More Resources on Soteriology: The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation
More Resources on Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church
More Resources on the Christian Family
The Office and Qualifications of the Evangelist:
A Missionary Qualified to Pastor
What is an Evangelist?
The Biblical “evangelist” is someone who preaches the evangel, the gospel, for the purpose of seeing churches organized. One who has the office of the evangelist (εὐαγγελιστής, Ephesians 4:11) is one who preaches the gospel, who reports or declares the good news (εὐαγγελίζω) about the resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), with the purpose of seeing new churches organized (Acts 8:4-40; 21:8). The evangelist is not a person who goes from one established church to another one preaching about the Christian life and revival (however commendable it may be to exhort established churches about God’s wonderful promises concerning sanctification and spiritual quickening, and however lawful it may be to hold special daily preaching meetings [Acts 2:46] and to use some of those special church services to teach important truths about the holy living). The -τής suffix in εὐαγγελιστής specifies that the noun refers to the agent who performs the action of the related verb[1] (here εὐαγγελίζω)—the evangelist is the agent who preaches the evangel, the gospel. Unless going from one already established church to another one exhorting believers about sanctification is evangelism or gospel preaching, the evangelist is not a revivalist but is a foreign or domestic missionary, someone preaching the gospel to the lost with the goal of organizing new churches. (Scripture never distinguishes between an evangelist within the borders of one’s country and one who goes to a different country, between a domestic church-planter and a foreign missionary.) The “biblical data … strongly suggest that he functioned not as an itinerant revivalist preacher but as a missionary church planter.”[2] One is not surprised that the body of commentators view “[e]vangelists [as] missionaries who brought the gospel into new regions,” while the idea that the evangelist was a leader of revival meetings on sanctification is so unserious that it does not come up as an interpretive option.[3] While in the “holiness churches … [of] Keswick higher-life … [and] Methodist … Wesleyan holiness advocates … evangelists [were both men and women[4]] who presented sanctification teaching almost exclusively within special revivals or camp meetings held for the promotion of the doctrine … of entire sanctification,”[5] such a position receives no justification in Scripture. It is unfortunate that the unscriptural Wesleyan and Keswick view of the evangelist has spread among Baptist churches along with the errors of Keswick theology itself.[6] The role of the evangelist as a foreign or domestic missionary, a church-planter, is not only clear from the New Testament evidence, but from the practice of the earliest Christian centuries:
[T]he disciples … animated with a more ardent love of the divine word … leaving their country, they performed the office of evangelists [ἔργον ἐπετέλουν εὐαγγελιστῶν] to those who had not yet heard the faith, whilst, with a noble ambition to proclaim Christ, they also delivered to them the books of the holy gospels. After laying the foundation of the faith in foreign parts as the particular object of their mission, and after appointing others as shepherds [pastors] of the flocks, and committing to these the care of those that had been recently introduced, they went again to other regions and nations, with the grace and co-operation of God.[7]
Historically, many Baptists have also recognized that the “evangelist” is someone who evangelized for the sake of seeing churches established—what is commonly called a “missionary” today.[8] For example, Isaac Backus (1724-1806) “labored as an evangelist until 1756 when he organized a Baptist congregation in Middleborough.”[9] Since Ira Chase (1793-1864) had “been ordained as an evangelist, he devoted some time to missionary work in Western Virginia.”[10] Robert Daniel (1773-1840), “was an able preacher and a great evangelist. He was one of the first, if not the first, missionary of the North Carolina Baptist Benevolent Society, and while thus engaged organized the First Baptist church of Raleigh in 1812, of which he was twice pastor.”[11] Asa Niles (1777-1849) “was … a missionary of the Rhode Island [Baptist] Convention for some time, doing the work of an evangelist in different parts of the State.”[12]
A man in the Biblical office of the evangelist follows the example of “Philip the evangelist” (Acts 21:8) by evangelizing for the purpose of seeing new disciples organized into churches. In Acts 21:8, “Philip’s title ‘evangelist’ … remind[s] [the reader] that this is the Philip who was “evangelizing” (εὐαγγελίζω) in Acts 8:12, 35 and in 8:40 (where Luke’s narrative left him; cf. 8:4, 25).”[13] He is sent out by the church of which he is a member to preach the gospel and with authority to baptize converts (Acts 8:36-38; Matthew 28:18-20), discipling, overseeing, and shepherding them until new independent congregations can be established.
What Are the Qualifications of an Evangelist?
Scripture provides two lists of qualifications for the man in the office of the overseer (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:7), the elder (Titus 1:5) or pastor (1 Peter 5:1-4):
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:5-7)
A list of qualifications for deacons is also supplied:
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Do evangelists or missionaries need to have these same qualifications?
