A Look at the Biblical Offices
G. I. Williamson
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1992)
In some Reformed textbooks ministers, elders and deacons are said to be a continuation of the Old Testament offices of prophet, priest and king. The minister—because he preaches—is seen as the New Testament counterpart of the prophet, the elder—because he rules—of the king, and the deacon—because of his ministry of compassion—of the priest. It is our conviction that this way of seeing the special offices of the New Testament is inadequate. In the discussion that follows we will endeavor to show why we think this conception is, in fact, somewhat artificial.
I. The Old Testament Preparation
God created man after His own image in knowledge, righteousness and holiness (Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24). It may be incorrect to say that Adam was a prophet, priest and king in a technical sense.. The Bible never applies these terms to him. But it is clear that these offices were instituted, later on, because Adam—in sinning against God—lost his original knowledge, righteousness and holiness for himself and for all his posterity. When we speak of man's total depravity this is what we mean: the whole nature of man (every aspect of his being) was corrupted by the fall. What we commonly call the mind, the heart, and the will were all affected. Man became ignorant, guilty and sinful with the result being that he had no ability within himself even to begin to remedy the effects of the fall.
It is our view that God allowed man to exist for a considerable time (in the earliest history of the world) without instituting the special offices of prophet, priest and king in order that man's utter depravity and complete inability would be fully demonstrated. Thus, before the flood the relentless trend of human morality was downward. The human race sank to greater and greater depths of evil until, finally, “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). And “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6:5).
After the flood God began to separate a special people unto himself. This separation began with Abram who, by God's unmerited favor, became Abraham. When his descendants became a multitude (at the time of the Exodus) God then instituted the three special Messianic offices of prophet, priest and king. We call these Messianic for two reasons: (1) For one thing, the word Messiah originally meant anointed. It was by the symbolic act of anointing the head with oil that the Old Testament prophets (on rare occasion), priests and kings (invariably) were set apart (1 Kgs. 19:16, Ex. 29:7 and 2 Sam. 2:4). (2) For another thing, each of these offices was held by a long line—or succession—of office-bearers, and each of these lines led to the Lord Jesus (See Deut. 18:15-19, 2 Sam. 7:12-17, and 1 Sam. 2:27- 36). With respect to each of these offices it was revealed in the Old Testament scriptures that the ultimate—the perfect and final prophet, priest and king—would come in the person of the Messiah. It is the fulfillment of this in the person and work of Jesus Christ which is confirmed in the New Testament. Our Savior is the anointed one—the final prophet, priest and king—the Messiah of Israel (see, for example, Luke 4:16-20). Because he is the Messiah he terminated these three special offices of the Old Testament, forever. He terminated them because he alone embodies all three in both his past earthly and present heavenly ministry, and because he lives forever and will never be succeeded.
II. The New Testament Realization
There is, then, a distinct difference between the manner in which Christ's authority was administered in the church under the Old Testament, and the way in which it is administered today. In Old Testament times there were multiple mediators. The prophets, priests and kings were mediators. They stood between men and God. Now there is only one mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2:5). And because of the fact that he mediates an accomplished redemption, all believers now have access to God the Father in a manner not known to Old Testament believers. We believe it was for this reason that our Lord said that even the lowliest member of the church today stands in a higher place than did John the Baptist. For even though, “among them that are born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). The reason is that all believers are now prophets, priests and kings—all at the same time—and that was not true of Old Testament believers.
We can state the same thing in another way. Jesus said “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). There is no other person who can say this because Jesus alone is the Messiah. As the Lord's anointed he embodies within himself all mediatorial power. And since he said “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (28:20), it is self-evident that there will be no change in his supreme mediatorial position throughout the rest of this era. Therefore all other offices in the church today must be seen in terms of a subordinate relationship to his three-fold mediatorial office. And it is our conviction that all believers, in subordination to the Lord Jesus Christ, share in some measure all of these offices with him. We believe Paul had this in mind when he said “of his fullness have we all received” (Col. 1:19). For “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (I Cor. 12:7). What this means is that the various offices that we find in the New Testament church differ in degree rather than kind. For “to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (Eph. 4:7).
