[NOTE: The following is a copyrighted excerpt from a forthcoming entry in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (ed. George T. Kurian; Blackwell), authored by Andreas Köstenberger.]

At the heart of Congregationalism is the belief that local congregations are to govern their own affairs. This stands in contrast to both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. Within the scope of Congregationalism there are a variety of ways in which the relationship between local church leaders (whether one or several pastors or elders or a combination of both) is construed. In this regard the spectrum reaches all the way from a full-fledged democratic model on the one hand to elder rule on the other, with various forms of church leadership and congregational rule or participation in between these two extremes.

In the congregational model, local churches sometimes have elders (as in Presbyterianism), yet there are no larger outside governing bodies. At the same time, churches adhering to congregational polity often opt to associate in form of conventions and to cooperate with outside agencies, though these hold no authority over individual congregations. This cooperation enables churches to engage in strategic ministry, demonstrating “in a visible way their belief in the oneness of the larger body of Christ” (Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 145). Among the churches practicing congregationalism are the Churches of Christ, Bible Churches, many non-denominational congregations, Baptists (including Southern and General Baptists), and churches carrying the title “Independent.”

In churches practicing congregational polity authority is vested in the church as a whole, although it is a matter of debate to what extent the church is able to delegate this authority to church leaders and whether or not church leaders’ authority is derived from the congregation or directly from Christ. Typically, in a congregational system the church does the following: (1) select, appoint, and, if necessary, remove church leaders; (2) (help) guard pure doctrine; (3) exercise church discipline and decide on church membership; (4) participate in major decisions affecting the entire congregation (Dever, Display of God’s Glory, 31–43). Usually, the congregation operates in democratic fashion by way of regular church business meetings at which each member has an equal voice and vote. It is often noted, however, that some of these procedures may owe more to the political democratic system than New Testament teaching.

In a representative form of the congregational model, an effort is made to balance authoritative leadership with genuine congregational participation. In this approach, it is the elders who have ultimate authority, not the congregation. The elders consult the congregation on important matters and involve them in the decision-making process, but in the end the elders’ decision obtains. It is recognized that the congregation’s participation in the selection of elders does not necessarily amount to an exercise of authority and that the New Testament teaches congregational participation but not necessarily congregational rule. It is also noted that elders hold positions of authority as church members, so that local elder authority with congregational participation is not based on a clergy-laity distinction but is consistent with the notion of the priesthood of all believers.

The two major models practiced in Congregationalism in a variety of permutations are: (1) single-elder or pastor; and (2) plural-elder leadership. In the single-elder model, the church votes into office one (senior) pastor who oversees the congregation (Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 25–86). While the congregation retains final authority, in practice the senior pastor wields considerable power due to his public teaching office. In addition, deacons are chosen to assist, and in some cases supervise, the pastor, though assigning to deacons authority over the pastor clearly conflicts with New Testament teaching. In the latter case, deacons form a “deacon board” taking the role of a body of elders.

In the plural-elder model, several elders and/or pastors are chosen to oversee the congregation. Within this model, there is considerable variety as to the way in which the authority of the elders and/or pastors is construed. Some take the notion of the priesthood of all believers to imply that no one should have authority over individual believers (pure democratic model. Others view the elders’ authority as derived from Christ, not the congregation, and believe the church is called in Scripture to submit to those serving in this office (White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 255–96).

In certain cases there are two bodies—an elder board and the pastoral staff—that meet periodically to determine the direction of the church. Some churches have only lay elders while pastors comprise the full-time, paid staff of the church. In another scenario the elders include both pastors and lay elders, or a church may have only pastors but no lay elders owing to the belief that a special divine call is required. In some cases a corporate board model may prevail where the elder board rules the church, often without sufficient accountability to the church and without adequate congregational input into decision-making. In the plural-elder model deacons serve under the authority of the elders.

Adherents to Congregationalism build their case on the following considerations. (1) In the New Testament “there is no superior organizational level to which churches are accountable” (Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 146). No clear New Testament evidence exists to suggest that local churches were governed by an outside body. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 should not be regarded as a permanent paradigm for regional authority. (2) The authority to exercise church discipline is assigned to the local church body rather than to regional elders or bishops (Matt. 18:15–17; 2 Cor. 2:6). (3) The New Testament local church chose qualified men to meet practical needs (Acts 6:1–6), commissioned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1–3), and was involved in the discussions and decision of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:4, 12, 22).

Objections to Congregationalism include the following. (1) Proponents of Episcopacy contend that Congregationalism does not take sufficient account of the fact that the earliest apostolic churches and those of subsequent centuries were hierarchically governed. Congregationalism reflects modern democracy rather than apostolic and post-apostolic tradition. (2) Advocates of Presbyterianism object that the New Testament vests more authority in elders than proponents of most forms of Congregationalism allow (Rom. 12:8; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24); and that (3) the Jerusalem Council did not merely issue suggestions but rules to be followed (Acts 16:4). (4) Against those who define Congregationalism as congregational rule, it is objected that many of the above-cited texts cited in support of Congregationalism only mandate congregational participation but not necessarily congregational rule.

