Elders, Evangelists, Deacons & Teachers

Doug Jacoby, Washington DC, 1994

(slightly revised, Sydney, 2003)

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be

evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4.11).

INTRODUCTION

In a growing movement grows, terminology changes. A developing movement brings (a) the generation of new terminology to describe what’s happening in the movement, then (b) consistency in terminology, as terms multiply and are used in different, possibly confusing ways, and finally comes the need for (c) accurate terminology — from a biblical perspective, as much as possible. This paper concerns leadership positions.

New Terminology (a) is spawned naturally as we seek to describe what God is doing in biblical terms. We’ve conscientiously tried to use “Bible names for Bible things.” Many of our old terms have been replaced with simpler or more biblical names (Soul Talk became Bible Talk, minister gradually gave way to evangelist, and so forth.)

Stage (b), consistency of terminology, comes as we attempt smoother communication between churches, for example standardization of “sector-region-zone” terminology, while stage (c), sharpening terminology and ensuring it’s as biblical as possible, may be overlooked — as we tend not to question the terms we’ve inherited from the Churches of Christ and Protestantism in general. This is particularly true in regard to leadership titles.

I do recognize that a single individual can embody several different offices. Consider Peter. Peter was an apostle, evangelist, teacher, elder, and probably a prophet as well! I also recognize that there is a certain fluidity in NT leadership designations, a fair degree of overlap, and we must be careful not to define terms more strictly than their biblical usage dictates.

Still, the question must be asked whether our terminology corresponds accurately to biblical terminology and doctrine. For example, the common denominational appellation “father” applied to a church leader is completely unbiblical (Matthew 23.9). Certainly we want to follow the Bible as closely as possible.

This paper offers comments on elders, evangelists, and teachers, as well as “deacons” (according to our current tradition) in the Bible. This is especially relevant as more and more congregations are installing elderships (praise God!) and diaconates.

OUTLINE

The outline follows the title:

I. ELDERS

II. EVANGELISTS

III. DEACONS

IV. TEACHERS

Translation

Part of my position hangs on a matter of translation. For the record, it must be said that it’s possible for our English Bibles to mistranslate or poorly translate an original Hebrew or Greek word. Let’s consider two classic poor translations: church [ekklhsia, ekklesia] and baptism [baptisma, baptisma]. The first is translated by a now obscure English word, the second is merely transliterated.

Assembly and Immersion

In the case of church no one doubts a return to its true meaning assembly would help clarify the present denominational confusion, which confuses the building with the body. Church, originally indicating the building, comes from an old Greek word, kuriakon, kyriakon, the Lord’s house. [Derivation: Church < kirika (Old Scandinavian) < kyriakon (Greek).]

For example, Acts 19.32 correctly translates ekklesia as “assembly”. But really all disciples know what’s meant by church, so it’s not a matter of urgency to alter the term. Though more controversial in the religious world, a better translation of baptisma would be immersion. This transliteration can and does cause confusion, yet it isn’t difficult to give our word baptism a biblical and readily intelligible definition from the relevant scriptures.

In the same way, there are a number of words confusingly transliterated or translated in our English Bibles, as the table below will demonstrate. My aim is to clarify, not to obscure; however, some reference must be made to the original language in this paper in order to convince those familiar with the original text. The following table will begin to prepare us for the serious consideration of alternative translations for our key terms.

TABLE OF N.T. TERMS OBSCURED THROUGH TRANSLATION

English term in most Bibles	Original Greek word	Transliteration to English alphabet	Correct Translation
C h u r c h	ekklhsia	ekklesia	assembly
B a p t i s m	baptisma	baptisma	immersion
D i s c i p l e	maqhthV	mathetes	learner, pupil, disciple
G o o d n e w s	euaggelion	euangelion	good news = god spel [Old English]
T o n g u e s	glwssai	glossai	languages, tongues [organ of mouth]
A p o s t l e	apostoloV	apostolos	one who is sent, missionary
E v a n g e l i s t	euaggelisthV	euangelistes	preacher [of good news]
M i n i s t e r D e a c o n	diakonoV	diakonos	servant
P a s t o r S h e p h e r d	poimhn	poimen	shepherd
B i s h o p O v e r s e e r	episkopoV	episkopos	overseer
E l d e r P r e s b y t e r	presbuteroV	presbyteros	elder

All these terms would be better translated than transliterated or watered down. This doesn’t mean our Bibles are unreliable. Rather, it points out the continual need for accurate and contemporary translation. Yet it will help us to see where some of the confusion over church offices arises, particularly in reference to deacons. But first, let’s examine eldership.

