Shepherds

& Servants

Special Committee on Elders and Deacons

The 2015 NSW General Assembly (GANSW) established the Special Committee on Elders and Deacons and requested the Committee to provide to the next Assembly a paper presenting the teaching of the Scriptures on the nature and functions of the offices of elder and deacon and examining The Code (PCNSW) in the light of this teaching.

The Committee is pleased to present a paper, titled Shepherds and Servants.

Shepherds and Servants provides a comprehensive examination of teaching of the Scriptures on the nature and functions of the offices of Elder and Deacon and represents the understanding of the Special Committee. The paper focuses on the role of Elders and Deacons in particular churches, and does not address the important questions concerning the roles of Elders in wider councils (Presbyteries and Assemblies) or Deacons in cross-congregational service. The paper also indicates a number of points where the Code and practice of the PCA and PCNSW may benefit from reform, and lists these in its conclusion.

Given the length of the paper, the Committee has also provided the Summary of Findings as a more accessible précis of the much longer paper. The numbered points in the Summary correspond to the numbered sections of the longer paper. Those with limited time may wish to read the Summary first and consult the relevant section of the longer paper, as required, for a full discussion of the reasoning and evidence which support the paper’s conclusions.

The Summary of Findings commences on the next page; the complete paper Shepherds and Servants commences on page 13.

Special Committee on Elders and Deacons

April 2016

Summary of Findings

Introduction

The paper examines the teaching of the Scriptures on the nature and functions of the offices of Elder and Deacon. The paper advances its argument in six parts. Part 1 argues that the Lord prescribes a form of government for his Church. Part 2 demonstrates the Lord’s government consists of two not three offices, namely Shepherds (Elders / Oversees / Pastors) and Servants (Deacons). Part 3 argues that the Lord has established no other offices in his Church. Part 4 argues that the Lord charges Shepherds and Servants with particular tasks, namely that Shepherds lead, teach, pray and model life in Christ, while Servants assist the church in its life and mission, with particular reference to the needs of the vulnerable, weak and poor. Part 5 examines the qualifications the Lord has given for Shepherds and Servants in his Church. Part 6 demonstrates that the Lord ordains that particular churches are to be led and served by teams of Shepherds and Servants. The conclusion suggests a way forward for the PCNSW and lists a number of implications for this Church.

1. The Lord Jesus has appointed his government in his Church

The Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of the Church, has – through his Apostles – prescribed the central matters of the Church’s government. So we confess: “The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers” (WCF 30.1). The Lord has not, however, prescribed all the particulars of his Church’s government. So we also confess: “there are some circumstances concerning … the 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” (WCF 1.6). Nevertheless, Reformed theology has rightly recognized that those matters on which the Scriptures clearly teach are not merely descriptive but prescriptive for the Church in all ages between the resurrection and the return of Christ. Church government is not the gospel. It is, however, an important God-given means through which God’s Church advances its gospel-centred mission in the world.

1.1 The Lord Jesus is the only King and Head of the Church

The foundation for any biblical understanding of Church government, as the Reformed tradition has rightly emphasized, is that Christ alone is the King and Head of his Church (WCF 25.1; cf. 25.6; 30.1). The Lord Jesus alone is “head” of the Church, his “body” (Eph 1.10, 22-23; 5.23, 27, 32; Col 1.18); the “husband” of the Church, his “bride” (Eph 5.25-33); the “cornerstone” of the Church, his “temple” (Eph 2.20; cf. 1 Cor 3.11; 1 Pet 2.1-8); the “true vine” in which all of the “branches” of the Church find their life and bear fruit (Jn 15.1-11); the “Good,” “Chief” or “Great Shepherd” of the Church, his “flock” (John 10.14; 1 Pet 5.4; Heb 13.20). Although the Lord calls others to lead his Church, their leadership is always derived from, ordered under, and directed towards Jesus’ leadership as the one and only King and Head of the Church. For this reason, no Church may claim for its officers prerogatives that belong to the Lord. Any faithful discussion of Church government must consistently look to the Lord himself, and to the government he has instituted in his Church.

1.2 The Lord appointed the Apostles to an “Extraordinary Office”

The Lord Jesus’ ascension and gift of the Spirit simultaneously create the space for, and necessitate, an ongoing, God-ordained, human leadership for the Church. This God-ordained leadership for the Church was given in two stages: the “extraordinary” office of the Apostles and the “ordinary and perpetual” offices they established to follow after them. While there is no direct biblical equivalent for the customary language of Church “office,” this paper employs the language of Church “offices” to refer to formally established public roles in the Church.

The Apostles are distinguished from all subsequent officers by: i. the Lord’s direct call and appointment; ii. their authority as “eye-witnesses” of the gospel events “from the very beginning;” iii. their unique role in “laying the foundation,” and; iv. their catholic or universal jurisdiction over all the churches.

The recognition that the Apostolic office was “extraordinary” is important: it means that while the ministry of the Apostles provides a kind of model for pastoral leadership in the post-apostolic church, it is not normative in every respect.

1.3 The Lord, through the Apostles, appointed the “Ordinary and Perpetual Offices” to lead and serve his Church in all ages

The Lord gave the “ordinary and perpetual” offices to serve the Church in all ages until Christ’s return. The “ordinary and perpetual” offices were established by the Lord through the Apostles and are normative for the post-apostolic Church. This is evident from six observations:

i. The triune God himself gave the ordinary and perpetual offices (Eph 4.11-12; Acts 20.17; cf. 1 Cor 11.28).

ii. The Apostles recognised that God has given a wide range of gifts to the Church, but – with the Lord’s authority – took definite steps to institute and regulate only two offices in the churches – those of Elder / Overseer and Deacon (1 Tim 3.1-13; 5.17-22; Tit 1.5-9; Acts 6.1-6; cf. Phil 1.1).

iii. The normative apostolic practice was to appoint “elders in every church” (Acts 14.23; cf. Tit 1.5). “Elders” were appointed by Paul, Peter and James, and across a wide range of churches in diverse geographical regions (Acts 11.30; 14.23; 15.2-6, 22-23; 16.4; 20.17; 1 Tim 5.17; 1 Pet 5.1 with 1.1; Jas 5.14 with 1.1; Phil 1.1; cf. 1 Thess 5.12; Rom 12.8; Heb 13.7, 17, 24).

iv. The Lord’s appointment, through the Apostles, of Elders to oversee and shepherd the early Christian churches stands in deep continuity with the LORD’s provision of Elders for his Church throughout the whole of covenant history, beginning with Israel in Egypt (Exod 3.16, 18). The book of Acts, in particular, presents Christian Apostles and Elders (15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16.4) as the replacement for the Jewish Chief Priests and Elders of the old covenant Church (Acts 4.23; 23.14; 25.15; cf. 4.5, 8; 6.12)

v. The Apostles appointed Elders for the churches at least partly to guard the truth of the gospel against the “false teaching” that is to characterize the whole of the Church age, and this suggests that they intended the office to continue in the Church until Christ’s return (i. Acts 14.21-23 with 20.27-32; ii. 1 Tim 3.1-7 and 5.17-25 with 1.3-7, 19-20; 4.1-7; 5.11-16; 6.20-21; iii. Tit 1.5-16. cf. also 2 Tim 2.2 with 2 Tim 2.14-18, 23-26; 3.1-13);

vi. The Pastoral Letters indicate that the regulation of the offices is not merely an ad hoc arrangement, but designed for all the churches for the whole Church age (1 Tim 3.1-13 with 1 Tim 2.1, 8, 11-15; 3.15; see esp. 1 Tim 3.1 with 1 Tim 1.15; 4.9; 2 Tim 2.11; Tit 3.8).

1.4 Conclusion: The significance of the Lord’s appointed government

The Lord’s appointment, through the Apostles, of an ongoing government for the Church should be understood as not merely descriptive, but prescriptive for the Church in the period between Christ’s resurrection and return. The central matters of church government – including the Lord’s appointment of the “ordinary and perpetual offices” – are not merely incidental to the Church’s life. They are, rather, part of the means the Lord has ordained to constitute and continue his Church in the world.

2. The Lord’s government consists of two offices: Shepherds and Servants

The Lord Jesus, though his Apostles, provided that each particular church is to be lead by a team (i.e. a plurality) of Shepherds (Acts 14.23; 20.17, 28; Phil 1.1; Tit 1.5; Jas 5.14; cf. 1 Thess 5.12; Heb 13.17), working with a team (i.e. a plurality) of Servants (1 Ti 3.8-13; Phil 1.1). The Lord established these two offices, and did not establish any others.

2.1 The Shepherd Office

The Lord established a single pastoral office, that of the Shepherd. The Apostles refer to this office by the titles “Elder,” “Overseer,” and “Pastor,” which they use interchangeably to refer to one and the same office (Acts 20.17-35; 1 Peter 5.1-5; Titus 1.5-9; cf. 1 Timothy 3.1-8 and 5.17-18; Eph 4.11). Each title emphasizes a different aspect of the office. The title “Elder” emphasises the wisdom and maturity required for leadership. The title “Overseer” emphasizes the task of watching over God’s people. The title “Pastor” emphasizes the charge to be “shepherds” of God’s flock – leading, feeding, and caring for God’s people while protecting them from harm.

2.2 The Servant Office

The Apostles also established a second office, which they refer to by the title “Servant.” (Phil 1.1; 1 Tim 3.8, 12; Rom 16.1; cf. Acts 6.1-6). The Apostles, to be sure, employ the language of “service” or “ministry” broadly, and they do not restrict the language of “service” or “ministry” to any particular group of people or any particular kind of activity. The Apostles teach, rather, that all of God’s people are called to serve the Lord in all they do (cf. Col 3.22-24), and that even unbelievers act unwittingly as God’s “servants” or “ministers” (Rom 13.4). Within this broad usage, however, the Apostles do use the title “Servant” or “Minister” for a recognised office in the Church, and this is the office more commonly referred to as “Deacon.” The foundation narrative for this office is found in Acts 6.1-6, and the regulation of the office is given in 1 Timothy 3.8-12.