First, the burden of proof rests on the one who claims that the evangelist does not have to have the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. One who believes that the qualifications are not general ones for a leadership role in Christ’s church, but unique, limited ones that overseers and deacons must have, but apostles, prophets, and evangelists do not need to have, has the burden of proof on him. He needs to prove that apostles, evangelists, and prophets can be money-hungry, wine-drunken, far from blameless men with impure consciences who do not know how to rule their families, having children engaged in all kinds of wickedness, but are still fit to rule the church of God, as they serve alongside of blameless bishops and grave, sober, faithful deacons with holy families. He must either allow women and children to hold the office of the evangelist, or explain why they cannot do so, when the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are no longer requirements. The natural assumption is that the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 pertain to all in church leadership—the list for the overseers for those who have the first rank as leaders, whether in the first century offices of apostle and prophet or the permanent offices of evangelist and bishop, and the list for the deacons for those in a second rank of leadership. Since the pastoral epistles are meant to enable Timothy to know how to lead the church (1 Timothy 3:14), if the important office of the evangelist did not have the same qualifications as that of the overseer, one would expect a positive statement to that end. It is not likely that inspired letters describing how a church should be run would provide rules for bishops, deacons, old men, young men, elderly women, young unmarried women, children, widows, people in the church that commit sin, etc., would say nothing at all about evangelists, unless they were subsumed within the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Were this not the case, Scripture would be expected to contain a statement such as: “Bishops and deacons have qualifications, but evangelists do not.”
Furthermore, the specific reasons given for the overseer/elder to have the listed qualifications apply also to the evangelist. The evangelist also is a leadership role, but the qualifications, including those related to his wife and children, are not limited to the bishop as such, but are said to be necessary for all men who wish to lead the church: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5). Since evangelists have a role in ruling and taking care of the church of God, the statement of 1 Timothy 3:5 applies to them.
In Titus 1:7, the elder must be qualified “as the steward of God” (Titus 1:7). The commendation of the “faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season” (Luke 12:42) is not limited to bishops alone; thus, for example, Paul in his apostolic office was a steward (Ephesians 3:2), by the stewardship or dispensation of God “made a minister” (Colossians 1:25). Paul and his companions, who were doing the work of the evangelist by preaching the gospel for the sake of seeing new congregations established, were not stationary bishops shepherding individual churches, but “ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1). “[M]oreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2), that is, that the “steward of God” is “blameless… not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre” (Titus 1:7), etc. He who fails to meet the standard of faithful stewardship is no longer qualified: “give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward” (Luke 16:2). Since the evangelist is a steward of the mysteries of God, he must have the qualifications of Titus 1:7-9.
The overseer or elder must also have the qualifications specified in the pastoral epistles “that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). A life that is not blameless, an ungodly wife, or children that are not faithful and can justly be accused of riot or unruliness (Titus 1:6) prevent a preacher from exhorting and convincing gainsayers. They can say, “how can you preach on that while you live the way you do?” “How can you exhort me on the family—look at your family!” The statement in Titus 1:9 is equally applicable to the evangelist. He cannot teach on the family with the requisite boldness while he has a wicked family. He cannot preach against sins mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 if he has no victory over them himself. The reasons given for the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:5, Titus 1:7, and Titus 1:9 show that the qualifications apply to the evangelist as well as the bishop. They pertain generally to those in leadership roles.
Furthermore, the bishop is also identified as an elder or a pastor (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). He who pastors must meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. But pastoring is not limited to bishops—the Apostle Peter is commanded to feed or pastor God’s sheep (John 21:16). Both the Apostle Paul and his companions (“we,” 1 Corinthians 9:3-6), as they did the work of an evangelist, deserved financial renumeration, because “who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?” (1 Corinthians 9:7). As they did the work of the evangelist, they were pastoring. They needed to have the qualifications of the pastor, just like the bishops needed to have the qualifications of the pastor, for the evangelist also “feed[s]” the “flock” (Acts 20:28-29).
Someone may argue that the evangelist needs to have all the other qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, but the requirement for a holy family is an exception. The evangelist cannot be a polygamist or maritally unfaithful instead of being a one-woman man. Someone not apt to teach, who cannot preach and does not know how to study and explain Scripture, is not qualified; someone fond of dishonest gain or given to wine is not qualified; but there is, allegedly, an exception in the requirement about the family. However, that qualification is the least likely to be an exception. After devoting two verses to thirteen qualifications (1 Timothy 3:2-3), the Holy Ghost devotes two entire verses to just one qualification—the most of any in the list—a well ruled family and obedient, reverent children (1 Timothy 3:4-5). This qualification has a reason attached: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”[14] (3:5). 1 Timothy 3:5 is true for any “man,” for any individual (τις) who engages in “taking care” (ἐπιμελέομαι) of the church of God. It is very difficult to argue that an evangelist has no role in taking care of the church. Nobody (τις), no “man,” not just no person in the office of the bishop, is qualified to “take care” of the church of God without knowing how to rule his own house well, which shows up in his having reverent and obedient children. Even if one were to unjustifiably argue that the other qualifications are optional, 3:4-5 is necessarily binding on the evangelist, as it specifically binds every “man” who engages in “taking care” of the church. Indeed, 3:5 would support the qualifications of 3:2-7 all being requisite for anyone who is in a leadership role “taking care” of the church, whether in the temporary gifts of apostle and prophet or the permanent gifts of evangelist and pastor.
New Testament examples[15] also specify that the evangelist had the same qualifications as the bishop. “Philip the evangelist” (Acts 21:8) had a godly family—he had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9),[16] not two daughters who were pure virgins and were engaged in important Christian ministry and two who were immoral fornicators and had turned away from Christ to serve idols. Since Philip was “one of the seven” (Acts 21:8), he was one of the “seven” deacons appointed earlier in Acts (6:3), and thus was a man who, at the least, met the qualifications of a deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8-13—one who is “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” (Acts 6:3) will meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:8-13.[17] Similarly, Timothy, who was to “do the work of the evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:5), met the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. These examples are contradicted by no counterexamples. There is no indication that the seventy preachers Christ sent out to preach the gospel (Luke 10:1, 17)—to do the work of the evangelist—failed to meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul and his travelling companions like Titus (2 Corinthians 12), walked in the “same steps” (2 Corinthians 12:18) with the Apostle in matters that related to the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 qualifications, such as not being greedy of filthy lucre (2 Corinthians 12:18), and Paul’s opponents reproached the Apostle and his companions for many things, but never in the New Testament record for failing to be the types of men listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The “other apostles” and the “brethren of the Lord,” with Paul as the sole listed exception, had wives who were godly Christian sisters travelling with them in the ministry as they did the work of the evangelist (1 Corinthians 9:5)—there are no listed exceptions where one Apostle had an unbelieving wife who was not a sister in Christ or who refused or rebelled against joining her husband in the holy work. They met the family qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. There is no indication that the human penmen of the New Testament books—whether apostles like Matthew, John, and Paul, or prophets like Mark, Luke, and Jude, were in the apostolic office or the prophetic office without meeting the qualifications in the pastoral epistles. Since Peter indicated that, as he exercised his apostolic office, he was overseeing and pastoring (1 Peter 5:1-4), this is entirely expected. Note further that the title evangelist is used “especially of the four evangelists”[18] who were the authors of the four inspired euangelia or Gospels in early Christianity, and there is no indication that they failed to fulfil the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 when they acted as evangelists.
The classic New Testament example of someone who did not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, yet was in a position of church leadership, is Judas. Judas is paradigmatic of false teachers in the church age who are not in fruitful connection with the vine, are cast forth, and are burned in hell (John 13:30-31; 15:6). What is more, because of his lack of qualification he was removed from his “bishoprick” because he “by transgression fell” (Acts 1:20, 25), fulfilling the prophecy: “Let his days be few: and let another take his office of overseer”[19] (Psalm 108:8, LXX: γενηθήτωσαν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ ὀλίγαι, καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος· Psalm 109:8, KJV & Hebrew). Assisting Paul and Barnabas in in the work of the evangelist (Acts 12:25), after John Mark manifested spiritual failure by departing, it was “thought not good” to allow him to continue to work as an evangelist (Acts 15:37-39). He was not “recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God” (Acts 15:40) for more evangelistic ministry—only Paul and Silas received that recommendation from the Lord’s church. Only later when it was clear that Mark again met the qualifications was he “profitable … for the ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11). The weight of positive and negative New Testament examples is uniformly in favor of all who are in spiritual leadership, not bishops alone, meeting the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. All relevant positive examples of the evangelist met the qualifications listed in the pastoral epistles. There are no examples of godly men who just failed here and there but were still qualified and supported by the churches—those who were disqualified were either wicked Christ-betrayers like Judas or individuals like Mark who needed to step down until it was clear to fellow spiritual leaders like Paul and to the entire church that he was again qualified for the work and ready to be recommended to the grace of God for it. There is not a particle of evidence anywhere in God’s sufficient Scripture for someone, say, stepping down as a bishop because of failure to meet the qualifications and, instead, becoming an evangelist although remaining unqualified to pastor.
