ON THE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN
TEACHING ELDERS AND RULING ELDERS:
According to
the Norms of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
by
Roger Smalling, D.Min
© June, 2000. Quito, Ecuador
Reviewed
and approved by an informal group of pastors
of the Western Carolina
Presbytery
of the PCA, June, 2000
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Part One: The Presbyterian
Church in America (PCA) position
Are Ruling and Teaching Elders different
offices? ...P.2
Does the PCA recognize the concept of parity
in government between the two offices? ...P.2
Who has authority to preach in PCA pulpits? ...P.3
Who has authority to administer the sacraments?
...P.4
Does the PCA recognize one ordination to the
office of elder, or two, meaning, one for Teaching Elder, and another for
Ruling Elder? ...P.5
What is the PCA position regarding equality of
vote? ...P.5
Some have asserted that the PCA position is
merely American tradition. Do these views have a history preceding America? ...P.6
What does the PCA say should be the attitude
of the two offices to one another? ...P.6
Who may read the Scriptures in a PCA pulpit? ...P.7
Does the PCA recognize both classes of elder
as Òministers of the WordÓ? ...P.7
Is it right to use the Old Testament as a
guide to New Testament ecclesiology? ...P.8
Are we free to limit our understanding of ecclesiology
to the New Testament only? ...P.9
Do we see two offices of spiritual leadership
in the Old Testament? ...P.9
New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament precedents... P.12
Evidence One: The pattern in 1Timothy
5:17...P.12
Evidence Two: The use of the word minister...P.12
Evidence Three: Timothy, Organizing Pastor...P.13
Evidence Four: The mentoring function of the pastor-teacher...P.14
Evidence Five: Teachers and administrators in 1Corinthians 12:28...P.15
Does the mentoring function of the
Pastor-Teacher, along with his exclusive function as administrator of the Word
and sacraments, make him superior in rank to the Ruling Elder? ...P.16
What happens if the Ruling Elders refuse to
accept or recognize the mentoring function of the Teaching Elders with respect
them? ...P.17
It is very clear from certain texts that the
Ruling Elders also have a pastoral relationship with the congregation. Does
this not support the view that they are one and the same with Teaching Elders,
and are also "pastors"? ...P.18
What is the Scriptural authority by which the
Westminster Confession asserts that only ordained ministers might administer
the sacraments? ...P.18
What is the
Scriptural support for the PCA view that the two offices have different
ordinations? ...P.18
This thesis has been reviewed by a group of
pastors of the Western Carolina Presbytery of the PCA, the Presbytery in which
I have my ordination. Their conclusion was that I have "fairly and properly presented the PCA position on the matter of
teaching and ruling elders."
Controversies arise on the mission field
during the church-planting process. These occur because nationals may challenge
doctrines and procedures missionaries take for granted. Missionaries find
themselves defending things they never thought would come into question. Worse,
they may wind up dealing with issues they considered insignificant.
Attacks of the enemy occur through divisive
people who draw away disciples after themselves. (Acts 20:30) Although
this happens in any ministry, the precarious nature of a church plant on the
mission field seems to lend itself to such occurrences.
Just such a scenario developed while I was in South America. A divisive and controlling missionary from another
mission than the PCA, a member of one of our churches, promoted doctrine on
church government contrary to Presbyterian norms. This man, a Ruling Elder, convinced the other Ruling Elders of our fledgling Presbytery that
certain aspects of Presbyterian government are wrong, and the PCA missionaries
were teaching American culture rather than biblical church government.
Specifically, the points at issue were a
denial of any distinction between Teaching Elders (Pastors) and Ruling Elders.
He insisted that Ruling Elders had just as much right to preach and administer
the sacraments as Teaching Elders; that Teaching Elders must be members of the
church and under the authority of the Session, which is dominated by the Ruling
Elders.
This created a dictatorship of the Ruling
Elders over the Teaching Elders, lead by this man. The national presbytery
nearly discarded from the Book of Church Order (BCO) all references to
distinctions.
I wrote a warning letter to the Presbytery,
along with a brief paper, defending our Presbyterian distinctive as biblical.
This temporarily stopped the drift away from reformed norms.
In the process, we were challenged to rethink
our traditions and ask how solid they were. The result: I am more convinced
than ever that our standards on this issue are biblical.