2.3 Conclusion: The Lord established two offices – Shepherds and Servants

The Lord established two – and only two – ordinary and perpetual offices for the ongoing life of the Church: the offices of “Shepherd” ( = Elder / Overseer / Pastor) and “Servant” ( = Deacon).

3. The Lord has established no other offices in his Church’s government

The Lord, through the Apostles, established no other pastoral leadership office above or alongside that of the Shepherd, and no other assistance office alongside that of the Servant.

3.1 The Shepherd Office and Other Biblical Gifts and Roles: “Prophets,” “Evangelists,” “Teachers,” and “Those who Lead.”

The Apostles recognised no other gift or role as an ordinary and perpetual office. The NT roles of “prophet,” “evangelist,” “teacher” and “leader” are important gifts from the Lord to his Church, and overlap in some ways with the Shepherd office. The Lord, however, has not established any of them as an ordinary and perpetual office in the Church.

3.2 The Shepherd Office and Traditional Titles for Christian Leaders: “Priest,” “Bishop,” “Minister”

3.2.1 The Apostles know nothing of a single pastoral leader, styled “Priest.” The Reformed churches have been right to reject the title “Priest” for pastoral leaders in the new covenant Church, as well as any attribution of sacerdotal functions to such leaders. The Apostles declare that Jesus is the one Great High Priest of his people (esp. Heb 2.17; 3.1; 4.14-15; 5.5-10; 6.20; 7.15-26; 8.1; 9.11; 10.21), and that in him all believers are “priests” (1 Pet 2.9; Rev 1.6: 5.10; 20.6). The Apostles do sometimes apply priestly language to their own apostolic ministry (Rom 15.16; cf. Phil 2.17), and describe the ministry of the people of God as a whole in priestly terms (1 Pet 2.9; Rev 1.6: 5.10; 20.6). Nevertheless, they never apply the title “priest” to the ordinary and perpetual offices, and never attribute to those offices any sacerdotal functions. Reformed proponents of the “three office” view – following The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (AD1645) – have argued that the old covenant distinction between the Priests / Levites and the Elders justifies an ongoing distinction, in the period of the New Covenant, between “Pastors” or Ministers,” who are called to preach and teach, and the “Elders” or “Governors,” who are called to rule and discipline the church. There are, however, several difficulties with this view, and it does not seem to be well supported by the Scriptures.

3.2.2 The Apostles know nothing of a single pastoral leader, styled “Bishop,” who oversees multiple particular churches of which he is not a part. The Reformed churches have been right to reject the role of “Bishop” as it has been construed in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches, namely, as a single pastoral leader overseeing multiple particular churches. The English word “bishop” is a translation of the Greek ἐπίσκοπος which is better translated “overseer.” The Scriptures provide no justification for a single pastoral leader, who holds an ordinary and perpetual office in the Church, overseeing multiple particular churches of which he is not a part. The Apostles teach that Christ alone is the great “bishop” (= Overseer) of his people. While the Apostles exercised a wide-ranging jurisdiction over multiple particular churches in diverse geographical regions, this was a unique aspect of their extraordinary office. Such wide-ranging jurisdiction is nowhere attributed to the ordinary and perpetual Shepherd office. Timothy and Titus are no exception to this rule. These men are never described in terms of the ordinary and perpetual Shepherd office as “Overseer” or “Elder” or “Pastor.” They did not seek to replace themselves with others to function in the same role. They are best understood as apostolic delegates.

3.2.3 The Apostles know nothing of a single pastoral leader, styled “the Minister,” who leads a particular church on his own. The Reformed churches have tended to identify a primary pastoral leader for each particular church and to designate this pastoral leader by the title “the Minister,” a title which is intended as a shorthand for “Minister of the Word and Sacrament.” The Apostles, however, consistently speak of teams of Shepherds leading each particular church (see § 6 below). The Apostles, moreover, employ the nouns “minister” and “ministry,” as well as the verb “to minister,” broadly, to mean “service.” They nowhere identify the single pastoral leader of a particular church as “the Minister,” and – as noted above (§ 2.2) – they do not restrict the language of “ministry” to any particular group of people or any particular kind of activity. The Apostles teach, rather, that all of God’s people are called to serve the Lord in all they do (cf. Col 3.22-24), and that even unbelievers act unwittingly as God’s “ministers” (Rom 13.4). Within this broad usage, the Apostles do, indeed, use the title “Minister” for a recognised office in the Church, but this is the office of the “Servant,” more commonly referred to as “Deacon.” (see § 2.2 above).

3.3 The Apostles make no distinction of “order” within the Office of Shepherd.

Reformed churches, on the basis of 1 Timothy 5.17-18, have sometimes distinguished between “Teaching Elders” and “Ruling Elders.” On the basis of this distinction, it has sometimes been further asserted, and often implied, that some Elders “teach” while other Elders “rule.” This distinction, however, is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures. The Apostles teach, rather, that all Shepherds must both teach and rule (1 Tim 3.2, 4-5; 5.17 Tit 1.9; Eph 4.11; 1 Pet 5.2). 1 Timothy 5.17-18 does not make any distinction of kind or “order” within the Shepherd office. It teaches that: i. all of the Shepherds of any given particular church are worthy of “double honour” (respect and remuneration); ii. some Shepherds may leave other labour in order to “labour in the word and teaching,” and these Shepherds, especially, are worthy of double honour. The Apostle Paul provides no title for these “labourers.” They do not hold a different office. They do not represent a different “order” within the one office. The limited biblical evidence allows us to say nothing more than that they hold the same office and perform the same functions as other Shepherds, but – having been freed from other labour – are able to devote themselves more fully to the Shepherding role.

3.4 Conclusion and Implications

The traditional Reformed distinctions between “the Minister” and “Elders,” and between “Teaching Elders” and “Ruling Elders,” are not explicitly taught in the Scriptures. Historically speaking, these distinctions have been attempts to recognise two important realities: i. the biblical teaching that some Shepherds may particularly “labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim 5.17-18); ii. the empirical reality that a team of Shepherds, working together, requires leadership. Given that the traditional distinctions are not explicitly taught in the Scriptures, and do not arise “by good and necessary consequence” from Scripture (WCF 1.6), it may be fruitful for the PCA and PCNSW to reconsider the relationship between Ministers and Elders, and especially to explore how Ministers and Elders, serving together in the single biblical office of Shepherd, might work together more fully and with more flexible structures.

In particular, the following issues may be worthy of future consideration by the appropriate court of the Church, whether the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (GAA) or the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of NSW (GANSW): i. the appropriateness of the titles “Minister” and “Teaching Elder” for those who hold the biblical office of “Shepherd” (Elder / Overseer / Pastor) and who “labour in the word and teaching;” ii. the practice of ordaining and disciplining Ministers through Presbyteries and Elders through Sessions; iii. the powers and prerogatives of Inducted Minister, Associate Minister, Assistant Minister, and Elders in a Session; iv. the relationship between Sessions and staff teams; v. the recognition and regulation of roles other than the biblical offices, including “Teachers,” “Evangelists,” “Youth Workers,” “Children’s Workers.”

4. The Lord charges Shepherds and Servants with particular tasks

4.1 The pastoral charge: “Shepherd God’s flock”!

The charge given to those appointed to the office of Shepherd is – naturally – to “shepherd” God’s church. “Shepherding” is, in fact, the primary biblical metaphor for leadership among God’s people. The Lord Jesus is the “Good,” “Great” and “Chief Shepherd” (Jn 10.11, 14; Heb 13.20: 1 Pet 2.25: 5.4), who “shepherds” his people (Matt 2.6; Rev 2.27; 7.17; 12.5; 19.15). The Lord himself three times charges the Apostle Peter to “feed” and “shepherd my sheep” (Jn 21.15-17). The Apostle Paul employs the metaphor of “shepherding a flock” to describe his own work (1 Cor 9.7). And the central charge that the Apostles Paul and Peter give to “the Elders” is to “shepherd the church / flock of God” (Acts 20.28; 1 Pet 5.2).

The most basic calling of the Shepherds is to lovingly lead God’s people. The example of the Lord and the Apostles, as well as the specific charge given to Shepherds, indicates that this leadership is to be expressed in personal, proactive, sacrificial concern for those who are led. (Acts 20.28; 1 Pet 5.2-3; cf. Acts 5.42; 20.20, 31; 1 Thess 2.7-12; 5.12; Heb 13.7, 17).

The Apostles give shape to the Shepherds’ loving leadership of God’s people by assigning to them four key functions. These functions are patterned after the loving leadership of “Good Shepherd” himself, who presents himself in John 10 as the great Prophet, Priest and King of his people. Under the “Good Shepherd,” then, Shepherds are to lead, teach and pray for God’s people, while also modeling life in Christ for them.

4.1.1 Shepherds lead. Just as the Lord Jesus, the “Good Shepherd,” is the great “King,” who lovingly rules over his people, leading them for their good, giving them life, protecting them from harm, and keeping them secure forever in his presence (Jn 10.3-4, 10-14, 28-30), so also the Shepherds are to lead God’s people under him (1 Tim 3.4-5; 5.17; Tit 1:7; 1 Pet 5.2-3). In our context, this means leading a particular church in its life and mission, including: a. providing biblical vision for the church and effective oversight of its common life; b. participating in and leading gathered worship; c. providing spiritual care and encouragement for the members of the particular church, including children, young people, the aged and the sick, so that they grow together towards maturity in Christ.

