Back to Online Material

28

The Gifts For Unity

(How To Build a Church – Part I)

(Eph. 4:7-11)

 

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 

We now enter the third section of this passage on unity. Thus far we have seen:

 

·        The Grace of Unity (Love) – vs. 1-3

·        The Ground of Unity (Doctrine) – vs. 4-6

In this chapter and the next we will examine two other principles:

 

·        The Gifts for Unity (Diversity) – vs. 7-11

·        The Growth of Unity (Edification) — vs. 14-16

 

These final two principles also serve another purpose, namely, to show us the Biblical method of building a church. In just a few verses, Paul outlines the Biblical principles for building God’s work.

 

Since the 1970s there has been a massive amount of writing on how to build the Church. As one studies the historical data, however, he discovers that the methods get progressively more modern and secular as the years unfold. This came to final fruition in the mid-1990s with the total abandonment of Biblical methods for building the Church. A major contributor in the early-1980s was Robert Schuller’s method of appealing to every person’s need for self-esteem; he proceeded to built his entire Theology and Church ministry on that so-called “human need.” From there things got even worse. As the author of the excellent book, This Little Church Went to Market, aptly puts it, “If Robert Schuller was the architect of the user-friendly church, then Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, became the contractor.”[1] Instead of self-esteem, Hybels decided that “personal fulfillment” was the greatest need and built his Church on that sandy foundation. As a result, gone today are the truths of sin, wrath, and repentance. In their place are “felt-needs,” love and acceptance, and personal fulfillment. Addressing these issues is also radically different. Doctrine and absolute truth are out, while entertainment, pop-psychology, motivational “sermons,” and other man-centered methods are in.

 

In stark contrast to the modern, secular mind, in Ephesians 4:7-16 the Apostle Paul outlines God’s four-fold method for building and growing a Church:

 

·        The Foundation of Building — Leadership (vs. 7-11)

·        The Approach of Building — Discipleship (v. 12)

·        The Purpose of Building — Maturity (vs. 13-14)

·        The Instrument of Building — Truth (vs. 15-16)

 

We’ll examine the first one in this chapter and the last three in the next chapter.

 

I. The Foundation of Building — Leadership (vs. 7-11)

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 

Leadership is the unconditional key to building God’s work on earth. It is the breakdown of Biblical leadership, in fact, that is the problem today. Leadership such as Schuller, Hybels, and countless others like them is the major contributor to the secular direction the Church has taken. I do not wish to sound unkind or divisive, but I want to be totally, absolutely, exclusively Biblical in building God’s Church, and the fact is that that is not the approach of the majority of Church leadership today. We are attacking anyone here, we are not being personal, rather we are discerning truth from error according to the Word of God alone.

 

The foundation for building God’s work revolves around what Scripture calls “spiritual gifts.” Spiritual gifts are essential to all earthly ministry. Without them, in fact, the Church can not possibly function. Without the gift of teaching, for example, there would be no one to teach and preach the Word so people could grow. Without the gift of helps (service), nothing would ever get done within the Body. Paul deals first with gifted leadership because it is the key to building and maintaining the Church.

 

To explore this truth, let us consider two principles: the grace that gives the gifts and then the gifts themselves.

 

The Grace That Gives (vs. 7-10)

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

 

Likewise, we see here two aspects of the grace that gives gifts: the recipients and the giver.

 

The Recipients (v.7)

 

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

 

The word but is most important because it is a word of contrast. With this little word Paul contrasts what he is about to say with what he has already said.

 

The main emphasis in verses 1-6 has been unity, oneness, and “the whole.” But Paul now turns to another emphasis, that even in that oneness, there is “diversity;” that is, each one of us is different.

 

This reemphasizes what we mentioned back in the “Meaning of Unity.” We saw there that unity is not “uniformity” like some mass-produced item. May we repeat this contrast:

 

·        “Uniformity” comes from pressure without

·        “Unity” comes from the Holy Spirit within.

 

On the other hand, it is also vital that we point out that diversity does not mean that everyone just “does his own thing.” The basic problem with this attitude is that there is only diversity, no unity. Everyone is different, but there is no emphasis on the whole. The contrast can be put this way:

 

·        Unity without Diversity is Uniformity

·        Diversity without Unity is Anarchy.

 

In other words, if everyone walks, talks, thinks, and acts like everybody else, all we have is uniformity, little cookie-cutter cutouts. On the other hand, to illustrate, perhaps the only time in American history that was as bad as the 1860s—that time of the Civil War where 600,000 Americans died—was the 1960s. While we had much diversity, we had no unity. With unnumbered people “doing their own thing,” anarchy was rampant, and we are in many ways still reaping the harvest of the seeds planted then. The same is true in the Church; many are “doing their own thing,” but we have no true unity that is based on Truth and absolutes.

 

So, as always, Paul gives us the balance: There is one body, made up of countless members, which even though different, still edify the whole. With that in mind, we see that individual believers are the recipients of certain gifts. Again, without spiritual gifts the Church cannot function, and the foundational gifts are those that concern leadership.

