Introduction
In John's Gospel, we read, "Behold the Lamb of God," as John the Baptist points to Jesus. Few of us stop and think, “But he isn’t a lamb; he’s a man.” Why? Because we know John the Baptist is appealing to the entirety of the Old Testament imagery of the “Lamb” when he points to Christ. In other words, it is only natural that we use the whole Old Testament for building interpretive momentum in Christ’s person and work as the once and for all sacrificial Lamb of God. This type of OT to NT illumination ought to be commonplace in every category of theological investigation. Our doctrine of God, our doctrine of man, salvation, Christ, and so on, ought to have this basic interpretive momentum as we conform our doctrine to the word of God. To put it another way, we ought to be sola-scriptura Christians and “tota-scriptura” Christians. By that, I simply mean that we ought to allow the whole counsel of God to inform our doctrinal positions.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the doctrine of the church, particularly the doctrine of church polity, we often overlook our “whole-Bible” method. To rephrase: it’s not uncommon for arguments between different denominational convictions (Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) to be waged with our whole Bibles open in the arenas of sacraments, or soteriology, or eschatology. But all too often, when it comes to convictions in church polity, we are myopically prone to only consider the pages of the New Testament. I find this short-sightedness to be one of the many reasons the church fell into a hierarchical model for much of her post-resurrection existence. Or why mega-church “campus” models arose more recently in the West. Relegating church polity to a strictly New Testament discussion removes certain proper hermeneutical guardrails and skews the church away from decency and order. For instance, much ink is spilled on the issues surrounding Peter as “the Rock” in Matthew 16. Maybe Jesus is referring to the new Pope? Maybe Jesus is referring to a confession? These are all plausible suggestions. But little to no attention is given to the Old Testament background for the entire passage. This should be a first step in the discussion, not an ad hoc consideration. Hopefully this summary will correct such methodological memory lapse.
Before we dive in, the surface diagnosis for why such a methodological memory lapse occurs in the first place is usually due to our good and faithful position that Jesus Christ, fully God and fully Man, is the one who built the church. So then it stands to reason that there would be no church before his incarnation. Before Jesus, no church. During and after Jesus, the church is born. In one sense, this position is true. Jesus is the foundation of his church, and his mission on earth was the single most important advancement of the Kingdom of God until his second coming. However, this reasoning is not helpful if what we mean is that the church simply did not exist until Jesus’s earthly life, death, and resurrection. For those who have a covenantal hermeneutic, this idea should not be surprising. And certainly the fact that the church was promised from the Old Testament is something every Christian sect holds to, to some degree or another. We must remember that Jesus did in fact build his church anew in his earthly ministry. However, as he “rebuilt” (Acts 15:16) and advanced the church into a new estate (Eph. 2:15), he did so in continuity with his work before the Incarnation. This can be easily seen if we use our basic OT to NT momentum paradigm.
The Old Testament Roots of “Church”
Let’s start with the word “church” itself. The first time we see this word used in the New Testament is in Matthew 16. The Greek word here is ekklesia. Two Greek root words smashed together; “ek” - out, and “kaleo” - call. A “called out” community of God. But why did Jesus choose this word and not the Greek word “house” (where the English word church comes from)? Is this the first time God has used this word? Does it have any OT momentum? It may surprise you that the answer to this question is an emphatic “yes.” Let’s look at the first time the word “church” appears in Scripture. It is not Matthew 16. That is the first time Jesus utters the word in his earthly ministry. Rather, the first time we see this word requires a little bit of Hebrew knowledge. The Hebrew equivalent for “church” is the word “qahal.” This is often translated as “assembly” or “multitude.” The first time we see this word is in the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 28:3, where Isaac rehearses the promise passed down to him from his father Abraham. “God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company (qahal) of peoples.” That word “company” is qahal. I will make you a “company” or church of many nations. This itself is not a new idea in Scripture. The promise to Shem in Genesis 9 is one in which his tents will extend to Japeth, the coastland peoples. The tents of Shem will inherit and gather in many from the gentile nations. The word tent itself is a metaphorical “dwelling” or “house” that Japeth will be gathered into. This is nothing short of the great commission in OT seed form. So it should not strike us as odd that the Abrahamic many-nations qahal promise is in fact a recapitulation of the Shem promise that continues on in covenant history as it unfolds.
