teenagers and preteens to camp where they’ll be swimming, horseback riding, and whizzing around on go-carts, I pray for angels to pull double duty and guard those kids. The youth pastor is literally responsible for their lives, and accidents can and do happen during church activities. The senior pastor is responsible for people’s spiritual health, of course, but that responsibility seems to pale when I consider that my husband is often responsible for the physical safety of more than a hundred wild and crazy kids.
A youth pastor I know once took a busload of kids fishing and instructed them not to cross the busy highway near their fishing spot. One girl disobeyed and was hit by a car and killed. As tragic as the situation was, it became worse when the church and our youth pastor friend was sued for her death. He had to put everything he owned in his wife’s name or risk losing his family’s home, car, everything. While it’s true that anyone can be sued for anything, I know the risk is higher for those who pastor youth and children.
Yet in the typical church, the senior pastor receives the highest salary, the administrative pastor the second highest (though he is usually not a regular preacher/teacher), and then on down the list, according to whatever hierarchy has been established for the church staff. This is neither right nor logical, and I fear it has more to do with secular traditions regarding position and power than the biblical standards of equality among elders and special honor for teachers and preachers.

By the way–if your pastoral salaries are kept secret from even the church treasurer or the stewardship committee, something is definitely amiss. Since the church body employs the pastors, someone–or several someones– in the church body needs to know and be able to justify pastoral salaries.


Through the Scripture, we see that the local church is to be governed by elders who are equal in calling and authority, though one may act as the “head” of the elder board. Scripture and historical tradition tell us that James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the large church at Jerusalem, yet James did not act alone. In Acts 15, during what became known as the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised after becoming Christians.


So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers* with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Everyone listened quietly as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

When they had finished, James stood and said, “Brothers, listen to me. Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself. And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

‘Afterward I will return
and restore the fallen house* of David.
I will rebuild its ruins
and restore it,
so that the rest of humanity might seek the LORD,
including the Gentiles—
all those I have called to be mine.
The LORD has spoken—
he who made these things known so long ago.’

“And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations”[29] (Acts 15:6-21).