The thesis is in three parts. First,
statements of PCA views on the issues as found in our Westminster Standards and in the PCA Position Papers, 1973-1993. Then
follows scriptural defenses of the key points. Finally, a question and answer
part to clarify misconceptions.
I presuppose that the reader has a basic
knowledge of the principles of Presbyterian government, as well as a covenantal
perspective of the Bible. Otherwise, parts of the argumentation may not make
sense. A recommended reading is, The Apostolic
Church by Thomas Withrow.
Dear Fellow Elders,
In the past it has been my privilege to address the Presbytery on one matter or another, sometimes in presence, and sometimes in writing, as in this case. I have been pleased to see the Presbytery has always given serious consideration to my theses, and am profoundly appreciative for such a mature attitude, as is proper among fellow elders.
I therefore request serious consideration to both of the documents I am submitting, since they address the future welfare of the Presbytery.
The Presbytery is considering including in the Book of Church Order (BCO) certain points having to do with the definition of elders, their roles and their relationship to the church courts. Though these specific points may not seem serious in themselves, nevertheless they may reflect a tendency toward a philosophy of ecclesiastical government contrary to the continuity of Scripture as a whole, as well as contrary to 500 years of Reformed experience. This should not be taken lightly. In this letter, I will mention what has been the standard and practice of Presbyterianism for 500 years. Find attached a thesis that shows, via the continuity of Scripture, why those standards are justified.
Specifically, it appears there may be a change in ecclesiological philosophy within the Presbytery, as reflected by changes in the new BOCO, which could blur the distinctions between Teaching and Ruling Elders. This philosophy seems to be reflected in the rule that all Elders, including Teaching, must be members of a local church. Their Session would therefore be their first Court of Appeals, resulting in their submission to it.
These measures, in themselves, may not seem serious. But the consequences are long range and dangerous. The thesis that accompanies this letter will show why it is unscriptural to obliterate these distinctions, or take measures to which tend to do so. Our Presbyterian forefathers felt it necessary to institute basic rules of operation to safeguard this distinction, rather than blur it. First, I will list below several rules the Presbyterian movement took centuries to elaborate:
1. The Presbytery is defined as an association of Teaching Elders, supported by Ruling Elders.
2. Teaching Elders are members of Presbytery only and may not be members of a local church.
3. Teaching Elders are moderators of the Sessions.
4. Teaching Elders are permanent members of Presbytery. Ruling Elders are temporary members sent on a rotation basis to specific Presbytery meetings, according to limitations governed by the number of members of a church.
5. As a general principle, Teaching Elders represent the Presbytery to the church. Ruling Elders represent the church to the Presbytery.
Note it is unnecessary to find justifying verses for these particular rules. It is only necessary to show these rules tend toward the protection of biblical principles, whereas their opposites do not. I will attempt to demonstrate this in the thesis.
The Westminster Confession says: Éthere are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. Ch.1, Art.6
This means Scripture provides a general framework of government. Within that framework, we use our reason, what our standards call the light of nature, to apply specific measures to ensure the principles are respected.
We need not justify every detail with a biblical text. As long as we show such a measure corresponds with the continuity of scripture, then the particular measure requires no further vindication. These rules safeguard Teaching Elders from being instructed by Ruling Elders on what to preach, or when and how to administer the sacraments.
Teaching Elders would end up, in practice, as mere functionaries of a Board of Elders, as in congregationalism. Such would be neither biblical nor Presbyterian, but an ecclesiastical perversity.
While the content of the BCO is not final authority, its intent is to preserve a biblical system of government.
Respectfully Submitted,
TE Roger Smalling,
WC Presbytery, PCA
******
á
The manner of expression in this letter was as
mild as conscience would allow. In fact, the divisive person mentioned in the
introduction had already convinced the Ruling Elders that no substantial
difference existed between the two orders of elder. The difference was merely a
description of what the elder happened to be doing at the time. If he is
teaching, he is a Teaching Elder. If he is administrating the next day, he is
then a Ruling Elder.
á
Our seminary-trained
pastors had become mere functionaries of those elders, suffering what they
called the dictatorship of the Ruling Elders.