Furthermore, the language of “overseeing” or “bishoping,” for performing the office of the overseer, is employed for those in other New Testament offices. The noun for overseer or bishop (1 Timothy 3:1) is also used for the apostles (Acts 1:20)—they were overseers as well, as well as being involved in the “ministry” (διακονία, used for “deacons,” which had their own set of serious qualifications). Judas “by transgression fell” (Acts 1:25) and was removed from his “ministry” (διακονία) and “apostleship” (ἀποστολή), with the result that another would take his “bishoprick” or office of overseeing (Acts 1:20). Sin led to disqualification and removal from being overseer and from being in the “ministry” (διακονία). If other offices of spiritual leadership were doing the work of “overseeing,” they also needed to have the qualifications for the overseer listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Since the evangelist oversees the people of God as a new church is getting started, he must have the qualifications requisite to oversee.
The Greek Old Testament employs the words for the New Testament bishop and his office of oversight (ἐπίσκοπος/ἐπισκοπή/ἐπισκοπέω) of a variety of leadership offices in God’s kingdom.[20] Among other uses, Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was an overseer (ἐπίσκοπος), taking oversight (ἐπισκοπή) over the tabernacle and its contents (Numbers 4:16; 2 Kings 11:15), as others later oversaw the Solomonic temple (2 Kings 11:18; 2 Kings 12:12 [12:11]). Levitical overseers who exercise oversight over temple repair or building up of the temple edifice (2 Chronicles 34:12), military officers in the army of the Israeli theocracy, “overseers of the force, with the officers of thousands and with the officers of hundreds”[21] (Numbers 31:14), as well as an overseer of the Levites (Nehemiah 11:22). In general, righteous theocratic leaders are “overseers in righteousness” (Isaiah 60:17). Timothy and Titus, recalling the variety of usage for people in different positions of authority in the Greek Old Testament when reading 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, would have assumed that anyone engaged in spiritual leadership overseeing the flock of Christ would have needed the qualifications, rather than thinking that bishops needed to be qualified, but people disqualified from the bishopric could exercise oversight over the church as apostles, prophets and evangelists.
Those in spiritual leadership also “minister” as “ministers”—diakonia—doing the work of the minister or deacon. (Note that deacons in Acts do not only “serve tables,” [διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, Acts 6:2], but also preach boldly like the deacon and martyr Stephen, Acts 7.) Apostles also are “servants” or diakonoi/deacons/ministers (Mark 9:35; 10:43). Paul and Apollos are “servants” or “ministers” (1 Corinthians 3:5); Paul and his coworkers are the “ministers of God” (2 Corinthians 6:4). Paul’s apostolic office was one where he was made a “minister” (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23, 25). Tychicus is a “faithful minister” (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7). So is Epaphras (Colossians 1:7). Timothy is a “minister [διάκονος] of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ” (1 Thessalonians 3:2). Within the pastorals themselves, Timothy is “a good minister [διάκονος]” (1 Timothy 4:6). Can all these people do the work of the diakonos—can they engage in “deaconing” or “ministering” like deacons do—without having the qualifications of the diakonos in 1 Timothy 3:8-13? If not, how could one who is in the “ministry” or diakonia of the evangelist fail to have the qualifications needed to be a deacon? Furthermore, how can the lesser office, the deacon, have qualifications of family and character, but the greater office, the evangelist, not have qualifications of family and character although he is in a position to make a greater impact on the people of God? The evangelist truly needs the same qualifications as the bishop, as both offices oversee, pastor, and minister as stewards of God’s mysteries before the Lord and also serve in the eyes of a world with a keen eye to detect Christian hypocrisy and inconsistency. However, to argue that the greater office of evangelist does not even need to have the requirement of the lesser office of the “deacon” or “minister/servant” although both the evangelist and deacon engage in diakonia, as they “minister” or “serve,” and despite the fact that Philip the evangelist had also served as a deacon, is unreasonable on its face, and would require strong and clear proofs in its favor from Scripture—yet it cannot produce one particle of evidence in its favor. The evangelist must meet the qualifications of the bishop, while to argue that the evangelist can properly hold his office while disqualified to be a bishop, and even be disqualified to be a deacon, is clearly unscriptural.
