1. The Scriptural Basis
R J Dickie
It has been said that “the eldership is perhaps the most distinctive feature of those Churches of the Reformation which honour the Calvinistic tradition”.2 The focus of this paper is on the ruling elder within Presbyterianism. To say that there is a vast amount of literature on the subject is an understatement, so this paper can only touch on some of the issues. I will look at the following five areas: (1.) The scriptural basis for the office and duties of the ruling elder. (2.) Ruling elders between the apostolic Church and the Reformation. (3.) The continental Reformers and the ruling eldership. (4.) Scottish ruling elders from Knox to the Westminster Assembly. (5.) Changes affecting the Scottish ruling elder since the Reformation, including some of the controversies which have arisen in the Scottish Churches.
The scriptural basis for the office of the ruling elder.
In the Scriptures the Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of the Church, has revealed “a form of ecclesiastical organisation and rule”. Samuel Miller of Princeton Seminary notes that this form of ecclesiastical organisation and rule for the New Testament Church was . . . instituted by the Apostles and “was evidently taken, with very little alteration, from the preceding [Old Testament] economy”. He proceeds to say, “We find the same plan closely copied by the churches for a considerable time after the apostolic age . . . until corruption, both in doctrine and practice, had gained a melancholy prevalence through the ambition and degeneracy of ecclesiastics”.3
The words “presbyterianism” and “presbyter” are derived from the New Testament Greek word presbyteros, which means “older” or “elder”. That Greek word appears 67 times in the New Testament and is used 20 times in the context of the Christian Church. It is virtually always translated in the Authorised Version as “elder”, whether it relates to elders of the Jews or elders of the Christian Church.
It is important for us to ascertain the exact significance of the word “elder”, as it is fundamental to ascertaining how the visible Church is governed. Questions of church government arose in the early days of the Christian era. These were documented in the Acts of the Apostles, and “theological debate about the nature, location, and exercise of authority, in the Church” has been ongoing ever since.4 Over the centuries and right down to the present day, contentions with other forms of church government have all contributed to an extensive literature which considers Presbyterianism in general, and the office and functions of the ruling elder versus the teaching elder in particular.
The ruling elder in the Old Testament.
We cannot fully understand either the spirit, the facts, or the nomenclature of the New Testament, without going back to the Old Testament.5 The English term “elder” corresponds to the biblical Hebrew word zaqen and the New Testament Greek word presbyteros. These words literally signify an older person, especially with an implicit status arising from years of accumulated wisdom and experience. Over time, the term “elder” became an established title of office, and these men were inspectors and rulers of the people.6 Scripture records 70 elders over the nation, as well as elders over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens.
These civic elders must not be confused with the elders of the synagogues, also known as rulers of the synagogues, whose function was purely religious. It is well known that the origin of synagogue worship and the establishment of rulers of the synagogue is not recorded in Scripture, but Jesus attended synagogue services and thus gave divine approbation of the system of synagogue worship with its ministers and rulers or elders. More than once, we find single synagogues having “rulers” in the plural. The term “chief ruler” is applied to Crispus (Acts 18:8) and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). That terminology confirms a point recorded universally by Jewish and Christian writers on Jewish antiquities, namely, that “in every synagogue there was a bench of elders, consisting of at least three persons, who were charged with the whole inspection, government and discipline of the synagogue; [and] who as a court or bench of rulers received, judged, censured, excluded and, in a word, performed every judicial act necessary to the regularity and welfare of the congregation”.7 The chief ruler was of the same rank or order as the other rulers: he had no other precedence among the rulers than presiding and taking the lead in their assemblies.8 Alternative names for the chief rulers were “heads of the synagogues”, “overseers”, “presidents”, and “orderers” or “regulators” of the affairs of the synagogues.9
The topic of Church government has been the subject of innumerable controversies, and at this point I will allude to the sixteenth-century Swiss physician and theologian, Thomas Erastus, who was nominally a Zwinglian. Erastus contended that there was no ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from the civil government, and hence taught that there were no rulers of the synagogue apart from the civil judges. The errors of Erastianism were comprehensively refuted by George Gillespie,10 Samuel Rutherford,11 the Anglican bishop Edward Stillingfleet12 and others.13
The ruling elder in the New Testament.
When we come to the New Testament, there are fundamental differences in the understanding of Scripture, which lead the Episcopalian to conclude that there are bishops, priests and deacons, with no ruling elders; the Independent to conclude that there are pastors and deacons, with no ruling elders, and the Presbyterian to conclude that there are four offices: ministers (or teaching elders), ruling elders, doctors and deacons.
The worship of the New Testament Church corresponds to the worship of the synagogue, and the two sacraments of the New Testament Church replaced the Old Testament ordinances of the passover and circumcision. There was such a strikingly close resemblance between all the features of the early churches and Jewish synagogues that “the heathen frequently suspected Christian churches of being Jewish synagogues in disguise, and accordingly stigmatised them as such”.14 It is therefore not surprising to discover that the officers of the Church corresponded to those of the synagogue. Looking particularly at the elders, we find that a plurality of elders was ordained in every church (Acts 14:23, Tts 1:5); the elders deliberated on contentious matters (Acts 15:4, 6); the elders were overseers of the flock (Acts 20:20,27); sick people were exhorted to summon the elders to visit them, so that the elders would pray over them and anoint them with oil (Jas 5:14); the elders were to feed the flock as humble and exemplary overseers (1 Pet 5:1-3); and in turn the people were to obey, honour and esteem their ruling elders (Heb 13:17; 1 Tim 5:17; 1 Th 5:12-13).15
Both the direction and the practice were to ordain a plurality of elders in every church, small as well as great. This is strongly reminiscent of the synagogue model. The number ordained exceeded what was needed for the purpose of public instruction. Rather, as in the synagogue, some were rulers who formed a body for governing the church.16 Texts supporting this view include Romans 12:8 (“he that ruleth”) and 1 Corinthians 12:28 (which speaks of an office of “government”), and most pointedly, 1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine”. John Owen says of this text, “A rational man, who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two sorts of elders, some who labour in the word and doctrine, and some who do not do so”.17 For clarity, “The advocates of the office of ruling elder do not contend or believe that the function of ruling is confined to this class of officers. On the contrary, they suppose and teach that one class of elders both rule and teach, while the other class rule only. Both, according to the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, are proestōtes [rulers]; but one [class] only ‘labour in the word and doctrine’.”18
1 The first part of a paper given at last year’s Theological Conference.
2 George D Henderson, The Scottish Ruling Elder, James Clarke & Co, 1935, p 11.
3 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Heritage Publications reprint, 1987, pp 18-19.
4 Norman Doe, Christian Law: Contemporary Principles, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
5 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 31.
6 Miller cites Exodus 3:16; 17:5; 18:12; 24:1,9; Numbers 11:16; Deuteronomy 25:7-9; 29:10; 31:9, 28 “and other passages”.
7 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 35. Miller mentions the Dutch, English and French theologians Campegius Vitrimga, Gijsbertus Voetius, Johannes Marckius, Hugo Grotius, John Lightfoot, John Selden, David Blondel and Claudius Salmasmus, whose sources were “Philo, Josephus, Maimonides, Benjamin of Tudela [also known as Benjamin ben Jonah], and the great mass of other Jewish witnesses, who are considered as holding the first rank among Rabbinical authorities”.
8 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 38.
9 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 38.
10 George Gillespie, Aarons Rod Blossoming: Or, the Divine Ordinance of Church-Government Vindicated; so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiastical government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy Scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chiefe objections made against the Presbyterian-government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power, London, 1646.
11 Samuel Rutherford, The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or A peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of ceremonies and church-government, London, 1646.
12 Edward Stillingfleet, Irenicum, a Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds; or, the Divine Right of Particular Forms of Church Government, discussed and examined, London, 1659.
13 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 35.
14 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 50.
15 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, pp 50-53.
16 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 53.
17 John Owen, “The True Nature of a Gospel Church” in The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth repr, 1968), vol 16, chap 7 (“Of the rule of the church, or of ruling elders”), p 116.
18 Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, p 67.