Here are a few instances of the word qahal/ekklesia being used in the Old Testament: Job 30:28, Exodus 12:26, Leviticus 4:13-14, Numbers 10:17, Psalm 107, Joel 2:6-7, Joshua 8:35, 1 Samuel 17:47, 1 Kings 8:14, and 1 Chronicles 13:2. I cite this list to demonstrate that not only is qahal/ekklesia frequently used in the Old Testament, but it also spans the entire Old Testament canon. Upon careful investigation of the majority of these instances found in Scripture it would be reasonable to arrive at the same conclusion as Stuart Robinson,
It is one and the same power which rules and guides throughout all ages alike. In the theophanies of the first period of the revelations of God, it is Jesus Messiah who assumes transient visible form and converses with men. In the theocratic era it is still Jesus Messiah who sits invisible upon the visible throne, between the cherubim, to rule and council his Church. In the inspirations of the theopneustic era it is the Spirit of Christ in the prophets that “doth testify of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that shall follow.” And after the Word made flesh has ascended to the throne of his glory, it is still he who, in the exercise of all power given to him, commissions his agents to go forth, and who sends the Comforter to carry on the work of salvation.1
But what about the New Testament? Of course we will find the word ekklesia in use, but does the New Testament itself testify to an “ekklesia” in the Old Testament? Once again the answer is “yes.” For instance Acts 7:38, where Stephen says, “This is the one who was in the congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.” Here Stephen is telling the Sanhedrin that Moses was delivering the law to the church of the Old Testament. Another instance is Hebrews 2:12 quoting Psalm 22, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) I will sing your praise.” Psalm 22 of course is about the sufferings of Christ that will be fulfilled in the future. Nevertheless, the idea of the church (congregation) is already seeded in the Old Testament.
Often, when it comes to convictions in church polity, we are myopically prone to only consider the pages of the New Testament.
One last elusive example is Paul’s description to the Galatian church of a child moving from under the law to being an heir. In Galatians 4:1-3, Paul writes, “I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world" (emphasis added). Paul is arguing to the church in Galatia that a child is held under guardians and managers (the law), until a date set by his father. Then at the appointed time the child is released from guardianship. The analogy Paul is making is that the church (we) was at one time being held under guardianship until Christ appeared. To make explicit what Paul is saying implicitly, the we (the Galatian church in unity with Paul) did not begin existing at the time of Christ’s appearing, but was already in existence in a child-like estate under guardians and managers.
Much more can be said about these passages. The simple point is that even the New Testament looks back to the Old Testament and sees not just a nation, not just a people group, but a church. It is no surprise that the WCF 20.1 describes this reality as the “Jewish Church.”
Elder Old Testament to New Testament Momentum
As briefly sketched out above, the church, called out of darkness and gathered together by God and for God, has roots all the way back to Abraham. This basic momentum from the Old Testament to the New Testament ought to cause us to inquire one layer deeper into the study of ecclesiology, that layer being church polity. How does Christ structure and rule his church? What is the organizational architecture of the House of God? Did Christ build his church in a hierarchical model, a congregational model, a presbyterian model, or episcopacy model? Time does not allow us to fully, and charitably, hammer out such nuanced matters. However, is it wise for us to at least consider the Old Testament to New Testament momentum as a baseline in terms of leadership. Another way of getting at the issue would be this: “Why did the Apostles appoint elders in each new town as the church was growing?”
We must remember that Jesus did in fact build his church anew in his earthly ministry. However, as he “rebuilt” and advanced the church into a new estate, he did so in continuity with his work before the Incarnation. This can be easily seen if we use our basic OT to NT momentum paradigm.
As we investigate, two things are clear in terms of ecclesiastical structure. First, the continuity of office and leadership in the office of “elder.” It seems to be no accident at all that the office of “elder” was the basic office of leadership set forth in the New Testament. Even a cursory glance will demonstrate this reality. Second, the New Testament itself recognizes this basic continuity. When we ask the New Testament itself why this special term of ‘elder’ is used, it will point us back to the Old Testament momentum.