 

What exactly are spiritual gifts? A spiritual gift is not a natural ability or talent. We often say that a certain person has a gift for playing a musical instrument or that a certain person is a “gifted athlete.” But such statements are inaccurate. While these are often incredible talents, they are not spiritual gifts. Does not God give talents and abilities? Indeed He does, but these are still not the same as spiritual gifts. A gift is something very special, something far beyond anything natural or physical; it is something Divine. We, therefore, submit this definition: A spiritual gift is a Divinely endowed spiritual faculty, or ability, given for the purpose of edifying the body of Christ. Many argue that music, for example, is a gift that edifies the Body, but there is not a single verse of Scripture that says music built anything. Yes, it is a wonderful blessing, but in itself music does not build. Truth is what builds, and it’s the preaching and teaching of doctrine that builds. So, while talents and abilities are physical, while spiritual gifts are spiritual.

 

We shall come back to this later, but we mention here that there are three lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament (Rom. 12:6-8; I Cor. 12:8-10; Eph. 4:11).[2] Many commentators insist that these twenty (or whatever number they count) gifts are probably not all the gifts that God gives, that God gives more but just doesn’t list them. We must disagree with this because in the final analysis this leaves man to decide what other gifts there are. It leaves men to say, “Oh, I see something unique in you, so that must be another spiritual gift.” Without meaning to do so, these commentators actually tear down the authority, sufficiency, and completeness of the Word of God with such a view. We must insist that God has listed all the gifts that He gives, that is, all the gifts needed to adequately edify the body of Christ. We can agree that God gives different amounts of each, or that He gives them in different combinations, but not that there are more than those listed. To say that is to say the Scripture is not complete.

 

The most thrilling truth here is that every one of us has received or will receive at least one spiritual gift. And what is it that gives these gifts?—the grace of Christ. The same grace that saved us is the same grace that bestows spiritual gifts. We did not deserve salvation; neither do we deserve spiritual gifts. These gifts are given, not to lift us up, but to lift up, to build up the body of Christ. And once again, of special mention here are the gifts of leadership. This leads us to our second point.

 

 

The Giver (vs. 8-10)

 

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

 

At first glance these verses seem to be an interruption of thought. One would think that after writing the thoughts of verse 7, Paul would just go right to the gifts in verse 11, but He doesn’t do that. Why? Because he thought it necessary to carefully emphasize exactly Who bestows these gifts—the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

 

This point is crucial. All spiritual gifts, and especially the leadership gifts in this context, are based upon what God is doing. Paul emphasizes here how vital leadership is and that it is God who is appointing and gifting these leaders, not men who just decide to appoint themselves, not just people in the church who decide that they would like to teach a little bit. The point is, are you gifted to do this, are you called of God and qualified for such leadership? That is the question, and it is the question that few today are willing to ask. Men such as Charles Spurgeon in his classic book Lectures to My Students, Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his equally enduring Preaching and Preachers, and others in the past were aware of this foundation to ministry, but today it is all but lost.

 

So, it is for that reason that Paul writes what he does in verses 8-10. Verse 8 is actually a “semi-quotation” of Psalm 68:18 (“Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them”). The scene here is that of a victory hymn celebrating God’s conquest of the Jebusites and His ascent (represented by the Ark of the Covenant) up Mount Zion (II Sam. 6-7; I Chron. 13). At this time of conquest soldiers who had been captured by the enemy became “re-captured captives,” and the spoils of war became the property of the conqueror to give as he wished.

 

There is obviously a slight discrepancy between Psalm 68:18 and our text. The Psalm reads “received gifts for men,” but Paul writes “gave gifts unto men.” The liberal critic immediately sees a contradiction here, which he thinks argues against the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. But there is no problem because our Lord did both: He received and gave. On the one hand, the Son received them from the Father, and on the other, the Son gave them to the Church. As a victorious king would first receive the spoils of war are and them distribute them to those who aided in the conquest, so the King of Kings received of His Father and distributed to His Church.[3]

 

So, Paul’s words picture the risen, triumphant Savior going into heaven after His battle on earth. With Him He takes those who were captives of death and then gives gifts to those who remain on earth. What a thrilling picture this is!

This does, however, bring up a question: “What is the meaning of that odd phrase, He led captivity captive? There has been some debate on this phrase. A common teaching views “captivity” as referring to Old Testament saints who though saved were held in some sort of captivity. It is further taught that the Lord Jesus went into Hades (Hell), retrieved them from their captivity, and took them the Heaven. Such a teaching, however, is rooted in Roman Catholic tradition, not Scripture as it claims. The Latin term is limbus patrum, that is, “limbo of fathers.” The literal idea of limbus is “fringe or border,” and the basic idea in the word “limbo” is “a state or place of confinement.” So, the teaching in the term limbus patrum, which was chosen in the Middle Ages, refers to a place on the border of Hell that, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, was the place where “the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were ‘in prison’” . . . awaiting “the higher bliss to which they looked forward.”[4]

 

We might also interject that a similar teaching is called limbus infantium (“children’s limbo”), which is the place where unbaptized infants go; since they weren’t baptized, they can’t go to heaven, but because they have done no wickedness, they go a place of happiness and no “positive pain.” This is why infant baptism is so strongly emphasized to parents, so that they will be able to see their children again in Heaven.

 

But such teaching is not only foreign to Scripture, it doesn’t even come close to the imagery of the phrase He led captivity captive (or, “a multitude of captives”) The picture is rooted in the public triumphs of conquerors, especially as celebrated by the Romans. The language clearly describes the conqueror who took captives, led them away in chains, and then made them part of his triumphal procession.

 

We find the same expression elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Judges 5:12, for example, Deborah praises the Lord for giving victory over Canaan: “Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive.” The idea is clear, that you will now lead captive him who held you captive. Also in Amos 1:3-6 we read God pronouncement of judgment on the nations around Israel because they had “carried away captive the whole captivity, to deliver them up to Edom,” that is, the Philistines had handed over a large number of Israelites to the cruel Edomites.

