Basic Theology of the Eldership, Part 1

Introduction: Course Context and Presuppositions for Oversight

0:04 Now we come this morning, brethren, to our seventh lecture in this final unit of our pastoral theology course, and since we're coming back after a two-week recess, let me remind you briefly of precisely where we are in the overall structure of the course. The broad category of our study in these final two units has been the essential elements of effective pastoral oversight or government, and we began to open up this broad category by first of all considering the task described, both in its essence and in its disposition, and then for a number of weeks we've been examining the major divisions of the task, and I've suggested that there are two major divisions, the duties pertaining to the corporate life of God's people, and that's what we have been examining, the matter of the church worshiping, praying, disciplining, evangelizing, etc., and then we in the past took up the second major division of the task, namely the duties pertaining to individual shepherding, but in our intercession in January of 1982, if some of you can remember way back to such ancient history, we spent two weeks on the subject of pastoral counseling, and in the regular curriculum that will come up every

1:28 three years. So that you men who are with us in the academy will be exposed to that material. For those who are not in the academy, but may be receiving the benefit of the taped lectures, those tapes on pastoral counseling will be available from the Trinity pulpit. And so I'm going to skip over completely the category of duties pertaining to individual shepherding, not because that category is unimportant, but because it is dealt with in another place.

1:59 In the curriculum and dealt with far more thoroughly than I could do in two or three lectures. So having looked at the task described as to its essence and as to its disposition, secondly the major categories of the task, those pertaining to the public or corporate life of God's people and individual shepherding, we come now to Roman numeral number three, the normal framework for the administration of this task. The normal framework for the administration of this task of oversight. Now as we take up this subject, the normal framework for the administration of the task of oversight, there are two basic presuppositions which undergird all that I will set before you both this morning and, God willing, again next week in our lecture. And presupposition number one is this, the interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight. The interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight. Now, I trust most of you are familiar

3:20 enough with your English Bibles and even with your Greek Testaments to know that the two major words used to describe overseers are presbyteros and episkopos. The work of oversight is elsewhere described in terms of verbs, hegeomai and poimaino, and those are the major categories. Proistemi is another that is used. And we are assuming in this lecture the interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight.

3:57 And we are assuming this because no responsible exegesis can deny it. And, of course, the two passages that are brought forward again and again to demonstrate the interchangeableness of the biblical terms for oversight are Acts chapter 20 and Titus chapter 1. In Acts 20 and verse 17, it is clearly stated that Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus and called to him, the presbyters. He called to him the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them. And beginning in verse 18b, we find the record of what Paul said to them, that is, to the presbyters. And when he comes to verse 28, no other group has been introduced. You do not have another group arriving on horseback.

4:57 Or tunneling up through the earth and suddenly making their appearance. And to these presbyters, Paul says, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. So presbyters are the overseers or the bishops of the flock, and their task is to feed or to shepherd. So here we see the interchangeableness of episkopos and presbyteros. And we find it again in the classic passage dealing with the office of an elder, Titus chapter 1 and verse 5. For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders, presbyteros, in every city as I gave you. Charge. And then verse 7, for the bishop, the episkopos, for the overseer, must be blameless.

6:07 Appoint elders for the overseer, the bishop, must be blameless. And there is no way on the basis of responsible exegesis that one can attach a fundamentally different significance to the use of presbyteros or episkopos when we find them used interchangeably. Interchangeably in passages such as these. So the first presupposition of all the material that I seek to convey to you this morning and again next week as we take up the assumed framework for the task of oversight, presupposition number one, is the interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight. And then presupposition number two is this. The strategic importance of the presbyteros and episkopos is the interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight. Of the presence and function of scripturally qualified oversight. The strategic importance of the

7:10 presence and function of scripturally qualified oversight. Now this importance is seen in the high priority which it held in apostolic practice. And no passage sets forth that high priority more succinctly, more forcefully than does Acts chapter 14 verses 21 to 23. And when they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed for them elders in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed. And so you have these two strands of emphasis. On the one hand, they underscore the biblical doctrine of perseverance in the context of living communion with Christ. They confirm the

8:24 souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue to persevere in the faith. That through many tribulations they must enter into the kingdom of God. And then it's as though we are asked the question and given an answer, within what framework will that exhortation most likely have real effect upon God's people? And it is to be in a framework in which the life of the church is marked by the presence of qualified overseers functioning according to the pattern and will of God.