What is more, in Ephesians 4:11 the offices and gifts mentioned earlier involve the ones mentioned later in the list. That is, all apostles also had the gifts of prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; all prophets also had the gifts of the evangelists, pastors, and teachers; all evangelists have the gifts of pastoring and teaching; and all pastors have the gift of teaching. “The apostles were teaching pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists … everything rolled up into one.”[22] “[T]he higher degrees (Ephesians 4:11) are comprehensive of the lower, [but] not contrariwise[.] [A] Pastor doth the work of a Teacher, an Evangelist doth the work of a Pastor and Teacher, a Prophet doth the work of an Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher, an Apostle the work of all those.”[23]
The apostles accordingly are always named first, and all the other offices grow out of theirs, like branches from a common stock. The apostles were at the same time prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, and at first had charge even of the business of the deacons. This universal official character belonged in the highest sense to Christ. He is expressly called apostle, prophet, evangelist, (Eph. 2:17); calls himself the Good Shepherd; and condescends to take even the title of deacon or servant; and all the various branches of the spiritual office are the organs through which Christ himself, in the Holy Ghost, continues to exercise on earth the offices of prophet, priest, and king.[24]
The Greek structure of Ephesians 4:11 strongly supports viewing all pastors as included within the larger category of “teachers,” while not all teachers must be pastors.[25] Numerous broader Scriptural indications likewise support viewing the earlier offices as inclusive of the later ones.[26] Christ’s specific apostolic commission to one in the apostolic office included sending him (ἀποστέλλω) to do the work of the evangelist (εὐαγγελίζω, 1 Corinthians 1:17). Indeed, all the apostles did the work of the evangelist (εὐαγγελίζω, Matthew 11:15; Luke 8:1; 9:6; Acts 5:42; 14:7, 15). In the church at Antioch those who held the office of “prophet” were also “teachers” (Acts 13:1). The view that the gifts mentioned later in Ephesians 4:11 were the possession of those who held the earlier offices was also widespread in the early centuries of Christianity. Thus, it was recognized that “the Apostles … were Pastors and Evangelists.”[27] “The ‘apostles’ … had all gifts; secondarily, ‘prophets,’ for there were some who were not indeed apostles, but prophets, as Agabus; thirdly, ‘evangelists,’ … [then the] … ‘pastors and teachers.’”[28] The very frequent early Christian designation of the authors of the four gospels as “the evangelists”[29] fits the fact that two of them (Matthew and John) were apostles, while the other two (Mark and Luke) were prophets, and so all four were evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Since Scripture teaches, and ancient Christianity confirms, that the evangelist also functioned as pastor and teacher, the evangelist must necessarily possess the qualifications of the overseer or pastor listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1—a truth confirmed by all the examples in Scripture of apostles, prophets, and evangelists.
The equation of the qualifications for the evangelist or missionary and the bishop/elder/pastor appears regularly in Baptist history, while the view that the evangelist has very slim to no qualifications, in contrast to the pastor, does not receive clear documentation. If, for Baptists, “[e]lders are sometimes ordained as evangelists and missionaries,”[30] then the evangelist must have the qualifications of the elder. If “the Baptists … generally adopted” the view that “ministers … called to exercise the pastoral office. … [may be] ordain[ed] … as Evangelists,”[31] then the evangelist must have the qualification of the candidate for the pastoral office. Charles Spurgeon’s autobiography recounted the blessing that resulted as men who met the same holy qualifications for the pastor and evangelist were sent forth to evangelize and see churches established within and outside of the borders of Britain:
An important outgrowth from “Mr. Spurgeon’s First Institution” was the Pastors’ College Society of Evangelists. The students, from the very beginning, had been noted both for the Evangelical doctrines which they held in common with their beloved President, and for the evangelistic fervour with which they proclaimed those truths. Many of them possessed the qualifications for the office of pastor and evangelist to a very remarkable degree, and contemporary records abundantly prove how greatly … the Baptist denomination … [has] been strengthened and increased through the labours of “our own men” in London, throughout the British Islands, on the Continent of Europe, in the United States, in most if not all of our numerous Colonies, and in the great mission field at large. … [B]rethren, specially called and fitted to “do the work of an evangelist;” … one after another, suitable men came forward, and offered themselves[.] … The total result of these many forms of Christian service, only eternity can reveal; but it is already known that, through their instrumentality, multitudes of sinners have been led to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and many new churches have been formed, which are now self-supporting, and, in their turn, are centres of evangelistic effort in “the regions beyond.” To God be all the glory.[32]
The Lord’s blessing upon the labors of such Baptist evangelists came in large part because they met the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, which these Baptists rightly recognized pertained equally to the office of the evangelist and of the bishop.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the office of the evangelist is that of the what is commonly called the “missionary” or “church-planter.” His role is to evangelize with the goal of seeing new churches established, whether within or outside the borders of his own nation. He must have the same personal and familial qualifications as does the overseer or bishop. Those who do not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 may serve the Lord in many blessed ways, but they are not qualified to hold the office of the evangelist. May God increase the number of godly, qualified evangelists that churches send out to preach the gospel and see new congregations of Christ’s redeemed disciples and saints established to the uttermost parts of the earth.