The question of how the church should be governed in part hinges on whether sole authority is assigned to the New Testament or one holds to the dual authority of Scripture and church tradition. The New Testament stipulates two church offices: (1) elder (presbyteros) or overseer (episkopos) or shepherd (poimēn; authoritative); and (2) deacon (diakonos; non-authoritative). In the patristic period the authoritative office was gradually bifurcated into bishop and presbyter (priest), with the former being in authority over the latter. A clergy-laity distinction prevailed that was challenged by the Reformation notion of the priesthood of the believer. Over the centuries three major approaches to church government took shape: (1) Episcopacy; (2) Presbyterianism; and (3) Congregationalism.

These models differ as to whether the chain of authority moves from the top down (Episcopacy; in a modified form, Presbyterianism, plus hybrid models seeking to balance elder authority with congregational participation) or from the bottom up (Congregationalism). To advance their argument, proponents claim support from biblical teaching and, in the case of Episcopacy, also church tradition. It appears, however, that neither a strict hierarchical nor a thoroughgoing congregational model is entirely in keeping with New Testament teaching, which seems to favor a combination of authoritative leadership and genuine congregational participation. However one resolves the question of church government, there are important practical implications for the life of the church and the ministry of individual believers.

WORKS CITED:

Brand, Chad Owen and R. Stanton Norman, eds. Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Nashville: B & H, 2004.

Dever, Mark E. A Display of God’s Glory: Basics of Church Structure. Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism & Membership. Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2001.
Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Dear Dan:

First of all, I apologize—I did not mean to misrepresent you. I accept that you have good reasons for preferring a pre-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel other than the present tense form of eimi in John 5:2. Also, let me express my great respect for your expertise in the area of NT Greek grammar. Your Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and its abridgment have been indispensable resources in my writing and teaching. In the matter at hand, too, I agree that discussions have too often proceeded without scholars adducing actual evidence, and, as you noted, this has been my desire in interacting with your publications on John 5:2 in my BECNT commentary.

Thank you, then, for taking the time to respond to my recent post on John 5:2 and the date of John’s Gospel—and from Patmos at that! I will not unnecessarily prolong further discussion at this point, since it is obvious that you and I continue to disagree on the matter. I will limit myself to three brief points in this my final response for the time being.

(1) I note as common ground that we both do not consider the present tense form of eimi in John 5:2 determinative for dating John’s Gospel. We both agree that other factors must be considered as well, though you do feel more strongly about John 5:2 favoring a pre-AD 70 date.

(2) With regard to my comment that a vast majority of scholars favors a post-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel, you noted that the majority of scholars also favors a post-AD 70 date for Matthew and Luke, and that you and I would not agree with the majority opinion in this regard; why should we agree with the majority view on the date of John’s Gospel? I believe there is an important difference in these two cases, however. The difference is that a post-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel is held by the vast majority even of conservative evangelical scholars (including Don Carson, Craig Blomberg, and many others), in contrast to a post-AD 70 date for Matthew and Luke, which only commands a majority of critical, non-evangelical scholars. To be sure, the majority is not always, or necessarily, right, but it should give the wise, careful scholar pause when the vast majority of those sharing his overall theological convictions come to different conclusions on a given issue. This was, and continues to be, my point.

(3) Finally, you say that I have the burden of proof to produce “clear, unambiguous” examples of eimi used as a “historical present” in Koine Greek. If by that you mean examples that you accept, it appears I won’t be able to meet that condition, because you seem quite convinced of the rightness of your view! As you note, in my BECNT commentary on John, I have cited several passages, such as John 10:8 and 19:40, where a present tense form of eimi is very possibly past-referring, and as far as I can see you have not advanced any compelling argument to discount this possibility. Rather than there being a lack of evidence, it appears, the issue rather seems to be that you do not accept the evidence I have already provided. For my part, I continue to believe that the prima facie reading of John 19:40, for example, is to take eimi there as past-referring, and this is what major translations such as the TNIV and the NIV seem to be doing (“This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs”). So while you may not think a past-referring use of the present tense of eimi is probable, it is certainly possible, and this, to my mind at least, weakens your argument for a pre-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel from the present tense of eimi in John 5:2.

To my mind, at least, Dan, you have therefore not established the implausibility of a past-referring use of a present tense form of eimi in John 5:2, which lessens the weight I am prepared to put on John 5:2 in the matter of dating John’s Gospel. To this should be added that even if, for argument’s sake, one were to concede that the present tense form of eimi in John 5:2 constitutes a historical present, this would still not necessarily favor a pre-AD 70 date, since the reference could be to remains of the structure or the structure could have been rebuilt after being destroyed but prior to John’s writing (Schlatter’s view, as I note in my BECNT commentary).