Let us illustrate our thesis, first of all, by noticing the way in which the New Testament speaks about our Lord Jesus. He is, of course, the only one who is called “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” But he is also called by the other names that the Bible uses for New Testament offices. He is called an apostle (Heb. 3:1), a prophet (Acts 3:22), he does the work of an evangelist (Lk. 4:18, 7:22), he is our supreme bishop (1 Pet. 2:25), and he even acts as our deacon (or servant, Matt. 20:28, 23:11). So, in other words, he not only fulfilled (and terminated) the three great special offices of the Old Testament, but also encompasses within himself (and thus inaugurates) all the New Testament offices as well. Thus the Apostle Paul informs us that, when Jesus ascended to heaven “leading captivity captive” he gave gifts to his people. He gave “some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). In other passages (such as Rom. 12:4-8, and I Cor. 12:27-30) the same Apostle describes many of the gifts that Jesus bestowed on his people, no doubt to qualify them for these special offices. And while it may not be possible for us to understand all of these in detail, this much is certain: there were at least six distinct offices in the church in the time of the Apostles. These were: (1) apostles, (2) prophets, (3) evangelists, (4) bishops (or elders), (5) deacons, and (6) the other believers. And we do not think that these can be classified after the analogy of the Old Testament offices of prophet, priest and king. The Old Testament offices were rather sharply separated. No king (after the time of Melchizedek) could also serve as a priest. But this is clearly not true, in the same way, of the New Testament offices as can be seen from the following data. (1) Peter was an apostle (1 Pet. 1:1), and yet he also calls himself an elder (1 Pet. 5:1). Since there is no indication that he was ever separately ordained as an elder, his call and ordination (by Jesus) as an apostle must have included the eldership within it. (2) Paul was evidently a prophet (1 Cor. 13:2, and 2 Thess. 2) as was John (who wrote the book of Revelation). Yet there is no indication of any separate ordination of either of these apostles to the prophetic office. Evidently their apostolic office included within it the prophetic. (3) From the book of Acts it is clear that the apostles originally included within the scope of their office the work that was later assigned to evangelists and deacons (Act. 8:25, 14:7). (4) Again, we note that Timothy was an evangelist (II Tim. 4:5). But Titus, who evidently held the same office, was instructed by Paul to ordain elders in Crete (Tit. 1:5). Since Paul also says that ordination of Timothy was by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery—which means 'a body of elders'—the evangelist's office must have included within it the office of elder (I Tim. 4:14). From all of this it becomes quite clear that the offices of the New Testament do not differ from one another in the sense that one is priestly, another kingly, and so on. No, the difference is rather in the measure of the gift of Christ (Eph. 4:7). They differ as to the degree or extent to which they embody the delegated power and authority of the Lord Jesus who distributes “to each one individually just as he wills” (1 Cor. 2:11).
In the distribution of gifts of office, then, we find the following distinctions. (1) Offices differ in the measure of authority. Some church officers were inspired. The apostles were inspired in such a way that they were enabled to write the inerrant word of God that we have today in the New Testament scriptures. The prophets were inspired in such a way that they were enabled to speak the same kind of inerrant truth in an oral manner. (2) Again, the New Testament offices differ as to the length of time that they were/are to continue. Some offices are permanent in the church (until Jesus returns) while others are not. As we will see later on, the office of apostle did not continue beyond the life-span of those who had been in direct contact with Jesus. It was, in the very nature of the case, a 'once only' and a 'once-and-for-all' office. The offices of elder and deacon, on the other hand, continue in the church today. (3) Finally, these offices differ in the sphere of authority and responsibility. Some church officers were given a universal authority/responsibility, while others were only given authority/responsibility within their own particular congregation. An apostle, for example, could authoritatively write to all the churches. The evangelist was probably the New Testament counterpart to our present-day missionary, being sent into new areas of the world with authority to preach the word as widely as possible. A bishop or deacon, on the other hand, had a particular sphere of labor within a congregation (unless, of course, he was given special delegated authority by a wider assembly [See Acts 15]). We could sum up the differences as follows:
The apostle was an inspired, temporary officer with universal authority and responsibility. No one could be an apostle unless he (a) had seen the Lord Jesus in his resurrected body with his own two eyes (1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8); (b) had been called by him directly (apart from all human intermediaries [Gal. 1:1]); (c) had received power to do signs and wonders attesting their authority and call (2 Cor. 12:12); and (d) possessed universal authority in the church as Christ's infallible witness (II Cor. 11:28; 14:37; 16:1 etc.).