[1] Moulton and Howard explain:
- Nomina agentis in -τήρ, -τωρ, -της.
- 150. The original distinction between these suffixes was that simple verbs formed nomina agentis in -τήρ or -τωρ and noun compounds in -της. Compound verbs followed the usage of the simplex when the preverb was felt to be an integral part of the verb; otherwise they took -της. Ionic-Attic very early substituted -της for -τηρ, with the result that in Hellenistic -της is left in possession. … The vast majority of these nomina agentis are formed in -της.
From verbs in -άω: Ἀκροατής, κυβερνήτης, πλανήτης, τολμητής.
From verbs in -έω: Αὐλητής, ἐπιθυμητής, † καθηγητής, † καταφρονητής, μετρητής, μιμητής, ποιητής, † προσαίτης (a late word—Plut., Lucian—by haplology for προσαιτήτης, see Hirt Handb. 172), † προσκυνητής (NT ἁ.λ.. Jn 4:23. See Vocab. s.v. and LAE1 99 f. (2 101), for probable pre-Christian use), † συνζητητής (NT ἁ.λ. 1 Co 1:20, elsewhere only in the citation in Ignat. Eph. 18:1).
From verbs in -όω: Ζηλωτής, † λυτρώτης (LXX, Philo, Just. M., Act. Thom.), † τελειωτής (ἁ.λ.. in Heb 12:2—apparently coined by the author).
From verbs in -εύω: Βουλευτής, ἑρμηνευτής, † ὀλοθρευτής (ἁ.λ. in 1 Co 10:10; for form see p. 71), παιδευτής.
From verbs in -άζω: † Βιαστής (NT ἁ.λ.. in Mt 11:12. A late form for alone. common in Pindar. Wetst. cites from Eustath. and Aretaeus alone. Gr.-Th. quotes Philo Agric. 19, where Cohn and Wendland print divisim, βίας τῶν) δικαστής, † στασιαστής (for class. στασιωτής).
From verbs in -ίζω: Ἀνδραποδιστής (see p. 286 for derivation of this class. word; in NT only 1 Ti 1:10), † βαπτιστής (NT and Joseph.; see Vocab. 102 b), βασανιστής, † δανιστής (for form, see p. 77), † Ἑλληνιστής, † ἐξορκιστής (apart from NT ἁ.λ.. Ac 19:13, only found in Joseph., Lucian, and eccles. writers), † εὐαγγελιστής (NT and eccles., but see Vocab. s.v. for inscr. possibly non-Christian), θεριστής, † κερματιστής (see N. 1 below), † κτίστης (NT ἁ.λ.. 1 Pet 4:19; see Vocab. s.v. for use in Κοινή), λῃστής, μεριστής (NT ἁ.λ. Lk 12:14. To Pollux and eccles, add Κοινή exx. in Vocab. s.v.), † σαλπιστής (for class. σαλπιγκτής, Lob. Phryn. 191), ὑβριστής, ψιθυριστής.
From verb in -ύζω: † Γογγυστής (NT ἁ.λ.. Jude 16; elsewhere only LXX, Sym., Theod.).
From other verbal stems: † Γγώστης (in which σ is inserted before τ as in δυνάστης and ψεύστης), † διώκτης (NT ἁ.λ.. 1 Ti 1:13, elsewhere Did. 5:2, Barn. 20:3, Sym. But the LXX cpd. ἐργοδιώκτης is “profane,” as shown by a iii/b.c. papyrus: see Vocab. 166a), † δότης (ἁ.λ.. 2 Co 9:7 (LXX), for class, δοτήρ; see Vocab. s.v. for pre-Christian inscr. ἐκδότης), † ἐμπαίκτης (only LXX semel, 2 Pet 3:3, Jude 18: see Mayor Commentary, in loc.), ἐπενδύτης (see n. 2 below), ἐφευρετής, κλέπτης, κριτής, μαθητής (cf. με-μάθ-η-κα), ναμοθέτης (a T.P. cpd., see § 105), ὀφειλέτης, παραβάτης, † πλήκτης, † προσωπολήμπτης (§ 105), προφήτης, ὑπηρέτης (§ 129 (b)).