Diagram taken from The PCA Position
Digest Part V, P.456
The diagram shows one class of office
called elder, with two orders of elder that are not
interchangeable.
The official declaration of the PCA is as
follows:
Recommendation No.1: That the General Assembly affirm that the Scriptures teach that in addition to the fundamental office of all believers, there are also special perpetual classes of office in the church, elder and deacon; and that there are within the class of elder two orders, Teaching Elder and Ruling Elder. Adopted, 7th General Assembly, 1979
Position Papers, Vol.5, P.457
Our standards therefore recognize one class of
elder, divided into two orders: Ruling Elder and Teaching Elder. A Ruling Elder
does not become a Teaching Elder merely because he happens to teach a class or
preach a sermon. Nor does a Teaching Elder become a Ruling Elder because he
exercises some administrative functions. The difference between them is not a
particular function at a given moment. They belong to different orders,
according the PCA. (Scriptural defense will follow in Part Two.)
The following diagram illustrates
The concept of governmental parity. Notice the
two offices overlap. Together, they govern the congregation, but do not govern
each other. 1Timothy 5:17
Who has authority
to preach in PCA pulpits?
The Larger Catechism states:
QUESTION 158: By whom is the Word of God to be preached? ANSWER: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.
There appears to be a slight ambiguity in this
statement. Traditionally, it has been understood the Westminster delegates
meant ordained Teaching Elders, although the term pastor or minister is not
used. After all, what if a Ruling Elder can preach better than a particular
Teaching Elder? The 1979 PCA Assembly answers:
Recommendation No.4: That the General Assembly reaffirm the historic Presbyterian position expressed in LC 158, that none should preach the Gospel but those who are called and gifted of God; and therefore only those men who are properly ordained or licensed may preach in the pulpits of the PCA; and that Ruling Elders be allowed and encouraged to renew the historic practice of exhorting the people of God. Adopted, P.457-458
The above Recommendation links to
Recommendation No.5, which deals with the relationship of the Pastor to the
Session. From this we see the PCA considers the pulpit to be the habitual
domain of the Teaching Elder, although the Ruling Elder may exercise whatever
ministerial gifts of exhortation he may possess in other domains and
circumstance.
In the PCA, it is unacceptable to program into
the regular preaching schedule, those not ordained as Teaching Elders.
Westminster Confession of
Faith:
Chapter 27, Art.4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
Larger Catechism:
QUESTION 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper?
ANSWER. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord's Supper,...
QUESTION 176. Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree?
ANSWER. ... Both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other; From these points, it is clear the position of the Westminster Standards is that ordained ministers of the Gospel, and these only, have the authority to administer the sacraments in our churches.
The official declaration of the PCA is as
follows:
Recommendation No. 8: That the General Assembly affirm that in keeping with the Confessional Standards of the church, only properly ordained Teaching Elders may administer the sacraments. Adopted, 7th General Assembly, 1979 Position Papers, Vol.5, P.461
As justification for this recommendation, the
committee made two points:
If the PCA were to make the major change of allowing Ruling Elders to administer the sacraments, it would be necessary that major changes be made to our Confessional Standards. While the Standards must never be set above the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, yet we have certainly given strong testimony to their lasting quality and trueness to the Scriptures, and changes should only be made when there is clear and overwhelming evidence, biblically, that they are wrong. We find no such evidence in the case of administration of the sacraments. Position Papers, Vol.5, P.460
Notice how the committee put the burden of
proof on those who oppose our Standards, rather than on the committee to prove
the validity of the Standards. The committee added:
The administration of the sacraments, by its very nature, is a proclamation of the Word of God by example, and....should only be done in conjunction with the preaching of the Word. Position Papers, Vol.5, P.460
The committee reasoned that if Teaching Elders alone had authority to preach from the pulpit, then logically, they alone have authority to administer the sacraments.
Recommendation No.7 says,
We affirm that the ordination of Elders is to a particular order within the class of Elders, either Teaching Elder or Ruling Elder. Both orders of Elder include certain functions which are listed in Scripture, ....[here follows a long and tedious list]...In addition, the order of Teaching Elder includes the functions of the public preaching of the Word and administering the sacraments; plus such things required in the contemporary pattern of church life and custom as performing marriage ceremonies and officiating at funerals. Adopted, 7th General Assembly, 1979 Position Papers, Vol.5, P.459-460
Since the office of Teaching Elder includes
functions the Ruling Elder does not have, the PCA recognizes two different
ordinations. The difference extends beyond the particular function of
administering the Word and the sacraments. It is a calling and ordination to
perform those functions.