 

So what is Paul saying? As one expositor puts it,

 

It is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ leading in His triumphal train the devil and hell and sin and death—the great enemies that were against man and which had held mankind in captivity for so long a time. The princes which had controlled that captivity are now being led captive themselves.[5]

 

What a picture! Our Lord is, indeed, the Conqueror of Conquerors, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Those who once held us in bondage are now captives to the Great Conqueror and march in chains before Him.

 

Paul continues the thought in verses 9-10: (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) Some interpret this to mean that Christ descended into Hell (Latin, descensus ad inferos) in order to accomplish certain things, such as preaching to Old Testament saints or even preaching to lost people, such as those before Noah, to give them a “second chance,” or perhaps to proclaim His victory to Satan. But, as John Gill puts it, such ideas are “fictitious and fabulous.” They are, of course, usually propped up with I Peter 3:19, “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.” But when viewed in its context, the verse obviously doesn’t say anything of the sort, nor does any other Scripture. The verse is best understood as referring to our preincarnate Lord “preaching through Noah to those who, because they rejected that message, are now spirits in prison.”[6]

 

So, then, to where is Paul saying our Lord descended? The answer obviously is the Earth itself. After all, can one “ascend” Who did not first “descend?” This principle is expressed, in fact, in other Scriptures. Our Lord Himself declared, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (Jn 3:13), and then again, “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world” (6:33), and still again in 6:38, 41, 42; 50, 51, and 58.

 

With that in mind, however, does descended perhaps mean something even deeper? After all, if all Paul wanted to say was that Christ came to the Earth, he could have said in much simpler than referring to the lower parts of the earth. We submit, therefore, that it’s not just Christ coming to Earth, but His coming to Earth in the deepest, most profound humiliation possible. As Philippians 2:7-8 declares:

 

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

This is further substantiated by the Greek for descended (katabainō ), which in its literal meaning simply means “to go down,” as when Jesus came down from the mountain after His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 8:1) or when the angel of the Lord told Philip to go down from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:26). But as Greek authority Joseph Thayer writes, there is a figurative meaning of this word, “to be cast down to the lowest state of wretchedness and shame.”[7] This meaning is found in Matthew 11:23, where our Lord said of Capernaum that though it had been “exalted unto heaven,” since He had chosen it as His headquarters, it would “be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” It’s interesting that there is no record that the inhabitants persecuted Him or even mocked Him, but simply because of their indifference, their sin was more wretched than even Sodom’s.

 

Think, then, of the humiliation of our Lord: He set aside His heavenly glory and was born a man, was born of peasant stock in stable, was born in the less than significant Nazareth (Jn. 1:46), experienced all the weaknesses and temptations of humanity, was mocked by the masses, scorned by His own family, rejected by His own nation, nailed to a Roman cross as the worst of criminals, buried in a borrowed tomb, and then forgotten by everyone except only a few loyal followers.

 

This is the view of several expositors, [8] and I am convinced that it is correct. Why? Because only against that backdrop could we then see the true glory of His ascension, for He ascended up far above all heavens. As Calvin put it, “If ever there was a time when, after appearing to lay aside the brightness of his power, God ascended gloriously, it was when Christ was raised from our lowest condition on earth, and received into heavenly glory.” In other words, if there is anything that illustrates the lowest ascending to the highest, it is our Lord. Paul here adds to the ascension story told by Luke (Lk. 24:50-52; Acts 1:9-11) by telling us more specifically where our Lord went. While John 3:13 (and the other texts mentioned earlier) declare that He “ascended up to heaven” and “came down from heaven,” Paul specifies that He went far above all heavens, that is, above the atmosphere, above the stars, beyond the universe, into the third heaven and to the very Throne of God, where He now sits at the Father’s right hand (Heb. 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). As one commentator aptly phrases it, “As His humiliation was so low, His exaltation is proportionately high.”[9] As mentioned earlier, Philippians 2:7-8 speak of His humiliation, but verses 9-11 immediately go on to declare:

 

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

And what was the purpose of this? Paul tells us that Christ did it to fill all things. Fill is pleroō, “to render full, to complete.” He did it all to complete God’s plan of salvation and to fulfill God’s plan for the Church. And what a completion it is! Our Lord descended to the lowliest state and suffered the lowliest death, but then He rose again, led our enemies into captivity, ascended gloriously into Heaven, and left behind great gifts that His redeemed people can use to carry on ministry.

 

May we emphasize this in light of today’s emphasis on spiritual gifts. There are many today who teach that every believer must “seek their spiritual gift.” We hear such things like, “Here are four principles on how to find your spiritual gift,” or, “You have got to find your gift before you can ever serve God.” But this emphasis is quite wrong. Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to “seek our gift.” Spiritual gifts are not to be sought; they are to be received. Receiving a spiritual gift is like receiving any other gift; we do not solicit it or expect it, rather we receive it when the giver decides to give it. In fact, is it really important that we know we have a certain gift? What matters is that God knows He has given it; what matters is that God is using us. The single key to understanding this is found in the word yieldedness. We are to be totally yielded to Christ. When we are yielded, God will then give the gift or gifts (in the amounts He wills) that will glorify Him and edify the Church the most.

