Summary
In this lesson we go over some specifics in a bit more detail, and also briefly go over the other offices in the Church mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, including Apostle, prophet, and evangelist. While there are no more Apostles or prophets nowadays, evangelists are another still-active office in the Church.
Content
Q: Am I understanding everything correctly? What about other offices in the Church?
A few understanding checks and lingering matters of clarification:
Q1. Spiritual age not chronological age is important
It’s spiritual age rather than chronological age that is really important, although there aren’t any biblical examples of really young people (as in teenagers or children) exercising leadership, so common sense takes us at least a ways.
Is this correct?
Q2. On Timothy’s age
Paul’s statements about Timothy’s youth would thus be targeted at getting old people to listen to a full-grown man (albeit a rather young one) rather than a child, right?
Q3. Examples of non-married pastor-teachers?
Are there any examples of non-married pastor-teachers to point to? 1 Corinthians 7 does certainly set things straight on how we ought not view marriage as a positive requirement, I’m just curious if there are actual examples straight from scripture.
Q4. The high-level view of church polity
So the logic basically goes “All churches have people who teach and therefore have authority, whatever you want to call them. Everything else matters not in the specifics.” Is that right?
Q5. Other offices in the Church from Ephesians 4:11
One other thing I’m curious about:
You made a distinction between Paul as a “capital A Apostle” and rank-and-file pastor-teachers. Ephesians 4:11 also mentions prophets and evangelists. Are these the other offices within the Church?
Additional explanation
A1. Spiritual age not chronological age is important
It’s spiritual age rather than chronological age that is really important, although there aren’t any biblical examples of really young people (as in teenagers or children) exercising leadership, so common sense takes us at least a ways.
Is this correct?
This is essentially correct (although see the discussion on culture and adulthood below).
Do also note that it is probably right and good for some young people – those beginning to manifest leadership and teaching gifts – to step up and help lead their peers within their own age group. This is different from these people completely taking on the Church office of pastor-teacher, but it is nonetheless worth mentioning.
A2. On Timothy’s age
Yes, you have it right here – Paul’s comments in 1 Timothy 4:12 are aimed at getting people to listen to a full-grown man (even if a young one), not a child. Paul picked up Timothy on his second missionary journey (see Acts 16:1ff). Regardless of Timothy’s exact age at this point, he traveled with Paul and Paul’s other companions for some time. (This large dose of serious life-experience no doubt helped Timothy grow up quickly if he wasn’t already mature before joining Paul’s party). Without getting into the nitty-gritty details of dating Paul’s writings, Paul wrote 1 Timothy a good number of years after first picking up Timothy. Common sense tells us that Timothy must have been at least a somewhat older teenager before joining Paul (since travel in antiquity was so harsh and inhospitable, he would have been an immense burden in the traveling otherwise), so he’s likely in his 20s or 30s when Paul is writing 1 Timothy 4:12. (And of course Paul had handed him the reigns of leadership in Ephesus some time before this – compare 1 Timothy 1:3).
Worth pointing out is that “adulthood” is a concept that is very strongly culturally conditioned. For the vast majority of history, girls were considered to be women (and of marriageable age) once puberty hit and they started menstruating. Boys were a bit more variable by culture, but we’re still usually talking teens rather than 20s in most times and places. Considering lifespans were noticeably shorter until recent times, you sort of see why people took on the full adult mantle sooner.
The same can still be true even nowadays, by the way. Kids in difficult circumstances (e.g., having to take care of younger siblings due to the absence of one or both parents) tend to grow up real fast, no matter their chronological age. In the United States, our society has pushed back full adulthood and independence until early to mid 20s (for most people), but this is, objectively speaking, somewhat artificial.
All this is a long way of saying that squinting too closely at this concept of “only somewhat-older adults can be pastor-teachers” is still problematic if you try to force one culture’s definition of adulthood on a different culture. This example hopefully helps illustrate why I have been so strongly making the point that the specifics of church polity are purposefully left vague in scripture.
A3. Examples of non-married pastor-teachers?
Barnabas is an example of a pastor-teacher who was not married (compare 1 Corinthians 9:5-6).
Regarding scripture as a whole, you might also consider Elijah and John the Baptist (who is typologically connected to Elijah). Moses was married (twice), but Elijah never was.
Jesus Himself is also an example of an unmarried teacher, but He had a very special mission and calling. While we certainly can (and should!) learn from His life and His example, our purpose here in this world is necessarily different from His. (Compare the cautionary note from before).
A4. The high-level view of church polity
So the logic basically goes “All churches have people who teach and therefore have authority, whatever you want to call them. Everything else matters not in the specifics.” Is that right?
Yes, you have things right here too. It really is that simple!
The catch in our current lukewarm times is that what many churches today call “teaching” is not in fact the sort of teaching that ought to be aspired to:
- Some places get so focused on specific things (such as, for example, very literal 6000-year-old young earth creationism, political activity to organize against abortion legislation) that they do a poor job teaching all the other important things they ought to.
- Some places teach that which appeals to the “itching ears” of those they fleece, out of impure motives. One thinks of the prosperity gospel and money-hungry televangelists.
- Some places don’t teach much of anything so terribly wrong, but spend most of their time only talking about such comfortable things as marriage, family, and God’s love and grace. None of these things are doctrinally incorrect, but the problem is that there’s a lot more to the Bible than just these things.
- Etc.
It is perhaps the third type of church from above that more commonly show up in American Evangelicaldom, and it is also the most dangerous in some ways, for it is at the same time actually Bible teaching, yet not completely as it should be. It is a pale simulacrum next to the real deal that teaches the full realm of biblical truth (compare 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – all scripture is important, not just the fluffy comfortable parts), but is close enough that it is not recognized by many as problematic.
In any case, while it is true that “church polity” is no more than those with authority teaching the truth – however exactly that gets set up in any specific case – the point is that they need to be properly teaching the truth in an in-depth and substantive way, otherwise all else is for naught.
A5. Other offices in the Church from Ephesians 4:11
You made a distinction between Paul as a “capital A Apostle” and rank-and-file pastor-teachers. Ephesians 4:11 also mentions prophets and evangelists. Are these the other offices within the Church?
Yes, Prophet and Evangelist are two other offices in the Church. In addition to the roles mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, we also have deacons (coming from the Greek word διάκονος). Deacons serve the Church as well, but in a lower-profile way that does not involve the exercising of authority, as already mentioned. They are still critically important though (compare the thrust of 1 Corinthians 12).
To make some additional points:
Apostles
There were no more Apostles after the true twelve (the twelve Jesus picked less Judas Iscariot plus Paul). Apostles were critical in the early Church, and God cemented their authority by enabling them to do miraculous works and signs. They (or those under their authority) also wrote the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There are still people today who claim to be “Apostles.” Run far away from such people.
Prophets
The Old Testament prophets proper (like Elijah) are somewhat distinct from the “prophets” mentioned here in Ephesians 4:11. During the early days of the Church, the canon of scripture was not closed and there was a serious supply problem in the texts of scripture. In antiquity, all written works were enormously expensive, and literacy was only a blessing the rich and powerful enjoyed. (I’m generalizing, but you get the idea).
How then were people in the early churches supposed to learn and teach? It’s all well and good to have Paul and/or his associates drop by every couple years, but what about the rest of the time?
The short answer is that the Lord empowered certain individuals in a miraculous (though not ecstatic) way to be able to communicate His truth in the absence of the completed written Word. These are the “prophets” mentioned here. As the canon of scripture closed, the need for this gift lessened and eventually ceased altogether, such that believers stopped receiving this special temporary empowerment long ago. (You should also run far away from people today claiming to be modern day “prophets”).
You can read more about these folks in BB5: Pneumatology on Ichthys.
Evangelists
Of the roles mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, evangelists and pastor-teachers are the only folks still in operation. (The two gifts/offices are not mutually exclusive either, particularly inasmuch as most evangelists end up being the ones to teach the new believers in their care the core essentials of the Christian faith). As discussed above, Apostles and prophets were temporary offices in the Church during the early days, and are no longer around.
Evangelism (as opposed to teaching) is concerned with giving the good news of the gospel (that is, after all, what the Greek verb εὐαγγελίζω means literally – announcing good news). The word “evangelism” has taken on a great deal of baggage over time too (just like “pastor”), such that it is generally best to ignore anything people say about it unless directly backed up from scripture.
Some Christians are naturally better at accumulating contacts and sharing Jesus Christ with them. After such gifted people grow to spiritual maturity and prepare themselves responsibly, they are the “boots on the ground” (so to speak) for sharing the gospel with the world.
As a rule of thumb, evangelists are responsible for sharing the gospel with people, and teachers are responsible for teaching them everything else after that. Thus, at some point all evangelists (unless they are themselves fully dually gifted as teachers) will need to “hand off” their charges to a gifted and prepared teacher.
Alongside teaching, evangelism is the one other effort that all churches ought to be formally supporting. Whether this takes the form of supporting gifted and prepared individuals engaging in local outreach or supporting similar individuals engaging in overseas missions (or both), the exact mechanics of church-supported evangelism are, as with most other matters of church polity, largely left flexible for individual churches to decide for themselves. The main point is that evangelism is a crucial responsibility of the Church, rather than something that is optional or unimportant.
Just how the internet and other modern communication mediums have greatly broadened how Bible teaching can proceed in our modern world, so too have these things greatly increased the possibilities open to gifted evangelists.