The official declaration of the PCA is as
follows:
Recommendation No.5, Point A3: church courts above the Session level seek to express parity with a numerical balance of Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders. On the Session level there is usually only one, or at most a few, Teaching Elders to a much larger number of Ruling Elders. It helps to preserve parity by giving the moderatorship to one of the minority of Teaching Elders. Adopted, General Assembly, 1979, Position Papers, P.458
The entire Recommendation No.5 is a long and
tedious response to a suggestion of a church in Florida that a Ruling Elder may
also moderate Sessions rather than the Pastor being automatically the moderator
of the Session. The recommendation reaffirms the PCA practice that the Pastor
is the moderator, and rejects the suggestion of the Florida church. Since the
entire recommendation is long and wordy, the key reasons are summarized here:
The introduction to the recommendation also
mentions that when a church elects a pastor, they are also electing him,
automatically, as Moderator of the Session.
The PCA endeavors to preserve parity of
numbers within the church courts. Where numerical parity cannot be achieved,
other administrative devices, such as the above mentioned, are implemented to
encourage such.
Is the PCA position on these points mere
American tradition? Do these views have a history preceding North America?
While tradition is not authoritative, it has
value in revealing the true nature of reformation history and practice. If the
PCA position accords with reformed practice throughout time, then American
missionaries have not taught mere cultural norms on such points.
The quotes below come from Confessions of
Faith from various cultures and languages, dating back to the 16th century.
Again, we acknowledge that the Bible alone is authoritative. References to
tradition or culture are not authoritative. Yet, a review of history should
give a sense of caution to those who would deviate from the established norm.
Observe the following quotes from historical
Reformed Confessions, along with their datess
Helvetica Confession: 1536
...that the mysteries of Scripture be daily expounded and explained by qualified ministers....
Lausanne Articles, Switzerland:
1536
The said church acknowledges no ministry except that which preaches the Word of God and administers the sacraments.
Geneva Confession, 1536 by John Calvin
We recognize no other pastors in the church than faithful pastors of the Word of God, feeding the sheep of Jesus Christ...
We believe that the ministers of God's Word,
and the elders and deacons, ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a
lawful Election of the church.... (Note here the distinction made between ministers
of the Word on one hand, and elders and deacons on the other.)
French Confession of Faith: 1559
...we believe that the order of
the church, established by his authority, ought to be sacred and inviolable,
and that, therefore, the church can not exist without pastors for instruction,
whom we should respect and reverently listen to, when they are properly called
and exercise their office faithfully.
The practices of the PCA have their origin in
a trans-cultural movement, 400 years old, known as the Reformation, not in
American culture.
Although the PCA has not made any official
pronouncement on this point, an appendix in the Position Papers Digest, Vol.5, touches
on the subject. Such articles are occasionally inserted to reflect a general
feeling of the Assembly, rather than an official pronouncement.
In his article, the writer, Rev. Don Dunkerley,
warns of a dangerous pendulum swing that sometimes occurs in relationships
between the two classes of Elders.
On one hand he warns that Ruling Elders may be
treated as nothing more than a Board of Directors, without spiritual functions.
They, along with the Teaching Elders, also have responsibilities for nurturing and disciplining the flock On the other hand, Ruling Elders may consider the minister as little more than the church administrative
secretary and their hired employee. Worse, such Elders may see
no difference between
themselves and the minister...
And this attitude might develop if a Ruling Elder
teaches a Bible class, or has some other teaching ministry. He may not consider
that there is any difference between the minister of the Word and himself,
except that he supports himself in a secular employment and the minister does
not. P.487-489
The Larger Catechism:
QUESTION 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
ANSWER. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families...
This negative answer, all are not to be
permitted, leaves an ambiguity, since it does not clarify to whom this duty
accrues. On Page 475 of the Position Papers, Dunckerley clarifies the point by referring to the Directory of Public Worship, also written by
the Westminster theologians. Reading of the word in the congregation, being
part of the public worship of God...is to be performed by the pastors and
teachers.
