Preaching: A Critical Study (IV.)
Proposition IV — What does the New Testament Scripture set forth as the work of an evangelist?
The word "evangelist" (euangelistees) occurs three times in the New Testament, though the verb from which it comes is found about sixty times. "To evangelize" and "do the work of an evangelist" are phrases of equal import and indicate the same duties, rights and privileges.
There is nothing to indicate that the "Evangelist" was an office in the New Testament Church any more than a work (ergon) constituted an office such as teaching. Neither is there anything to indicate that in the church of the New Testament period the "evangelist" exercised any authority over the church in any sense. He ' was "authorized" to do a work but that work did not conflict with the work of an elder in ruling or overseeing the church of God. The local churches were ruled by elders (Acts 20:17-28; I Peter 5:1-3) under the authority of Christ. What did the evangelist exercise authority over? He was sent out by the church to proclaim the word, baptize believers, plant churches, and to teach and strengthen churches already planted.
In Acts 21:8 Philip is referred to by Luke as "the evangelist." We know that to begin with, Philip was chosen as one of the seven in the Jerusalem church to attend to the " daily ministration" of food to the needy. These seven men were full of the "Holy Ghost and wisdom." That constituted the qualifications laid down for their selection. As the result of apostolic hands being laid on them when they had been chosen they were able to work miracles. (Acts 6:6-8; Acts 8:6.) When the task to which they had been appointed as special servants in the Jerusalem church had ended — the daily ministration of food to the needy — these men, some of them, Stephen and Philip at least, began to preach the word. Through his preaching in Samaria and other cities (Acts 8:40) until he settled in Samaria Philip became known as an evangelist. What made him such? Did the Holy Spirit designate him personally and give him special endowments to that "office"? There is not one whit of testimony to that effect. He was selected in the Jerusalem Church to perform a benevolent service because of qualifications which he already had — "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom." This was before he began to travel from place to place and preach. The apostles laid their hands on him and conferred miraculous powers when he was appointed by them to the work in the Jerusalem Church before he began to preach. Nothing indicates that he had any more of the "Holy Spirit" after he began to preach than he had before. By the laying on of the hands of the apostles he had been given some miraculous powers and he demonstrated them later on in the healing he performed in Samaria. But those powers were given him when he was appointed to "wait on tables" and not as endowments for the "work of an evangelist." Neither is there any record that even hints of any official appointment directly and divinely given or received from any man that made him formally an evangelist. When the need for his services in the work at Jerusalem was at an end, he took it upon himself to go down to Samaria and "preach" (keerusso) Christ. The record says, "then Philip went." (Acts 8:5.) Why did he go? Because he knew that it was the will of the Lord for the gospel to be preached to every creature under heaven — to all nations and because he felt impelled to help carry out that work to the best of his ability. Our friends would have asked of him, "Why do you think that you should go any more than any other member of the church?" "Do you think you have some superior ability that you thus appoint yourself to do a work like this?" This is their attitude toward such work today. It wasn't a question of Philip's conceit or how much he thought of himself. It was a matter of his being willing to do his best to help carry out the will of His Lord. We have every reason to believe that he went because he wanted to go and knew that the Lord wanted the gospel to be preached. He did not fail to provide for his family in order to go. Either he was able to do that and give his time to preaching also or he was sustained by others for in some way he went and gave his time to the proclamation of the Word. Upon the dispersion of the church in Jerusalem he began a work that caused him to be designated in the word of God as "the evangelist." Thus it is evident that he was an "evangelist" because of the work he did. That work consisted of preaching in "all the cities, till he came to Caesarea:" It is well to remember also that he had begun this work of preaching the word before the Holy Spirit said to him "Go near and join thyself to this chariot" in the case of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch. This was instruction not to go preach in general but to preach or join himself to this one particular individual that he might preach to him.