The New Testament prophet was an inspired, temporary officer with local rather than universal authority and responsibility. A prophet received (a) revelations (Acts 13:2, 21:10,11) and made predictions with respect to the immediate future. (b) but they did not write scripture, and they were subject to the supreme authority of the word of the apostles (I Cor. 14:37). An apostle could also function as a prophet, of course, but one who was called to this as his special office could not function as an apostle.
The evangelist was an uninspired officer with a wider sphere of authority than a bishop or elder (Acts 21:8, Eph. 4:11, II Tim. 4:5 etc.). Some argue that this office has ceased, and that these men were appointed by the apostles for special tasks (men such as Titus and Timothy who were, in effect, apostolic assistants). Others have argued that this office continues today, and that the evangelist is virtually identical with what we commonly call a missionary—someone sent out by the whole church with authority to organize churches where such are not yet established. In this view the office is permanent. But even if we accept this view, it is clear that Timothy—who did the work of an evangelist (1 Tim. 4:5)—was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14). And the presbytery is just the collective body of elders gathered from several churches in a particular region. This would mean that, in receiving his appointment from this body of elders, his own authority would therefore be essentially that of an elder. Thus, today—in our own church—the equivalent would be what we think of as a teaching elder who receives assignment as a missionary (either at home or abroad) from an assembly of elders (the Presbytery or General Assembly).
The elder/bishop (the terms are used interchangeably in the New Testament) is a permanent office, is not inspired, and has local authority and responsibility (except by way of special delegation by a wider assembly of elders [Acts 15]).
The deacon is a permanent, uninspired office with authority and responsibility only in the local congregation (unless appointed to some special task by a wider assembly such as Presbytery or General Assembly [cf. 1 Cor. 16:3]).
Summary
To summarize the discussion above I offer a diagram which follows on the next page. It is an attempt to show (1) the relationship of the various New Testament offices with each other, and (2) the relationship of all the New Testament offices—including the office of believer—to the three special Old Testament offices of prophet, priest and king (all of which came to their final fulfillment in the person and work of the Lord Jesus).
I. The Biblical Qualifications
If my analysis has been correct to this point there are two permanent offices in the church, the office of the elder (bishop) and the office of the deacon. Even if I was certain that the office of evangelist continues today, the very nature of the work which an evangelist is called to do would indicate that his office would have to be conferred by a wider assembly such as the Presbytery that ordained Timothy [I Tim. 4:14] or a General Assembly [Acts 15]. To put it in different words, ordination to this office would have to be conferred by a collective body of elders. So the office would still not essentially differ from the office of elder. As far as the local church is concerned, then, we need only consider the offices of elder and deacon.
As you undoubtedly know, there has long been a difference of opinion among Reformed people as to the number of permanent offices in the church. Some have held what has been called the 'three office' view. This view does not have reference to the office of evangelist, but sees the office of the minister of the word as distinct from that of the ruling elder and deacon. Others hold that these constitute just two offices—elders and deacons—but that within the office of elder there is a division of labor. I incline to this second view for two basic reasons. (1) If we adopt the three office view we face a formidable problem. Where do we find the qualifications for ministers in the Scriptures? And where do we find the qualifications for elders? In Timothy 3 and Titus 1 we have two lists of qualifications. These are for bishops (who are also called elders) and deacons. So the obvious question would be: why would the apostle only give two lists of qualifications if, in fact, he knew that there were three offices. To put the question another way, if we hold the three office view then where do we find the qualifications for the third office? It seems self-evident to us that there are only two lists because there are, in fact, only two offices. (2) This is confirmed, as I see it, by I Timothy 5:17 which says: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine.” It seems to me that this text clearly shows that already, in the apostolic churches, there was a division of labor among those who were called elders and who, for that reason, were worthy of double honor. But there were also some who—in addition to ruling well—labored in word and in doctrine. They were to be 'especially' honored. In my judgment this indicates that (1) in the apostolic constitution of the church this was one office; that (2) nevertheless, within this one office there was, by divine sanction, such a division of labor as to constitute two sections of the eldership, namely the 'ruling' and the 'teaching;' and yet that (3) because the office was one there was no need for two sets of qualifications.