4.1.2 Shepherds preach and teach. Just as the Lord Jesus, the “Good Shepherd” is the great “Prophet,” who “calls his own sheep by name” so that they “hear” and “know his voice” (Jn 10.3-4; cf. 10.16, 27; Mk 6.34), so also the Shepherds are to faithfully relay the Good Shepherd’s voice as they proclaim the gospel, teach God’s people “the whole counsel of God” from the Scriptures, and refute those who oppose it (Acts 20.27-31; 1 Tim 3.2; 5.17; Tit 1.9; Eph 4.11-12; cf. Heb 13.7; 1 Thess 5.12). In our context this probably includes: a. preaching and teaching from the Scriptures, and correcting false teaching; b. training and equipping others for Christian service; c. sharing the love of Christ and the message of the gospel beyond the particular church.

4.1.3 Shepherds pray. Just as the Lord Jesus, the “Good Shepherd” is the great “Priest,” who offers himself as the sacrifice which cleanses his people from sin (Jn 10.11, 15), who prays with and for the people he leads, who teaches them to pray, and who now continues to intercede for them (Jn 17.1-26; cf. Rom 8.34; Heb 7.25), so also the Shepherds perform a priest-like function, not in offering sacrifice, but in praying with and for God’s people (Jas 5.14), and in leading them to approach the throne of grace with confidence in the name of the one Great Priest and on the basis of his perfect sacrifice (Heb 10.19-25). In our context this probably includes: a. public prayer in gathered worship; b. prayer with individuals and small groups; c. private prayer for the particular church, its life, its mission, and its individual members.

4.1.4 Shepherds model life in Christ. Just as the Lord Jesus, the “Good Shepherd,” “goes before” his people and “leads them out” (Jn 10.3-4), so the Shepherds are to model life in Christ for God’s people. By their confession of Christ as Lord, by their lives patterned after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and by their exemplary Christ-like character – including the ongoing confession of their sins and repentance from them – the Shepherds provide an “example for the flock” (1 Pet 5.3; 1 Tim 3.1-8; 5.22; Tit 1.5-9; cf. Heb 13.7; 1 Jn 1.5-10). It is not enough for Shepherds to diligently lead and faithfully teach and fervently pray; they must also show, by the very shape of their daily lives, what it means to live in Christ. For this reason, in the final analysis, while Shepherds must be “able to rule” and “apt to teach” and “devoted to prayer,” the primary qualification for the Shepherding role is not charisma, but character, not giftedness, but godliness, not a “flair for leadership,” but a love for Christ’s flock, expressed in Christ-like living among them for their sake.

4.1.5 Conclusion and Implications. All of the Shepherds whom the Lord appoints to care for his people are to lead them, teach them, and pray with and for them, even as they model life in Christ among them. In light of this biblical teaching, three amendments to § 4 may serve to strengthen the PCNSW Code: i. The Code ought to describe the role of Elders first and set out the constitution, powers and role of the Session in the context of the wider work of Elders; ii. the Code ought to offer a short explanation of the biblical basis for Eldership; iii. the Code ought to provide a fuller description of the biblical role of Elders.

In addition to these amendments, two further issues may be worthy of future consideration by the PCA and/or PCNSW, namely, i. the role of Elders in administering the sacraments; ii. the practice of Sessions overseeing multiple “services” and congregations.

4.2 The Servant charge: “Serve God’s people!”

4.2.1 Apostolic teaching on the role of Servants. Servants ( = Deacons) are called to lovingly serve the needs of the Church, and especially to care for those who are vulnerable, weak and poor. This charge is not spelled out explicitly in the Scriptures. Three considerations, however, provide the general scope of the office: i. the title itself (“Servants”) suggests that those appointed to the office are to provide general “assistance” to the Church in its life and mission; ii. the trajectory set by the appointment of seven men to “serve tables” for the widows in Jerusalem so that the Apostles might focus on “prayer and the ministry of the word” (Acts 6.1-6), suggests that the focus of the Servants’ task is to meet the practical needs of the vulnerable, weak and poor, and to free up the Shepherds to pray and teach; iii. the fact that there is no requirement for “Servants” to be “able to teach” or to “take care of God’s church” (1 Tim 3.9-12; cf. 1 Tim 3.2, 5) suggests that it is neither a teaching or a leadership office, and is therefore distinguished from the office of Shepherd.

4.2.2 Conclusion and Implications. The Lord appointed the office of Servant as a second ordinary and perpetual office in the Church. It is neither a leadership office nor a teaching office, but it is a spiritual office, to which men and women of mature Christian character are to be appointed. The Servants are charged with assisting the Church in its life and mission, with particular reference to the needs of the vulnerable, the weak and the poor. The PCNSW Code § 2 currently provides for a “Committee of Management” (COM) to serve each congregation, which fulfils part but not all of the biblical role of Servant. It may well be fruitful, therefore, for the PCNSW to clarify and strengthen the description of the role of Deacons in the Code, giving consideration to the relationship between Deacons and COMs, to more fully and faithfully reflect biblical teaching.

4.3 Conclusion

The Lord charges Shepherds to pastor his church by leading, teaching, praying and modeling life in Christ for them. The Lord charges Servants to assist the church in its life and mission, with particular reference to the needs of the vulnerable, weak and poor.

5. The Lord, through his Apostles, has regulated the offices through specific qualifications

5.1 The Lord has regulated the Shepherd office

5.1.1 The Six C’s: Confession, Character, Competence, Conviction, Circumstance, Calling. The significance of the Shepherd role means that it is no surprise that the Apostles provided clear regulations for those who would be appointed to it. These qualifications relate to the basic calling and primary tasks just outlined and may be conveniently summarised under six headings.

i. Confession: Shepherds must have a living faith in Christ, openly confess him as Lord and Saviour, and hold firmly to the truths of the faith (Tit 1.9; 1 Tim 3.6; Acts 20.28; cf. 1 Tim 4.16; 6.12-13).

ii. Character: Shepherds must be men of exemplary Christ-like character (1 Tim 3.1-7; 5.22; Tit 1.5-9; 1 Pet 5.3; Acts 20.28.

iii. Competence: Shepherds must be both “able to teach” (1 Tim 3.2; Tit 1.9) and “able to lead” (1 Tim 3.3-4; 5.17; Tit 1.7).

iv. Conviction: Shepherds must have a conviction that God is calling them to the role. They must “desire” the “noble task” and undertake it “willingly” (1 Tim 3.1; 1 Pet 5.2).

v. Circumstances: Shepherds must be in life circumstances that allow them to take up the role (1 Tim 5.8; 6.1).

vi. Calling: Shepherds do not appoint themselves to the role, but must be appointed to it by God through the Church (Acts 20.28; 1 Tim 5.22; cf. Matt 28.18-20; Heb 5.4-10; Acts 13.1-3; 1 Tim 4.14)

5.1.2 Shepherds must be male. The Scriptures are clear that men and women are equally created in the image of God (Gen 1.26-28), equally fallen in sin (Rom 3.23), equally redeemed by Christ (Gal 3.28), and equally called to wholehearted service in God’s kingdom. The Scriptures are also clear that men and women are called to different and complementary roles in God’s economy. The biblical norm is for male servant-leadership in the family, modeled on Christ’s servant-leadership towards his bride, the Church (Gen 2.18-25; Eph 5.21-33; 6.4; Col 3.18-21; 1 Pet 3.1-7). This creates the expectation of male leadership in the Church also. In this context, two observations confirm that Shepherds are to be male: i. the language applied to the Shepherds consistently assumes that they are male (1 Tim 3.2; Tit 1.6); ii. the authoritative public teaching function assigned to the Shepherds (1 Tim 3.2; 5.17-18; Tit 1.9) is restricted to men (1 Tim 2.12; 1 Cor 14.33b-35).

This biblical vision of complementary roles for men and women in the Church requires, therefore, that careful thought be given to how the ministry of women might genuinely complement that of the male Shepherds. Certainly, the Shepherd leadership provided by Jesus and the Apostles created significant space for, and encouragement of, the complementary ministry of women (Lk 8.2-3; Rom 16.1-3, 6-7, 12-15; 1 Cor 7.1-5, 12-16; Eph 5.24; 1 Tim 2.15; 3.11; 5.10, 14, 16; Tit 2.3-5; 1 Pet 3.1-6). In our context, there is ample scope to give further consideration to how women might complement the leadership provided by male Shepherds, and in a range of ways.

5.2 The Lord has regulated the Servant office

5.2.1 The Five C’s: Confession, Character, Competence, Circumstance, Calling. Servants must meet most of the same basic qualifications as Shepherds. They must: i. Confess the faith (1 Tim 3.9); ii. be of exemplary Christian character (1 Tim 3.8, 10-12); iii. be competent to “rule” or “manage … well” the affairs of his household and, by implication, the church (1 Tim 3.12); iv. be in life circumstances that allow them to devote themselves to the work of ministry, and; v. be called or appointed to the office by the church (Acts 6.3, 5-6; 1 Tim 3.10). In distinction from the Shepherds, however, there is no requirement that Servants be “able to teach”. There is also no specific requirement that Servants be “willing” or “desirous” of the office, though this is no doubt a wise consideration.

5.2.2 Servants may be male or female. The office of Servant is probably open to both women and men. The biblical evidence is limited, but the appointment of women to the office of Servant is positively indicated by 1 Timothy 3.11, which is best translated “women (deacons) likewise.” It also follows from the fact that the Servant office does not involve authoritative teaching of the church, and is confirmed by the indications that Paul, in practice, recognised female Servants, such as Phoebe (Rom 16.1-2).