Then let us look at Timothy also who specifically was instructed to "Do the work of an evangelist." (II Tim. 4:5.) What did that work consist of and why should Timothy do it? First let us remember that Paul became acquainted with Timothy at Lystra. He had been reared by a mother and grandmother who had instructed him from infancy in the word of God. (II Tim.3:15; II Tim. 1:5.) He was "well reported of by the brethren." (Acts 1:2.) When Paul wanted his help in his work Timothy became his companion. The elders "laid their hands" upon him (I Tim. 4:14) as they did upon Paul and Barnabas when they sent them out to the work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:3.) He was given some special gift by the laying on of the hands of the apostle Paul though we do not know what it was. It might have been tongues, which gift certainly would have been a blessing in his work, or it could have been the "word of wisdom" or the "word of knowledge" but we are not told. He certainly did not have the power of inspiration or the authority that an apostle had or Paul would never have given him the instructions he did. He received what he taught from Paul. (II Tim. 2:2.) He was told to "give diligence (study)" that he might "handle aright the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15.) There was not therefore, in so far as New Testament scriptures teach us, any special endowment of power or impartation of gifts that made a man an "evangelist." Evangelists in the New Testament day certainly had gifts bestowed upon them as did other members of the Lord's church but these gifts did not make them "evangelists" or else they would have all become such. The laying on of the hands of the elders signified nothing more than that he went to the work of spreading the Gospel with their prayers and blessings.
It is sometimes contended that the work of an evangelist was a "sub-apostolic" office; that the apostles selected and appointed certain men to be their assistants and that the work of an evangelist therefore existed upon apostolic appointment and authority. Ephesians 4:11 is enough for anyone with any regard for the Word of God to learn better than that. In the divine arrangement for "the perfecting of the saints" and the "building up of the church" Christ himself appointed that the work of an evangelist should be done. It is coexistent with the work of pastors and teachers and rests upon the same authority as do they and the work of the apostles and prophets also.
Among those who could correctly be classed in New Testament scriptures as doing a like work with Philip and Timothy, who are specifically called evangelists, are such men as Apollos, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, Silas, Titus, Sopater, Crescens, Gaius, Secondus, Trophimus, Epaphras, Clement, Aristarchus, Tychicus, Fortunatus, Stephanas, Achaicus, Demas, Epaphroditus, etc. They did the work of evangelists and were therefore evangelists.
Then there is the divine charge of the apostle to Timothy that provided for the perpetuity of such work. (II Tim. 2:2.) "Thou, therefore my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and the things that thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Here is outlined the very qualifications of an "Evangelist." He must be faithful in life and in handling the word of God and he must be able and willing to "pass on the torch" to others also by continuing to give himself to the propagation of the word. We may correctly say that the work of an "Evangelist" consists of:
1. Preach the Word. (II Tim. 4:1-2.)
2. Reprove, rebuke, exhort. (II Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13; Titus 2:15; I Tim. 6:17-19.)
3. Appoint scripturally qualified men as elders and deacons and thus "set in order the things lacking" in the churches planted. (I Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9.)
4. Receive accusations against elders upon a proper amount of evidence being presented and reprove them that sin. (I Tim. 5:19-22; Titus 3:10-11.)
5. Correct those who preach or teach false doctrines and thus help to keep the church from apostasy. (II Tim. 1:13-14; I Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:10-14.)
Timothy and Titus were evangelists and this is the work they were instructed to do, therefore this is the work of an "evangelist." It needs doing in the church today as much as then.
The evangelist was often sent out by the churches and thus became the medium through whom the churches could discharge their responsibility to be the "pillar and ground" of the truth. Jerusalem Church sent forth Barnabas in this manner. (Acts 11:22.) Timothy was commended to Paul by the brethren. Epaphroditus was sent by the church at Philippi. (Phil. 2:25-30; 4:18.) Titus was sent by the brethren to exhort the brethren in their duty toward the saints. (II Cor. 8:4-6, 16-20.)