The Greek word translated judgment in verse 19 could easily be translated conclusion or decision. Notice that James did not offer his opinion until after “a long discussion” (vs. 6), and that Peter, Paul, and Barnabas were among the many people to offer their thoughts and opinions. Finally, Scripture tells us in verse 22, “then the apostles and elders together with the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision.”
The decision from the Jerusalem council did not come from one man, a so-called “senior pastor.” It came from a group of elders and apostles, and it was ratified and acted upon by the entire church.
How many of our contemporary churches act in such a manner? Do we make major decisions in unity, or do we sit back as a small group—or even one man—decides everything for us?
If you’re thinking your church is too large to be governed in such a way, remember that the church of Jerusalem had over five thousand members. Or perhaps you’re thinking that unity among your church members would be impossible to achieve—after all, if your fellow church members can’t agree on the color of the new carpet, how can they be expect to agree on something as important as what is required for salvation?
Let’s get back to basics: the church is the body of Christ, and He is not double-minded. He does not contradict himself. His Spirit, which lives in us and acts through us, knows and has the mind of God. He would not tell one person to require circumcision of Gentiles and another person to forgo the procedure. He would not tell one person to order blue carpet for the vestibule and another person to order red.
Years ago I read Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline and was struck by an unforgettable story. Foster introduced the story by explaining that for years Quakers have made business decisions under a sense of corporate leading of the Holy Spirit. “Business meetings should be viewed as worship services,” wrote Foster. “Available facts can be presented and discussed, all with a view to listening to the voice of Christ. Facts are only one aspect of the decision-making process and in themselves are not conclusive. The Spirit can lead contrary to or in accord with the available facts. God will implant a spirit of unity when the right path has been chosen and trouble us with restlessness when we have not heard correctly. Unity rather than majority rule is the principle of corporate guidance. Spirit-given unity goes beyond mere agreement. It is the perception that we have heard the Kol Yahweh, the voice of God.”[30]
He then told the story of how the Quakers handled the issue of slavery in 1758, well-before the American Civil War. At the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, the issue of slavery was heatedly debated. Finally John Woolman, with tears in his eyes after hours of prayer, stood and spoke: “My mind is led to consider the purity of the Divine Being and the justice of His judgment, and herein my soul is covered with awfulness . . . . .Many slaves on this continent are oppressed and their cries have entered into the ears of the Most High . . . . It is not a time for delay.”[31]
After more discussion, the meeting “melted into a spirit of unity” and responded with one voice to remove slavery from their membership. And the Society of Friends was the only body that asked slaveholding members to reimburse their slaves for their time in bondage. “Under the prompting of the Spirit,” Foster writes, “Quakers had voluntarily done something that not one of the antislavery revolutionary leaders—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry—was willing to do. So influential was the united decision of 1758 that by the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Quakers had completely freed themselves from the institution of slavery.”[32]
Foster himself once attended a business meeting with over two hundred people in which two sides presented sharp differences of opinion. After a period of time, a consensus began to form, but one person stood and said, “I do not feel right about this course of action, but I hope that the rest of you will love me enough to labor with me until I have the same sense of God’s leading as the rest of you or until God opens another way to us.”[33] All over the auditorium, people broke into groups to pray, share, and listen. And finally they broke through to a united decision.[34]
“Make every effort,” wrote Paul to the church at Ephesus, “to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace. For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all” (Ephesians 4:3-6).
Do you see? Most of our churches are in too big a hurry to pray and talk and wait until we achieve unity through the Spirit. Most church staff members don’t trust the congregation to make a good decision, so they make it themselves, often without any consultation or input even from committees. Many pastors live in such dread of church squabbles that they ask their wives to choose the carpet colors rather than run the risk of a church split over something so trivial.
But Scripture commands us to achieve unity, to be one in the Spirit. Dissent is not from God. Squabbling is not heaven-sent. When we disagree, we are to come together and have a time of reasoning, prayer, and comfort, not arguing, bitterness, and clamor.
Please understand that I am not advocating that the corporate church make every decision necessary to the functioning and care of a local church. In a large church, requiring corporate unity over something as trivial as the color of walls or carpeting may not be good stewardship of time and energy. Call for a committee of church members with an eye for beauty (we all have our gifts!), and entrust the task to them. But teach the committee about unity, and have them make unified decisions.
For a small church, on the other hand, decisions about color and design may matter a great deal to the membership and they will feel slighted if not consulted. In my own large church, I’ve heard from people who dislike the new church logo—which was reportedly chosen by someone on the church staff, so church members had no opportunity to express their displeasure with the design or with the fact that the logo didn’t include the word “church”—a big deal, in many people’s opinion. When people begin to feel that they are not being included, or that their convictions are being ignored, then the body suffers and people are hurt.
Church leaders—pastors and elders—need to remember that leadership does not grant them the right or the burden of making all the decisions. If a decision will affect the entire body, the body should have a voice in the matter. If it will affect part of the body—parents of children, for example—then those parents should be part of the decision-making process. Together, in unity, the parents of the church should decide whether or not to offer children’s church, Vacation Bible School, or decorate the children’s wing with painted murals. If the question is whether or not to hire a children’s pastor—something the entire church would have to pay for—then the entire church should be consulted.



[1] Roy B. Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, electronic ed., 360-61 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994).
[2] Roy B. Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, electronic ed., 360-61 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994).
[3] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[4] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[5] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[7] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[8] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[9] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[10] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[11] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[12] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[13] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[14] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[15] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[16] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[17] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[18] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[19] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[20] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[21] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, vol. 106, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, 15-22 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983).
[22] John MacArthur, F., Jr, Richard Mayhue and Robert Thomas, L., Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry: Shaping Contemporary Ministry With Biblical Mandates, Electronic ed., 141-42 (Dallas: Word Pub., 1995).
[23] John MacArthur, F., Jr, Richard Mayhue and Robert Thomas, L., Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry: Shaping Contemporary Ministry With Biblical Mandates, Electronic ed., 141-42 (Dallas: Word Pub., 1995).
[24] John MacArthur, F., Jr, Richard Mayhue and Robert Thomas, L., Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry: Shaping Contemporary Ministry With Biblical Mandates, Electronic ed., 141-42 (Dallas: Word Pub., 1995).
[25] Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, vol. 34, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary, 156 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).
[26] Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, vol. 34, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary, 156-57 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).
[27] Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, vol. 34, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary, 155 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).
[28] John MacArthur, “Foreword”, in Practical Wisdom for Pastors: Words of Encouragement and Counsel for a Lifetime of Ministry, 196-97 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001).
[29] Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Ac 15:6–21 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).
[30] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline (San Francisco: Harper & Row 1978), p. 182.
[31] Richard Foster, p. 183.
[32] Fooster, p. 183-184.
[33] Foster, p. 184.
[34] Foster, p. 184.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.