 

The Gifts That Are Given (v. 11)

 

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 

After his parenthesis (vs. 9-10), in which he pictures the triumphant Christ, Paul continues his explanation of the spiritual gifts that Christ has given to the Church for the purpose of building and maintaining it. It is here, in fact, that we find the foundation of building the Church, namely LEADERSHIP. Without leadership, we could not have armies, a nation, a business, or anything else. Leadership is the key to success in any endeavor, and it is weak leadership that accounts for the weakness of the Church today. We have neglected the strict qualifications for leadership, abandoned proper training for ministry, and have discarded the entire concepts of the call and ordination.

As we’ve already mentioned, Christ gives gifts to individual believers, but these are not the ones in view here. Paul deals with those elsewhere, as mentioned earlier. What Paul deals with here are the gifts that Christ has given to the Church as a whole. Here is a most vital and truly blessed truth. It would seem that other spiritual gifts are just as important as those listed here, but these are directly related to building the Church and maintaining its power and unity. It’s not so much then that these gifts are given to individuals, but rather they have been given to the entire body of Christ. Yes, individual men possess them, but only as each relates to the body. And, yes, all the gifts are for edifying the body, but these are very special in accomplishing that goal. To illustrate, when it rains we put an umbrella over our entire body, not just over a single member, such as an arm. Likewise, the very special gifts spoken of here have been given to the body as a whole.

 

Verse 11, therefore, lists four “office gifts” that have been given to the Church. The words He gave are pivotal. The Greek here includes an “intensive pronoun” (autos edōken) that yields the literal idea “He Himself gave,” that is, He and no one else. In other words, these offices are God-given only, not by the Church, not by a school, not even by the person who wants to fill an office. The common attitude today is that someone can just say, “I want to teach,” and are then qualified to teach. While such willingness is commendable, it doesn’t qualify. As none of the Apostles appointed themselves but were chosen by Christ, neither does any man appoint himself to any of these offices. As one commentator aptly puts it, “The Jesus Who ascended—this, and none other, is the sovereign donor. The provider and bestower are one in the same.”[10] As we will see later, it is Christ alone Who calls to ministry.

So, these “office gifts” consist of specially gifted men which God has given to the Church as leaders. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the reason for the state of the Church today lies at the doorstep of its leaders. As mentioned earlier, it has been the leadership of Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, and several others we could list that have lead people down the road of secularism, Pragmatism, and Relativism.

 

Mark it down: the Church will rise or fall based on its leadership. One illustration should suffice. Can we imagine the consequences of sending an army into battle without leadership? What would be the result of the battle if there were no squad leaders, no company captains, no division generals, or any other commanding officers? What would be the magnitude of disaster if we just sent the army into battle with words, “Just do the best you can?” But that is exactly what the church is doing today because of weak and sometimes non-existent leadership.

 

The Apostle

 

We need to consider a two-fold meaning.

 

First, there is the unoffical meaning of Apostle. A brief word is in order concerning what has been called the “unofficial meaning” of Apostle. There were a few men in the New Testament who were called Apostles who did not actually possess the strict qualifications which we shall study in a moment: James (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), possibly Silas and Timothy (I Thes. 2:6), and possibly Apollos (I Cor.  4:6,9). However, in each context the title seems to be given as an honourary one because of each man’s association with Paul and because of the work each man did; that is, each of these godly men did the work of an Apostle, but he did not hold the office of Apostle. Far too much emphasis has been placed on this unofficial meaning of Apostle. Some today go so far as to say that the office still exists today in a more or less “general sense.” But this is not the case, for, as we will see later, the work of the Apostle is supposed to continue through the labor of the “evangelist.

 

Second, there is the official meaning of Apostle. The basic meaning of the word “Apostle” is “one who is sent on a mission,” and we find in the New Testament no less than four qualifications for this office.

 

1. Most importantly, to be an Apostle a man had to have seen the resurrected Lord Jesus. Paul makes this clear in I Corinthians 9:1 where he asks, “Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ, our Lord?” No man can be an Apostle unless he has seen the risen Lord.

 

2. A man must have been called and commissioned, in person, by the Lord Jesus. Again, Paul is the chief example as he usually began his letters by describing himself as, “Paul, called to be an Apostle” (or literally, “a called Apostle”). Paul was indeed called and commissioned on the road to Damascus. Further, Paul, like the other apostles, was personally trained by the Lord Jesus (Gal. 1:17). His calling, then, was to spread the Gospel and plant local churches. No one today can truthfully make this claim of personal commission.

 

May we also add that this is one reason we cannot accept Matthias as an Apostle (Acts 1:15-26); he was not personally chosen and trained by the Lord. May we also add that the main principle that is ignored on this issue is that the Lord Jesus told His disciples to wait, nothing more: “And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). May we also ask, why fill up what the Lord Himself left vacant? He would fill the vacancy in His own time with His own choice, the Apostle Paul. (See the article “Was Matthias God’s Choice,” which offers seven reasons why Matthias was not God’s choice.)

 

3. An Apostle received special revelation from God and, therefore, had absolute authority. No pastor, pope, or priest today has absolute authority, but an Apostle did. Back in Ephesians 3:2-3, for example, we read that Paul received direct revelation from God concerning the mystery of the Church. It was for that very reason that he and other Apostles could speak and write with authority and infallibility. This is why apostolicity (i.e. the authority of Apostles) became the ultimate test for the canonicity of books of the Bible. A book had to have either been written by an Apostle or substantiated by the teaching of an Apostle. Of course, Roman Catholicism claims “apostolic succession” (a term that has no Scriptural foundation) for the pope, but even a superficial reading of Church History shows that the popes have been far from infallible.

