09 The Gospel Ministry

The Gospel Ministry By J. M. Stifler, D. D., Pastor First Baptist Church, New Haven, Conn.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop he desireth a good work.” 1 Timothy 3:1.

There was good reason for the writing of the words of the text. The condition of things in the origin of the church evoked this emphatic utterance from the pen of inspiration. The gospel ministry, in any such form as we possess it to-day, was just begun. Apostles had been busy for years, but bishops and elders came later to the oversight of the churches. Their function had not attained to the dignity and honor that attend it to-day, nor that accrued to it long ago, when bishops were the masters of kings, and when popes claimed universal authority. When the text was written, the churches still existed which had emerged fresh and pure from the slums of heathenism, or the darkness of Judaism—emerged perfect and clean, like a diamond from the gutter. The “work of faith and labor of love” was abundant among them. They were self-contained, and had a holy self-sufficiency. But while they abounded in good works, and were “enriched to all bountifulness ““able also to admonish one another,” they were not complete. They had not surveyed the whole round of good works. Hence Paul must write such words as in Php 4:8 : “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good repute; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” And since the office of the bishop came to them after they had already exercised the other functions of a church, it seems they questioned it. The members of the Apostolic churches, possessing as they did the holy spirit in a miraculous way, being able to edify one another, did not feel the need of a mere formal ministry. They could and did exist without it. They abounded in good works without it.

How long this pastorless condition of the churches prevailed cannot be ascertained. In some cases longer, in others not so long, in some perhaps not at all. But that it existed is certain. Only in Paul’s returning missionary tours did he ordain elders in the churches called out by the labors of his first tour. Titus was sent, as we learn from the epistle to him, to ordain elders in churches that existed we know not how long before his mission to them. And now this pastorless condition, in which the word of the Lord prevailed, is the very key to the text. What need of an elder, or an eldership, in churches doing the work of the Lord? Is he who seeks such an office seeking a good work? Is not the service he intends supererogatory, a service already being performed by the more than half inspired membership?

Paul answers such suppositive questions in the words of the text. If a man desire the office of a bishop, even in churches as complete in themselves as these Apostolic ones, he desires a good work. The strength of the opposition to the office can be guessed in the emphatic little preface to the text: “It is a true saying.” It calls on the church to hear, and though well able to minister to itself, to admit and honor the office. Let qualified men hear; and if, through doubt or humility, hesitating to enter this office, hesitate no longer. It is a good work. If any were disposed to despise the youthfulness of Timothy in his labors in this office, the words of the text would be a help to him, and a rebuke to them. The text suggests four points, which are also clearly brought out in other Scriptures:

I. First. The state of things in which the gospel ministry arose.

II. Second. Some sort of induction into the office is implied.

III. Third. The place of female ministry in the work of the church is definitely set forth.

IV. Fourth. The question of different orders of ministry is looked at.

I. The text suggests the state of things in the midst of which the office of bishop had its birth. And an understanding of this original condition will shed light on the topic of gospel ministry. Before the office was known, the churches already existed. Their work and worship was complete. The churches arose not for the ministry, but the ministry for the churches. The churches had and have an existence independent of the office (we do not say of the need) of the bishop. The simple fact that the churches of Icon him, of Derbe, of Lystra and of Antioch existed for a time without elders (Acts 14:23), and without the presence of an Apostle (and the same seems to be true of the churches in Crete,—Titus 1:5), raises a number of questions: Who led the worship? Who administered the ordinances? Or were these duties omitted until the appointment of elders? But in the membership of these churches, statedly meeting, admonishing and edifying one another (Hebrews 10:24-25) must have been men who perceived the headless state of affairs, perhaps often the lack of order (1 Corinthians 14:23-40), men whose hearts longed to take the oversight, who desired the office of bishop. The Apostles, or Apostolic agents like Titus, travelling among the churches to ordain elders, would soon learn, on coming to each city, who such men were. The church already existing for some time would have learned to know them and would be able to say who had the qualifications for the bishopric (Titus 1:6-9). Or if any church was too dull to know them, or felt complete in itself and quietly ignored their superior ministrations, it was instructed in this matter. For so we find Paul writing to the Thessalonians: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among yon, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.” This passage is worthy of careful study. It was written a few months after they had been called from darkness to light. (Acts 17:1-9). Timothy had visited them once (1 Thessalonians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:9) but hurriedly, and in such a time of persecution that to ordain elders was impossible. This visit, too was so shortly after their conversion that they would all be novices (1 Timothy 3:6); and furthermore, if the elders had been formally inducted in their office, by an Apostle, or any Apostolic agent, before the epistle was written, whence the need of “beseeching” them now to “know” them? It would seem probable, then, that the elders were as yet without their appointment, but showing by their work their ultimate destination in the organization of the church. They were over them “in the Lord,” to be over them in due time by formal appointment; a condition of things which the Thessalonian church did not understand, and hence were rejecting their coming elders’ service in a way to disturb harmony. And so Paul must write this verse to the end that they may “be at peace among themselves.” This exhortation to know God’s ministers is useful for all time, the present especially. The churches should recognize the men among them whom God has qualified to be overseers. Their divine credentials are in their hearts. See to it that they are not hindered by withholding the churches from their hands.