9:00 When they had appointed for them elders, presbyters, in every church, they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed. Now, Douglas Bannerman, in his work on the scripture doctrine of the church on pages 5, 31, and 32, commenting on this passage that I've just read from the book of Acts, writes as follows. Derby, in which Paul and Barnabas met with much success, and apparently little or no persecution, formed the furthest limit of their first evangelistic tour. They had traveled far eastward behind the great mountain range of the Taurus. The well-known pass called the Cilician Gates was close before them. It would have led at once to Paul's native city of Tarsus, from which the return to Antioch in Syria, either by sea or by the coast road, would have been easy and safe. But, Instead of adopting this course, the two apostolic missionaries turned back again to their former route, to Lystra, where Paul had been stoned and left for dead, to Iconium, where both of them had with difficulty escaped from like outrage, to the Passidian Antioch , where they had met with organized persecution from the Jewish and

10:23 Gentile authorities, and from which they had been violently expelled, the objects which Paul and Barnabas had at heart in this second visit, for the sake of which they deliberately faced anew all the dangers of this perilous road, are very distinctly stated in the narrative. They returned in order that they might confirm the souls of the disciples, and that they might organize the Christian communities in each center where converts had been made by the appointment of elders. There could hardly be a more striking proof of the importance attached by Paul and his fellow laborers to the right organization of the churches of the Gentiles, and of their convictions that the steps which they took in this respect were in accordance with the mind and will of Christ for the spiritual good of God. So far, at least as regards this primary office of the eldership, the organization of the Church of Christ was not a matter to be left to chance, or to develop itself on different lines according to the circumstances

11:43 and the predilection of the first converts in each locality. Whether the founders of these infant societies would ever be able to return to them again after this second visit was very doubtful. It might well be, as Paul said afterward in similar circumstances to the elders of Ephesus, that they should see his face no more. But, for the maintenance and propagation of this fundamental office of oversight and administration in the Church, the presence of an apostle was unnecessary. These elderships once established were self-acting in the Christian Church as in the Jewish synagogue. And then he goes on to say, and I'll simply summarize, that what Paul was doing was under the direction of Christ by the Spirit, forming the churches into that condition which would enable them to carry on their work pleasing to God inefficiently without the presence of an apostle. And so you see the high priority, this matter of the assumed framework of the work of oversight held in the practice of the apostles. And then furthermore, this is confirmed by the crucial place it held in apostolic precepts.

13:01 So you have apostolic practice, Acts 14, and then of course apostolic precept, 1 Timothy chapter 3, verses 14 and 15, with chapter 3 and verse 1, and Titus chapter 1 and verse 5. Paul says in the familiar passage in Timothy, I'm writing these things hoping to come to you, but if I tarry, tarry long that you may know how men ought to behave themselves. And one of the major things concerning which he wrote was the recognition of overseers. And then the explicit purpose for leaving Titus in the Isle of Crete was to supply the things that were lacking in the church, primarily and preeminently, the recognition of elders. For this cause I left you in Crete to supply the things that are lacking that you might ordain, elders in every city. Now if Christ, who is the chief shepherd, has wisely appointed under-shepherds to administer his rule, then few things are of greater importance than the establishment and function of that rule.

14:17 And brethren, I cannot underscore that enough, because there are many who take a view with respect to the framework, framework of oversight, that is fundamentally pragmatic. There are some who go so far as to say the Bible gives us no real firm directives with regard to the framework of oversight. We are left to sanctified common sense and to ecclesiastical pragmatism. I say apostolic practice and apostolic precept does not allow us to think in those categories.

14:55 So the two precepts, that flavor, that color, that throb through everything in the remainder of the lecture this morning and again next week are these. The interchangeable use of the biblical terms for constituted oversight and the strategic importance of the presence and function of scripturally qualified oversight. Now with those presuppositions articulated, now I want to lay before you my major thesis. I'll state my thesis.

Thesis Statement: Plurality, Parity, and Functional Diversity

15:27 Then I'll exegete it in four parts. And then I'll apply it in four parts. All right? The major thesis is this.

15:37 The normal framework, and every word has been chosen carefully, so please copy it down as I give it to you. The normal framework for the administration of oversight, the normal framework for the administration of oversight, is that of a plurality, is that of a plurality, is that of a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers, is that of a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers functioning with genuine ecclesiastical parity, functioning with genuine ecclesiastical parity and with realistic and harmonious, with realistic and harmonious functional, with realistic and harmonious functional diversity. All right, I'll run it all by again. The normal framework for the administration of oversight is that of a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers

17:01 functioning with genuine ecclesiastical parity and with realistic and harmonious functional diversity. All right, now let's examine the various strands of this thesis, and the biblical basis for those strands. First of all, the evidence for a biblical standard of qualification.