Note.—1. Κερματιστής (peculiar to NT and related writings) is formed from °ίζω a classical verb for to cut small, which gained the meaning in Hellenistic to coin into small money (Anth.), to exchange (for papp. see Vocab.); † κολλυβιστής, a late word (Rutherford NP 499, common in papp., see Vocab.), has no corresponding verb, and must owe its form to analogy, probably with κερματιστής. The noun κόλλυβος is of Semitic origin. (James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Accidence and Word-Formation., vol. 2 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963–], 364–366.)
Similarly, A. T. Robertson notes that the – της ending designates agency:
Words in — της (agent) are fairly numerous, like βαπτισ-τής (from βαπτίζω, Jos.); βιασ-της (from βιάζω. Pind., Pyth. and others use βιατάς); γογγυσ-τής (from γογγύζω, Theodotion and Symm. translation of the LXX); ἑλληνισ-τής (from ἑλληνίζω, not in Greek authors, though ἑλληνίζω is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.); ἐξορκισ-τής (from ἐξ-ορκίζω, Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); εὐαγγελισ-τής (from εὐαγγελίζω, eccl. writers); κερματισ-τής (from κερματίζω, Nicet., Max. Tyr.); κολλυβις-της (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb κολλυβίζω, but only κόλλυβος, a small coin; λυτρω-τής (from λυτρόω, LXX and Philo); μερισ-τής (from μερίζω, Pollux); προσ-κυνη-τής (from προσκυνέω, inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); στασιασ-τής (from στασιάζω, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); τελειω-τής (from τελειόω, only in Heb. 12:2). (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Accordance electronic ed. [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919], 153-154.)
[2] William W. Combs, “The Biblical Role of The Evangelist,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (2002): 48.
[3] Glenn Graham, An Exegetical Summary of Ephesians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 306; cf. David Abernathy and Robert Stutzman, An Exegetical Summary of Acts 15–28, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2018), 201; Eugene Minor, An Exegetical Summary of 2 Timothy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 118. No commentary referenced in any of the exegetical summaries of the texts with the word evangelist even mentions the idea that an evangelist was a revivalist who focuses on Christian growth.
[4] E. g. Keswick founders Hannah Whitall and Robert Pearsall Smith were “Quaker holiness/deeper-life … evangelists” (M. E. Dieter, “Smith, Hannah Whitall,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003], 616.). For the Quaker and Keswick heresies of these two significant preachers and evangelists, see Thomas Ross, “Hannah Whitall Smith: Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quietist and Universalist Heretic,” https://faithsaves.net/Hannah-Whitall-Smith/ & Thomas Ross, “An Analysis and Critique of Keswick Theology as Set Forth Particularly in So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention by Stephen Barabas,” elec. acc. https://faithsaves.net/Keswick-theology/.
[5] Melvin F. Dieter, “The Wesleyan Perspective,” in Five Views on Sanctification, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 41–42.
[6] “The preaching of the Keswick ‘higher life’ evangelists, such as R. A. Torrey, as well as that of the holiness movement, which flourished among American Methodists and some Friends,” also spread to “Congregationalists, Baptists, and German-speaking members of the Evangelical and United Brethren denominations” (Timothy Smith, “The Spirit’s Gifts: Then & Now,” Christianity Today [Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1990], 26).
[7] Eusebius Pamphilus, An Ecclesiastical History to the 20th Year of the Reign of Constantine, trans. S. E. Parker (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1847), 140–141; 3 Eusebius 37:2-3.
[8] The affirmation above is not to say that Baptists at all times were united or unanimous in this view. The congregational polity and church independence of Baptists frequently makes it difficult to affirm that they universally held to just about anything. Thus, there is no reason to doubt that there were some in Baptist churches who were influenced by the Wesleyan view of the office of the evangelist.
[9] “The Gallery—Leaders, Evangelists, Thinkers, and Movers in Baptist History,” Christian History Magazine-Issue 6: The Baptists (Worcester, PA: Christian History Institute, 1985).
[10] William Cathcart, ed., The Baptist Encyclopædia (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), 205.
[11] William Cathcart, ed., The Baptist Encyclopædia (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), 307.
[12] William Cathcart, ed., The Baptist Encyclopædia (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), 851.
[13] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 3088.
[14] Note that in τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος (εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδε, πῶς ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται;), “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?),” the actual qualification is to “rule” well. The “having” (ἔχοντα) children is a participle of result (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 637–639); that is, if a man rules his own house well, the result will be children who are in subjection with all gravity. The emphasis upon the actual qualification, “ruling,” appears not only in its being the actual verb in 3:4, rather than the dependent participle “having,” but also in the return to the qualification of rule in 3:5. The passage does not indicate that only those who are married and have two or more living children can be overseers, but that those overseers who have children will have them in subjection, since such subjection is the result of the overseer ruling his own household properly.