5.3 Conclusion and Implications.

The Apostles took seriously the task of appointing appropriate people to the Shepherd and Servant offices. In this regard, the GAA and GANSW may well be strengthened by a consideration of four issues, namely: i. current processes for identifying, training, examining, evaluating and disciplining Elders; ii. the gender of Elders; iii. the relative merits and demerits of “term Eldership;” iv. the role of Deaconesses.

6. The Lord ordains that teams of Shepherds and Servants are to lead and serve each particular church

Each particular church is to be lead by a plurality of Shepherds, who work together with a plurality of Servants (Acts 14.23; Phil 1.1; Tit 1.5; Jas 5.14; cf. Acts 20.17, 28; 1 Thess 5.12; Heb 13.17).

6.1 “Church” in the Scriptures

The Apostles’ teaching regarding the church is rooted in God’s gathering and perfecting of his people throughout the whole of covenant history. In the NT, the word “church” primarily refers to particular churches (= “congregations” or “gathering-communities”). It can also refer to: i. the universal or eschatological gathering-community of all God’s people in Christ; ii. the wider body of believers in a city or a region, united under a common government, even when that body does not have the character of a community that regularly gathers in a particular location. This range of uses must be borne in mind when examining the evidence for plural leadership in each particular church.

6.2 Plural Shepherds and Servants in each particular church.

The Scriptures clearly present a pattern of plural leadership and the NT, in particular, presents a pattern in which a team of Shepherds leads each particular church, and a team of Servants assists each particular church in its life and mission (Acts 14.23; Phil 1.1; Tit 1.5; Jas 5.14; cf. Acts 20.17, 28; 1 Thess 5.12; Heb 13.17).

6.3 Conclusion and Implications

This biblical vision of plural leadership necessitates that Shepherds and Servants work well together in teams. This requires that careful consideration be given to the way in which plural teams might most effectively operate. The current arrangements under the PCNSW Code, according to which the inducted Minister serves as the default Moderator of the Session and Chair of the Committee of Management is one possible way of managing team leadership. This arrangement, however, is not explicitly taught in Scripture, does not arise “by good and necessary consequence” from Scripture (cf. WCF 1.6), and is not the only way that effective leadership might be provided to Sessions and COMs. It may be fruitful, therefore, for PCNSW to consider whether there might be other effective ways for teams of Shepherds and Servants to work together, and to allow for greater flexibility in this regard.

Conclusion

The Scriptures are clear. The “Lord Jesus, as king and head of the church” has “appointed a government” for his Church (WCF 30.1). He established, through His Apostles, two offices – and only two offices – as the ordinary and perpetual offices of his Church: the single pastoral office of the Shepherd (= Elder / Overseer / Pastor), to lead, teach, pray and model life in Christ for God’s people; and the single assistance office of the “Servant,” to serve the Church in its life and mission, with particular reference to the needs of the vulnerable, weak and poor. In each particular church, a team of Shepherds is to lead, and a team of Servants is to assist the church in its life and mission.

This two-office view has not always or everywhere been held in the Reformed churches, but it is no recent innovation, and has been recently affirmed by the World Reformed Fellowship. The Reformed church is always reforming. It may well be fruitful, therefore, for the PCNSW to further reform some aspects of its Code and practice so that they more clearly and fully reflect the teaching of the Scriptures. The general principle ought to be: where God has spoken, we obey; where God has not provided explicit instruction, and our Code and practice do not arise by “good and necessary consequence” from Scripture (cf. WCF 1.6), we respect the traditional forms of church order we have inherited, but also explore whether there may be other more fruitful ways of organising the church’s leadership – always within the confines and according to the principles of God’s Word – in order to promote more effective gospel ministry in twenty-first century Australia.

Shepherds & Servants:

the two offices Christ ordained for his church

A paper produced by the Special Committee on Elders and Deacons for the PCNSW Assembly 2016

Introduction

The 2015 PCNSW Assembly requested the Special Committee on Elders and Deacons to provide to the next Assembly a paper presenting the teaching of the Scriptures on the nature and functions of the offices of elder and deacon and examining The Code (PCNSW) in the light of this teaching. This paper responds to this request and provides a comprehensive treatment of the teaching of the Scriptures on the nature and functions of the offices of Elder and Deacon. The paper focuses on the role of Elders and Deacons in particular churches, and does not address the important questions concerning the role of Elders in wider councils (Presbyteries and Assemblies) or Deacons in cross-congregational service. The paper also indicates a number of points where the Code and practice of the PCA and PCNSW may benefit from reform, and summarises these in its conclusion.

Part 1 argues that the Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of the Church, has – through his Apostles – prescribed a form of government for his Church. The argument here accepts and develops the long-held Reformed conviction that the central matters of the Church’s government – about which the Lord speaks in his Word – are neither mere ἀδιάφορα (“disputable matters”), nor even de jure humano (established “by human right”), but de jure divino (established “by divine right”). They are part of the Lord’s revealed will for his people.[footnoteRef:2] This Part demonstrates that while Church government is not the gospel it is, nevertheless, an important God-given means through which God’s Church advances its gospel-centred mission in the world. [2: See esp. J. Calvin, Institutes, § 4.11.1; Gallic Confession, 25, 29; Belgic Confession, 30; Helvetic Confession, II.18; WCF 30.1; Westminster Larger Catechism 45. See discussion in H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4 – Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011 (1895-1899)), 387.]

Part 2 demonstrates that the Lord ordained, through his Apostles, that each particular church should be led by a team of Shepherds, who work together with a team of Servants.[footnoteRef:3] The argument here is that the Lord appointed two – and only two – “ordinary and perpetual” offices in his Church: Shepherds (= Elders / Overseers / Pastors) to lovingly lead, teach, and pray for God’s people, while modeling life in Christ for them; and Servants (= Deacons), to lovingly manage the financial and material needs of the church, and especially to care for those who are vulnerable, weak and poor.[footnoteRef:4] The paper adopts the terms “Shepherd” and “Servant” for these offices for two reasons: i. “Shepherd” and “Servant” are good biblical terms for the two biblical offices (“Shepherd:” Eph 4.11; cf. Acts 20.28; 1 Pet 5.2; “Servant:” Phil 1.1; 1 Timothy 3.8, 12; cf. Acts 6.1-6); ii. “Shepherd” and “Servant” are less familiar than the customary “Minister,” “Elder” and “Deacon” and so may help us think about the offices in biblically faithful ways rather than merely defaulting to our traditional understandings. [3: For the language of “particular” churches, see WCF 25.4; 31.1.] [4: For the language of “ordinary and perpetual” offices, see The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (1645) § 3. For the titles “Elder,” “Overseer” and “Pastor” as alternative designations for a single office, see the argument in § 2.1.2 below.]

Part 3 demonstrates that the Lord has established no other offices in his Church’s government. It argues, to begin with, that the New Testament (NT) roles of “prophet,” “evangelist,” “teacher” and “leader” are important gifts from the Lord to his Church, and overlap in some ways with the Shepherd office, but have not been established by the Lord as ordinary and perpetual offices in the Church. It argues, further, that the traditional roles of “Priest,” “Bishop” and “Minister,” which have been recognised in various branches of the universal Church, are not explicitly established in the Scriptures, and in some cases contravene biblical teaching. This Part argues, finally, that the Apostles do not distinguish between “Teaching Elders” and “Ruling Elders.”