When we open our Old Testaments to ask the questions of officer and rule, we will find that in each major epoch there is a common office, that being the office of “elder.” Samuel Miller helpfully summarizes,
As soon as we begin to read of the Apostles organizing Churches on the New Testament plan we find them instituting offices of precisely the same nature and bestowing on them for the most part the very same titles to which they had been accustomed in the ordinary sabbatical service under the preceding economy.2
Miller is capturing the reality that “elders” as the leaders of the people of God go back further than even Israel as a nation. And they continue their function no matter the status of that national identity. Abraham’s servant-elder arranged the meeting between Rebekah and Isaac (Gen. 24:2). It was the elders to whom Moses had to prove his credentials (Ex. 3:16). It was the elders that were instructed with the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:21). The elders were with Moses when he received the Law (Ex. 19:7). The elders led the conquest with Joshua (Jos. 8:10). The elders anointed King David (2 Sam. 5:3). The elders sat with Elisha, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. The elders were instructed with rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 6:8). So it should be no surprise that Paul commanded Titus to appoint elders in each city. Even Peter considered himself a co-elder (1 Pet. 1:5). The elders had an equal standing with the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Noticing this broad continuity Robinson writes,
From the first to the last dispensations of God recorded in Scripture, as shown before, the uniform exponent of a government in the Church is the office of elders, (πρεσβύτερος) and if a name of distinction for the Church visible, considered as a form of spiritual government, is to be applied to it, “Presbyterian” has been the proper title from the days of Israel in Egypt to the present.3
Secondly, when we ask the New Testament itself, we notice that the office of elder is in continuity with the office of the Old Testament. Here are a few examples. Notice John’s vision of the throne room of the Lamb in Revelation 4. There we see twenty-four elders surrounding the throne. Why 24? This is most likely a reference to twelve in the Old Testament and twelve in the New Testament. Robinson writes,
The elders, under the dispensation of the Spirit, still occupy their position towards the Church, appointed by the Holy Ghost to take oversight, as is the Church of old. And again, in the prophetic vision of the glorious Church of the future, John saw the great congregation, still in eternity, as in time, represented by four and twenty elders,—twelve for the ancient and twelve for the new dispensation,—but one body, uniting together in casting their crowns, the symbol of their official authority, at the feet of Him whom they unite to acknowledge as Head and Source of all authority in the Church in all ages.4
Another example can be seen in the famous hall of witnesses in Hebrews 11. As we meditate on all these incredible demonstrations of the Lord working throughout redemptive history in the lives of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc., notice the Greek description of these heroes in Hebrews 11:2, “For by it the people of old (πρεσβύτεροι/elders) received their commendation.” In other words, these listed patriarchs, prophets, and kings were all elders. One last example can be seen in the Old Testament looking forward. Take note of the rich description given to us in Joel 2:16, “Gather the people. Consecrate the congregation (ekklesia); assemble the elders (presbuteros); gather the children, even nursing infants. Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her chamber.”
The beauty of a redemptive historical hermeneutic must be deployed for even matters pertaining to ecclesiastical polity.
You may be thinking this passage is only about the Old Testament saints. However, as you continue reading the chapter, you’ll find that the Lord gathers the people together for the purpose of blessing them with his Spirit being poured out. (Joel 2:28). This is fulfilled in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. The simple point is that if Joel 2:28 is about the church (which it is), so too is Joel 2:16.
The church ... has roots all the way back to Abraham.
More needs to be said on the topic of Old Testament to New Testament momentum for our understanding of the church, finding the balance between continuity and discontinuity: the principle of connectionalism the church must seek to maintain in light of the fact that she is to reach the ends of the earth with the witness of the gospel; the questions of jurisdiction and court structure. All of these topics rightfully require special attention. But as we dive into each special area of ecclesiology, may we keep the whole of our Bibles open. The beauty of a redemptive historical hermeneutic must be deployed for even matters pertaining to ecclesiastical polity. As James Bannerman states, “The Church of the Old Testament, like the Church of the New, had the Second Person of the Godhead for its Founder and its Head.”5
1. Robinson, The Church of God, 51.
2. Miller, The Ruling Elder, 51.
3. Robinson, The Church of God, 64.
4. Robinson, The Church of God, 53.
5. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 120.