I. ELDERS

Several common terms in the Greek NT indisputably refer to the eldership. The first, presbuteroV (presbyteros, elder), refers simply to the age, respect and social function of the man considered an elder. The second term poimhn, (poimen, shepherd) speaks of his duty to care for the flock who are his charge. The Latin equivalent is pastor, which is retained in most English translations of Ephesians 4.11 out of deference to those denominations who seek biblical example of their favored term. The third term, episkopoV (episkopos, overseer), speaks of the elder’s oversight of his flock in a less personal way than poimen.

In Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 these three terms are clearly used interchangeably. Nearly all N.T. scholars agree that what would later become separate offices originally were one.

Function

It’s likely that the Old Testament functions of eldership spilled over nearly 100% into the New Testament role. Elders were older, more experienced men whom God held accountable for the spiritual well-being of their tribes and clans and hence for that of all Israel. They were, spiritually speaking, shepherds and overseers. Unfortunately, however, in O.T. history their spiritual oversight generally turned out to be just that — oversight! They neglected their primary responsibility (Ezekiel 34).

The failure of eldership as a whole under the old covenant in no way reduces the critical need for elders today, however. The church will never reach the maturity God intended without strong, spiritual elderships in place (Ephesians 4.11-13).

Motion

As shepherds over a flock, elders tend to be fairly stationary. While evangelists may move from church to church, region to region, elders do not. The simple reason: evangelists, as individuals, move about freely, plugging in where the Holy Spirit needs them and motivating the saints. But flocks don’t really move that much: for all intents and purposes they’re stable, and their shepherds stay with them. And that is precisely why eldership is long-term, local leadership, whereas evangelists rarely meet that description.

Compensation

Two questions arise in connection with the ministry of elders: were they full-time and were they compensated for their service?

There’s little evidence from the NT that elders worked full-time. Peter seems to be the only clear example of a full-time elder (1 Peter 5.1). But then Peter was also called by Jesus to be a full-time apostle. The silence of the scriptures can lead us to and justify either position. Local practical needs determine whether elderships are primarily full-time or secular workforce elders. In some cities, all elders are full-time and fully supported by the church (San Diego); in others, most of the elders have regular jobs (Washington DC); in future perhaps some elderships will be completely non-full-time. As for whether elders were paid, the most meaty passage is 1 Timothy 5.17-18:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

These Ephesian elders (Timothy led the church at Ephesus, 1 Timothy 1.3) not only taught but also preached. Jesus made it clear in Matthew 10.10 and Luke 10.7 that preachers had the right to financial support. The comment about the ox is found in a similar discussion in 1 Corinthians 9.9, and the mention of the wages due a worker is found in both the Matthew and Luke passages. So there’s a strong case for elders being compensated, whether on a stipend or salary basis.[1]

Suffice it to say that there seem to have been different types of elders, and from a NT perspective compensation was certainly not out of the question. (Other passages to consider: Galatians 6.6, 1 Timothy 3.3, Titus 1.7, 1 Peter 5.2.)

Corruption

In later church history, the elder assumed more and more authority. With the rise of the monarchical episcopate in the 2nd century, emphasis was increasingly laid on episkopos, which in later English was contracted to bishop [derivation: ePISKOPos > BISHOP]. He was seen as the only one authorized to preside at the communion, as we read in the early 2nd century letters of Ignatius of Antioch. He ruled over his fellow-elders, who came to be known as presbyters, while the deacons (servants) assisted them.

The same sort of corruption happened with the term presbyteros, or elder. Presbyteros was eventually contracted to priest [derivation: PRESbyTeros > PRIEST]! Through the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as it became the view of the church that only an elder should preside at communion, and as the communion began its slow transformation into the “mass,” the elements of bread and wine taking on an efficaciously sacrificial aspect, the original elder did in fact become the “priest” of modern, full-blown Roman Catholicism.

The big surprise

In the N.T. church, who oversaw the flock? The overseers. Who led the flock; who did the sheep follow? The shepherds. It is nothing less than double-talk to say that the evangelists “lead” the church while being “overseen” by the elders. The sheep follow the shepherd, pure and simple. The aim of church builders should be to establish elderships as soon as possible. It is understandable, even desirable, that a fledgling congregation be led by one person, since it is small and immature. Yet when the church has been planted five or ten years ago, and still has no eldership, something is wrong. The system we have advocated through the years has actually proved inimical to eldership—which is why in most cases the eldership dissolved or “shrank” to a single overseer. This is not God’s plan.

Like parents grudgingly “releasing” their adolescent children, we have been slow to allow God’s people to lead themselves. This is not to advocate some sort of pseudo-egalitarian democracy. The Bible clearly indicates NT leadership positions.

The surprise is this: the mainline Churches of Christ, to whom we historically stood in a state of reaction, were right. Preachers answer to the elders, not the other way around. Not only will this work better, it is biblical. At the risk of repetition, an evangelist establishes a congregation and leads it till such time as the elders can take over. (In the book of Acts, the time interval was only a few years.) Thereafter, the elders (which could conceivably include some of the older evangelists) lead the church. We are to submit their authority (Hebrews 13:17).

II. EVANGELISTS

The Greek word euaggelisthV (euangelistes, evangelist) literally means one who proclaims [good news]. While all apostles were evangelists, it’s clear from the NT that not all evangelists were apostles, since the apostles had personally witnessed the risen Lord (Acts 1.22, 1 Corinthians 9.1).

Euangelistes occurs only three times in the NT, in connection with Philip (Acts 21.8), Timothy (2 Timothy 4.5), and the major gifts to the church in Ephesians 4.11. If evangelist means preacher, as we all hold, the fact that the word appears only three times doesn’t diminish its importance. But it is strange that the term often rendered minister appears five or six times as often. What’s the difference between an evangelist and a minister?

Mobility in the evangelist position

From even a cursory reading of the NT, it would appear that evangelist was something of a roaming position. Philip and Timothy travel extensively. Paul too seems to be an evangelist. In contrast to elders, evangelists’ local ministry is temporary. Evangelists should expect to move on: it’s our experience, it matches Acts, and even in the US policy manuals, we have up till now been encouraged to rent rather than buy. For many years we’ve implicitly understood this but acted as if (or hoped) we’d be in one spot forever! This was not only unrealistic, it was unbiblical!

Denominationalism has called what would properly be the evangelist by the term “pastor”. Actually a pastor is a shepherd, hence a more fixed position, whereas the biblical position of evangelist appears to be a highly mobile position:

· Philip the evangelist preached in Judea, Samaria and Galilee (in the towns of Jerusalem (Acts 6), Samaria (Acts 8.5), Azotus (Acts 8.40), Caesarea (Acts 8.40), and Ptolemais (Acts 21.9).

· Stephen, who seems to have an identical role though the word evangelist is not specifically applied to him, preaches in Jerusalem only, any further plans curtailed by his martyrdom (Acts 6.5-8.1).

· Timothy ministers with Paul in numerous cities in Europe and Asia, starting at Lystra (Acts 16.1), passing through Ephesus (1 Timothy 1.3), even spending a time in prison (Hebrews 13.23).

· I believe Paul was an evangelist. He calls Timothy an evangelist in 2 Timothy 4.5, yet he calls both himself and Timothy ministers or deacons (Ephesians 3.7, Colossians 1.23, 25, 1 Timothy 4.6), implying the similarity of their roles. Paul traveled all over the Roman world, sometimes spending two or three years in one location (Acts 18.11, 20.31, 28.30), other times just a few weeks (Acts 13.14-50, 17.1-9). So it follows that all the apostles were evangelists.

· I believe we’d be surprised to hear Peter wasn’t an evangelist! Or Epaphras, Barnabas, or the many others of Paul’s entourage. Some of these men traveled continuously, others stayed put for a longer period of time before moving on, like Peter. All these men were evangelists.

The point is, evangelists travel. No one should be surprised! It may even set a church up for disappointment when an evangelist promises to remain till his dying day in a certain city. Such a promise is more appropriate (and believable) from the lips of an elder, who is more stationary. But evangelists travel! They establish beachheads for the gospel. While they may remain stationary—as Philip did in his later years—the nature of their job demands flexibility.

Qualifications

In common understanding, whereas the character qualifications for elders and deacons are clearly delineated (1 Timothy 3), there exists no list of qualifications for evangelists. This is odd, especially since evangelists seem to play a much more major role in the NT than deacons.

The Seven

One more item to consider: the fact that of the Seven appointed in Acts 6, traditionally considered to be “deacons”, the only two we know anything about (Stephen and Philip) are both clearly evangelists (Acts 6-8). So who’s right? Those who call the Seven deacons or those who maintain they are evangelists? The answer: both are! What’s the difference between an evangelist and minister? None at all, as we’ll demonstrate in the next section!

Evangelists plant churches, service churches, and then plant and support new churches. The denominations, in calling the “minister” by the term “pastor”, have (a) mistakenly taken a term for elders and used it for evangelists and so (b) reinforced settled, comfortable, inward-focused religion, instead of the radical, ground-breaking, earth-shattering explosive religion of which we read in the living and active pages of the New Testament!

III. DEACONS

The meaning of diakonoV (diakonos) is servant. Sometimes it’s translated deacon, other times servant, and other times minister. As you can see, deacon is the transliterated term, and also the least helpful. Minister is a word we all recognize, yet we may not be aware that it’s merely the most natural Latin equivalent of diakonos, thus only serving to obscure the meaning. Servant is by far the most helpful translation.

Diakonos

The term diakonos, like episkopos, was common in Greek language contemporary with the NT, and the Holy Spirit took these familiar terms and gave them quite a new twist. Thus we read in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

In pre-Christian Greek we never find the words episkopoV [episkopos] and diakonoV [diakonos] used in the Christian sense, whether individually or in the distinctive Christian relationship. Early Christianity took over words which were predominantly secular in their current usage and which had not yet been given any sharply defined sense. It linked these words with offices which were being fashioned in the community, and thus gave them a new sense which was so firmly welded with the activity thereby denoted that in all languages they have been adopted as loan-words to describe Christian office-bearers (Theol. Dict. N.T. II:91).

From the original sense of diakonos a shift occurred. In my understanding of church history, as churches became more settled in, the “deacon” was seen less and less as a servant of the gospel and more and more as a servant of the overseer, or bishop! (Where did the evangelist go?!) This may be a bit simplistic, yet I have done my best to interpret the testimony of the patristic writers. Even the church historian Henry Chadwick confesses, “The exact history of this transition within two generations from apostles, prophets and teachers to bishop, presbyters and deacons is shrouded in obscurity, though our sources give occasional glimpses of the process” (Chadwick, The Early Church 46).

Settled, comfortable Christianity saw a shift from the sacrificial to the sacramental, from the evangelistic to the eucharistic, from elders and evangelists to "bishops”, “priests” and “deacons”.

Dictionary definition

Does the dictionary afford any help? Consider some of the Oxford dictionary definitions of deacon:

The name of an order of ministers in the Christian church... in Episcopal churches, a member of the third order of ministry, ranking below bishops and priests, and having the functions of assisting the priest... In the Presbyterian system, one of an order of officers appointed to attend to the secular affairs of the congregation... In Congregational churches, one of a body of officers elected to advise and assist the pastor and attend to the secular affairs of the church... The cleric who acts as principal assistant at a solemn celebration of the Eucharist... (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

So engrained did this concept become through history that the consensus view of modern Christendom is that the “deacon”, far from being a preacher of the word, handled administrative and other practical duties, answering to the “bishop”. Not that there isn’t a need for an order of willing servants in various areas of servants — our present “deacons” — there certainly is! But the frequent NT use of diakonos as a servant of the gospel has been all but lost!

Why the translation “deacons”?

The Latin word pastor is retained in most translations of Ephesians 4.11, since this is the only place in the NT the word pastor appears, and to translate it correctly as shepherd would mean the Lutherans and other Protestants wouldn’t be able to find their term pastor in the Bible!

In the same way the transliterated word deacons appears only twice in the New Testament, first in Philippians 1.1 and then in 1 Timothy 3, so to correctly translate it servants would mean the word deacon is not a “Bible name”. I suggest that the only reason to retain the translation deacon is a political one. Many people, especially Catholics, Baptists and others who have given their own definition to deacon, would be most upset!

Power rangers or powerful servants?

Though both minister and deacon sound more official — more “respectable” — than servant, this is the term that, in my view, best captures the spirit of Christlike leadership. In the Greco-Roman world, diakonos wasn’t a particularly glorious word. “How can a man be happy when he has to serve [diakonein] someone?” Plato had said (Gorg. 491e). But in the words of the Suffering Servant to his ego-driven disciples:

... whoever of you wants to be great will be your servant

(...oV ean qelh en umin megaV genesqai estai umwn diakonoV [diakonos])

and whoever wants to be first will be your slave

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve...

(ouk hlqen diakonhqhnai alla diakonhsai...) Matthew 20.26-28

The spirit of Jesus’ leadership style explains why the term diakonos was applied to ministers. Traditionally we have assumed that the diaconate was separate from the office of evangelist. This is precisely the assumption I will challenge in the next section. More specifically, I hold that evangelists are a recognized order of servants — servants of the word.

Who are diakonoi in the New Testament?

It may be helpful to list a few individuals explicitly referred to as diakonoi in the NT:

· Apollos & Paul (1 Corinthians 3.5)

· Paul (Ephesians 3.7, Colossians 1.23, 25).

· Tychicus (Ephesians 6.21, Colossians 4.7).

· Phoebe (Romans 16.1)

· Epaphras (Colossians 1.7).

· Timothy (1 Timothy 4.6).

All these are servants. But servants of what? Acts 6 may provide some help:

...The Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution [diakonia] of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on [diakonein] tables... We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry [diakonia] of the word (Acts 6.1-4).

Here we see two types of diakonia: diakonia of the word and diakonia of tables. Just as in English, service is particularized. Moreover, “there are different kinds of service” (1 Corinthians 12.5). A table waiter is a diakonos. And a servant, or minister, of the gospel is also called a diakonos! Once again, the meaning of diakonos has to be determined from a careful examination of the passage in which it is found.

Curious omission

Compare Ephesians 4.11 with Philippians 1.1 and an interesting observation emerges. Paul greets the overseers (elders) and deacons at the church at Philippi, without so much as a word for the evangelist(s). Yet in Ephesians he fails to even mention deacons in his list of offices or gifts to the church for the purpose of teaching and edifying it. Let’s read the passages carefully:

Paul and Timothy, servants [douloi] of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons (Philippians 1.1).

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4.11).

My translation: It was he who gave some [to be] missionaries, some [to be] prophets, some [to be] preachers of the good news, some [to be] shepherds and teachers.

Did Paul space out? Did he omit deacons in his five-fold list? Or did the church at Philippi perhaps lack evangelists? Consider this: that an evangelists is merely one sort of “deacon”. If you serve/minister the gospel, you’re a servant/deacon of the gospel, like Epaphras and Timothy. If you serve/wait on tables, you’re a servant/deacon of tables. The type of diakonia must be determined from context.

This view explains the curious lack of mention of deacons in Ephesians 4 and the apparent oversight of the evangelists in Philippians 1. Moreover, it becomes clearer why Paul did not instruct Titus to appoint overseers and “deacons” in every town on Crete (Titus 1.5), and why only elders were appointed by Paul and Barnabas in the towns of Asia Minor (Acts 14.23). A church would have normally evangelists before it had elders, since an evangelists plant the church (1 Corinthians 3.5-6, where also these church planters are called diakonoi). This is the pattern of Acts and indeed the pattern in our time. Quite simply, evangelists are deacons!

Family?

What about family? Doesn’t 1 Timothy 3 say that the deacon must be married? Wouldn’t that rule out Paul and Timothy? Before going through the relevant sections of 1 Timothy, let’s first lay out the assumptions of most readers on the subject of deacons:

· We trust “deacon” is a good translation for diakonos.

· We believe the deacon must be married.

· We also assume he must be a family man.

· We suppose that Timothy, among others, was not a deacon.

· We more or less take for granted that the traditional Churches of Christ correctly assessed the role of the deacon.

· Tradition assumes the Seven of Acts 6 were deacons.

These assumptions must of course be tested. In fact, this paper will challenge all but the last of them. Now let’s see what the text of Paul’s first letter to Timothy actually says:

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be the husband of one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 3.8-13).

Here are a few observations one can make about deacons and evangelists from the standpoint of this passage and considering the weight of the NT evidence concerning diakonia:

· Paul covers three scenarios in relation to “deacons”: all deacons, deacons’ wives or deaconesses, and the family of the deacon. One possible view takes the three situations as applying at the same time (that is, a deacon must be a family man). But another interpretation sees three separate situations: single/married deacons, married deacons, and married deacons with children. (Technically the “household” would include domestic servants, so a strict scenario interpretation of 3.13 would imply a household wider than “family”.) Why insist on the third scenario (married with children)? We don’t consistently insist that all an elder’s children be baptized, though it could be argued that the passage on elders requires it. We’re selectively strict, but the broader interpretation of the passage has biblical merit and makes equally good sense.

· In short, there’s no logical reason a deacon would have to be married, though if he is he must meet the requirements. So it is with drinking wine: “not indulging in much wine” doesn’t mean he absolutely has to be a wine drinker. It merely lays down an important principle in the event that he is one.

· There’s no evidence that a deacon who’s a family man is under the precept of verse 5; why would he have to have family experience to discharge his duties? Family in that case would not be a (positive) requirement, rather a potential (negative) disqualification. Anyway, it’s not clear-cut why our present “deacon” would need to be a family man. Yes, in certain cases a family man would have demonstrated a higher leadership ability than a non-father, and we should definitely take this into account. But really, must the brother in charge of facility booking and clean-up be married? Why? Must the bus driver be a parent? Does the church accountant (a type of servant or deacon) have to be married? There could be some advantage but that interpretation seems doubtful.

· It’s far easier to see why an evangelist, if he were married, would need a spiritual wife and children who were a credit to the gospel.

· This view allows Timothy, who seems to have been unmarried, to be a “deacon.” In actual fact he was an evangelist. Paul calls him evangelist in 2 Timothy 4.5 — but, though most people are unaware of it, Paul calls him a “deacon” — a servant of the gospel — in 1 Timothy 4.6. Timothy is both an evangelist and a servant of the gospel — a “deacon”, if you will.

Further observations

· Paul gives Timothy instructions about appointing leaders (1 Timothy 5.22). We know that he had the authority to appoint elders (Titus 1.5), and surely he appointed evangelists too! Requirements for both are set out in 1 Timothy 3.1-10. Since elders are by definition older than most evangelists, Paul urges Timothy not to let the eldership look down on him for his youth (1 Timothy 4.12) — an important principle for harmonious relations between elders and evangelists.

· Timothy, like these men, was commanded to hold on to the “deep truths” or mysteries of the faith (4.6); fallen leaders Hymenaeus and Alexander had failed to do so (1.19). Who needs to keep his convictions a