Paul instructed Timothy that in doing the work of an evangelist he was to "make full proof of his ministry." In II Timothy 2:1-6 he charged Timothy to devote himself and his time to his work and not "cumber himself with the affairs of life." This directly is connected with the instruction of verse 2 of the same chapter in which he instructs him to "pass the torch" he bore on to other faithful men. In the same passage he points out that when he devotes himself to the things of the Kingdom as a "soldier on service" he has the right as such a laborer to partake of the "fruits of the vineyard." This is all of the authority anyone should need, though much more is to be found, to justify sustaining an "evangelist" so that he can be relieved of the necessity of having to earn a living for his family and thus becoming entangled with the affairs of this life and devote himself fully to his work.
If there are no evangelists today, then upon whom in the church today does the work done by evangelists in the New Testament church depend? Whom shall the churches send as Jerusalem sent Barnabas and as Timothy, Titus, Luke, and others were sent by the churches? Whom can the church sustain that the word of God may be taken from city to city as Philip did? To whom does the responsibility belong to correct false doctrine, reprove, rebuke, exhort, and even rebuke elders when they sin as Timothy was charged to do? If it is said that elders are to do all this work now, then let it be remembered that there were elders then too. Let it also be remembered that elders are confined in their work to the local church where they were bishops. And when they are sent out by the church to do anything elsewhere they cannot and do not act in their capacity as elders.
Our brother contends that evangelists were inspired men and ranks them in the declaration of their message with the apostles and prophets. Here he forgets God's order. The work of revelation belonged to the apostles and prophets. (Eph. 3:5.) The apostles officially spoke for the Lord. (II Cor. 5:20; II Peter 1:16-21; I John 4:6; Matt. 19:27-29.) If you accept his definition of an "Evangelist" you would conclude: "Evangelize mean to proclaim, always carries an official connotation." Again, "upon analysis, it is evident that the proclamatory function is an essential and necessary adjunct of the legislative function." This would but mean that the evangelistic function could have been performed only by the apostles for they alone possessed the "legislative function." If by this he means that they could provide for the proclamation of the Gospel, he is placing the credit to the wrong source for the Book says that the Lord made such provision. (Eph. 4:11.) The evangelistic function rests upon the same authority and provision as the apostolic function and that was the Lord's.
If it be contended that the apostles selected and appointed the evangelists, we ask for the proof. The Word of God does not hint it. The church selected Philip and Stephen for the work to which they were appointed. (Acts 6:3.) Paul wanted Timothy as a fellow-laborer, Acts 16:3, and that because of what he already was and upon the commendation of the brethren. (Acts 16:2.) The Jerusalem Church selected Barnabas and sent him out. (Acts 11:22.) If it be contended that the Holy Spirit called Barnabas along with Paul in Antioch, Acts 18:3, let it be remembered that this "calling" was unto the work of carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles and had no reference to Barnabas beginning the work of preaching or proclaiming the Gospel for he had already been engaged in that work for some years.
But granting that the Greek term "uangelizo" means only to "proclaim" — what does the word "proclaim" mean? Does it always carry an official connotation as our scribe says? We challenge him to produce the authority who says so. He makes the assertion by his own authority and wisdom. We deny that it is so and ask for the proof. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, as can be seen from the definitions above says that proclaim means: "to make known by public announcement; to promulgate; to announce; to declare; to publish." Webster evidently did not know that the word proclaim "always carried an official connotation."
If we should grant for the sake of argument that the apostles selected and appointed the "evangelists" as their sub-delegates or representatives and therefore the "evangelists" rested for his authority upon the apostolic office, we would be forced to accept upon the same reasoning that evangelists appointed elders and therefore the office of elder rests upon the evangelistic function and therefore according to our friends had to cease with apostles and evangelists. Is our friend ready for the conclusion? He professes to believe in having elders today but his contention proves too much for that if it proves anything at all.