Having said this, however, I want to make it clear that I have no difficulty in living harmoniously with men who hold the three office view. I say this because we agree that there is a significant difference between those elders whose primary work is ruling and those elders whose primary labor is teaching. This is an important difference. For this reason I do not believe there is necessarily a wide difference—practically speaking— between the two and the three office views. On the one hand, we would agree that men without all the gifts and training needed for the public ministry of the word are not thereby disqualified from serving as ruling elders. And, on the other hand, we would agree that teaching elders have special functions and therefore should receive special training. I am not certain which view Robert L. Dabney would have claimed. But in an article entitled “A Thoroughly Educated Ministry” he shows how essential it is for those elders who labor in word and in doctrine to have the kind of education that Presbyterians have always insisted on. Dabney put it this way:
1 Timothy 3:2, requires of the presbyter-bishop 'aptness to teach.' This cannot mean less than didactic ability to explain the gospel correctly; and we may grant that this would be sufficiently conferred by fair general intelligence, perspicuous good sense, the gift of utterance, familiarity with the Scriptures of the New Testament, and a personal experience of gospel grace. The intelligent tradesman or mechanic in Ephesus might possess these. But ought not the modern pastor to possess this minimum qualification? Should he not be abreast, at least, of the Ephesian mechanic? Let it be remembered this Greek, now the classic 'dead' language, was then the vernacular. The educated Englishman must be no mean Greek scholar to have that practical mastery of the idiom which this mechanic had, granting that the mechanic had not the knowledge of the elegancies of Greek which the modern student may have sought out. But more than this: the events, the history, the geography, the usages, the modes of thought, the opinions, which constituted the human environment of the New Testament writers, the accurate understanding of which is so necessary to grasp the real scope of what they wrote, all these were the familiar, popular, contemporaneous knowledge of that intelligent mechanic in Ephesus. He had imbibed it in his daily observation, reading, and talk, as easily and naturally as the mechanic in Charleston has imbibed the daily facts about current politics, cotton shipments, familiar modern machinery, or domestic usages. But to us now all this expository knowledge is archaeologic! It is gained accurately only by learned researches into antiquity.[1]
We fully agree with Dabney and therefore concur with our three-office brethren in adherence to the historic Presbyterian insistence on a thoroughly educated ministry. Whether we classify the offices under two heads, or three, in other words, I hold that the end result is much the same. More important than the way we
classify these offices is the way we define them. On this, as I see it, there is no need for any basic disagreement.
Let us take a closer look at the qualifications for elders and deacons, then, by putting the three key New Testament passages beside each other.
1 Timothy 3:1-7This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. |
Titus 1:5-9For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. |
1 Timothy 3:8-13Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. |
The noted commentator William Hendriksen has analyzed these qualifications as follows:
A. Seven are positive: (1) Above reproach in the esteem of fellow members; (2) A man of unquestioned sexual morality; (3) Temperate in living habits; (4) Mentally self-controlled (not impulsive); (5) A man who has a well-ordered life-style; (6) A friend to strangers (hospitable); (7) Well grounded in biblical truth.
B. Seven are negative: (1) Not given to [much] wine; (2) Not given to blows (belligerent); (3) Not jealous for self (one who can yield); (4) Not out for the almighty dollar; (5) Not a man who can't manage his own household; (6) Not contentious (of a quarreling nature); (7) Not a recent convert.
C. One is special:
(1) Above reproach in the eyes of the surrounding community.
If our analysis has been sound, elders and deacons both embody the delegated authority of Christ. The measure of this gift differs, but there is a prophetic, priestly and kingly aspect or element in the work of both the elders and deacons.