Evidence for a Biblical Standard of Qualification

17:28 In my thesis, I've asserted that the work of oversight, the assumed framework for that work, is one in which there is a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers. I'm thereby asserting that the Bible does give us a standard of qualification for overseers, and I want to set that evidence before you. Now, there are many aspects of biblical duty which must be understood by a process of careful deduction, and though some in our day are debating the principle that some things can only be extrapolated from Scripture by just and necessary inference, the Bible itself gives us that canon of discovering the will of God. We must never, never impose upon ourselves, we must never, never impose upon ourselves, we must never, never impose upon ourselves, we must never impose upon the Bible an a priori assumption as to how God will make His will known. And perhaps the most powerful statement of this that I found in short compass is the way Jonathan Edwards opens up the whole subject of God indicating His will with respect to changing the official day of worship in His church from the seventh day to the first day in his sermon on the perpetuity and change of the Christian Sabbath. Edwards goes after those who say God must make His will known in one way, in one way, in one way.

18:51 And since He made known the sanctity of the seventh day by explicit command, we will not recognize the sanctity of any other day unless God in the same way makes His will known with regard to the sanctity of the first day. And he says, who are you to tell God how He should make His will known? God makes His will known in the ways that He determines to make His will known. And then he proceeds to show that apostolic practice is the manner in which the will of God was made known with respect to the change of day from the seventh day to the first day.

19:22 Well, there are many places where the will of God has to be ascertained by careful deduction and collation of biblical materials. However, with respect to this matter of a biblical standard of qualification for overseers, no such deduction is necessary. We have in both the 1 Timothy 3 passage and the Titus 1 passage not only the will of God, but also the will of God. Not only.

19:52 We have a list of moral, ethical, spiritual qualifications for the office of an overseer, but we have the particle of necessity, day, found in both cases. Found in both cases. 1 Timothy 3.1 Faithful is the saying, if a man seeks the office of a bishop or an overseer, he desires a good work.

20:22 The bishop, therefore, must, be, day. He must, be. And likewise in Titus 1.5 and following, you find the particle of necessity and compulsion in verse 7.

20:39 For the bishop must be.

20:43 If we are indifferent, therefore, or insensitive to the matter of qualification, we must not be surprised if there is little or no blessing of God upon the institution. Get this firmly fixed in your mind. The institution of elders to accomplish the work of oversight was never revealed apart from this standard of qualification. And in a sense, we negate the office if we are indifferent to that standard of qualification.

21:17 And this has been one of the great problems in our day. It became the in-thing on the heels of the resurgence of Calvinism to talk about, about plurality of elders. And if you were to prove that you were truly reformed, you had to be able to say that you were ministering in a framework with a plurality of elders. And so there was this great swelling tide of eldership talk and eldership activity.

21:43 However, one of the problems is there was not a serious consideration in many circles to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. And that indifference to the biblical standard has come around and horse-kicked it. Churches. So that men who did not meet the biblical standard and therefore could not function in a biblical framework have been a reproach to the institution of the biblical office of an elder.

22:09 So much so that some now are even questioning whether it's a workable arrangement. And those some are not just people on the fringe of things. Men who are at the heart of this resurgence of commitment to Calvinism and to the things that are dear to us are seriously questioning whether one can really work in a framework that I've described in my thesis. My thesis or counter-thesis is that part and perhaps in great measure the problem is that this biblical standard of qualification if regarded at all has not been regarded with the pressure of that particle of necessity.

22:51 The bishop must be. Not we hope that one day he shall become or in the judgmental of charity we assume that in most parts he is. The passage will not allow that. The bishop therefore must be and he must be evidently prior to his institution to the office and continue to be so long as he holds that office.

23:17 Brethren, I plead with you. I plead with you. Do not fly into the face of Christ's own word in this whole matter of considering the framework of oversight. One of your primary concerns must be to take these things seriously first of all for yourself and then for any whom you seek to groom and encourage to assume the office of an overseer.

23:52 And if you don't take the standard seriously for yourself don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

23:59 And I urge you therefore in this time of your preparation for the work of the ministry to go back again and again to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and with judgment day honesty pray through the passage. Go to discerning men who have both eyes that are keen enough to see you as you are and hearts full enough of love to be honest with you and ask them in the light of this passage do you see in me these graces? Do you see them developing? In me?

24:34 For if you are indifferent to this passage in your own life you will not be able with any credibility to make it regulative for the recognition of other elders in any congregation that might eventually call you to serve in the work of the gospel. Now most of the problem arises from a failure to regard this standard and for an excellent summary of what is required in these passages I heartily commend to you that section in Owen's Catechism on the Church Volume 15 pages 493 to 496 he beautifully categorizes and summarizes the responsibilities and the standard I'm sorry, the standard for an elder that's 493 to 496 of Owen Volume 15 Alright, now the second strand in my thesis the evidence for a plurality of overseers as the norm you'll notice I stated the normal framework for the administration of oversight is that of a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers alright, what evidence is there then for a plurality of overseers as the norm?

Evidence for a Plurality of Overseers as the Norm

26:01 Note my use of the word norm it is not the only permissible situation Ephesians 4 teaches that it is Christ who gives gifts to his church he gives pastors and teachers but we cannot dictate to him how many he will give and when he nourishes and cherishes the church, Ephesians chapter 5 1 Corinthians chapter 12 it is the spirit who distributes gifts according to his will and so I'm asserting that the normal friends framework is a plurality of overseers but I am not affirming nor suggesting that the only permissible situation is where there is a plurality of overseers now this evidence of the normalcy of a plurality of overseers comes basically in three categories in scripture number one, the record of apostolic practice and we'll look at that in several passages secondly, the description of apostolic practice churches and thirdly, the assumption within apostolic injunctions first of all then the record of apostolic practice we've already looked at the Acts 14 passage, we go back to it again what was the practice in all of these cities? well it's very clearly described

27:30 in verse 23 when they had appointed for them elders, plural in every church singular so , the normal framework was one in which there was a plurality of presbyters in every church when they had appointed for them elders in every church so you have church singular, ecclesion but you have presbyteros presbyterus I'm sorry, plural with regard to the elders and likewise Titus chapter 1 in verse 5 Paul's injunction is very explicit to Titus that in what we would call a relatively small geographical area, the isle of Crete what is he to do? he is to appoint elders plural, in every city in every city where God had constituted an ecclesia, an assembly of his people a congregation of his called out ones Titus was to appoint elders, plural not an elder in each city, but elders, plural

28:59 in each city, singular so the record of apostolic practice is clear from these passages and then secondly, the description of apostolic churches is equally clear the Jerusalem church which obviously became a pattern and a model for many of the other churches whatever else it was it was a church that not only had the seat of the apostolate present, but also had a plurality of elders the evidence here is overwhelming let me just give you the references and I'll simply read several of them Acts chapter 15 verses 3 and 4 they therefore being brought on their way by the church passed through Phoenicia, Samaria and caused great joy to all the brethren, verse 4 and when they were come to Jerusalem they were received of the church and of the apostles and the elders they were received of the church, singular but by the elders, plural and then verse 6 and the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter, verse 22 and it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church that is the Jerusalem church which had the college of the apostles present

30:27 and also had a body of elders and chapter 11 and verse 30 another description of the Jerusalem church which they did speaking of this relief sent to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul chapter 21 and verse 18 21-18 the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the elders were present and then obviously the Acts 20 and verse 17 passage and from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders the presbyters of the church the church at Ephesus, singular with its many elders and then the way in which Paul addresses the Philippian congregation, Philippians chapter 1 and verse 1, Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi with the bishops, the overseers and deacons and he envisions the one congregation of the saints at Philippi as being under the oversight of several if not many, bishops, inspectors, overseers, Philippians 1 in verse 1. So we have not only

31:56 the record of apostolic practice indicating that the normal framework was a plurality of overseers, we have the description of apostolic churches, then thirdly, we have the assumption undergirding apostolic injunctions. The assumption undergirding apostolic injunctions is that the churches to whom apostolic letters came were churches in which there was a plurality of overseers. 1 Thessalonians 5 and verse 12. 1 Thessalonians 5, 12. We beseech you, brethren, to know not him that labors among you, but them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them, exceeding highly in love for their works' sake. And then Hebrews 13, 7 and 17. Remember them that have the rule over you, men that spoke unto you the word of God. Verse 17. Obey them that have the rule over you. James 5, 14. Is any among you sick? Let him

33:04 call for the elders, plural, of the church. 1 Peter 5, 1 and 2. The elders among you I exhort. And so the assumption of all of these apostolic injunctions is, that the normal condition that obtained in the churches was one in which there was a plurality of overseers. Now, Professor Murray, in his excellent material on the subject of the church, volume 2 of his works, I'm reading now from the last few words on the bottom of page 345 to the top of page 346. The emphasis, or this emphasis, upon plurality indicates the jealousy with which the New Testament guards against government by one man. The New Testament institution is not, as we have seen, a pure democracy. Neither is it an autocracy. It is

34:03 the simple truth that singularity has no place in the government of Christ's church. In every case, the singularity exemplified in the diocesan episcopacy, that is, where you have a bishop, who is in a class all his own, whether it be in the most extreme form of the papacy, where the supreme bishop, of course, is the pope, or in the most restricted application of local diocesan bishops, is a patent deviation from, indeed, a presumptuous contradiction of the institution of Christ. Plurality is written in the boldest letters in the papacy, and it is not in the pages of the New Testament, and singularity bears the hallmark of despite to Christ's institution. That's strong language, brethren. Singularity of oversight bears the hallmark of despite to Christ's institution. And then he goes on to comment very wisely,

35:15 plurality is a safeguard against the arrogance and tyranny to which man has the most character, and plurality in this sphere always differentiates the singularity that belongs to Christ and to him alone. It is no wonder that failure to adhere to the plurality that must be maintained in the government of the church has, by logical steps, resulted in what all on all accounts is the greatest travesty ever witnessed in the history of Christendom, namely, the pretensions and blasphemies of the church. And it is no wonder that failure to adhere to the plurality that must be maintained in the church has, by logical steps, resulted in what all on all accounts is the greatest travesty ever witnessed in the history of Christendom, namely, the pretensions and blasphemies of the Roman sea. And we can only say an amen to Professor Murray's observations. Now, it's very interesting, brethren, that when you become convinced of the biblical position that I've tried to outline very briefly and given you the major text, you will actually find people come and say, well, but in the book of the Revelation, the seven churches are addressed in this way, to the angel, singular, to the Angelos of the church at Ephesus. And there was a singular angel, messenger of each church, and that singular messenger was the pastor. And I've actually

36:29 seen men attempt to throw over all of this biblical material I've laid out before you in outline form by the use of ungloss with respect to the messenger of the seven churches. I've actually seen them that desperate. Well, that to me is a confession of a pretty thin case if one must in desperation reach out for the use of a word which cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty in that context in the face of apostolic practice, of the description of apostolic churches, and the assumption that throbs through apostolic injunctions. Until someone can sweep away all of that exegetical material or tell me that the deductions taken from it are totally irrelevant, I'm not about to be budged from the statement that the normal framework for the work of oversight is that of a plurality of overseers. All right, having looked at the evidence for a biblical standard of qualification, secondly, the evidence for a plurality of overseers as the state of normalcy now, and here's where we really part company with many of our brethren, the evidence for a parity of ecclesiastical authority among the overseers. In my thesis, I use the term genuine ecclesiastical parity. The evidence for a parity of authority among the overseers.

Evidence for Genuine Ecclesiastical Parity Among Overseers

37:54 Now, the word parity simply means the state of being the same in power, value, and rank. We say, well, so and so is on a par with someone else. What do we mean? Well, we mean he's of the same power, same value, same rank.

38:15 Now, Professor Murray has clearly pointed out the moment one presbyter or one overseer, one episkopos, one bishop, is given a position or rank of authority qualitatively different from others, plurality is fractured because you now have a thing of a differing kind. For instance, if I have a handful of marbles, all of equal size, I can say there is parity among the marbles. Now, there may be diversity of color, but there is parity in terms of size and shape. They're all marbles.

38:55 Now, if all of a sudden one of the marbles became an egg, it would be ridiculous to talk about parity with respect to the things in my hand because one of the marbles now became something of a different kind. So, you see the point Professor Murray is making? If there is parity among presbyters, it means that within the local presbytery, and we do believe in a local presbytery, don't we? A plurality of elders is a plurality of presbyters.

39:28 So, you have a presbytery in the local congregation. The moment one of these presbyters or two of them has a qualitatively different ecclesiastical office, there cannot be parity because now you're talking about a thing of a different kind. So, if the man or men who by virtue of gift and opportunity are set apart to labor in the word and in doctrine, if those who engage in the work of the Lord and in the majority of the public teaching and preaching are thereby constituted a separate class of presbyters with a differing degree of authority, we can no longer talk about parity. Now, is there evidence for a parity of authority among the overseers? Well, I say the evidence is overwhelming and convincing. And here are the categories of the evidence. Again, three categories.

40:25 Number one, the requirements for the one office are, uniform. The requirements for the one office are uniform. You do not have a different set of requirements for different classes of overseers. We saw in the Titus passage that episkopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably. So, an overseer is a presbyter. A presbyter is an overseer. But now, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give us only one type of overseer. And that's the type of one set of qualifications. The overseer must be. And then the qualifications are given. And we do

41:13 not have, within those passages or in any other passage, another set of qualifications for presbyters of a different rank and ecclesiastical status. If we cease to make 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 regulative, as requirements for all presbyters, we will not have a different type of overseer. If we cease to make 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 regulative, as requirements for all presbyters, we will not have a different type of for all bishops, overseers, inspectors, governors in Christ's church. Then we're left with no biblical standard. And it's here that the conjunction of 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Timothy 5.17 is particularly powerful, at least in my judgment, and I don't see how it can help but be so in the judgment of those who are honest with the Word of God. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3, says, If a man seeks the office of an overseer, he desires a good work. The overseer, therefore, must be without reproach. Now, having given the one standard for overseers, he says now in verse 17 of chapter 5, Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and teaching. Now, notice, there is a distinction of function, as we shall

42:35 see later on in our lecture. But notice, that distinction of function has to do with those who are still recognized and described as presbyters. Let the presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor. Malista, especially those, those what? Those presbyters who labor in the Word and in teaching.