But listen again to our friend, "Once they (laws) are proclaimed, they are then a matter of record for as long as the laws are designed to be and proclaimed to be in effect." If by this it is meant that when once they are proclaimed they cannot be proclaimed again, then let it be remembered that Paul had preached the "whole counsel of God" at Ephesus (Acts 20:27) and when he reduced his message to writing so that it might be read and perceived by the Ephesians (Eph. 3:1-6) how after that could Timothy continue to do the work of an evangelist at Ephesus as Paul charged him to do (II Tim. 4:5) and "preach," (keerusso) proclaim the word? Our friend cannot answer this to his own satisfaction honestly without yielding his "home-made" definitions and rules. It is not a matter of how long the law proclaimed is to be in effect. That is not the issue he has raised. In fact, it has nothing whatever to do with the issue. It is the question of whether or not those laws can ever be proclaimed again after they have been once announced or made known. He contends that "keerusso" and "uangelizo" mean to proclaim and "proclaim" bears always an official connotation and means a primary declaration and not a continuous instruction in those laws proclaimed. Webster says that "proclaim" means "to make known by public announcement; to promulgate." That is what Paul told Timothy to do in the passage cited above (II Tim. 4:) and that is what he could not do if our brother is right in his pronouncements for Paul had already done it at Ephesus. He must yield his limitations of the words he tries to define or deny the facts.
The paper also contends that in order for one to act as an "evangelist" or "herald" he must be "specifically designated." Page 13. This is another home-made rule which he cannot establish and which we are unwilling to recognize. Let us look again at Webster's unabridged dictionary, 20th Century, definition of the English word "herald":
"1. In antiquity, an officer whose business was to denounce, to proclaim war, to challenge to battle, to proclaim peace, and to bear messages from the commander of an army.
2. A proclaimer; a publisher; as the herald of another's fame.
3. A fore-runner; a precursor; a harbinger."
The writer under review would select only the ancient meaning and bind it upon a modern English term to the exclusion of all other definitions. We believe he knows better than this but false theories cannot be established any other way. Truth needs no such tactics to sustain it.
We want to notice another contention made in the paper on page 13.
"Since Milligan, men have tried to 'fix' this discrepancy by picturing the evangelist as being not an officer at all, and as merely performing a certain work under the direction and oversight of congregational elders. The latter idea is entirely at variance with the function of an evangelist as taught by scriptures. The former is merely a quibble in trying to make a distinction between words that are synonymous. A special work when it is normally and rightly performed by a particular authorized man or group of men is an office. Paul says if a man desires the office of a bishop he desires a good work."
This again is a conclusion based upon a mere assertion and wholly unwarranted and untrue. There is no word in the original text for "office" in I Timothy 3:1. There is the word "episkopis" which is from "episkopes" and means "over-seer-ship." What the passage says actually according to the very best authorities is this "If any man desire the 'bishopric' or 'overseership' he desires a good work." The word for "work" is "ergon" and in no sense can be defined correctly as indicating an official connection or being parallel with such. Thayer defines this word "ergon" as follows:
"1. Business, employment, that with which one is occupied.
2. Any product whatever, anything accomplished by hand, art, industry, mind.
3. An act, deed, thing done."
So when Paul said to Timothy, "Do the work of an evangelist" (ergon) there is nothing to warrant the conclusion that he was talking about an "office" in any sense. The work of an evangelist was the work of bearing, propagating, spreading the good news of salvation and upon teaching people, inducing them to accept and appropriate the teaching and continue in it. It is a work as much justified and needed in God's plan now as then. As we have already shown, there is not one bit of testimony or evidence from the word of God that warrants the idea that a man become an evangelist because of personal, specific appointment to an "office" or because of being especially endowed with "gifts" peculiar to that office. New Testament evangelists were that because of the work they did and for no other reason.
If it be contended that evangelists were inspired men, then let it be remembered that they were not inspired as the apostles were inspired men. Evangelists possessed only the gifts of the Spirit, whatever they were in particular cases and that we do not know, and were no more possessed of such gifts than many others in the church such as elders. Certainly they were not partakers of the apostolic office and authority and theirs was not the work of revelation such as belonged to apostles and prophets. So there is no ground upon which to urge that the work of an evangelist was not to be continued.
(To be continued next week)