In making these arguments, Parts 2 and 3 engage particularly with the long Reformed discussion regarding whether the Scriptures envisage two or three ordinary and perpetual offices in the Church.[footnoteRef:5] This discussion has its roots in Calvin’s fourfold designation of church offices under the titles “Pastor” (= “Minister”), “Doctor” (= “Professor”), “Governor” (= “Elder”), and “Deacon.”[footnoteRef:6] The majority of the Reformed churches dropped the office of “Doctor,” and argued either that the Lord established three offices in the Church, namely, those of “Minister / Pastor,” “Elder,” and “Deacon,”[footnoteRef:7] or that he established two offices only, namely, those of “Elder” and “Deacon.”[footnoteRef:8] Within this latter group, there has been further discussion as to whether the NT envisages a significant distinction of “order” within the Eldership between “Teaching Elders” and “Ruling Elders.”[footnoteRef:9] The argument in Parts 2 and 3 is that the Lord Jesus ordained Shepherds (Elders / Oversees / Pastors) and Servants (Deacons) to lead and serve His Church – two offices only – and that there is no significant distinction of kind within the Shepherd office.[footnoteRef:10] [5: The discussion, of course, could be traced back to the early Church, but our focus here is on the debate within the Reformed tradition. For a review of this debate, see I. H. Murray, "Ruling Elders – A Sketch of a Controversy," Banner of Truth 235 (1983): 1-9. For a recent survey of views, see esp. G. P. Waters, How Jesus runs the church (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2011), chapt 4. For a wider survey of approaches to church government, see P. Toon and S. B. Cowan, Who runs the church?: 4 views on church government, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004). ] [6: Calvin, Institutes § 4.3.3-5; cf. Synod of Middelburg (1581) § 2: “The offices are of four kinds: the ministers of the Word, Professors, Elders, and Deacons;” Synod of Gravenhage (1586) § 2: “The offices are of four kinds: the ministers of the Word, doctors [professors of theology], elders, and deacons;” The Form of Presbyterian Church-Government (1647) § 3: “The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.
 Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.”] [7: For the Confessions: Belgic Confession (1561), 30-31; Synod of Wezel (1568), 2, 4–5; Synod of Emden (1571), 13–14. For a classic defense of the three-office view, see C. Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity: From the Contributions to the “Princeton Review” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 118-33, 262-99. See also T. Smyth, “The Name, Nature and Function of Ruling Elders,” “Theories of Eldership (I),” “Theories of Eldership (II),” “Ecclesiastical Catechism,” in J. W. Flinn, ed. Complete Works of Rev. Thomas Smyth, D.D., 10 vols. (Columbia SC: R.L. Bryan, 1908), 4:13-164; 167-275; 277-358; 435-519. More recently, see R. S. Rayburn, "Three Offices: Minister, Elder, Deacon," Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review XII: 105-14; M. R. Brown, ed. Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers (Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993); E. P. Clowney, The Church, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), 210-12; D. Macleod, Priorities for the Church: Rediscovering Leadership and Vision in the Church (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 41-56; C. Van Dam, The Elder (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009). ] [8: The two office view was clearly the accepted position of the early post-Apostolic churches, although space does not allow discussion of the evidence here. See esp. 1 Clem 42.4-5; 44.1-3, 5; 47.6; 57.1; cf. 1.3; Did. 15.1; Polycarp, Phil. 1.0; 5.2-3; 6.1; cf. Jerome, Letter CXLVI to Evangelus; Letter LXIX to Oceanus § 3 (in D. W. Hall and J. H. Hall, eds., Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 57-60); Commentary on Titus (in J.-P. Migne, ed. Patrologia cursus completus: Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris: 1844–1864), 26: 596B–597AB). Amongst the Reformed, the two office view may be traced back as far as Johannes à Lasco (d. 1560). See J. à. Lasco, Opera (Amsterdam: F. Muller, 1866), II.51. For the subsequent development in Britain, see esp. T. Witherow, "The New Testament Elder," British and Foreign Evangelical Review (1873): 201-28 and J. Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A treatise on the nature, powers, ordinances, discipline and government of the Christian Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), Part IV. On the continent, influential arguments were made by Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4, 327-89. In America, see esp.: J.H. Thornwell, “The Ruling Elders,” “The Ruling Elders a Presbyter,” “Resolutions as to the Eldership,” and “Presbyterianism and the Eldership,” in J. B. Adgar and J. L. Girardeau, eds., Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 (1871-73)), 4.43-142; R. L. Dabney, "Theories of the Eldership," in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967 (1891)), 2:119-57; and T. E. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology (Greenville, SC: Presbyterian Press, 2005 (1892)), 179-86. More recently, see G. W. Knight III, "Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study," Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review XI (1985): 1-12; "Two Offices and Two Orders of Elders," in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. C. G. Dennison and R. C. Gamble (Philadelphia: Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), 23-32; Waters, How Jesus runs the church, chpt 4; D. A. Carson, "Some Reflections on Pastoral Leadership," Themelios 40, no. 2 (2015): 195-97. Note also the World Reformed Fellowship, Statement of Faith (2010) § 8.2: “Scripture indicates a number of ministries which God has given to the church at different times: Apostles, prophets, Elders, Deacons and evangelists. Today, in each local church there are to be Elders and Deacons. The Elders are to be Pastors, Overseers and examples and some of them are to devote themselves to preaching and teaching. Deacons are to care for the poor and needy, and to see to the practical, financial and fabric needs of the church. Like the Eldership, this is a spiritual office requiring spiritual qualities.” For the case that there is only one NT office (i.e. “the Deacon” is not an office), see B. L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church, StBL (New York: Peter Lang, 2003).] [9: For a defense of the “Two Offices and Two Orders” view, see Knight III, "Two Offices 1985," 1-12; "Two Offices 1986," 23-32; cf. Waters, How Jesus runs the church, chpt 4.] [10: Due to the constraints of space, a number of important related questions cannot be discussed here, including: i. the Lord’s provision of a wider government for his Church through Councils of Shepherds or “presbyteries;” ii. the evidence from the early post-apostolic Church for the government the Lord established through the Apostles; iii. the many practical implications of this biblical teaching in terms of the training, examining, setting apart and disciplining of Shepherds and Servants, and in terms of how Shepherds and Servants might function most effectively in their God-given roles, both as individuals and in teams.]

Part 4 examines the Lord’s charge to Shepherds and Servants. It demonstrates that the Lord charges Shepherds with pastoral leadership of his Church, which involves leading the church in its life and mission, preaching and teaching from the Scriptures, praying with and for God’s people, and modeling life in Christ for them. This Part demonstrates, further, that the Lord’s charge to Servants ( = Deacons) is to lovingly serve the needs of the Church, and especially to care for those who are vulnerable, weak and poor.

Part 5 shows that the Lord, through his Apostles, has regulated the offices of Shepherd and Servant through specific qualifications. First, this Part examines the qualifications required of Shepherds and summarizes the biblical teaching under six C’s: Shepherds must confess the faith, be of exemplary Christian character, be competent to both teach and lead, have the conviction needed for the task, enjoy life circumstances that enable them to serve, and be called to office by the Church. It further demonstrates that the Scriptures teach that Shepherds are to be male. Second, this Part examines the qualifications required of Servants and shows that they are similar to those required of Shepherds, except that there is no requirement that Servants be able to teach or lead. Further, this Part demonstrates that Servants may be male or female.

Parts 6 argues that the Lord ordains that teams of Shepherds and Servants are to serve each particular church. Pastoral leadership in God’s Church is not to be exercised by single individuals acting alone, but by teams of leaders and servants acting together.

Part 1. The Lord Jesus Christ has appointed his government in his Church

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) asserts that “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers” (30.1). This first Part demonstrates that the Lord Jesus has indeed established a government in his Church: through his Apostles, in the writings of the NT, he not only describes, but also prescribes this form of government for his Church in all ages. The Lord, of course, did not give this government as some sort of replacement for the gospel. Church government is not a matter of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15.3). It is not one of “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation” (WCF 1.7). The Lord also did not give this government with all the particulars fully worked out. As the WCF itself recognizes, “there are some circumstances concerning the … 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” (WCF 1.6).[footnoteRef:11] Nevertheless, given the Lord’s love for his Church, it is no surprise that he has given her not only the gospel of her salvation, but also a form of government, by which he lovingly rules her.[footnoteRef:12] The central matters of church government, then – those about which the Lord speaks in his word – are important secondary truths.[footnoteRef:13] They are part of the God-given means through which the Church advances its gospel-centered mission in the world. [11: Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4, 386 notes that in the Reformed churches “it was the general conviction that the government of the church must substantially rest on a divine law. In this connection it was realized, however, that Scripture is not a book of statutes, does not deal in detail with a host of particulars, and leaves a great deal to the discretion of the churches”; cf. similar statements in Synod of Wezel (1568), I. 9–10; Synod of Emden (1571), 19–20.] [12: cf. Westminster Larger Catechism 45: “Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them.” (emphasis added).] [13: For the category of “secondary truths”, see H. Blocher, "Jesus Christ the Man: Toward a Systematic Theology of Definite Atonement," in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective, ed. D. Gibson and J. Gibson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), loc. 13487: “In necessariis, unitas; in non necessaries (or dubiis), liberates; in omnibus, caritas (in articles of faith that are necessary, unity; in non-necessary [or doubtful] ones, freedom; in all, charity) – the well-known maxim Martin Luther coined is always relevant. One should add still another clause: in secundariis seu subtilises, benigna sed exacta diligentia (in matters secondary [not indifferent] or subtle, a gracious attention combined with exactness).” cf. T. Witherow, "The Apostolic Church: Which is it?," in Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government, ed. D. W. Hall and J. H. Hall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994 (1856)), 36: “To say that, because a fact of Divine revelation is not essential to salvation, it must of necessity be unimportant, and may or may not be received by us, is to assert a principle, the application of which would make havoc of our Christianity.”]