The only exception recognized by the
Westminster theologians was candidates to the office of Pastor. They said, Howbeit,
such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise
their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the Presbytery
thereunto. Directory of Public Worship, P.375.
No. The PCA recognizes the Teaching Elder as
the minister of the Word. This is evident from the very long dissertation in the Position Papers (Appendix B, P.471-488)
too long to reproduce here. Dunkerley gives a good treatment of the scriptural
evidence and logic for this position, which will be discussed below in the Scriptural Defense portion of this thesis. He shows both from Scripture and the entirety of
biblical history from the time of Moses, that the term minister has never been used in any other sense than those church
officers, as distinct from other kinds of church officers, who have been
ordained to administer the Word and the sacraments to the people.
It is obligatory,
according to the Apostle Paul:
Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat
of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the
offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach
the gospel should live from the gospel. 1Corinthians
9:13,14
Paul argues for the full-time support of New
Testament ministers on the basis of their Old Testament counterparts, the
priests. He views the priestly service at the altar as a fore type of the
Gospel ministry. As the priest lived exclusively from this service via a
special calling from God, so New Testament ministers are to live exclusively
from the preaching of the Gospel.
Paul, using this argument, reveals he
considers it legitimate to apply general Old Testament principles as the
pattern for New Testament ecclesiology. Paul uses a rhetorical question to show
he considers the answer obvious. He talks to Christians as though they ought to
know these things from their knowledge of the Old Testament.
As with Old Testament priests, this is a
calling to the gospel ministry distinct from any other office or function.
And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was. Hebrews 5:4
Paul would not encourage Ruling Elders to give
up their secular secular occupations to preach full time. His concepts support
a two-officer view with distinct callings and ordinations.
Likewise, in Romans 15:16 Paul uses Old
Testament ministry terminology to describe his service as a preacher of the
Gospel:
...that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
The word minister here is leitourgos and the word ministering is hierourgeo. Both words refer to the ministry of the priests in
the Old Testament.
We have established two facts from these
texts:
Reformed hermeneutics examines the continuity
of the Bible as a whole. Though we agree the New Testament has authority over
the Old as the final revelation, nevertheless if something seems to contradict
the principle of continuity, we need to take another look. Our conclusions must
always be fulfillments of the Old Testament, not negations.
This global view of Scripture in dealing with
ecclesiology questions is not our own modern interpretation. The Westminster
authors, in their booklet, The Form of Church
Government stated:
As there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church, so Christ, who has instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church beside the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the minister in the government of the church. Which officers reformed churches commonly called elders. (P.402) Quoted in PCA Digest, P.476
Do we see two offices of spiritual leadership
in the Old Testament?
Yes.
Before going further, let's clarify
a point. It has been said the elders of Israel were mere politicians, civil
authorities and governors, not spiritual leaders. Both Testaments, however,
make a distinction between the elders of Israel and other leaders in Israel.
And Jehu wrote and sent letters to Samaria, to the rulers of Jezreel, to the Elders, 2Kings 10:1
... according to the instructions of the leaders and elders... Ezra 10:8
And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes... Acts 4:5
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, Rulers of the people and elders of IsraelÉ Acts 4:8
Principle
one: Two related offices of spiritual leadership
existed from the beginning.
So the LORD said to Moses: "Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you.Ó Numbers 11:16,24,25
So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. Verse 24
Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again. Verse 25
Note the particulars:
This text shows how the role of the elders was
a spiritual function, not just a political appointment. Nevertheless, their
spiritual participation was never regarded as making them equivalent to the
officiating ministers in the functions of the latter.
Principle
Two: The Word of God was committed to both types
of leaders, first to the priests, those with sacramental authority, then to the
elders of the people.
So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. Deuterononomy 31:9
So Moses came and called for the elders of the
people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. Exodus 19:7
Principle
Three: The elders participated in sacramental
functions, under the authority and leadership of the priests. But these offices
and functions were never confused.