In Titus 1:5 τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, “having faithful children,” is likewise a participial phrase. The blameless overseer’s children, if he has any, will be faithful, but Titus 1 does not teach that one cannot pastor until he has several children, all of whom are old enough to manifest true conversion and faithfulness.
[15] Old Testament examples likewise support the view that spiritual leadership in general, rather than only those specifically in the office of a bishop, must have a holy life and a holy family. When the spiritual pastors or “shepherds of Israel” were wicked, rather than holy people (Ezekiel 34), Jehovah removed them from their pastoral office: “Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock” (Ezekiel 34:10). Likewise, not just personal qualifications, but family qualifications appear in the Old Testament. God slew Eli and his sons, removing them from the priesthood, because Eli’s “sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not” (1 Samuel 3:13; cf. 1 Kings 2:27).
[16] Note that the text says that Philip’s daughters would prophesy (Acts 21:9), but not that they had the office of the prophet in the New Testament church; that, office, by way of contrast, is held by a man (Acts 21:10).
[17] Compare the manner in which Spirit-filling flows out into a holy family in Ephesians 5:18-6:9.
[18] G. W. H. Lampe, ed., “Εὐαγγελιστής,” A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1961), 559.
[19] Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870), Psalm 108:8.
[20] The complete list of texts is: ἐπίσκοπος, Numbers 4:16; 31:14; Judges 9:28; 2 Kings 11:15, 18; 12:12; 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; Job 20:29; Isaiah 60:17 & 1 Maccabees 1:51; Wisdom 1:6; ἐπισκοπή, Genesis 50:24-25; Exodus 3:16; 13:19; 30:12; Leviticus 19:20; Numbers 4:16; 7:2; 14:29; 16:29; 26:18, 47; Deuteronomy 11:12; 2 Chronicles 34:12; Esther 2:11; Psalms 108:8; Proverbs 19:23; 29:13; Job 6:14; 7:18; 10:12; 24:12; 29:4; 31:14; 34:9; Isaiah 10:3; 23:17; 24:22; 29:6; Jeremiah 6:15; 10:15; Ezekiel 7:22 & 1 Esdras 6:5; 3 Maccabees 5:42; Wisdom 2:20; 3:7, 13; 4:15; 14:11; 19:15; Sirach 16:18; 18:20; 23:24; 34:6; Solomon 10:4; 11:1, 6; ἐπισκοπέω, Deuteronomy 11:12; 2 Chronlicles 34:12; Esther 2:11; Proverbs 19:23.
[21] Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], trans. Bernard A. Taylor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
[22] John F. MacArthur Jr., “Satanic Opposition to a Spirit-Filled Church, part 1,” John MacArthur Sermon Archive (Panorama City, CA: Grace to You, 2014), preached 5/20/1973.
[23] George Gillespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions Wherein Many Usefull Questions and Cases of Conscience Are Discussed and Resolved (Edinburgh: George Swingoun,1649), 92.
[24] Charles Hodge, “Theories of the Eldership—The Constitutional View of the Presbyterian Church, 1860,” in Essays, Social Commentary, and Other Miscellaneous Writings of Charles Hodge (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2014). Compare D. B. Knox, “Evangelist,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 348.
[25] See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 278–284.
[26] The apostles and prophets are also mentioned before the evangelists and pastor-teachers because New Testament revelation, from the apostles who Christ gave His pre-Pentecost church and from New Testament prophets, precedes evangelism (Ephesians 2:20)—the Word is the foundation of the church (with Christ as chief cornerstone), rather than the church preceding the Word. The evangelist is mentioned before the pastor-teacher because Christ uses the evangelist to start a new church, which the pastor then oversees. (Of course, the view that the evangelist is an itinerant preacher of Christian growth in already established churches does not make sense of the temporal order specified in Ephesians 4:11.)
[27] Ignatius of Antioch, Corpus Ignatianum: A Complete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles, Genuine, Interpolated, and Spurious, trans. William Cureton (Berlin: Asher and Co., 1849), 238.
[28] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. William John Copeland and Gross Alexander, vol. 13, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 104.
[29] G. W. H. Lampe, ed., “Εὐαγγελιστής,” A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1961), 559.
[30] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Baptists,” Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1880), 655.
[31] David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1813), 107. The quote references a group of Baptists who did not follow the generally received procedure.
[32] C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, by His Wife and His Private Secretary, 1878–1892, vol. 4 (Chicago; New York; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1900), 334–335.
More Resources on Soteriology: The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation
