In the first part of this series of articles I covered material which indicated the origin of the NT synaxis (synaxis is Greek for ‘meeting’). It is helpful to read that material before reading this second article. For the sake of space, I will not repeat those points made in the first article.
The first proposition was that the OT ekklesia (‘assembly’) were officially called ‘meetings’ with ