This debate has been going on for some time. But with few exceptions, almost all explanations of Presbyterian church polity claim that a “church” (meaning a single local congregation) must be ruled by “a plurality of elders” of whom one may happen to teach and work full-time doing so. This idea seems especially prevalent on the web, except for Lee Irons’ good work on the subject. But, unless one reads it, or actually has the stamina to read the OPC’s or ARP’s Book of Church Order, no one would know that historic Presbyterian polity, from Calvin to today, has been exclusively “three-office” (Ministers, Elders, and Deacons are three distinct offices). As Calvin Beisner has pointed out (with others), even the PCA’s Book of Church Order does not break with this tradition despite public rhetoric to the contrary.

The historical position, in brief, has been that there is one order of Minister, Pastor, Presbyter (“elder”), or Bishop (Greek: episkopos). Historically, all talk of “parity” has entailed and only entailed that all Pastors are fundamentally equal in their office. While the Church can appoint “overseers” for the good order of the Church, a bishop is not a separate office above that of presbyter to which one must be separately ordained. Calvin, after arguing for the office of “governor” from other grounds, did think that 1 Timothy 5.17 showed that these governors were also sometimes called “elders.” But he quite clearly regarded all references to Bishops in the NT to mean Pastors and only Pastors, not ruling elders. The overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and the elders in Titus 1 do not include our ruling elders but only Pastors.

This is Presbyterianism. In the Westminster Form of Church Government, all NT references to presbyteroi or elders are used as prooftexts for pastors, not ruling elders. In fact, the Westminster Divines did not even call them “elders” but “other rulers in the church” who are termed “elders” only because of tradition, not NT warrant.

But was Calvin right? Were the Westminster Divines right?

I wish to offer an argument for the “three-office view,” which gets beyond the exact meaning of “elder” in its different NT contexts. Since the Apostles Peter and John both call themselves elders, I don’t think the mere word can prove that there is only one office in the eldership. We need to look elsewhere to settle the case.

So here is my proposal:

Let us consider what the Apostle Paul says about certain ministers in 1 Corinthians 9. In context, Paul is speaking not only of Himself in his office of Apostle, but also of Barnabas (v. 6), the brothers of the Lord (v. 5), Apollos (3.4ff), and Sothenes (1.1). There he says that they all have a right to be supported in their ministry:

Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? [c.f. 2 Tim 2.3-4] Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? [c.f. 2 Tim 2.6; 1 Cor 3.6, 8] Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? [Act 20.28; Eph 4.11] I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the law also say these things? “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” [Deu 25.4; c.f. 1 Tim 5.18]. God is not concerned about oxen is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel [Matt 10.10; Luke 10.7; c.f. 1 Tim 5.18] (1 Cor 9.7-14).

Now, Paul is very clear here that he in virtue of his status or office has a right to get his “living from the gospel.” His analogies do not involve part-time service but those with a full-time vocation: soldiers, farmers, shepherds, and finally priests (“who attend regularly”, not part-time). Then he invokes the command of Jesus to his disciples:

Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support (Matt 10.9-10).

And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house (Luke 10.7)

Paul cites this saying of Jesus, along with the passage above from Deuteronomy 25.4, as “Scripture,” when he exhorts Timothy to pay Presbyters (1 Tim 5.18). Jesus spoke it to his disciples, both the Twelve and then the seventy others. Paul applies it to himself and Barnabas and Timothy and Apollos and others. He later applies it to the Presbyters whom Timothy ordains and oversees (as an Apostolic delegate).. It might be good to remind ourselves of the status conferred upon the Twelve and then the seventy by Jesus. To the Twelve Jesus said, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (Matt 10.40). To the seventy His words were similar, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10.16). These people are ambassadors, something Paul will later assert of himself and Timothy: “we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5.20).

Paul describes himself and others who have this right to make a living from the gospel in other ways. Apollos and Paul are God’s servants (1 Cor 3.5), farmers (1 Cor 3.6), and fellow-workers with one another under God’s employment (1 Cor 3.9). Paul is God’s architect and Apollos is a construction-engineer (1 Cor 3.10). They are “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4.1).

None of these titles can possibly belong to ruling elders as we know them.

Why not?

Because Paul’s entire argument is grounded on the fact that his practice of making a living for himself is an anomaly. He and Barnabas did not allow the Corinthian Church to pay them. They even remained celibate so that they would be able to survive in this way (1 Cor 9.5). Everyone else who also holds the status of Paul and Barnabas expects to be paid for their services. That is the normal way for such people to live.

But if Paul and Barnabas share their status with multitudes of officers in the churches who have a secular employment by which they make a living, and then rule the church in their spare time, then Paul’s argument is completely useless. If Paul thought he shared the same office with such people (people who are have vocations in other areas of life like our ruling elders) then he could not possibly claim that his behavior is so rare. Indeed, the Corinthians would never have noticed any problem with Paul’s behavior if they regarded ruling elders as having the same vocation as Paul.

PRESBYTERIANISM is a term referring to a system of government in the Church. It is commonly contrasted with Congregationalism and Episcopalianism. Presbyter is a Greek word that is translated as “elder” in our English New Testaments. Thus, Presbyterianism is commonly defined as “rule by elders.”

This is a misleading definition. Be wary of it.

ONE

PRESBYTERIANISM can just as well refer to “rule by Presbytery.” Presbytery, in the Presbyterian system, is the most basic unit of Church government. It refers to the assembled presbyters who rule over several congregations. The Church in the New Testament and afterwards viewed the congregations in a metropolitan area as one Church. The Jerusalem Church and the Church at Ephesus were both larger than one congregation, but they were ruled by an assembly of elders. These presbyteries had the power to ordain ministers; as the Apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1 Tim 3.14; NASB).

Presbyterianism can thus be contrasted with both (a) Episcopalianism and (b) Congregationalism, in the following way:

(a)

Later in church history, to risk vast oversimplification, these Presbyteries came to be ruled by bishops (episkopoi in the Greek; commonly translated as “overseers”). In the New Testament Church under the Apostles, bishops and presbyters were the same people holding one identical office. There were certain men who seem to have had come to prominence among the assembled presbyters, such as James the brother of the Lord in the Jerusalem church and the angel of the church of Ephesus. Remember, in both these cases it is virtually impossible that these churches were single congregations. Rather, they were multiple congregations with multiple pastors. In time, however, after the New Testament was complete and the Apostles were dead, these prominent pastors came to be seen as holding a separate office which would be entered into by a separate ordination. This dogma is what is now known as Episcopalianism; that the each region of congregations should be ruled by a single bishop.

Thus, Presbyterianism does not deal primarily with whether or not a single congregation should be ruled by “elders” but whether a region of congregations should be ruled by a single bishop or an assembly of presbyters. In other words, Presbyterianism means “rule by Presbytery.”

(b)

After the Reformation, various splinter groups came up with a new theory of Church government called “Congregationalism.” Congregationalism does not mean that a congregation must be ruled by a democratic vote of all members. Some congregationalist churches may operate in such a fashion, but there are plenty of congregationalist churches who are ruled by “elders” or the pastor. How these congregations govern themselves is not to point at issue, but rather that they govern themselves. The essential point of Congregationalism is that all broader church governments are merely associations which ultimately “advise” only.

Thus, the issue between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism is not an issue of whether or not “elders” rule, but whether the presbytery rules the congregations within a district or each congregation rules itself. The issue is not “Which office?” so much as “Which assembly?”

TWO

WHILE THE debate between the different views is not primarily a matter of office, but of assembly, Presbyterianism does necessitate a set doctrine regarding office in the Church. Because the early disagreement was with diocesan (regional) bishops, not congregationalists, a great deal of the early debate was, indeed, set in terms of office.

Quite simply the Presbyterian position is: once the Apostolic office passed away (along with any other supernaturally gifted offices), the Church has been left with one and only one office of Minister, Pastor, Bishop, Presbyter, or Evangelist which is bestowed upon a person by one and the same ordination. While Ministers may have slightly different functions (so that a minister in an established congregation is often called a “pastor,” while one planting a congregation is called an “evangelist.”), they hold the same office.

This is why even defining Presbyterianism as “rule by presbyters,” is inadequate. According to Presbyterian doctrine, all presbyters are also bishops (In Greek: episkopoi. Thus, Presbyterian churches are ruled by bishops. If the issue was only a matter of office, then the terms “Presbyterianism” and “Episcopalianism” would tell us nothing about the respective positions of those who hold to them. They are interchangeable terms as far as Presbyterianism is concerned, if the names deal primarily with office.

THREE

PRESBYTERIAN, and indeed all Reformed churches, have also involved rule by laymen who represent the congregations in Presbytery when they are appointed to attend them. The reason for this is that the Reformation opposed “clericalism.” Of course, the name, “clericalism” could mean different things to different people, but in this case it means the monopolistic control of the Church by the clergy. The Reformed churches contended that laymen were originally involved in the government of the Church through representatives. These representatives are commonly called ruling elders. Ruling elders join with a pastor in the governing a congregation. They are also sit in presbyteries and all higher courts.

The difference between ruling elders and ministers at presbytery, is that a ruling elder cannot automatically vote in a presbytery meeting. They must first be appointed by the local congregation of which they are a member. The pastor, on the other hand, is not a member of a local congregation, but a member of the presbytery. He votes at presbytery meetings as a matter of right, even if and when he is without a congregation (though he must find a new work within a certain amount of time to remain a minister of the Gospel in the presbytery).

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing in the name “Presbyterianism” which makes ruling elders, as they are called, the exclusive property of presbyterians. Congregationalists can have ruling elders, and, episcopal denominations could allow laymen to have a say in the government of the church along with the bishop, if they so desired, without thereby ceasing to be Congregationalists or Episcopalians. However, it is the Reformed Tradition which has been the most emphatic in maintaining that laypeople have a say in the government of the Church, through their representatives-ruling elders.

Thus, the clergy (ministers) do not have a monopoly of power over the Church, but are joined by laypeople (through their representatives, the ruling elders). The term “ruling elder” comes from lists where the gift of rule is listed separately from the gift of teaching, and from the “elders in the gate” in Israel who governed along with the Levites (ministers of the Word). It should not be thought to derive from the “presbyters” of the New Testament Church who were also bishops and ministers of the Word.

If ruling elders and ministers both occupied one and the same office, then the entire Presbyterian system would be overturned. For then the ruling elders would be clergy, and thus the Church would be under the thumb of clericalism. Or else the ministers of the word would be nothing more than laymen who happened to pastor the Church full time. And the entire Reformation Tradition would sink into anabaptism in departure from all historical Christianity.

FOUR

To summarize then, Presbyterianism means

1. regional churches of several local congregations

2. governed by the assembly of their pastors and other area ministers (i.e. presbytery)

3. who are joined by elected laymen appointed to represent their congregations in the rule of the Church.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the way a presbytery is run is usually also reflected in each congregation’s government. A pastor is joined by ruling elders in the government of the local congregation. Upon being elected by the congregation, the pastor with the ruling elders who are already in office (commonly called the “session”) ordain a person to be an elder. Typically, there are more lay governors (ruling elders) in the session than ministers.

FIVE

Now as to how much of this can be defended as Biblical is a question outside the scope of this brief post. My point is simply to warn readers from buying the version of “Presbyterianism” that is popularized on the majority of the web pages which discuss the subject. I would highly recommend looking at the Westminster Assembly’s Form of Church Government as a place where one might discover for oneself what historical Presbyterian polity is. “Rule by elders” is too simplistic to be that helpful.

Suppose Christ had done for us merely what we said last Sunday afternoon that He did. Suppose He had merely paid the just penalty of the law that was resting upon us for our sin, and had done nothing more than that; where would we then be? Well, I think we can say — if indeed it is legitimate to separate one part of the work of Christ even in thought from the rest — that if Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and had done nothing more we should be at best back in the situation in which Adam found himself when God placed him under the covenant of works.

via The Active Obedience of Christ by J. Gresham Machen.

Machen goes on, rightly, to appeal to the eschatology put before Adam. But I don’t think it fully covers his argument here. He clearly claims that being forgiven is merely to be given Adam’s original place when he was under the covenant of works.

But this is obviously false. Adam was threatened with death and had no provision for forgiveness. A Christian, on the other hand, is promised forgiveness, not only once, for for his entire life.

If God had said to Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die–except I promise to forgive you every time,” then Machen would be right that the Christian had the position of Adam under the Covenant of Works.

This same problem appears in another statement Machen makes:

Moreover, we should have been back in that probation in a very much less hopeful way than that in which Adam was originally placed in it. Everything was in Adam’s favour when he was placed in the probation. He had been created in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. He had been created positively good. Yet despite all that, he fell. How much more likely would we be to fall — nay, how certain to fall — if all that Christ had done for us were merely to remove from us the guilt of past sin, leaving it then to our own efforts to win the reward which God has pronounced upon perfect obedience!

But we do fall and God continually forgives us on the basis of the fact that Christ suffered the full wrath and curse of God on sin. I hate to sound like an antinomian, but we sin every day, every hour, every minute, and God continues to forgive us just as often. All that is left for God to consider is our obedience. That is all that is left because there is no sin that can be used to accuse us. God has justified us so no one can claim that our obedience is less than perfect before His Judgment seat.

I think a case for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ can be salvaged, but I don’t think that Machen is at his best in this essay. I’m sure he didn’t mean to, but he seems to denigrate the blessing of forgiveness. He makes it sound more like what I hear about the ancient Church wherein people would delay baptism as long as possible because they thought it was their one and only chance to receive forgiveness. But that was never the true Biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.