IV. The Responsibilities of the Offices
1. The Elder
In such texts as Act. 20:28, I Pet. 5:1-3 and Heb. 13:17 it is clear that the elders are (a) shepherds of the flock of God. They are to care for, guide and feed the people of God with the truth of his word just as good shepherds of sheep see that they have green pastures and adequate water. They are (b) watchmen who are responsible for the souls of men, being required to give account of their oversight. They must also be (c) examples for the Lord's people, rather than such as lord it over them (I Pet. 5:1f). Among the varied particulars that we find mentioned in Scripture are the following: elders are to visit the sick (Jas. 5:14); they are to see to it that everything in the church is done decently and in order (I Cor. 14:37-40); they are to keep false doctrine out (Act. 20:28-30); they are to prevent fruitless disputes over mere words (2 Tim. 2:14); they are to exhort the people (Tit. 1:4); and together with elders from other churches they are to settle disputes that arise in their own congregation on the basis of the supreme authority of the Bible (Act. 15).
It is clear from this brief survey, and other similar texts, that the elder is primarily responsible to maintain an oversight of the particular members of the local church. I Pet. 5:2,3 suggests that each elder in the apostolic age was given a specific sphere of duty and authority. (Was it a district with several families committed to the particular charge of a certain elder?) He also had to concern himself with the welfare of the congregation as a whole. Was the corporate life of the church being kept true to the scriptures? Was the true gospel being faithfully preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline faithfully maintained? Was the doctrine, worship and government of the church maintained in a truly scriptural manner? Surely it is evident how artificial it would be to imagine that elders only have a kingly function!
In order to perform this momentous task it is obvious that a ruling elder today needs to be well grounded in the scriptures. He needs a good grasp of what we call 'biblical theology,' the understanding of the process of God's self-disclosure in history as it is set forth in the Bible. How can he protect the flock from the atomistic misinterpretations of the cults of the day if he does not know how to interpret a particular text of the Bible in the light of this unfolding of God's revelation? Again, he will need to have a good grasp of 'systematic theology.' Many difficulties that arise in the lives of believers are due to a lack of understanding of the truth of God as a coherent system. The result is that they lack the ability to distinguish the things that differ. How can elders help to alleviate this weakness if they themselves lack discernment? Here we also see the practical importance of at least a modest understanding of church history. Most of our modern problems are little more than re-tread versions of heresies and movements that the church has already had to contend with in the past. And, of course, the elders need to understand the principles of church government. We note these things, first, because we do not want any reader to think that we minimize education. It is essential that all elders of the church be men well grounded in these things.
But having said this with emphasis, it is equally important to note that most of the qualifications for the office of elder are not academic in character. Here, in our view, is the basic weakness in our present system of training teaching elders. Is it not self-evident that the apostle, in setting down the various requirements for office in the early church, expected people to “choose out from among themselves” (Act. 6:3) men who met these requirements? Is it not equally self-evident that the people could only do this if, and because, they had sustained a relatively long-term relationship with the men they were evaluating? It is right here that we see a serious problem today. The present system of Seminary training does not provide for this sustained exposure on the part of those who desire to be teaching elders to the members of the congregation. Congregations often call men of whom they have little or no intimate knowledge. This was not always the case. In earlier times in American Presbyterianism pastors were often trained by pastors while they lived with the congregation. We believe it is time to seek for some way to restore this dimension. Perhaps the providential invention of means of communication whereby instruction can be given from a distance will help us overcome this gap. The people of God ought to know the men they call. They ought to know them well enough to determine their vote on the basis of all the qualifications listed by the apostle, and not just those that are academic.
2. The Deacon
We now turn, briefly, to consider the task of the deacon. We believe the deacon also shares—in measure—in the three-fold task of prophet, priest and king. The task of the deacon is to minister in Christ's name. As Professor R. B. Kuiper put it: “In the name of Christ and actuated by the love of Christ, the church dispenses mercy through the office of deacon.” While this ministry of mercy is first of all—or primarily—requisite within the household of faith (Gal. 6:10), it is also to be extended more widely as opportunity and means allow. Even a cup of cold water given in the name of Jesus teaches much. It often speaks louder than words concerning the reconciling mercy of God in Christ. It is truly a demonstration of his care and protection. True, deacons are not required to be 'apt to teach' in the way elders are. Yet who can deny that there is a teaching aspect to their work? They too must know the scriptures in order to administer the mercy of Christ aright. And here, too, the knowledge of doctrine and of church history is of great value for wise stewardship. It is, in fact, our opinion that a serious weakness in Presbyterian and Reformed churches today is the neglect of this important office.
