The Four-Office View

The local church is where most Christians come into contact with the government of the church, and, not surprisingly, there is considerable debate about the government of the local church. The purpose here is to sketch some the various positions that have been taken, and give a few scriptural indications of what I believe to be the correct position.

What are the options?

No office view:

In a desire to be “Spirit-led,” some groups have rejected the idea of office altogether. This view is held by the Quakers, and some Plymouth Brethren.

Two office view:

This is the position that there are only two offices in the local church — elder and deacon.

Two and a half office view:

This is the position that there are only two offices in the local church — elder and deacon — but holds that the eldership is divided into two separate “job descriptions,” i.e. teaching elder and ruling elder. This position is really an inconsistent three-office view.

Three office view:

This is the position that there are three offices in the local church — minister, elder, and deacon.

Four office view: This is the same as the three office view, with the addition of “teacher” or “doctor.”

One helpful test that can be used to the distinguish the various positions is the view they each take on the necessity of ordination. If a church decides to have one of their ruling elders become the minister, and the only action that is necessary is for the motion to pass in the elders’ meeting, or in the congregational meeting, then this would be a two-office church. But if an elder needed to be ordained to the new role, then that church would be a three or a four office church.

In trying to sort this out, let us begin with some Old Testament considerations. The first question to settle is whether the Old Testament is applicable at all. Obviously, larger hermeneutical questions come into play here. Is continuity assumed, or not? Does the Old Testament not apply unless the New Testament says that it does? Or does the Old Testament apply unless the New says that it doesn’t? I take the latter view, assuming that we can learn a great deal about biblical church government under the new covenant by examining how God’s people were governed under the old covenant.

The second question is exegetical. I believe the Old and New Testaments both require us to take the “continuity” view when it comes to matters of church government. First, terminology — the word elder had a set definition for the Jews, and Luke switches from a Jewish to a Christian use of the term without any redefinition at all (Acts 11:30). Second, prophecy — “For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory . . . And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the LORD” (Is. 66:18,21). In the Old Testament, the rule of the elders was distinguished from the ministry of the Levites. Third, Christ spoke of New Covenant officers with Old Covenant terminology. “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city . . . (Matt. 23:34). Fourth, the Old Covenant law of the tithe carries over and applies to New Covenant ministry (1 Cor. 9:13-14). And since the tithe was the means whereby God intended for His people to support their ministers, we should look for ministers to be supported in that way. God doesn’t keep the stipend going after the position is abolished.

The basic question is whether the ruling elder and the minister of the Word hold distinct offices. In looking at this question, we should remember the power of the paradigm. When we look at the various relevant passages our procedure should be this. If the New Testament mentions them separately and distinctly, then we must have grounds before collapsing them together, and the onus probandi is upon the one who wants to do so. If they were mentioned together, then we should require proof in order to separate them. So which is it? Which way does it go in Scripture?

In Romans 12:6-7, the ministers, teachers, and leaders are mentioned separately. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, teachers and administrators are mentioned separately. In 1 Timothy 5:17, a clear distinction is made between elders who labor in word and doctrine, and elders who do not. In Ephesians 4:11-12, the pastor/teacher is one who teaches, and is the one who carries on the work of ministry. But some elders do not teach (see 1 Tim. 5:17); therefore, some are not pastors/teachers.

The ramifications of this debate are not small; it really is a very important debate. It is also a debate that contains an optical illusion. Many would assume that the three-office or four-office views are nothing more than clericalism. But the opposite is the case. To the extent that we (reluctantly) use terms such as “layman,” we must remember that the three-office view submits the government of the local church to such laymen.

Iain Murray says this:

Putting it all together (since it should be obvious by now that I hold to the four-office view), the deacons are charged with the physical needs of the congregation, and with the care of the poor. They answer to the session of elders. The bulk of this session is made up of men who go by various names — elders, ruling elders, or parish elders. In the Reformation, they were called seniors. They were ordained to the rule of the church; they were not ordained to the ministry. The rest of the session is made up of teachers and ministers. The teachers are responsible for the exposition of the Word, while the ministers are responsible for Word and sacrament together. The minister is responsible for ministry, teaching and rule; the teacher is responsible for teaching and rule; the ruler is responsible for rule.