As to the date of John’s Gospel, I could elaborate on my own reasons for dating the Gospel post-AD 70, but this would be to repeat arguments already made in print, so that I will refrain from doing so here. What is more, am I currently working on a major Johannine theology and hope to explore some of these issues in greater depth in this forthcoming volume. Once again, thank you for honoring me with this thoughtful response.

Andreas Köstenberger

In several previous publications Daniel B. Wallace, professor at Dallas Seminary, has argued for a pre-AD 70 date of composition for John’s Gospel on what may appear to be a fairly inconspicuous feature: the use of the present tense form of the verb “to be” (eimi) in John 5:2: “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” According to Wallace, the present tense indicates that the structure here described was still standing at the time of writing. Since archaeological evidence suggests that the structure was destroyed in AD 70, John’s Gospel must have been written prior to AD 70.

In my commentary on John’s Gospel in the BECNT series (p. 178) I have adduced possible instances of present tense forms of eimi that may be past-referring, which would invalidate Wallace’s theory. Specifically, I mentioned John 10:8 (“All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers” NIV) and John 19:40 (“This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs”). Wallace has now responded. He claims that neither passage is a genuine parallel and continues to argue that there are no instances of the past-referring present tense forms of eimi in the New Testament. He also continues to argue for a pre-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel. With regard to John 10:8, Wallace contends this is an instance of “extending from past present” (with reference to Fanning), not a historical present. He does not give any reason why John 19:40 is inadmissible other than asserting that it is not a genuine parallel and citing certain English translations.

I am not going to engage in detailed interchange on minor or ultimately immaterial points here nor respond to arguments or information that I consider less than completely accurate, because my purpose here is more broadly to reassess the likelihood of Wallace’s reading of John 5:2 and the possible light it sheds on the date of John’s Gospel.

First of all, regarding the date of composition for John’s Gospel (on which I have blogged previously), only a very tiny minority of scholars argues for a pre-AD 70 date. I continue to be puzzled by Wallace’s strong interest in arguing for such a date. In my view (and also that of Craig Blomberg, Don Carson, and others; cited on p. 178 of my BECNT commentary), the tense form of a single Greek verb in John’s Gospel is hardly able to bear the heavy weight Wallace puts on it in proving the date of composition of the entire Gospel. Not that the majority is necessarily always right in biblical studies, but it must be said that there are good reasons why the virtual consensus of Johannine scholars holds to a post-AD 70 date.

Second, I continue to believe that we must be careful not to dismiss too quickly the possibility that a present tense form of eimi may be used in biblical narrative within a temporal scope that includes the past. In fact, by calling the use in John 10:8 “extending from past present” [sic], Wallace acknowledges that the past may be part of the temporal scope of eimi in a present tense form, even though differences may obtain with regard to the use of eimi in John 10:8 and in John 5:2.

The use in John 19:40 seems to be closer to John 5:2, and Wallace does not advance any actual argument that would disqualify understanding the use of the present tense form of eimi in this passage as past-referring, other than possibly hinting at the fact that burial customs at the time of Jesus may still have obtained at the time of writing John’s Gospel. This, of course, is a point that cannot be established on the basis of New Testament Greek. Suffice it to say that there is evidence that Jewish burial customs did in fact change in the second half of the first century AD (see my BECNT commentary, p. 555; Keener, in commenting on John 19:39–40, speaks of “Jewish burials in this period,” p. 1163 [emphasis added]), so that it cannot be assumed that no change occurred. Moreover, note that in other cases, too, John mentions Jewish customs prevailing at the time of Jesus (John 2:6; 11:5; 18:28) that should be taken as referring to the level of the original time frame of the narrative (past time) rather than as necessarily still in place at the time of writing (present time).

For these reasons I disagree that John 19:40 is irrelevant for our understanding of John 5:2. I also contend that on a narrative level it is far more natural to read the references in John 5:2, 10:8, and 19:40 as past-referring rather than as John moving from past reference to present reference (which would be considerably more intrusive) and back to past reference. A case in point is the NIV’s and TNIV’s rendering of John 19:40 as “This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.”

In any case, I do not expect that many students of John’s Gospel will believe that the date of John’s Gospel can be established by a disputed use of one single verb tense in the Gospel (of course, Wallace may dispute that this point is disputed, but I dispute this!). In the end, we must turn to a variety of other, more significant and more weighty, factors that suggest a post-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel, factors I and many other commentators have set forth for quite some time (see in this regard David Croteau’s helpful summary article on the date of John’s Gospel in Faith & Mission 20 [2003]: 47–80). For these reasons I think it is unwise for anyone to champion the view that John was written prior to AD 70, whether on the basis of the present tense form of eimi in John 5:2 or otherwise.