 

4. An Apostle had the power to work miracles. Besides the many examples in the book of Acts, Hebrews 2:4 declares that God bore witness to the Apostles with signs, wonders, and miracles. Again, there are those who claim this today, but miracles and other miraculous sign gifts were only for Jews; they were never given for the benefit of Gentiles. Furthermore, as Ephesians 2:20 tells us, the Apostles were only for the laying of the foundation of the Church.

Just as in a physical structure, once the foundation is laid it is no longer considered. God is no longer concerned with the foundation; rather, He is concerned about the structure, the continual building of the body of Christ. Once the foundation of the Church was laid, and once the Word of God was completed (It was completed when the Apostle John penned the Revelation), then the office of Apostle passed from the scene.

 

The Prophet

 

May we also notice a contrast here.

 

First, there is the official meaning. As noted back in 2:20, the Greek behind prophets (prophētēs) clearly indicates one who along with proclaiming truth already revealed (implied in Acts 13:1), also speaks immediately of the Holy Spirit, that is, speaking under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.[11]

 

There are two contrasts between the Apostle and the prophet. First, the Apostle had a wider ministry whereas the prophet was in a local assembly. For example, Paul was called a prophet when he ministered in the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1) but was called an Apostle in his traveling ministry. Second, the prophet was subject to the Apostle and his message was judged by the Apostle, as is indicated by I Corinthians 14:37: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

 

Second, there is, in the opinion of some interpreters, a so-called “unofficial” meaning. Biblically, however, there is no unofficial meaning of prophet. Again, the prophet spoke immediately of the Holy Spirit. This was necessary before the completion of the written Word of God. In contrast, the preacher/teacher today speaks based on his careful study or Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So, like the Apostle, the prophet passed away with the completion of the Scriptures; both were only foundational (Eph. 2:20). Martyn Lloyd-Jones well sums up this point:

 

Try to imagine our position if we did not possess these New Testament Epistles, but the Old Testament only. That was the position of the early Church. Truth was imparted to it primarily by the teaching and preaching of the apostles, but that was supplemented by the teaching of the prophets to whom truth was given and also the ability to speak it with clarity and power in the demonstration and authority of the Spirit. But once these New Testament documents were written the office of a prophet was no longer necessary. Hence in the Pastoral Epistles which apply to a later stage in the history of the Church, when things had become more settled and fixed, there is no mention of the prophets. It is clear that even by then the office of the prophet was no longer necessary, and the call was for teachers and pastors and others to expound the Scriptures and to convey the knowledge of the truth.[12]

 

That is where we are today. With the passing of those foundational offices, we now look to two offices around which Church leadership revolves. Everything in the Church now rises or falls depending upon the quality of the descendants of the Apostle and the Prophet: the Evangelist and the Pastor-Teacher. The Church is in the shape it is today because of a breaking down of the quality of these two offices.

 

The Evangelist

 

What is an “evangelist?” We have heard this term countless times in the last century, from D. L. Moody to Billy Graham. But exactly is it? While the precise meaning of the term “evangelist” is not easy to deduce, we must disagree with one commentator that “the precise office of the evangelist in the primitive church is now impossible to determine.” What is that but a statement against the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, whether intended or not? The Greek is euangelistēs, “one who proclaims good news,” and seems to indicate that this proclamation was in places where the Gospel was previously unknown. It is found in only two other verses. It first occurs in Acts 21:8, where Philip is referred to as an evangelist. A little earlier in 8:5 we are told that “Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them,” which is what the evangelist did. Later in that passage we also read of Philip’s dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch. The second occurrence is in II Timothy 4:5, where Paul tells Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist,” that is, to proclaim the good news.

 

The foundational principle here for both the [evangelist] and the [pastor-teacher] (literal translation) is this: these two are the direct descendants of the Apostle and the Prophet respectively. That is, the evangelist is the direct descendant of the Apostle, and the pastor-teacher is the direct descendant of the prophet. One expositor puts it very well:

 

There is no [actual] mention of the latter two gifted offices replacing the first two, because in New Testament times all were operative. But the fact is that, as they continued to serve the Church, the evangelists and [pastor-teachers] did pick up the baton from the first generation apostles and prophets.[13]

 

This principle is of vital importance because it follows of necessity. Since the Apostle went about proclaiming the Gospel and planting churches, and since that ministry must continue, it follows that the evangelist continues this work. Likewise, since the Prophet proclaimed and taught the Truth, and since that ministry must continue, it follows that the pastor-teacher continues that work. The Apostle and prophet are gone, but their work, without the miraculous signs and immediate speaking of the Spirit, still continues.

 

The evangelist, therefore, is to carry on the basic work of the Apostle. What a position and responsibility! Like the Apostle, he goes about proclaiming the Gospel and planting local churches. This picture is not to be confused with what is called an “evangelist” today. To equate the New Testament position with many of the so-called evangelists today, or with what one writer calls “the modern revivalist who bears the name [evangelist], and who has little recognition in the New Testament,”[14] is to insult the Biblical text. In our day, this is often a guy with six suits and a dozen sermons who goes all over the country preaching, which sometimes is the Gospel and sometimes isn’t. Now while preaching the True Gospel is paramount, it is quite obvious that the Biblical evangelist did far more. He taught people the Word and grounded them in the faith over a period of time. He also, of necessity, founded a local church because that is where the new believer should be. Upon completion of this task, he would move on, leaving a pastor-teacher, the descendent of the Prophet in his place.

 

This is what is termed “church-planting” and is the only Biblical model for “missions.” “Missions” today is defined as going out to do anything we want to do and getting mission support for, but strictly speaking “missions” is planting churches. Why? Because it is the way the Apostle Paul did it. As we will see, the Local church is what God is using to do His work, so it is local churches that we must plant.

 

The Pastor-Teacher

 

As the descendant of the Apostle is the evangelist, the descendant of the Prophet is the pastor-teacher.

The word pastors (Latin pāstor) translates the Greek poimēn, which means “shepherd.” In Classical Greek, it referred to the herdsman who tended and cared for the sheep. It was also used metaphorically to refer to a leader, a ruler, or a commander. Plato, for example, compared “the rulers of the city-state to shepherds who care for their flock.”[15] This meaning was carried over into the New Testament. A pastor is a man who cares for and feeds the flock.

 

Teachers, then, is didaskalos, which from Homer (8th–7th Century B.C.) onwards was used in the sense of a teacher or tutor. The term covered “all those regularly engaged in the systematic imparting of knowledge or technical skills: the elementary teacher, the tutor, the philosopher, also the chorus-master who has to conduct rehearsals of poetry for public performance.” This is the sense in which it is used in the New Testament: “Men holding this office had the task of explaining the Christian faith to others and of providing a Christian exposition of the Old Testament.” [16] So the Christian teacher is one who systematically imparts Divine Truth and practical knowledge based on the Word of God.

 

The key to understanding both these terms, however, is that they refer to the same office; they are not to be separated. A misunderstanding of this principle leads to a great deal of error. One Greek authority makes this abundantly clear by explaining what is called the “Granville Sharp’s Rule,” which states:

 

. . . when there are two nouns in the same case connected by kai (and), the first noun having the article [the], the second noun not having the article, the second noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further description of it.[17]

 

It’s interesting that more liberal interpreters either downplay this fact or deny it altogether.[18] This is no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact of little teaching and weak leadership in such groups. To deny this fact of the language, however, is blatant folly. The evidence is overwhelming.[19] Martyn Lloyd-Jones excellently summarizes this office:

 

Were there two separate offices we would expect to read, “He gave some, apostles; some, prophets; some, evangelists; some pastors; some teachers;” but the apostle writes, “some, pastors and teachers,” linking the two together; and generally speaking, these two offices are found in the same man. They apply to a more settled state of the Church, and have persisted throughout the centuries. The office of a pastor is generally concerned about government and instruction and rule and direction. It is borrowed, of course, from the picture of a shepherd The shepherd shepherds his flock, keeps the sheep in order, directs them where to go and where to geed, brings them against enemies liable to attack them. It is a great office, bun unfortunately it is a term which has become debased. A pastor is a man who has been given charge of souls. He is not merely a nice, pleasant man who visits people and has an afternoon cup of tea with them, or passes the time of day with them. He is the guardian, the custodian, the protector, the organizer, the director, the ruler of the flock. The teacher gives instruction in doctrine, in truth. The Apostle [Paul] proceeds to elaborate this [in verses 12-15], showing that we need to build up, and that we must not remain “babes.” We must be protected against “every wind of doctrine,” and the way to do so is to give instruction and teaching.[20]

 

19th Century theologian and commentator Charles Hodge concurs, citing one historical example of those who deviated from the Biblical precedent:

 

According to one interpretation we have here two distinct offices: that of pastor and that of teacher, but there is no evidence from Scripture that there was a set of men authorized to teach but not authorized to exhort. The thing is almost impossible. The one function includes the other. The man who teaches duty and the basis of it, at the same time admonishes and exhorts. It was, however, on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster Directory made teachers a distinct class of officers in the Church. The Puritans in New England endeavored to put the theory into practice, and appointed doctors [or “lecturers”] as distinct from preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. Pastors and teachers, therefore as most modern commentators agree, must be taken as a twofold description of the same officers, who were simultaneously the guides and instructors of the people.[21]

 

May we add to this that the whole point of the “shepherd” imagery (poimēn) is that he meets all the needs of the sheep: care, feeding, protecting, exhorting, etc. To divide pastors and teachers into two offices destroys the entire picture. This would have been crystal clear to readers in Paul’s day. The idea of one shepherd who fed the sheep and another who tended to their needs would have been totally foreign to them because a shepherd does both. May we further add that I Timothy 5:17 clearly puts the two functions together: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” “Labour” is kopiaō, so the idea is literally “to labor to the point of exhaustion in word and teaching.” These two functions define the teaching shepherd.

 

To understand the term pastor fully, it is essential that we also understand two other terms, how all three of these relate to each other, and how they came to be used throughout church history. Few terms are more misunderstood today than these.

 

First, is the term elder, which has Jewish origins. The usual Hebrew word is zaqen, which was used to refer to the leaders of Israel, such as the seventy tribal leaders who assisted Moses (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1) and through whom Moses communicated with the people (Ex. 19:7; Deut. 31:9). The elders of Israel were mature men. They were heads of families (Ex. 12:21); God-fearing men of truth and integrity (Ex. 18:20-21); full of the Holy Spirit (Num. 11:16-17); and were impartial and courageous men who could be counted on to intercede, teach, and judge righteously and fairly (Deut. 1:13-17).