43:01 And though they have an intensified function that marks them, quote, from the rest of their presbyters, they do not cease to be presbyters because they labor in the Word and in teaching. Nor, because they labor in the Word and in teaching, does that negate the presbyterian standing of their fellow overseers. The ones who rule and rule well are presbyters. And even when from the rank of the presbyters some labor in the Word and in doctrine, that doesn't make them something other than presbyters.

43:37 Nor does it depresbyterize those who rule. You see the point I'm making from the passage. So that exegetically one is really tied up in knots if he begins to say that those who labor in the Word and in doctrine have a fundamentally different ecclesiastical office. We'll come back to that passage in another conjunction. But first of all, then, I'm asserting the evidence for parity of authority among the overseers begins with the fact that the authority of the overseers is not limited to the fact that the requirement for the one office, or the requirements, are uniform. Secondly, the responsibilities of the office are laid upon all the elders as a body. The responsibilities of the office are laid upon all the elders as a body. Whatever functional diversity may exist, it is to the eldership that the responsibility of oversight is given.

44:42 Back again to these pivotal passages. Acts chapter 20. Paul has gathered to himself the elders of the church at Ephesus. And to the elders as a body, he gives the injunction of verse 28, Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock of God in which the Holy Spirit has made you, bishops or overseers, to shepherd the church of the Lord which he purchased, with his own blood. And all that is necessary to shepherding is given to all of the elders.

45:21 That responsibility is given to them as a body. Likewise, in 1 Peter chapter 5, we find a similar emphasis in the language of Peter. The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder, tend or shepherd the flock of God which is among you, exercising the overseers' authority. And to the elders as a body, he gives the injunction of verse 28, That is, bishoping, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God. And so to the elders the task of shepherding the flock of God is given. And then obviously Hebrews 13.17 with verse 7, Remember them that had the rule over you, men who spoke unto you the word of God. Hebrews 13.17,

46:15 Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls as they that shall give an account. The responsibilities of the office are laid upon all the elders as a body. And therefore, if one is to take from the biblical materials the notion that because some have a distinct function in ministering in the word and laboring in the word and in doctrine, have a higher position in the word and in doctrine, and have a higher position in the word and in doctrine, and have a higher profile, are set apart from normal means of occupation, that therefore that constitutes a totally different category, then many of these injunctions, I personally would find it difficult to be honest with them in viewing the work of oversight as given to the entire body of presbyters. And then of course the third line of evidence is that the submission enjoined upon church members applies to all of the elders as a body without distinction. The submission enjoined upon church members applies to all of the elders as a body without distinction. Hebrews 13.17,

47:27 Obey them that have the rule over you, all of them, they bear the same office. 1 Thessalonians 5.12, Know them that are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly in love for their works' sake. I'm sure most of you are aware of the fact that in the history of the church there has been a debate in the past on the very stuff that I'm laying before you under this heading, and alas, that debate has been reopened in our own day. In the April 1903 edition of the Banner of Truth magazine, the leading article by Ian Murray deals with this subject, giving a thumbnail historical sketch of this discussion and this debate. It's obvious when one reads Thornwell, Volume 2, that this discussion was very actively agitated in the Presbyterian Church over a hundred years ago. When one reads Dabney, when one reads Professor Murray, he notes that some of these articles of his were precipitated by current denominational discussion and debate. One reads in Thornwell, I'll give you some of the precise places in this, that the Presbyterian Church was precipitated by current denominational discussion and debate.

48:53 And when we come to the subject and say, well, will there ever be anything that doesn't come under debate in any given generation, we need to comfort ourselves with the statement that Dabney gives at the beginning of his article on Theories of the Eldership, page 119 of Volume 2 of his Discussions Evangelical and Theological. He says this, It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise that the General Assembly and the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, and our leading periodicals in this year 1860, one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of our church in America, should be largely occupied in discussing the question, what is Presbyterianism? They ask with displeasure, are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the Church never to be relieved of these debates which thus agitate the settled foundations of our theory? We may answer to these indignant questions with an inspired, with an emphatic no. The good brethren who thus deplore these renewed discussions of first principles misconceive the nature of the human mind and of free institutions. While man remains

50:05 the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. Each generation must do its own thinking and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. Now, of course, a man like Dabney, and if you doubt this, just read his article when he was instituted as instructor in church history. Read his article on the uses of church history. He does not mean that we discuss an issue as though no one else had ever examined it before we came along. That's the method of heretics. Now, listen to Garner, not Garner Ted, but the old man driving in from New York on Monday night, and the arrogance of that poor old man is unbelievable. When he starts saying that one