1.1 The Lord Jesus Christ is the only King and Head of the Church

The foundation for any biblical understanding of Church government, as the Reformed tradition has rightly emphasized, is that Christ alone is the King and Head of his Church (WCF 25.1; cf. 25.6; 30.1).[footnoteRef:14] The Apostles teach that the Lord Jesus alone is “head” of the Church, his “body” (Eph 1.10, 22-23; 5.23, 27, 32; Col 1.18); that he alone is the “husband” of the Church, his “bride” (Eph 5.25-33); that he alone is the “cornerstone” of the Church, his “temple” (Eph 2.20; cf. 1 Cor 3.11; 1 Pet 2.1-8); that he alone is the “true vine” in which all of the “branches” of the Church find their life and bear fruit (Jn 15.1-11); and that he alone is the “Good,” “Chief” or “Great Shepherd” of the Church, his “flock” (John 10.14; 1 Pet 5.4; Heb 13.20). Indeed, many of the terms that the Apostles subsequently apply to Christian leaders are first applied to Christ. It is first and foremost the Lord Jesus himself who is the “Apostle” (ἀπόστολος),[footnoteRef:15] “Prophet” (προφήτης),[footnoteRef:16] “Shepherd/Pastor” (ποιμήν),[footnoteRef:17] “Overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος),[footnoteRef:18] “Teacher” (διδάσκαλος),[footnoteRef:19] and “Servant’”(διάκονος)[footnoteRef:20] of his people. Thus, although the Lord calls others to lead his Church, their leadership is always derived from, ordered under, and directed towards him. It is from the Lord Jesus Christ, and from him alone, that the Church derives its powers and prerogatives, “so that all its functions are to be exercised in his Name, under the guidance of his Word and Spirit, and in subjection to his authority alone.”[footnoteRef:21] For this reason, no Church may claim for its officers prerogatives that belong to the Lord.[footnoteRef:22] Any faithful discussion of Church government must consistently look to the Lord himself, and to the government he has instituted in his Church. [14: For classic discussions, see Calvin, Institutes § 4.3.1; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4: 329.] [15: Heb 3.1] [16: Jesus describes himself as a prophet: Matt. 13.57//Mk 6.4//Lk 4.24// Jn 4.44; Lk 13.33. The Gospel writers also identify him as such: Matt 10.41; 14.5; 21.11, 46; Mk 6.15; Lk 7.16, 39; 24.19; Jn 4.19; 6.14; 7.40, 52; 9.17. So also Acts 3.22; 7.37.] [17: Matt 26.31; Mk 14.27; Jn 10.2, 16; 1 Pet 2.25. cf. Matt 9.36; 25.32; Mk 6.34. Note especially: Jn 10.11 (x2), 14: the “Good Shepherd” (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); Heb 13.20: the “Great Shepherd of the Sheep” (τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν); 1 Pet 5.4: “the Chief Shepherd” (ἀρχιποίμην).] [18: 1 Pet 2.25] [19: Matt 8.19; 9.11; 10.24–25; 12.38; 17.24; 19.16; 22.16, 24, 36; 23.8; 26.18; Mark 4.38; 5.35; 9.17, 38; 10.17, 20, 35; 12.14, 19, 32; 13.1; 14.14; Luke 3.12; 6.40; 7.40; 8.49; 9.38; 10.25; 11.45; 12.13; 18.18; 19.39; 20.21, 28, 39; 21.7; 22.11; John 1.38; 3.2; 8.4; 11.28; 13.13–14; 20.16. Note especially Jesus’ assertion at Matt 23.8 that he is the “one teacher” of his people (εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος), and compare his rebuke of Nicodemus for his failure as “the teacher of Israel” (John 3.10: ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ).] [20: Rom 15.8; cf. διακονέω: Matt 20.28//Mark 10.45; Luke 12.37; 22.27.] [21: cf. Presbyterian Church of Australia, Constitution, Procedure and Practice (Code Committee of the General Assembly of Australia, 2011), Introduction, § 6.] [22: The Roman Catholic assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” must be rejected, since this title renders the Pope a functional replacement for the Lord Jesus on earth (“Vicar” from Latin vicarious = substitute). See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vatican, 1997) § 882: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as Pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” This consideration also rules out some Episcopalian / Anglican language which implies that church officers have more authority than they really do. For example, the designation of the primary leader in a congregation as its “Rector” (from Latin regere = rule (as a king)) unhelpfully suggests that this one leader has king-like status in the church.]

1.2 The Lord appointed the Apostles to an “Extraordinary” Office

The Lord Jesus Christ alone is King and Head of his Church. Nevertheless, by his bodily resurrection and ascension, the Lord created the space for – and necessitated – an ongoing, embodied, human leadership for his Church; by his gift of the Spirit, he empowers and enables this leadership to govern the Church under his sovereign rule.[footnoteRef:23] [23: cf. M. S. Horton, People and place: a covenant ecclesiology, 1st ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), chpt 1; loc. 54-585. ]

Reformed theology has rightly recognized that the Lord gave this leadership to the Church in two stages: the “extraordinary” office of the Apostles, and the “ordinary and perpetual” offices they established to follow after them.[footnoteRef:24] There is, to be sure, no direct biblical equivalent for the customary language of Church “office.”[footnoteRef:25] In what follows, we use the language of Church “offices” to mean formally established public roles in the Church.[footnoteRef:26] [24: The language of “extraordinary” and “ordinary and perpetual” offices is drawn from The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645) § 3. ] [25: The closest biblical language is perhaps Peter’s affirmation in Acts 1.20 (citing Ps 109.8 = LXX 108.8) that another must take up Judas’ “oversight” (ἐπισκοπή), and Paul’s re-use of this noun in reference to the “oversight” role of the Overseer in 1 Timothy 3.1.] [26: cf. J. Murray, "Office in the Church," in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: 1977), 2: 357-58.]

It is clear that the Lord himself formally and publicly established the Apostles in their position of leadership in His Church. The Apostles, indeed, are distinguished from all subsequent officers by:

i. the Lord’s direct call and appointment;[footnoteRef:27] [27: Matt 10.1-23; 16.19; 18.18; 28.18-20; Luke 9.1-6; 24.46-49; Acts 1.8; 9.1-19; Jn 16.7, 13; 20.21-23; 1 Cor 15.8-11; Gal 1.1, 11-12. In contrast, the Lord called and appointed all subsequent leaders indirectly, by his Holy Spirit, and through the Apostles (Acts 14.23), or their delegates (1 Tim 3.1-13; 5.22; 2 Tim 2.2; Tit 1.5), or other members of the settled leadership once it had been established (1 Tim 4.14; 5.22). Note that in this context, Acts 13.1-3 is best understood not as the “call” or “appointment” of Barnabas and Saul to office, but as their commissioning for a specific mission.]

ii. their authority as “eye-witnesses” of the gospel events “from the very beginning;”[footnoteRef:28] [28: Lk 1.1-4; 24.48; Acts 1.8, 21-26; 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.37-41; 13.31; Jn 15.26-27; 19.35; 21.24; 1 Pet 5.1; 1 Jn 1.1-5; 4.14. In contrast, those who followed them relied – and continue to rely – on the apostolic testimony to Jesus.]

iii. their unique role in “laying the foundation,”[footnoteRef:29] and; [29: Eph. 2.20; 1 Cor. 3.10.11. In contrast, all subsequent church leaders have the task of building on the apostolic foundation.]

iv. their catholic or universal jurisdiction over all the churches.[footnoteRef:30] [30: Acts 15.36-41; 1 Cor 7.17; 14.33. In contrast, the Apostles appointed leaders to a limited sphere of responsibility and authority, for a particular church in a given location, with whom those leaders regularly gathered for worship (Acts 14.23; Tit 1.5).]

The Apostles, therefore, held a unique or “extraordinary” office in the Church. This office expired with the deaths of those the Lord appointed to it. This recognition that the Apostolic office was extraordinary is important: it means that while the ministry of the Apostles provides a kind of model for pastoral leadership in the post-apostolic church, it is not normative in every respect.

1.3 The Lord, through the Apostles, appointed the “Ordinary and Perpetual Offices” to lead and serve his Church in all ages

The Lord also established, through the Apostles, the “ordinary and perpetual offices.” That is, the Apostles established certain public positions or roles in the churches, and publicly appointed particular individuals to these roles, so that they might discharge certain responsibilities and perform specific functions in the churches in the post-apostolic era.

1.3.1 Reformed and other approaches to Church government

The Reformed conviction, that the Lord, through his Apostles, established the “ordinary and perpetual” offices in the Church, has not been shared by other branches of the universal Church. On the one hand, the Roman Catholic Church has tended to downplay any distinction between the extraordinary office and the ordinary offices. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the Apostles left bishops as their successors” and “gave them their own position of teaching authority”.[footnoteRef:31] On this basis of strong continuity between the Apostles and the bishops, the Roman Catholic Church asserts that faithfulness to the God-given apostolic constitution of the Church is guaranteed by an unbroken chain of “apostolic succession.” On the other hand, Hooker’s Anglicanism, and some forms of Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism, have tended to reject the apostolic institution of the ordinary offices. Those who hold this position often argue that the apostolic government, reflected in the NT, is not prescriptive for the Church but only descriptive. Two arguments are commonly offered: i. the NT records of church government exhibit an “irreconcilable diversity”[footnoteRef:32] and a “lack of one exclusive pattern of organization,”[footnoteRef:33] and/or; ii. the NT patterns of church government are given in occasional or ad hoc documents which have no binding significance for the Church beyond the first century.[footnoteRef:34] Those who adopt these arguments have tended to assert that faithfulness to the God-given apostolic constitution of the Church may be pursued without reference to the concrete forms of government that the Apostles established.[footnoteRef:35] On this view, church government becomes a question of tradition or pragmatics: as long as the apostolic gospel is preached, it is argued, we should feel free to keep the traditional forms of church government, or – conversely – to invent new forms of church government, in order to do whatever will, according to wise judgment, best promote the gospel. [31: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997 § 77: “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the Apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (emphasis added)] [32: M. Bockmuehl, "Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church?," in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics, ed. M. Bockmuehl and A. J. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 35.] [33: M. J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1094-95; cf. E. Käsemann, "Unity and Multiplicity in the New Testament Doctrine of the Church" in E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1969), 256-57: “the historian is unable to speak of an unbroken unity of New Testament ecclesiology.”] [34: G. Fee, "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents," JETS 28 (1985): 141-51 (142-43); cf. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1094-95: “Even if it were clear that there is one exclusive pattern organization in the New Testament, that pattern would not necessarily be normative for us today. It might be merely the pattern which was, not the pattern which must be.”] [35: e.g. R.T. Beckwith, Elders in every city: the origin and role of the ordained ministry. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003, 11 recognizes that “Earlier in the apostolic age, as is well known, the presbyter-bishop seems to have been one and the same person.” Beckwith then proceeds to argue, on the basis of church tradition, for an episcopalian form of church government, which distinguishes between bishops and presbyters. He asserts, therefore, that church government is, at least in this respect, de jure humano (“by human right”).]