 

The New Testament uses the Greek presbuteros (English “presbyterian”), which basically means “one who is advanced in years or of mature age.” How old exactly we do not know, but the main emphasis in Israel and the early Church was maturity. This word was the only commonly used Jewish term that was free from any connotation of either the monarchy or the priesthood. So since the early church was Jewish, it was only natural for this concept to be adopted.

 

We should also interject a brief statement concerning a tendency that is more and more in vogue today—the matter of women preaching and leading. We do so because of how this development has come to permeate the Church. Never in Church History do we find as many women in Church leadership than today in spite of the fact of how clear it is in Scripture that they should not. This has arisen, of course, by the Equalitarian (or Egalitarian) View that permeates our society, and which has infiltrated our churches, schools, and seminaries. This view, held not only by liberals but by several noted evangelicals, [22] maintains that men and women are equal in essence and function, no role distinctions can be made between them. Adherents to this view often see Paul as either contradicting himself or at least being confused when he wrote to Timothy: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (I Tim. 2:11-12). Some hold that his attitudes were molded more from rabbinical teachers of his day than from Divine inspiration. Their “proof text” is Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” which they say teaches that because we are all one in Christ, therefore most, if not all, order and authority structure in the church should be eliminated. I do not want to appear unkind, but such a view not only betrays ignorance of the text, it borderlines on stupidity. They should be embarrassed by even mentioning that verse in their argument! That verse and the context have absolutely nothing to do with roles, rather spiritual position, possessions, and privileges.

 

Others try a more scholarly approach by saying that the word “authority” in I Timothy 2:12 actually means “domination,” which means that Paul was simply telling the women not domineer, or run over the men in the church, not that they could not lead them. But while the Greek authenteō (English, authority and authentic), which is found only here in the New Testament, can be translated “domineer,” its basic meaning is “one acting by his own authority or power.” Besides, Paul narrows the idea by first saying a woman is not to teach.

 

The words “silence” (at the beginning of verse 11) and “silent” (at the end of verse 12) are also reinterpreted. The Greek in both instances is hēsuchia, which means “silence,” but some argue that it can mean “a meek and quiet spirit,” therefore, permitting women to preach or teach as long as they do it with the proper attitude. If there were any doubt to the meaning, the word “subjection” would erase it. The Greek there is hupotagē, which literally means “to line up under” showing subordination and submission. If that’s still not enough, God prefixes subjection with the words “with all,” emphasizing the complete subjection called for. In the context of the worship, then, women are to be silent and content in the role of the learner. So, this playing of word games and sloppy exegesis simply ignores the plain truth of Scripture.

 

Now, are we saying women are inferior? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That is precisely why Paul said, “Let the woman learn.” It might seem obvious to us that women should be taught God’s Word, since they are spiritually equal in Christ and the commands of the New Testament are to all (1 Peter 2:1–2). It was not at all obvious, however, to those who came from a Jewish background. First-century Judaism did not hold women in high esteem. While not barred from attending synagogue, neither were they encouraged to learn. In fact, most rabbis refused to teach women, and some likened it to throwing pearls to pigs.

 

Nor was the status of women in Greek society much better. William Barclay writes:

 

The respectable Greek woman led a very confined life. She lived in her own quarters into which no one but her husband came. She did not even appear at meals. She never at any time appeared on the street alone; she never went to any public assembly.[23]

 

What we see here, then, is the exact opposite of what Paul is often accused of by our modern “liberated society.” Far from being a “male chauvinist,” what he said to Timothy, and by extension the Ephesians believers, was absolutely revolutionary. He didn’t suggest that women be taught, rather commanded them to be taught. With that one statement, Paul did more for women than anyone else in his day and ours.

 

But, while this was new to contemporary Jewish tradition, it wasn’t new to men of God at all. The Old Testament clearly declared the spiritual equality of women to men. The Mosaic law was given to all Israel, both mean and women (Deut. 1:1). Both were to teach it to their children (Deut. 6:4–7; Prov. 6:20). Both were equally protected by the Law (Ex. 21:28–32). Both had inheritance rights (Num. 36:1–12). Both participated in the Jewish religious feasts (Ex. 12:3; Deut. 16:9–15). Both could take the Nazarite vow (Num. 6:2). And both were involved in spiritual service (Ex. 38:8; Neh. 7:67). We also see that God at times dealt directly with women (Gen. 3:13: 16:7–13; Judg. 13:3).

 

The same is true in the New Testament. Jesus, for example, revealed His messiahship first to was a woman (John 4:25–26). He also not only healed women (Mark 5:25–34; Luke 13:11–13), but crossed the traditional of the rabbis by teaching women (Luke 10:38–42). Women reciprocated this attitude by ministered to Jesus and the disciples (Luke 8:2–3). Also, the first person Jesus appeared to after His resurrection was a woman (Mark 16:9; John 20:11–18). Additionally, both women and men were involved in the prayer services of the early church (Acts 1:13–14). Peter reminds men that women are to be “[given] honor...as the weaker vessel and as being heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). The fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:21–22) is for both men and women. In short, all the promises, commands, and blessings of the New Testament apply equally to women and men.

 

The other side of this issue, however, is that spiritual equality does not cancel out differing roles. In the Old Testament, there were no queens in either Israel or Judah (Athaliah was a usurper; II Kings 11:1–16; 2 Chr. 22:10–23:15). Many people react to this by saying, “Oh, but Deborah served as a judge (Judg. 4:1–5:31). This proves that women can lead.” Her case, however, was unique. Dr. Robert L. Saucy comments,

 

There may be instances when the regular pattern of God’s order may have to be set aside due to unusual circumstances. When, for example, the husband and father is absent, the woman of the house assumes the headship of the family. So it would appear, there may be unusual circumstances when male leadership is unavailable for one reason or another. At such times God may use women to accomplish his purposes even as he used Deborah.[24]

 

This was, indeed, the case with Deborah. All the men in Israel were paralyzed with fear at Jabin, the king of Canaan (4:2-3), so there was no one who would stand except one woman. She then encouraged Barak to pursue God's plan. It’s significant, however, and often ignored, that Deborah declined to lead the military campaign against the Canaanites, deferring instead to a man, Barak.

 

Additionally, not a single woman ever served as a priest, was an Old Testament author, or had an ongoing proclamation or teaching ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets. While it is true that Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3) are called “prophetesses,” not one of them had a permanent calling to that office. Isaiah’s wife, in fact, never prophesied—she was called a prophetess only because she gave birth to a child whose name had prophetic meaning—and the other three prophesied only once each. Only one other “prophetess” is named, Noadiah, but she was a false prophetess (Neh. 6:14). So, while there were instances when God spoke through women, it was rare and extremely limited. Not one had a permanent role of preaching or teaching. Each served as the Latin says, exceptio probat regulum (the exception establishes the rule).[25]

The same thing is true in the New Testament, where we find no women pastor-teachers, evangelists, bishops, or elders. Like the Old Testament, no New Testament author was a woman, nor do we find a record of a sermon or teaching by a woman. Yes, Acts 21:9 records that the daughters of Philip “prophesied,” but neither the occasion nor the message is included, so there is no justification in assuming that they taught during the public worship, much less that they had an ongoing preaching ministry. The book of Acts, in fact, nowhere records a women teaching men in public. While 1 Corinthians 11:5 permits women to pray and speak the Word, Paul makes it clear in 14:34 and I Timothy 2:11-12 that it is not to be in the assembly of the church.

 

In addition to all that evidence, presbuteros (“elder”) is masculine. If women could be elders, the Bible would somewhere say by using the Greek word presbutera, but we never find that term in the Bible as speaking of a female elder. The word presbuteras does appear in I Tim. 5:2, but it is used only to refer to older women not women elders.

Likewise, the requirements for leadership in I Timothy 3:1-7 speak specifically of “a man” desiring the office (v. 1) and the necessity of him being “the husband of one wife” (v. 2). With no sarcasm indeed, I know of no way that a woman can be the husband of one wife.

 

So, to conclude, it is a sad commentary on the Church today that a principle so crystal clear, an issue so beyond doubt that it can still be totally ignored or readjusted for the express purpose of conforming to modern thought.

So, the term “elder” refers to the man himself, to him personally, in short, his character as a mature man. The term has nothing to do with his responsibilities and duties, rather his character, that as a spiritually mature man he is qualified to lead. The term is used about eighteen times in Acts and the Epistles to refer to a group of leaders in the Church.

 

Second, is the term “bishop,” a term that in our day has been encumbered with a lot of ecclesiastical trappings. In the New Testament, however, the term “bishop” (which we find, for example, in that list of leadership qualifications in I Timothy 3:1-7) refers to the same person as pastor and elder. The Greek is episkopas (English “Episcopal”), which means “overseer, guardian.” Its basic roots are in Greek culture. Emperors appointed bishops to oversee captured or newly-formed cities. I also read that it’s possible that it had roots in the Essene Jews of the Qumran community. The Essenes preached, taught, presided, exercised care and authority, and enforced discipline. In either case, the idea is basically the same. So, the Biblical usage is that elder refers to the man’s person, that is, his character, while bishop refers to his position, that is, a ruler and guardian.

 

Now, a major issue in the Church history and today is in the division over whether elder and bishop refer to the same person or different people. But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they Biblically refer to the same person. While that sounds like a very narrow and dogmatic statement, it is merely historical fact that cannot be disproved. 19th Century Church historian Philip Schaff, for example, writes:

 

The terms elder and bishop denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that [elder] is borrowed from the Synagogue, [bishop] from the Greek communities; and that [elder] signifies the dignity, [and bishop signifies] the duty.[26]

 

Another 19th Century historian, E. De Pressense provides further light:

 

This identity of the office of bishop with that of elder is so very apparent in the New Testament that it was admitted by the whole ancient church, even at the time of the rise of the episcopate. . .[27]

 

The “episcopate” refers of the practice of a bishop ruling over many churches and their pastors or priests. In other words, even when this practice arose, men knew full well that it was not taught in the New Testament. In short, the rise of the episcopate occurred in deliberate departure from the Scriptural precedent. Still another 19th Century writer, J. M. Hoppin, adds:

 

 . . . [these terms] stand for essentially the same office, and are employed as convertible terms . . . Neither can it be proved. . .from the New Testament that a higher official standing was assigned to one than to another . . . so that we conclude that these titles all denote the ordinary office of the ministry, as different phases of one office, viewing it from different historical points of view.[28]

 

Going back further, one of the greatest theologians who ever lived was the 17th Century Francis Turretin, a direct descendent of the 16th Century Reformers. His mammoth three-volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology (which I have the blessing to own) were the fruit of some 30 years of teaching at the Academy of Geneva. He invests several pages to this important issue. Here are a few highlights:

 

Bishop and presbyter [elder] are everywhere in Scripture taken for one and the same (so that the difference is only in the name, not i