51:05 third of our Bible is all prophecy, and nobody understands prophecy, and I didn't understand it until 56 years ago. I mean, the arrogance of saying nobody's understood nothing until I come along. Now, Dabney is not saying that fundamental truths, are waiting to be discovered. No, what he's saying is that each generation must come, and as it were, lay bare the foundations of those fundamental truths, and certainly it must be done with a sensitivity to historical theology and those who have gone before us, but we simply do not accept positions on authority, because someone says so. And the point he is making is that he did not look with disfavor upon the fact that in the year 1860, he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a Christian, and he was a the leading Presbyterian periodicals and debates and discussions in the General Assembly had to do with this whole matter of precisely what is a Presbyter. And the debate raged on whether or not so-called ruling elders, who were generally regarded as laymen, were truly Presbyters, in the sense that they ought to have an equal voice in the government of the Church, or whether simply the ordained ministers should have that voice in a unique and distinct way. And so that debate went on. That debate has continued

52:31 to this very day. Now, it's my assertion that the Word of God sets before us a very convincing case for the parity, that is, the equality of those whom God sets apart, or whom the Church recognizes and sets apart for the work of oversight. Now, let me give you a bibliography of materials that are particularly helpful on this point.

53:01 Owen, Volume 15, pages 502 to 506. Owen, Volume 15, pages 502 to 506. And then, of course, Professor Murray, Volume 2, Collected Writings, pages 345 to 365, sections that I believe you are required to read in your ecclesiology course, 345 to 365. The section on parity is found on pages 346 and 7, and it is most convincing. 346 and 7,

53:44 and then the article to which I've already made reference, Dabney, Volume 1, beginning on page 119 and going to 157, Theories of the Eldership, Volume 2 of Dabney, 119 to 157. And then, when you want some interesting, reading, to show how Thornwell carried on the debate, Thornwell, Volume 4, pages 43 to 102.

54:17 Pages 43 to 102. And I would really urge you, brethren, not to be careless or shoddy in wrestling through this whole matter of the business of parity, because unless you are convinced in your own conscience on this, you will not be in a position to, in a way, to be in a position to nurture a relationship to your fellow overseers that is biblical, and it's a costly nurturing. The easiest thing in the world is to let a church drift, on the one hand, into congregationalism, or, on the other hand, into a mini-pope, one pastor, one overseer situation. As we shall see in greater detail next week, cultivating true parity, with real men in the real-life situation, makes more demands upon you as a Christian man than any other relationship apart from marriage. And it'll draw forth more residual corruption in you quicker

55:35 than any other relationship apart from marriage. That's right. And the fundamental reason why so many structures that at least give lip service to parity of eldership really don't have parity is people are not willing to pay the price to have true parity. And we'll go into what's involved in that chemistry, and I think our track record here speaks for itself that we've earned the right to say something on these matters. All right?

Evidence for Realistic and Harmonious Functional Diversity

56:06 Now, we must hurry on, then, to consider, in the fourth place, the evidence for realistic and harmonious functional diversity. Remember my thesis? That the normal framework is one in which you have a plurality of scriptural and functional diversity. And you have a plurality of scriptural and functional diversity. And each of those sweeps gives llamado to a perhaps细 wy w min acting or functioning or functioning or ensions or estate or properties or while some have latched on to parity and then assumed an outworking which was both unrealistic and far from harmonious.

57:15 The key text in this whole matter is 1 Timothy 5 and verse 17. May I say that 1 Timothy 5, 17 is to the opponents of parity, plurality, and realistic and harmonious functional diversity what John 1, 1 is to the opponents of the essential deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. They'd feel much more comfortable with their position and with their Bibles if they could expunge that text. Now here again, if God has chosen to give us one unusually clear text that brings these various strands together and our interpretation does no violence to the grammar of the text and to the analogy of Scripture, then we are. Then we ought to submit to the pressure of that text that carries, as it were, on its shoulders many strands of biblical truth found elsewhere in the Word of God. And I say 1 Timothy 5, 17 does indeed set before us not only the concept of plurality,

58:28 but also of parity, but a parity in the context of realistic and harmonious functional diversity. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those, so they are all presbyters. So as he begins to underscore this functional diversity, he does not relinquish the concept of ecclesiastical parity. They are all presbyters, but within the rank of the presbyters, some will be, found laboring in the Word and in teaching. Now much of the debate and the exegesis of the passage hinges on the significance of the word molestat. And as Owen, the masterful exegete that he is, very convincingly points out, and I'm trying to find the sheet on which I have the location of Owen's quote, yes.

59:42 The debate hinges on whether or not the molestat, simply is descriptive, so here's how they would render it. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, seeing they labor in the Word and in teaching. And so they say the molestat is basically a word that leads us in an avenue of descriptive material. Whereas Owen's assertion is that it is distinctive, marking out one group in distinction from another group.

60:17 And in this conjunction, I urge upon you a careful study of Owen volume 16, pages 119 to 121. And here you see Owen the exegete at his best. He takes all of the uses of molestat in the New Testament and demonstrates that without exception, the word has a distinctive emphasis. Setting out one class above another.

60:46 Let us do good unto all men. And molestat, especially to those of the household of faith. Now, is the household of faith all men? No.

60:56 The household of faith are a distinct class amongst men. If any man provide not for his own molestat, especially for those of his own household, he is worse than an infidel. He hath denied the faith. He goes through every usage in the New Testament.

61:12 Then he goes through the general usage in profane and secular literature and comes up. With a convincing, I think, unanswerable argument that any attempt to make molestat descriptive as opposed to distinctive is twisting the sense of the Holy Ghost in the use of that word.

61:34 And I say it's very convincing exegetical work and I commend it to you. The entire treatment of the text is 115 to 123 of volume 16, pages 115 to 123, but particularly the material on the use of molestat, 119. To 121.

61:55 Now then, what do we find in this text? Well, we find that within that plurality and parity there is a realistic and obviously harmonious functional diversity. Some of the elders are to labor in the word and in teaching. With respect to gift and opportunity, some will be found giving themselves to the more powerful, public dimensions of teaching and preaching.

62:29 And in the light of this, we can bring such passages as Romans 12, 6 to 8, wherein the exhortation realistically to assess our gifts, some will come to the discovery of a peculiar strength of gift in teaching and exhortation, while others will come to the discovery of a distinctive strength in ruling. Likewise, 1 Corinthians chapter 12, verses 4 and 5, amidst the temporary or extraordinary gifts, some of the ordinary gifts, one of them listed is that of government. And most of the writers who take the position that I'm espousing are careful to point out that these passages support the distinction that is made in 1 Timothy 5 and verse 17. Now, Bannerman, commenting on this, on page 550, Mrs. Douglas Bannerman, now the Scripture Doctrine of the Church, has this to say, There's not the slightest evidence that James the Lord's brother held any position different in rank or order from the other presbyters of the church at Jerusalem with whom he acted. And then he goes on to open up the exegetical materials.

63:51 Though there was some functional diversity, and James obviously had a place of prominence, the point of Bannerman is that we cannot establish from Scripture that he was anything other than a presbyter in that church, with a place of prominence due to gift and other factors. Yes, likewise in the passage before us, not all presbyters will labor in the Word and in teaching, though all presbyters must be apt to teach. And may I urge again the comments of Dabney on this point. He said, When we think that the word apt to teach means that a man must have the level of gift that would warrant his public instruction of the entire congregation in its stated meetings for instruction, he said we press the word beyond what it warrants and we forget that some of the most effective teaching done in the church is done when an elder draws one of the sheep aside and lays upon his conscience the Word of God and the norms of Scripture, the comfort, the words of God with respect to his given situation. And we cannot press that requirement to mean that a man must have the level of teaching gift essential to regular, constant, broad, public exposure. The Word of God simply does not warrant that meaning being placed upon it. But at the same time, at the same time,

65:20 we can't take the position of some that a man may be a wise and gracious and godly man and so long as he is that and is sort of a standard of spirituality, put him into the eldership. He must have a modicum of aptitude to convey the truth of God for there's only one way that elders rule, by speaking the Word of God. Remember then that had the rule over you, men spoke to you the Word of God. Christ's sheep are governed by the crook of his word.

65:48 So if a man is totally inept at conveying truth in a convincing manner, he cannot function as an elder. But among those functioning in that capacity, some will manifest a gift that will warrant their being set apart to labor in the Word and in doctrine. And furthermore, we are not embarrassed by this passage. Were it expedient, and Professor Murray addresses this, John Owen addresses it, I don't know of anyone who sought to be honest with this passage and was not uncomfortable with its teaching that does not acknowledge it would be proper according to this passage to have elders who weren't inept and who were not given primarily to public teaching and preaching who would nonetheless be set apart, as we say, full-time for the work of shepherding God's people.

66:33 The text warrants that. The elders that rule well are to be counted worthy of double honor. And in the context, the double honor certainly includes financial remuneration. So in principle, we have no objection whatsoever to the thought of a man who becomes so adept in the work of oversight that though he is not found primarily, and frequently before the whole congregation in public preaching, would nonetheless be set apart to do the work of shepherding.

67:02 And this passage would certainly warrant that. All right? But now there's realistic and harmonious functional diversity in terms of gift, in terms of opportunity, and many other variables. So we come around full circle then and pull together these lines of biblical evidence, and I trust you'll see then and be convinced of, the basis, the biblical basis of my thesis, that the normal framework for the task of oversight is that of a plurality of scripturally qualified overseers functioning with true ecclesiastical parity and with realistic and harmonious functional diversity.

Conclusion and Transition

67:44 Now we'll take a break and then we'll come back to my four admonitions that grow out of the thesis. All right?