Such seems to have been the state of things in the churches at their origin—for a time without elders, not fully recognizing the need of them, and not certain that the office was divine. The words of the text were necessary. If in any church men were desiring the office of a bishop, that desire was not to be overlooked by the church, and the office was not to be considered unnecessary. Its work was good. But whence came these men with holy aspirations for this as yet but half-acknowledged office? They were in the church, participating in all its privileges, its work, its trials, and yet they were something more than the standard church member. They promised something more. In the appointment of the Lord they were “over” the church. Saul, the first king of Israel, had the designation, and the anointing to his office in secret. Israel was not aware of it. Their lot cast subsequently was ultimately not theirs. The whole disposing of it was of the Lord. (Proverbs 16:33.) The elders had a secret pre-appointment of the Lord. The Scriptures give abundant answer to the question of their source. Ephesians 4:8-12 gives us their origin. When he ascended on high he gave gifts to men. These gifts were (and are) special, qualifying them for, and warranting them to seek, the office of the bishop. It was a gift not of nature, but of grace. For the gift is specifically connected with the ascension of Christ, and his triumph at the cross. And not alone of grace, but of special and distinguishing grace, so that they who received it could be recognized before hands had been laid on them, or before they had been formally admitted to their office.

Here, then, is light on what is familiarly termed the call to preach. If a man desire. The unconsciously held gift will stir up desire in the soul. Again, the words that the called, but as yet unrecognized, man utters in public or social worship, his prayers and his general bearing, will mark him, so that the wise and spiritual “know” him, and will perceive that already he is “over “them in the appointment of the Lord. The gift of special grace within will manifest itself without. Hence, for a man to assume this office without the special qualifications which constitute the call is an unholy intrusion like that in 2 Chronicles 26:16-21. And though the ministry may seem to be crowded, it is worthy to ask if we should not still pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers. For it is those which he sends that do his work, and not such as run, no matter how good they may be otherwise, without being divinely sent.

II. Some sort of induction into the bishopric is suggested. The work and worship of the Apostolic churches was conducted for months, and doubtless in some cases for years, in a headless fashion. The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit qualified them for this, and the need of special ministry was not recognized at once. Furthermore it was not certain everywhere that it was right, else why the text? There are hints that when offered it was not accepted. A careful perusal of John’s third epistle will show this. It was some order of gospel laborers of whom he says: “We ought to receive such,” the same persons whom Diotrephes did not receive. The passage already quoted, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, shows that one church at least was a little obtuse in the treatment of its elders. To the same church it was said: “Despise not prophesyings.” And almost every epistle has some good word for the elders, as if their status was not wholly settled. But this must be carried in mind, that while to-day the elder or bishop, for the words are synonymous, is often not wanted on account of the deadness of the church, then he found no place from the very opposite state of the case—the churches were so alive they ministered to themselves.

Now, in such an atmosphere how was the man, gifted by the ascended Lord and already exercising these gifts—how was he to be formally recognized as leader without some form? How was he to get his office, how his authority? Preach and rule to some extent, and govern he already did. But how is he to be known as the preacher and ruler in his particular church, where everybody else did the same. See 1 Corinthians 14:26, and mark the words “every one.” It needed the strong hand of an Apostle to put him there. Hence Paul qualifies Timothy for this work, sends a Titus forth directly, and often attends to it himself. He writes to Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee.” It needed a formal setting apart to put a man in the office in any other way in which he was not in it already. It needed the authority of an Apostle to convince the churches that he that desired the office was desiring a good work. As to the details of that ordination, perhaps the Scriptures do not settle everything. But some—the vital ones, seem certain.

First. The special mission of Titus (see 1st chapter) did not convey the spiritual validity of the ordination. There is no hint in the prescription to him or to Timothy that the ordaining agents did more than to regulate, to direct, and perhaps to bring about the ordination of elders. Titus went to the churches not to make bishops. God had already made them, and already they had been doing the work pertaining to the office, else how was it known who was “apt to teach.” The gift of ordination pertained to the eldership. Hence it was said to Timothy: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” It was the will of the Holy Ghost to invest him with the office of ruling and governing the church, and this will one of the prophets uttered at the time of laying on of hands. The verse in 2 Timothy 1:6 does not conflict with this. Paul was present at the ordination (Acts 16:1-3) and doubtless laid on hands with the elders. The elders were appointed on Paul’s return in his first missionary tour. The ordination of Timothy occurred on his second tour. But it must not be forgotten that this ordination of Timothy was something special, not strictly that of an elder; and yet the elders’ hands designated him, just as the hands of the prophets and teachers who sent forth Barnabas and Saul. And now that the eldership conveyed whatever of gift was conveyed, what was this but the church acting through its representatives, the church conveying the gift? A man desired the office of bishop, for God had qualified him for it, and the church through the eldership gave him that office. If there was no eldership as yet, a Titus goes forth to establish it.

Second. As already implied, it is evident that the bishops discharged duties pertaining to the office before that office was formally given to them. They had at first an unpaid and an unrecognized ministry. How else could it be known who was apt to teach? (1 Timothy 3:2.) As Titus went from church to church in Crete, he would doubtless ask, as he came to each, Who among you has shown the qualifications for a bishop, “holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught. * * * Able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers?” (Titus 1:9.) Who is apt to teach? Such inquiry would be exactly equivalent to our examination, preliminary to ordination; and the fact that Paul enjoins that these qualities are to be looked for, recognizes both God’s work in the making of the minister and Titus’ incapacity to convey the grace to preach. Titus went not to prepare a ministry. He went to find one that had already evinced its preparation by its known and acknowledged works.

Third. It seems evident that hands would be laid 0n. Acts 13:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22. The second of these Scriptures shows how Timothy was ordained himself. The third, if it refers to ordination, implies unmistakably that imposition of hands was already practiced in the setting apart of elders. Ellicott, against the authority of Chrysostom and Theodoret, denies its reference to ordination. But Alford shows, and what is still better, the context shows, that it has no other. But it is a fact to be noted that nowhere in the Scriptures does an Apostle lay hands on an elder. If Titus did it there is absolutely no record of it, and this passage, which implies certainly that Timothy might do it, also implies that it was to be done along with others. “Be not partaker of other men’s sins.”

Fourth. It would then seem that the power of ordination resided in the churches. Their elders were all already among them, graciously given and qualified of God. They had already exhibited their aptness to teach and their fitness for the sacred office. Nothing was needed but to grant it to them. This was done by themselves under the direction of an Apostolic agent, to whom they pointed out their own men. Does anyone suppose that Titus, or even Paul could have placed a man over an Apostolic church that shook its head. It must not be forgotten that churches felt themselves complete, possessed of an authority and dignity equivalent to that of an Apostle; so that Apostles themselves were tried by them. Revelation 2:2. They were instructed to test prophets. 1 John 4:1. They hesitated not to question even Paul. 2 Corinthians 11:16; 2 Corinthians 13:3-6. They were plainly instructed in their almost divine dignity. (See 1 Corinthians 6:2-3;1 John 2:27.) One can fancy with what righteous indignation they would have spurned the attempt to impose the minister of a modern church conference upon them. The Apostolic church carried its vitals within itself. It contained the ministry, the ministry did not contain it.

Here, then, with the condition of the Apostolic churches before us, we can see both what was the need of and what essential to, ordination. And have we not just about that which belongs to the service as exhibited in the practice of Baptist churches? Two things would materially help in the ordinations of to-day: First, if it was seen just what the word means—a recognition and an appointment. And when they had ordained them elders.—Acts 14:23. “Who having appointed for them elders.”—Hackett. The word “ordain” savors of Rome and of more modern ecclesiasticism. Secondly, if in seeking the evidences of a call we paid more attention to the qualifications accompanying it,” not a novice,” “apt to teach,” “sound doctrine,” and all the rest that in the epistles to Titus and to Timothy is so explicit. That man’s desire to be ordained, who has not exhibited these qualifications before his brethren, should not be hastily allowed, if at all.

III. The relation of female ministry is definitely set forth. If a man desire the office of a bishop. And the emphasis is not in the word, for in the original it is indefinite—any one—but most strikingly in the context, which goes on to give the bishop’s qualifications entirely in the masculine gender. He must be the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection. There are no qualifications for a female bishop anywhere. This is the more striking, when we remember that, a female deaconship being allowed, (Romans 16:1, original), qualifications for the same office are given for females,—1 Timothy 3:11—a passage wholly obscured by translating interpolations. “Women in like manner when engaged in the same office,” is the way Ellicott puts it. The New Testament knows no such office as a female pastorate, and in express terms forbids it. The work of teaching is pointedly limited to men. For see 1 Corinthians 14:34, and 1 Timothy 2:12 : “I suffer not a woman to teach.” But it may be inquired, do not such sweeping and general statements exclude women from the Sunday-school, condemn female missionaries to the heathen, and contradict the plain implications to the contrary in other Scriptures. For, said Peter in his quotation, Acts 2:18, “And on my hand-maidens will I pour out in these days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy,” which always includes giving instruction. And did not Philip, the evangelist, have four daughters, “which did prophesy^:’? Acts 21:8-9. Does not 1 Corinthians 11:5, fairly imply that even in this very church where it was forbidden, Paul recognized a lawful prophesying on the part of women? To note three points will do much to reconcile the whole,—what is forbidden, and where and why. First, what: “I suffer not a woman to teach.” The word “teach” is not general, else Philip’s daughters had their gift in vain, the female Sunday-school teacher is in error, and the foreign missionary sister is violating God’s appointment, and Peter is going too far when he says of the hand-maidens: “They shall prophesy.” The word is specific. “And they commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus,” Acts 4:18, where it is contrasted with speaking. “Teaching and preaching the word, Acts 15:35, where we have again an instructive contrast. In like manner in Romans 13:6-8, the teaching is contrasted with prophecy, ministry, exhortation and ruling. To forbid teaching does not, in itself, forbid any of those works with which it stands here in contrast. Christ gave pastors and teachers. The two are linked together in Ephesians. And so in forbidding teaching, the pastorate is forbidden, nothing more. There are several parts of music for the female voice without singing bass. But in the office of teacher she is to be absolutely silent. If it is insisted that in Corinth it was said: “Let your women keep silence. It is not permitted unto them to speak,” the second question is raised: where was it forbidden? In the churches. It is not forbidden in the informal meetings, as the Sunday-school, the prayer meeting. It is not forbidden one female to teach others. We do not see that anything but the pulpit is denied. For, third, what is the ground of the prohibition? And this will elucidate the whole matter. Teaching implies and includes superiority and authority. We have seen that the bishop, the teacher, was set over the church as leader or ruler. We are told of the elder that” ruled “well. In some sense the bishop was made head of the church in which he ruled. Now if a woman were put in the place of the bishop, she would be head, leader, ruler of her own husband, a violation, of the law, (1 Corinthians 14:34; Genesis 3:16), a violation of the order and intent of creation. 1 Timothy 2:13-14. For this seems to be the one grand reason of the prohibition, that it makes woman the head of the man. It is this that makes it a shame for them to speak. But suppose the woman have no husband? She has a father, it may be, or someone who is head. And then, the prohibition gets force, too, not alone from the marital relation, but from the order of creation. Adam was first formed, then Eve. Man is ever to be first. The bishopric, that highest place of honor on earth, belongs to him alone.

IV. Does the office of bishop in the text have any similarity with the office bearing the same name in modern church building? None whatever. One bishop in modern episcopacy implies several churches. One New Testament church implies several bishops. The modern bishop implies a union of local churches under one name and government. The New Testament bishop belonged to his own local church, and the union of the churches of a state or country in one is unknown in Apostolic times. We have not the “church of Galatia,” “the church of Judea,” but the “churches.” Each one was separate, independent, having no bond of union in itself or beyond itself except the possession of a common experience in the membership of the redemptive power of Jesus, faith in whom was expressed and confessed by baptism. The churches existed for a time without officers. And now, when these come to be bestowed, bishops and deacons alone are given. The same authority which it took to introduce the elder would have been required to promote an officer over him. And if that authority was ever exercised, we have no record of it. Again, from the qualifications left us for church officers, we gather that there were but two orders, bishops and deacons. Where in the New Testament do we find the qualifications fora dean, or a presiding elder, for an arch-bishop or for a pope; where for a class leader, or a circuit-rider? There are rules for just two officers, and to take those in Timothy referring to the bishop, and to apply them to anyone else than the local preacher, ruling a single local body, is a palpable misuse of them. The New Testament knows but two officers for the church of which the bishop is head, but head of the local church only. And here he is over men, too, his equals in Christ. They do not call him master.

We find qualifications for but two officers. Incidentally those of an Apostle are mentioned, but in such a way as to show that the office was limited to the cotemporaries of Jesus. Acts 1:21-22. In the case of Paul, there was a miraculous manifestation of the risen Lord, nothing short of which could give another Apostle. Prophets and evangelists are mentioned, but are nowhere given any official connection with the church. They were only church members, having these special gifts, the prophets in more than one case being women, to whom the official relations of the eldership were denied.

It is trifling to attempt to break the force of this argument from the qualifications by saying that none are prescribed for church clerk, church treasurer or sexton. These are not church officers, or only so much so as the servants of the family,—necessary to it, numbered with it, but not having a vital relation. But the Scriptures speak of both elders and bishops. They never contrast these words, never conjoin them. But they do distinctly identify them. The bishop is an elder, as Titus 1:5, compared with 7, or Acts 20:17, compared with 28, distinctly shows.

Finally, the Apostolic salutation, in the epistle to the Philippians, is instructive, both as to the organization of the church, and the relative dignity of the church and its officers. The address is as follows: “Paul * * to all the saints * * at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” He mentions first the saints, or church, secondly the bishops, and thirdly the deacons. The epistle was not among the earlier ones, as that to the Thessalouians, but written when the church in Philippi was fully organized. On this passage Dean Alford, himself a Churchman, comments: “The simple juxtaposition of the officers with the members of the church, and indeed their being placed after these members, shows, as it still seems to me, against Ellicott, in lac., the absence of hierarchical views such as those in the epistles of the Apostolic fathers.” When, then, Paul wrote the text, he had one of the two officers of Christ’s church in mind, an officer of the local body only, and possessed only of so much authority as gave him the front rank of his own brethren in Christ,—a simple, beautiful relation, like that of a father in his own family. And one of the marvellous features of the perversity of the human heart is, that while the spirit of Christ is simplifying human governments, lifting up the masses and limiting the rulers; while the Lord’s prayer, “Our Father which art in heaven,” is fostering and bringing on a universal brotherhood; in the church in some quarters the opposite tendency is at work, and all the machinery of tyranny exists. How strange that there is in the world a strong tendency toward that simple form of government which God loves, while in some religious realms the tendency is the contrary way!—the children of this world wiser than the children of light.