In congregations newly established—or while congregations remain relatively small—there may not yet be an urgent need for deacons. This appears to have been the case in the earliest period in the apostolic churches. The reference in Acts 14:23 (“And when they had appointed elders for them in every church”) and Titus 1:5 (“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you”) would seem to confirm this. The appointment of elders was regarded as essential even for the smallest, or newest congregation. We do not find any like statement with respect to the appointment of deacons. It also appears, from Acts 6— if this is an account of the first appointment of deacons— that it was only when the church had grown to the place where the multiplied duties became too much for the apostles (acting in their capacity as elders) that these men were chosen to assist them.
One of the great heresies of the church has been a wrong view of the relationship between what we call 'the natural' and 'the spiritual.' What a great work of teaching and edification the deacons can perform if they will only lead the church to see how false this dichotomy is. If we are to be 'the salt of the earth'—'the light of the world' that penetrates the darkness around us—then one of the urgent needs of the hour is for men who can show us how we can do good to all men, and especially those who are of the household of the faith. In order to provide the needed leadership for this in the Lord's congregation He gives some to be deacons.
V. Candidates for Office
If my analysis has been sound up to this point it will be evident that a basic principle is this: the offices (including the general office of believer) do not differ in kind so much as degree. The qualifications for the office of elder, set down by the apostle in Timothy and Titus, should not be seen as desirable for elders alone. To the contrary, as much as possible these qualifications ought to be seen as desirable for all the men of the congregation. Or, to put it in different words, these qualifications will not be attained by a sudden leap but rather by a process of sustained growth. In every well-taught and well-disciplined congregation there will be men who are growing up to the stature of elders. And it should not be seen as a problem, but as a great blessing, when—in a particular congregation—there are more men than are needed who are qualified to be elders.
We are all familiar with the long-standing debate between the proponents of 'term' eldership, on the one hand, and 'life' eldership, on the other. In my view these are inaccurate and even misleading terms. I do not see that a Session (or Presbytery) is competent to prophesy the future. When they ordain a man they ordain him as one who in their honest judgment possess the qualifications for office that the scripture prescribes. I have known men who were ordained to the ministry in the same way, and at the time, that I was. But they only served for a time and then left the ministry. Yet our ordination was exactly the same. In other words, it is not a certain kind of ordination that determines the length of our tenure in office. No, that is determined by whether or not we neglect the gift that is in us, which was given with the laying on of the hands of the elders (see 1 Tim. 4:14). As we see it, then, this classic debate will remain inconclusive because neither the one side or the other is entirely correct. As we see it the church should not attempt, in advance, to determine the length of a man’s tenure as an elder or deacon. That ought to be determined by the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit within the man, and therefore also by his own diligence in ‘stirring up the gift of God which is in him’ (II Tim. 1:6) as he seeks to develop it more and more fully.
To Sum Up
It is clear, then, that these offices—properly instituted; and functioning in a biblical manner—are of very great importance to the well-being of the church. No ordinance of God can be omitted, or neglected, without some harm to the church. But, conversely, where scriptural ordinances are reverently honored and maintained in the church, great blessing will follow. In earlier times it was an aspect of the glory of the Reformed churches that they restored and magnified, once more, these scriptural offices. If we will but strive anew to measure up to the apostolic standard in our own generation, I believe that our churches, too will be greatly blessed.
May the Lord be pleased to work in us—His ordained servants—first, and then in all the members of the church—to will and to do of His good pleasure.
Endnote
[1] Discussions Evangelical and Theological, Banner of Truth Trust, 78b Chiltern Street, London, W.1 1967. Vol. 2, p. 664.