Introduction

Reformed polity in America has largely fallen away from a four to a three office view, in spite of the apparent reformation consensus.

17th Century

The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1646)

Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.

Church Order of Dort (1618)

1.2 The offices are of four kinds: of the Ministers of the Word, of the Professors of Theology, of the Elders, and of the Deacons.

The Cambridge Platform (1648)

6.4. Of elders, who are also in scripture called bishops, some attend chiefly to the ministry of the word, as the pastors and teachers; others attend especially unto rule, who are therefore called ruling elders.
7.1 The ruling elder's office is distinct from the office of pastor and teacher.
7.3 The office of a deacon is instituted in the church by the Lord Jesus

21st Century

RCUS

3.15 The Offices of the Reformed Church.
1. The Offices are:
I. The Office of Minister of the Word.
a. Students for the Ministry.
b. Licentiates.
c. Ministers of the Word.
d. Teachers of Theology.
II. The Office of Elder.
III. The Office of Deacon.

PCA

7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. 

ARP

2.9 God in His word has instituted three permanent officesfor the government, discipline, and guidance of the Church. These offices are the minister, the elder, and the deacon.

The Point

It is my theory that this change was either mistaken in a false application of Granville Sharp’s rule or inconsistent in failing to apply the logic further to just two offices of elder and deacon. 

Granville Sharp’s Rule

Granville Sharp first observed this rule in 1798:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive- kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.

(Daniel Wallace, Sharp Redivivus?)

As we can see, the rule does not apply in Ephesians 4:11 because the two substantives linked by kai (and) are plural; “pastors and teachers.” Simply put, if any denomination altered their constitution on the basis of Sharp’s rule, this was an objective mistake. 

At the same time, there is no anti-Sharp’s rule. If the conditions are met, we may conclude that the two substantives have the same referent. It does not follow that if the conditions are not met then we may conclude that the two substantives do not have the same referent. In other words, Sharp’s rule does not give us the answer either way.

The Two Office View

Having an unclear passage, good Bible students look for the answer elsewhere according to the analogy of scripture. All parties to this debate identify “overseers” with “elders.” In Acts 20, Paul summons the elders of the church in Ephesus. In his address to this same group, he says the Holy Spirit has made them overseers to shepherd the church. The terms are applied to the same men in the same context. Likewise, in Titus 1, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town. He immediately follows this by listing the necessary qualifications, stating, "For an overseer ..must be blameless." The qualifications for the elder are explained by describing the character required of an overseer, indicating they are the same office.

There is consensus that the similarities between elder and overseer mark these two titles as the same office. The three-office proponent thinks the distinction between pastor and teacher is not sufficiently clear to separate the two. The two-office proponent simply takes this logic further to identify all elders as pastors.

FF Bruce uses this method in his commentary on Ephesians:

“Pastors” may readily be identified with the ministers who are elsewhere called “elders” (presbyteroi) or “bishops” (episkopoi, rendered “guardians” in our preceding citation of Acts 20:28: “shepherd the flock of God that is in your charge” is the injunction given to “elders” by a “fellow elder” in 1 Pet. 5:2). (It is fitting that this injunction should be ascribed to the apostle whose final commission from the Lord, according to John 21:15-17, was “Feed my sheep.”)

A bishop, according to 1 Tim. 3:2, should be “an apt teacher.” Teaching is an essential part of the pastoral ministry; it is appropriate, therefore, that the two terms, “pastors and teachers,” should be joined together to denote one order of ministry. 

(Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 348.)

The two-office view is a kind of default stance in American Evangelicalism:

The words elder (sometimes translated “presbyter”), pastor (which may be translated “shepherd”), and overseer (sometimes translated “bishop”) are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Even though these terms often mean different things among various churches today, the New Testament seems to point to one office, which was occupied by several godly men within each church. 

(Got Questions, What is the biblical pattern of church leadership?)

Three Office Views

Among three office denominations, we may distinguish between those which merge pastors and teachers altogether (as the PCA) and those which distinguish between them, but under the category of one office (as the RCUS). It may ring a tad loose to regard “minister” as an office, since this term does not definitively correspond with particular responsibility in the New Testament, and is instead used for any kind of service. Granted, Ephesians 4:11 is the only instance of the term “pastor.” 

The CRC blurs the line further by employing three historic offices and one pragmatic office: 

The church recognizes the offices of minister of the Word, elder, deacon, and commissioned pastor. 

(Church Order, I.A.2)

Four Office Views

Four office perspectives may also be distinguished based on the authority given to teachers.

Calvin did not give power to rule or the table to teachers.

Next come Pastors and Teachers, with whom the Church never can dispense, and between whom, I think, there is this difference, that teachers preside not over discipline, or the administration of the sacraments, or admonitions, or exhortations, but the interpretation of Scripture only, in order that pure and sound doctrine may be maintained among believers. But all these are embraced in the pastoral office. 