Against these tendencies, however, the Reformed churches have rightly argued that faithfulness to the Lord’s constitution of his new covenant Church through the Apostles involves commitment to the “three marks” of the Church. These three marks of the Church are: i. the true preaching of the Word;[footnoteRef:36] ii. the right administration of the sacraments,[footnoteRef:37] and; iii. the faithful exercise of church discipline.[footnoteRef:38] The three marks are the means that Christ appointed for the constitution and continuance of his Church in the world.[footnoteRef:39] For our purposes, it is significant that church government is an expression of the third “mark.” The faithful exercise of church discipline requires some form of church government. It is true, of course, that a church might exercise discipline through a form of government different from that instituted by Christ. In this sense, a fully biblical church government is not part of the esse (“being” or “essence”) of the true apostolic church, but belongs to its de bene esse (“well being”). A fully biblical government is not necessary for a church to be a church. It is, rather, a matter of whether any particular church is “more or less pure” (WCF 25.4). Nevertheless, if the Lord has given a form of church government to his people, then the Church ought to form itself according to the Lord’s command. [36: Matt 28.18-20; Acts 2.42; Gal 1.6-9; 1 Cor 15.3-5.] [37: Acts 2.42; Matt 28.18-20; 1 Cor 11.23-26.] [38: Matt 18.15-20; 1 Cor 5.1-6.8; 2 Thess 3.6-15. The has been some disagreement amongst Reformed thinkers as to whether church discipline should be considered a “mark of the true church.” Calvin identified two marks, namely, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments (Institutes § 4.1.9), but also gave significant attention to ecclesiastical discipline as a necessary corollary of these two primary marks (Institutes § 4.12.1-28). The Scots Confession (1560), § 20, and the Belgic Confession (1561), § 29, both identify “discipline” as a third “mark.” The WCF 25.4 also seems to recognize discipline as a mark by its use of 1 Corinthians 5.6-7 as a proof-text. Whatever we decide on this issue, the crucial point, common to the Reformed tradition, is that the faithful exercise of discipline is necessary for the life of the church.] [39: Cf. Horton, People and place, loc. 3220 argues that faithfulness to the Lord’s constitution of his church through the Apostles is guaranteed by “the Spirit’s effective ministry of the gospel through the means appointed by Christ.” (emphasis added).]

1.3.2 The Lord’s appointed government is prescriptive for his Church

The following six considerations demonstrate that the Lord established, through the Apostles, a form of church government designed for the whole Church, in all ages, until his return, and that we do well to see that our churches are formed and re-formed according the Lord’s command.

i. The Apostles are clear that it was the Lord himself who gave to the Church not only the Apostles, but also a range of other leaders, including the Elders / Overseers / Pastors and Deacons. Paul, in particular, teaches that God’s appointment of other leaders in the church, like all of God’s actions, was a work in which each member of the Trinity played a part: God ( = the Father)[footnoteRef:40] “appointed” not only the “Apostles,” but also the “Prophets,” the “Teachers” – and all of the other gifts – in the Church (1 Cor 12.28: ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς); the risen Christ himself “gave” not only “the Apostles” but also “the Prophets, the Evangelists, the Pastors and Teachers” to the Church (Eph 4.11-12: αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν); and none other than the Holy Spirit “made” the Ephesian “Elders” to be “Overseers” of that church (Acts 20.17: τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας; 28: ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους). The triune God himself, then, not only gave the Apostles to the Church, but also gave a range of other leaders who worked alongside the Apostles, and in some ways succeeded them. [40: For Paul’s consistent use of ὁ θεὸς to designate the Father, see esp. G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 16-17.]

ii. The Apostles recognised that God has given a wide range of gifts to the Church, but – with the Lord’s authority – took definite steps to institute and regulate only two offices in the churches – those of Elder / Overseer and Deacon (1 Tim 3.1-13; 5.17-22; Tit 1.5-9; Acts 6.1-6; cf. Phil 1.1). This distinction between God-given gifts and God-given offices is evident in three ways.

a. While the Lord “gave” or “appointed” the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers – and all the other gifts – directly to the Church; he “gave” or “appointed” the Elders / Overseers and Deacons indirectly – through the Apostles, their delegates, or the ordinary leadership once it had been established (Acts 14.23; Tit. 1.5; 1 Tim 5.22; Acts 6.3, 6).[footnoteRef:41] [41: The noun διάκονος does not appear in Acts 6.1-6. See § 2.2.1 below for an argument that those appointed to “serve tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις) are rightly regarded as “Deacons.”]

b. While the Apostles regulated the exercise of the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 12-14; 1 Thess 5.19-21), they made no attempt to regulate the appointment of people to the role of Prophet, or to the roles of Evangelist or Teacher; in contrast, however, they clearly regulated the appointment of people to the role of Elder / Overseer and Deacon, by providing lists of qualifications for those to be appointed (1 Tim 3.1-13; Tit 1.5-9), by giving instructions about the remuneration and discipline of Elders (1 Tim 5.17-25), and by continuing the practice of laying on of hands for the setting apart of Elders and Deacons (1 Tim 5.22; Acts 6.6).

c. While the Apostles recognized the presence of Prophets, Evangelists and Teachers – along with the other gifts – in the churches, there is no evidence that they ever took measures to establish such leaders in churches where they were lacking; in contrast, the Apostles clearly indicated that churches lacking Elders / Overseers were not yet fully ordered as they ought to have been (Tit 1.5; cf. Acts 14.23), and addressed the churches in a manner that makes it clear the churches were ordered under the Elders / Overseers (Phil 1.1; 1 Pet 5.1-5; cf. 1 Thess 5.12; Heb 13.7, 17; Jas 5.14).

In each of these ways, the Apostles distinguished between the God-given gifts, and the God-given offices of Elder / Overseer / Pastor and Deacon. This distinction suggests that while God gives gifts to his Church at his own discretion, the God-given offices, established by the Apostles, are to be continued throughout the Church age as the “ordinary” (i.e. God-ordained) and “perpetual” offices of the Church.

iii. The normative apostolic practice was to appoint Elders “in every church” (Acts 14.23: κατ᾿ ἐκκλησίαν) or “in every town” (Tit 1.5: κατὰ πόλιν). Certainly, the Apostle Paul expended considerable effort to ensure that this was achieved across the whole network of churches he planted and oversaw.[footnoteRef:42] It is true that Elders are not explicitly identified in every NT church for which we have evidence. The office was, however, remarkably widespread.[footnoteRef:43] There is unambiguous evidence for Elders in the churches in the major cities of Jerusalem (Acts 11.30; 15.2-6, 22-23; 16.4) and Ephesus (Acts 20.17; 1 Tim 5.17), in the towns of the island of Crete (Tit 1.5), across the large regions of Galatia (Acts 14.23; 1 Pet 5.1 with 1.1), Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 5.1 with 1.1), and in the dispersed Jewish Christian assemblies addressed by the letter of James (Jas 5.14 with 1.1). Elders had almost certainly been appointed in the church in Philippi (Phil 1.1), and probably also existed in some form in the churches in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5.12) and Rome (Rom 12.8), as well as in the church addressed by the letter to the Hebrews (Heb 13.7, 17, 24).[footnoteRef:44] Significantly, these churches represent at least three different apostolic missions – those of Paul, Peter and James – across a wide range of geographical regions. The claim, therefore, that the NT records of church government exhibit an “irreconcilable diversity” and a “lack of one exclusive pattern of organization” is significantly overdrawn.[footnoteRef:45] Indeed, given the indications in Acts 14.23 and Titus 1.5, and the widespread evidence of Elders in the churches, it is reasonable to presume that the Apostles endeavored to appoint Elders in all the churches, even when we lack explicit evidence for this in some cases. Certainly, the Apostles’ concern to appoint Elders in every church is thoroughly consistent with their teaching that it was God himself who had ordained this leadership office. [42: Note: i. Paul’s return journey to the churches of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Acts 14.21-23); ii. his costly decision to leave Titus behind in Crete for the express purpose of establishing Elders in the churches (Tit 1.5). ] [43: Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4, 343: in the early churches the “the office of elder was a familiar, universally present apostolic institution.”] [44: For Phil 1.1, see § 2.1.2. For 1 Thess 5.12; Rom 12.8; Heb 13.7, 17, 24, see § 2.1.3. The Thessalonian evidence may be particularly significant, both because the apostolic visit to Thessalonica was brief, and because 1 Thessalonians is among the earliest surviving Christian texts. From the very beginning, then, it seems we have evidence of the apostles establishing Elders in the churches as a matter of urgency.] [45: It is true that there is no explicit evidence for Elders in some of the churches (notably Corinth), but this is an argument from silence and should, accordingly, not be given undue weight. Certainly, given the state of the church in Corinth, there are a range of possible explanations for Paul’s disinclination to mention Elders in the Corinthian correspondence.]

iv. The Lord’s appointment, through the Apostles, of Elders to oversee and shepherd the early Christian churches stands in deep continuity with the LORD’s provision of Elders (Hebrew OT = “MT”: זקן; Ancient Greek translation of Hebrew OT = “LXX:” πρεσβύτερος) for his Church throughout the whole of covenant history.[footnoteRef:46] This consistent pattern further confirms that it is the Lord’s will to govern his Church by Elders. There is, to be sure, no record of the institution of the office of Elder in Israel, but Elders were present leading God’s people from the very beginnings of the nation’s life in Egypt (Exod 3.16, 18).[footnoteRef:47] From this point onwards, Elders were a regular feature of Israel’s corporate life, even if their role seems to have been more prominent during the periods in the wilderness, under the Judges, and before and after the Exile, than under the Monarchy. Indeed, the role of Elder was the most widespread and consistent leadership role in Israel, and provided a kind of stability to the ancient Church’s life throughout its infancy (cf. Gal 4.1-3), even if there were also a range of other leadership roles in Israel, some of which were more prominent than that of the Elders (e.g. prophet, priest, king). The Elders played an important part in governing Israel, both in its corporate national life, and in the life of each of its communities.[footnoteRef:48] Moreover, despite what has sometimes been asserted, the Elders also played an important role, alongside the Priests and Levites, as teachers and guardians of the Law.[footnoteRef:49] It is no surprise, then, that the office of Elder continued as an important part of Jewish national life into the period of Jesus and the Apostles,[footnoteRef:50] and was continued by the Apostles in the new covenant Church. [46: The Hebrew זקן occurs one hundred and seventy-four times in the MT and means either “old/er man” or “Elder” depending on its context. The LXX regularly translates זקן with πρεσβύτερος, –α, –ον, which is the comparative adjective from the noun ὁ πρεσβύτης, –ου (“old man, aged man”). πρεσβύτερος is regularly used as a substantive and occurs two hundred and two times in the LXX, of which approximately one hundred and forty refer to leading officials in Israel (“Elders”): Exod 17.5; 18.12; 19.7; 24.1, 14; 34.30; Lev 4.15; 19.32(?); Num 11.16 (x2), 24–25, 30; 16.25; Deut 31.9, 28; 32.7; Josh 7.6, 23; 8.10, 33; 24.1, 29 (=ET 24.31); Judg 2.7; 8.14, 16; 11.5, 7–11; 21.16; Ruth 4.2, 4, 9, 11; 1 Sam 4.3; 15.30; 16.4; 30.26; 2 Sam 3.17; 5.3; 12.17; 17.4, 15; 19.12 (=ET 19.11); 1 Kgs 8.1; 12.6, 8, 13, 24q (x2); 20.8, 11 (=ET 21.8, 11); 21.7–8 (=ET 20.7-8); 2 Kgs 6.32 (x2); 10.1, 5; 23.1; 1 Chr 11.3; 15.25; 21.16; 2 Chr 5.2, 4; 10.6, 8, 13; 32.3; 34.29; Ezra 3.12; 5.9; 6.7–8, 14; 10.8, 14; Job 12.20; Psa 104.22 (=ET 105.22); 106.32 (=ET 107.32); 118.100 (?=ET 119.100); Is 3.2, 14; 24.23; Jer 19.1; 33.17 (=ET 26.17); 36.1 (=ET 29.1); Lam 1.19; 2.10; 5.12; Ezek 7.26; 8.1, 11–12; 9.6; 14.1; 20.1, 3; Joel 1.2, 14; 1 Esdr 5.60; 6.5, 8, 10, 27; 7.2; 9.4, 13; Judith 6.16, 21; 7.23; 8.10; 10.6; 13.12; 1 Macc 1.26; 7.33; 11.23; 12.35; 13.36; 14.20, 28; 2 Macc 13.13; 14.37; 3 Macc 1.8, 23, 25; 6.1; Wisd 8.10; Sir 6.34; 7.14; 25.4; Bar 1.4; Sus 13, 29, 34, 36, 41, 52. Note also the references to “Elders” in the nations surrounding Israel: Gen 50.7 (Egypt); Num 22.4 (Midian); Num 22.7 (Moab); Josh 9.11 (Gibeon); Ezek 27.9 (Gebal). Further, there are a number of occasions where the Hebrew זקן probably refers to “Elders,” but the LXX omits the reference or does not translate it with either πρεσβύτερος or γερουσία (e.g. Josh 20.4; 1 Sam 11.3; 1 Kgs 8.3; Prov 31.23; Lam 4.16; 5.14 (?)).] [47: At Exod 3.16, 18 the collective noun γερουσία (“Council of Elders”) translates זקן in the plural (“Elders”); cf. Exod 4.29; 12.21; 24.9; Lev 9.11; Deut 5.23; 19.12; 21.2-4, 6, 19; 22.15-18; 25.7-9; 27.1; 29.9; Josh 23.2; cf. Num 22.4, 7.] [48: On the one hand, the “Council of the Elders of Israel” seems to have exercised authority over the entire people (Ex 3.16, 18; 4.29; 12.21; 17.5; Ex 18.12; 24.1: זקני ישראל = ἡ γερουσία Ισραηλ or οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ or οἱ πρεσβύτεροι Ισραηλ). This national body could still be gathered at the time of David and Solomon (2 Sam 5.3; cf. 2 Sam 17.4, 15; 1 Kgs 8.1, 3; 1 Chron 11.3; 15.25; 2 Chron 5.2, 4) and, during and after the return from Exile (e.g. Ezek 14.1; Ezra 6.4). The council of seventy (or seventy two) Elders, which was active at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, has its roots in God’s choice of seventy Elders to lead the nation at the time of Moses (Exod 24.1; Numb 11.16; cf. Ezek 8.11). On the other hand, the Elders of particular towns seem to have exercised authority in their towns throughout Israel’s history (e.g. Deut 19:12: זקני עיר = ἡ γερουσία τῆς πόλεως; cf. Deut 21.3, 6, 19; 22.15, 17-18; 25.8; Josh 20.4; Jdg 8.16; Ruth 4.2; 1 Sam 16.4). Certainly, in the period after the Exile, Ezra 10.14 speaks of the “elders and judges of every city.” (זקני עיר ועיר ושפטיה = πρεσβύτεροι πόλεως καὶ πόλεως καὶ κριταὶ).] [49: Rayburn, "Three Offices," 105-14 (109) claims that “The function of the eldership in Israel was rule and judgment … There is no evidence that the ministry of the Word or the teaching of the law was ever assigned to this office or that ability to teach had any bearing on qualification for it.” Against this, there are clear examples of Elders prophesying by the Spirit (Num 11.24-25), delivering God’s commandments to the people (Deut 27.1), and taking custody, with the priests, of the law (Deut 31.9).] [50: Matt 15.2; 16.21; 21.23; 26.3, 47, 57; 27.1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28.12; Mk 7.3, 5; 8.31; 11.27; 14.43, 53; 15.1; Lk 7.3; 9.22; 20.1; 22.52; 22.66; Acts 4.5, 8, 23; 6.12; 22.5; 23.14; 24.1; 25.15.]

For our purposes, it is particularly significant that the book of Acts introduces the Elders in the new covenant Church without explanation (Acts 11.30), and then indicates, by means of a contrastive parallel, that these Elders have taken up the role of the Elders in Israel and replaced them as the leaders of God’s new covenant people. This contrastive parallel between the Church’s Elders and the Jewish Elders in Jerusalem is established in three ways: i. by the use of the same term for the two distinct groups (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι);[footnoteRef:51] ii. by the description of the Jewish Elders as “their rulers and elders and scribes” (Acts 4.5: note the third person pronoun αὐτός), and; iii. by the way that Acts juxtaposes, on the one hand, the “Rulers and Elders” of Israel (4.5, 8), or the “Chief Priests and Elders” (4.23; 23.14; 25.15), or the “Elders and Scribes” (6.12) who “were gathered together in Jerusalem” to judge the preaching of the Apostles (Acts 4.5-23) with, on the other hand, the “Apostles and Elders” of the Church (15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16.4) who “came together … in Jerusalem” to judge whether Gentile converts to Christ must be circumcised (15.1-6). As Beale puts it: “the function of the Jewish Elders in Acts 4 and the Christian Elders in Acts 15 appears virtually identical. Both are in an official position in their respective covenant communities to adjudicate whether a new theological teaching is valid.”[footnoteRef:52] This striking contrastive parallel between the office of Elder in Judaism and the office of Elder in the early new covenant Church suggests that it was no ad hoc arrangement, but part and parcel of the Church’s identity as the re-newed covenant people. It appears, then, that the Apostles established Elders in the new covenant Church as a continuation of the ancient office of Elder, with some significant modifications due to the in-breaking of God’s kingdom in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.[footnoteRef:53] [51: Jewish Elders: Acts 4.5, 8, 23; 6.12; 22.5; 23.14; 24.1; 25.15; Church Elders: Acts 11.30; 14.23; 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16.4; 20.17; 21.18.] [52: G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 822.] [53: See esp. NTBT, 819-23.]

v. The Apostles appointed Elders for the churches at least partly to guard the truth of the gospel against the “false teaching” that is to characterize the whole of the church age, and this suggests that they intended the office to continue in the Church until Christ’s return.[footnoteRef:54] The Apostles’ understanding that “false prophets” and “false teaching” are a definite fulfillment of prophecies, and a sign that the “end time” has now begun, is evident across the NT.[footnoteRef:55] Their appointment of Elders – who hold fast to the truth – as a primary response to this false teaching is evident both in Acts and in the Pastorals.[footnoteRef:56] Since the Apostles are clear that false teaching is to characterize the whole of the Church age, it seems best to understand the office of Elder, which they established to combat it, as a God-given institution, necessary to the Church’s life and mission until Christ returns. [54: So NTBT, 819-23.] [55: Matt 7.15; 24.11, 24; Mk 13.22; 2 Thess 2.9, 11; 1 Tim 4.1-5; 2 Pet 2.1; 3.1-4; 1 Jn 4.1; Jude 3-4, 14, 17-19; Rev 2.2, 6, 14-15, 20, 24-25.] [56: See esp.: i. Acts 14.21-23 with 20.27-32; ii. 1 Tim 3.1-7 and 5.17-25 with 1.3-7, 19-20; 4.1-7; 5.11-16; 6.20-21; iii. Tit 1.5-16. Cf. also 2 Tim 2.2 with 2 Tim 2.14-18, 23-26; 3.1-13. On 2 Tim 2.2 see fn. 116 below.]

vi. The Pastoral Letters, in particular, indicate that the regulation of the offices, with which they are partly concerned, is not merely an ad hoc arrangement, but designed for all the churches for the whole Church age. To begin with, it is significant that the Apostle Paul gives instructions regarding “the Overseer” and “Deacons” in a section of his first letter to Timothy which has universal and timeless concerns (1 Ti