Now if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which should not be done, and are guilty; Leviticus 4:13-17
when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of meeting. Verse 14
And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD. Then the bull shall be killed before the LORD. Verse 15
The anointed priest shall bring some of the bull's blood to the tabernacle of meeting. Verse 16
Then the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil. Verse 17
The elders participated in the process, but
the priest offered the blood. Thus, the elders participated in a way the common
people could not. This, however, did not cause any confusion between the elder
and the priest. No elder thought he had sacramental authority just because of
this.
Principle Four: The elders were
primarily representatives of the people. This is shown in both testaments by
the repeated term elders of the people.
Exodus 19:7; 11:16; 11:24; Jeremiah 19:1; Matthew 21:23; 26:3; 26:47; 27:1; Luke
22:66
Note also it cannot be argued that those elders
were merely government officials over the nation, and there is no
correspondence between these and New Testament elders, because:
1.
They were baptized in the
same Spirit as Moses. Thus, their calling was a spiritual one, from God.
2.
To them was also
committed the safekeeping of the Word of God.
3.
They had a limited right
to participate in the offering of the sacrifices.
Therefore, the Old Testament elders who
cooperated with the spiritual leaders to rule the people, could very
appropriately be considered Ruling Elders.
The Jews carried this through to New Testament
times. Note Luke 22:66,
As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying,...
This verse is interesting because it is one of
three in which the Greek word Presbytery (Presbyterian) occurs in the New Testament. A literal translation
would be: And at daybreak, the Presbytery of the people gathered together,
both chief priests and scribes, and brought him to the Sanhedrin.
Here the word Presbytery is defined as a body
composed of priests, (those with sacramental functions), accompanied by
scribes, (those without such functions.)
Obviously this Presbytery was not a Christian
one. Nevertheless, it reflects the continuity through the Bible of a general
concept of government the apostles adopted afterward.
Conclusion: We see from these texts there
existed a category of spiritual leaders in the Old Testament, called priests,
who officiated at the altar, proclaimed the Word via fore types, and offered
sacrifices. Another category of spiritual leader existed also, which had
governmental functions, but were not politicians. Their office was spiritual in
nature, and they participated at times with the priests in sacramental
functions.
Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
In the context and verse we notice:
1.
There is a congregation,
called the church.
2.
There are officials whose
primary function it is to labor in preaching and teaching the Word, although
they govern also. By logical extension, this must also include the sacraments,
since it is the Word that authorizes the sacraments.
3.
There are officials whose
primary function is governmental, not preaching and teaching the Word. By
logical extension, this must also exclude sacramental functions.
4.
There is a clear
overlapping in the way the text is worded.
What precisely is the difference between this
and the Old Testament pattern? Very little in principle. Since there appears to
be continuity in government between the two Testaments, applying the same
principles is justified. This clears up the ambiguities in 1Timothy 5:17, just as
the continuity of the Covenant clarifies the ambiguities in the New Testament
on the issue of sacraments.
A study of this term throughout Scripture is
complex since it translates various Greek and Hebrew words. The words have varied
usages, many of which are figurative.
1.
When used in the Old
Testament in reference to ministering the Word, it is in connection with
priests. The two terms, minister and priest are used together 41
times in the Old Testament. Examples: ...and with the Levites, the priests,
My ministers. (Jeremiah 33:21)
Let the priests, who minister to the LORD...
Joel 2:17
2.
In the New Testament, it
is frequently associated with any one of those offices in Ephesians 4:11
associated with ministering and mentoring the body of Christ.
3.
Apostles: That he may
take part of this ministry and apostleship. Acts.1:25
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and
the ministry of the Word. Acts 6:4
4. Pastors: (Note: Timothy was a pastor. That is why 1&2Timothy are called Pastoral Epistles.) ... and sent Timothy, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith, (1Thessalonians 3:2.) If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. 1Timothy 4:6
Conclusion: Both Testaments support a
distinction regarding those called to preach the Word to God's people, versus
any other ecclesiastical office.
Timothy, Organizing Pastor
In 1Timothy 3, we see character qualifications
for elders. How do we explain there exists no distinction between Teaching and
Ruling Elders in this text? This question fails to account for the nature of
the Pastoral Epistles. Let's keep in mind who Timothy was and what he was
doing.
Timothy was an organizing pastor, sent by Paul
to put churches in order. We see this in the following texts:
For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. 1Corinthians 4:17
Éand sent Timothy, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith, 1Thessalonians 3:2
Additional clues:
Timothy was a minister.
He is called minister of God in 1Thessalonians
3:2. A Presbytery had ordained him, (1Timothy 4:14.)
He had been sent by
Paul to establish in the faith those churches Paul had left. He had been
instructed to find faithful men, capable of teaching others. 2Timothy 4:2 He
had authority to ordain elders. 1Timothy 5:22
From these clues we see 1&2Timothy are
instructions to a young pastor in how to organize a church. In Chapter 3, Paul
gives Timothy some character qualifications for elders. It is possible
therefore that when Paul wrote this chapter, he was thinking principally of
Ruling Elders.
This may explain the use of the term overseer in Verse 1,
rather than teacher or pastor. If anyone sets his heart on
being an overseer, he desires a noble task. (NIV) The term bishop here is episcopes,
meaning ÒoverseerÓ or Òsupervisor.Ó Supervision is
primarily a governmental function.
Notice also the use of able to teach in Verse 2. A
Teaching Elder must be more than just able
to teach. He must be a teacher, capable of refuting and rebuking his
opponents and defending sound doctrine effectively, 1Timothy 1:9. This requires
he be skillful in argumentation and didactics, areas not mentioned in Chapter
3. But they are mentioned elsewhere in the epistles, directed to
Timothy, an ordained minister.
Note also in 2Timothy 2:2, Paul tells Timothy
to find faithful men who can teach others also. It is unlikely he would bypass
his Ruling Elders in this, if they existed. Apparently Paul was instructing
Timothy on how to form his Session.
If this is the case, then it is difficult to
see how any text in the Pastoral Epistles could support a one-office view.
The Mentoring Function Of The Pastor-Teacher
In Ephesians 4:11-16
In this text, we see both the titles and the
functions of ministers. The long sentence in verses 12-16 describes the goals
of their ministry toward all other Christians. They are: Equip Christians to
minister, teach them the knowledge of the Son of God, mature them in Christ,
affirm them in sound doctrine, and in general, to grow them to maturity.
The word mentoring summarizes this. The means by which they do
it is the teaching of the Word.
Notice Ruling Elder is not mentioned in this
context. If it were, we would have a contradiction, because none of us believe
the teaching ministry is the primary function of Ruling Elders.
This in turn suggests a distinction in the two
offices, which is a difference of office, rather than a mere coincidence of
function.
In verses 10-12, we see Christ has given gifts to men.
What are these gifts? They are the men in Verse 11, which Christ is giving to
the church to bring them to maturity.
This cannot logically be said of all church
officers in the same way. Otherwise, all would be teachers.
Dunckerley expresses this clearly:
It is not simply that he gives some men the
gifts to function as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The
thought is more that the men who are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors
are given to the church to minister the Word and to equip the saints for other
forms of ministry. Position Papers, Vol.5, P.484.
Who is included in this mentoring function?
All members of the body of Christ, including Ruling Elders. In the Ephesians
text, no one is excluded. The possession of an ecclesiastical title does not
exempt anyone in the congregation from being mentored.
Conclusion: From the Ephesians text alone, we
deduce a distinction between the two offices.
Teachers and Administrators
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 1Corinthians 12:28
Paul puts offices and gifts in a specific
order, based on the importance of the gift relative to the edification of the
church. In no way does this contradict the concept of parity of voice and vote within
church courts. Paul is talking about edification of the body of Christ, not the
relationship of the officers to one another in terms of government.
Notice the third ministry-gift in the
church is teacher. It could hardly be argued that pastors are not included,
since we have already seen the term "pastor" is linked inseparably
with teacher in Eph.4:11, as one office. Further down, we see administrations. This must
include Ruling Elders, since administration is their function.
This text therefore supports a distinction
between the two officers by listing and enumerating them.
Important note: Using this text is not intended to support the Episcopalian notion that
the Teaching Elder is superior in governmental authority over other elders. He
is not. It is intended to show distinction, not inherent personal superiority.
We can only speculate why Paul puts the list in this way. Perhaps it is
because the correct functioning of the other gifts must be based on the Word,
soundly taught.
It has been shown by the Scriptures in the
section above there exists in both Testaments two orders of spiritual leaders. One,
to whom the ministering of the Word of God and the sacraments has been
specially committed. This is a calling, ministry and office, not a mere
description of function. In the Old Testament, these are called priests and prophets. In the New Testament, they are called pastor-teachers. The other office
mentioned in both Testaments, serves to assist in governing the people of God
and to participate with the ministers. Ephesians 4:11-16
GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Does the mentoring function of the
Pastor-Teacher, along with his function as administrator of the Word and sacraments,
make him superior in rank to the Ruling Elder? No.
Not a single Presbyterian writer I can find asserts
these duties make the Teaching Elder superior in rank, or in terms of governing
authority. While PCA writers affirm consistently the exclusivity of the
sacramental functions of the Teaching Elder, they are all careful to assert the
parity of Ruling Elders in terms of church administration.
In
Episcopalian thinking, the mentoring function automatically assumes a
superiority of rank. This may seem natural to some people, but it is a
non-rational leap. Why would the ability to teach, grant a person greater voice
or vote than one who does not teach? None of the PCA writers assume any
governmental superiority on the mere basis of the authority to minister the
Word and sacraments.
Therefore, asserting the spiritual authority
of the Teaching Elder as regards mentoring, preaching, teaching or
administering the sacraments is not, in any sense of the word, an affirmation
of an Episcopalian viewpoint. Nor is there any rational reason to assume
recognizing such authority must necessarily lead to a form of hierarchicalism.
In this diagram, we notice the Ruling Elders
are objects of the ministry of the Teaching Elders, because they also are
members of the congregation.
Note the Teaching Elders have this
relationship with the Ruling Elders, not because of any superiority of rank,
but because the Ruling Elders are members of the congregation. What happens
if the Ruling Elders refuse to recognize the mentoring function of the Teaching
Elders with respect to them?
The ministry of the Teaching Elders
can become stagnated, to the detriment not only of the congregation, but of the
Ruling Elders as well. This happens if the Ruling Elders get confused and
imagine that governmental parity means they do not need mentoring by the
Teaching Elders.
It is very clear from certain texts that the Ruling Elders also have a
pastoral relationship with the congregation. Does this support the view they
are one and the same with Teaching Elders, and are also pastors? No.
This is a logic error. The word pastor, meaning Òshepherd,Ó is used in Ephesians 4:11 within the title, pastor-teacher. Then we see in Acts 20:28 the word feed is the verb form
of the noun for Òshepherding.Ó This would appear to lend support to the above-mentioned view.
A fallacy is involved here. The mere fact
there is overlapping within the functions of two offices proves nothing. For
example, Peter called himself a fellow-elder while addressing the elders in
1Peter 5:2. Yet Peter was an apostle. Should we conclude from this that elders
are also apostles? Or there is no distinction between apostle and elder?
What is the Scriptural authority by which the
Westminster Confession asserts that only ordained ministers may administer the
sacraments?
This is one of those points the Confession
terms a necessary consequence... deduced from Scripture. No text exists commanding
that only Teaching Elders administer the sacraments. But the nature of their
ministry forces this deduction.
Notice the Old Testament fore type of the
priest. To these alone were given the combined function of proclaiming the Law
and administering the sacrifices, which were fore types of New Testament
ministry, as Paul mentioned in 1Corinthians 9. These two are inseparably
joined. Administering the Law meant also administering the
sacrifices.
In the same way, to certain New Testament offices is
committed the ministering of the Word to God's people. But the same Word cannot
be ministered without also administering the sacraments, because the two are
inseparably joined.
The conclusion is
forced.
What is the Scriptural support for the PCA
view that the two offices have different ordinations?
We have here
another necessary consequence in which no clear statement from the Bible
exists. We must proceed according to the overall pattern of Scripture.
The priests in the Old Testament received a
special ordination, distinct from prophets or elders. In Numbers 8, we see the
prescription for the ordination of priests.
The continuity of both Testaments shows two
offices have always existed within one class of elder: Teaching and Ruling
Elders. Overlapping functions occur within the two offices. While these have
governing authority in common, the Teaching Elder alone ministers the Word of
God and the sacraments. The Teaching Elders uses these particular
responsibilities to fulfill his role of pastoring and mentoring the people of
God.
Smalling's articles and books
are available at www.smallings.com