(Institutes 3.4)

The Church Order of Dort considers the teacher (doctor) not a minister of the word, but the Form of Presbyterian Church Government does call him this, and commends teachers to schools and universities. The New England Congregationalists agreed with the English Presbyterians regarding the status of the teacher, with the added comment that teachers should not only work in schools, but in churches also.

How We Classify

If pastor and teacher are considered so similar to count as the same office, I ask, why not just two? Only the qualifications lists for elders and deacons are found in the epistles, not for "minister of the word" or "pastor." I also ask, if it is not clear, why was it changed? Who revised the Book of Order for your denomination? I am hopeful that a record was made of a spirited discussion, but I have a hard time tracking down such minutes.

I also recognize that this is a question of terminology, but this sort of precision is common in systematic theology. It could have happened that our church fathers chose some other term than "person" to distinguish between the father, son and spirit - especially since this term is not expressly found in scripture. The important point was the distinction between these three while maintaining their unity in being. If "office" is the term for the man called pastor and the man called deacon, it matters whether pastors and teachers are distinct or the same.

Grammar, Conclusion

The history of this topic is messy. Looking back to the text, I will give my brief justification for the four office view.

And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for works of ministry and to build up the body of Christ

Each item in the list of v. 11 is a gift from Christ to the body. It is reasonable to assume that every item in the list is comparable. Apostles, prophets, and evangelists are clearly offices, therefore so are “pastors and teachers,” (whether unified or distinct). The phrase “pastors and teachers” is uniquely grouped with one “tous de,” signifying some connection between these not found between “apostle,” “prophet,” and “evangelist”. Absent some grammatical proof indicating that the terms share a referent (à la Sharp), I assume a distinction of offices with some related quality. In other words, I think the onus is on the three office proponents to prove their view simply on the grammar, but even more so against the weight of reformed history.

This is not a very satisfactory conclusion, and it is not as elegant as the clear terms “teaching elder” and “ruling elder.” In response, I point out that every elder must be “apt to teach,” ruling or not. Let the pastors and teachers also simply be called “elder” along with ruling elders when meeting for elder duties. Let the pastors and teachers, but not the ruling elders, be called “ministers” when discussing their role with the sacraments. Let nobody take the title of “Worship Pastor!” The same impulse that motivates the regulative principle of worship ought to extend into our organization of the offices, including their titles.

Tangent: Dabney and Two Offices

Misquote

Robert Louis Dabney is often cited as representing Southern Presbyterianism in a two-office view:

Dr. Dabney; wrote an article, "Theories of the Eldership," which originally appeared in the "North; Carolina Presbyterian," September, 1860, and was republished in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Volume II, which was first published in 1891, and reprinted in London by the Banner of Truth Trust in 1967. In the paper, Dabney states his position thus: "There is one class of presbyters embracing two orders, the preaching elder and the ruling elder." That statement puts Dabney on the side of the two-office view.

(Studies & Actions of the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America [7th General Assembly (1979), 7-23, p. 77-85.] REPORT OF THE AD-INTERIM COMMITTEE ON NUMBER OF OFFICES)

Here is a second read of Dabney as two-office.

The Facts

This is a mistake. Dabney was not arguing for two offices, he was arguing for the greater recognition of the powers of ruling elders, contra Princeton and Northern Presbyterianism (and Schaff, incidentally).

Now let the reader bear in mind that the Repertory teaches, ruling elders are not proper scriptural presbyters at all; that whenever the Scripture says presbyter technically it means preacher ; and that the scriptural warrant for the ruling elder is in the term "governments," which is something else than presbyter, and something lower. But we have proved that the churches of the New Testament knew nothing of any permanent officers but preachers, presbyters and deacons. 

(Dabney, Discussions Vol. 2; 143)

Dabney is explicitly a three-office man

.. all the three officers, and the very names of office, in the synagogue were borrowed by the new dispensation, "angel," " presbyter," " deacon " (or waiting-man). 

(Discussions, 129)

The popular misread of Dabney ironically comes from his engagement with an opponent’s “verbal quibble.”

The writer in the Repertory objects to Dr. Thornwell's statement of " one order of presbyters embracing two classes, the preaching elder and the ruling elder;" that the term class is more general than order, and therefore the latter cannot be inclusive of the latter. Well, then, let us state it thus : " There is one class of presbyters embracing two orders, the preaching elder and the ruling elder." Where, now, is the objection? This supposition shows that, even if it had any correctness, it would be merely a verbal quibble.

(Discussions, 133)

The Point

Dabney called for an elevation of the rights and responsibilities of the ruling elder, not the amalgamation of that office with the teaching elder. He wants ruling elders ordained to ministry, and for them to be recognized as “among the presbyters.” (145). Dabney directly responds to criticism that his view amounts to a two-office view in point six.

Mini Tangent

We inconsistently transliterate some offices and translate others. “Pastor” is even transliterated from Latin, not Koine Greek. Why? 

I say let’s translate them all: Teacher, Shepherd, Elder, Servant. As a matter of fact the ESV translators are ahead of me, changing “pastor” to “shepherd” between 2001 and 2016.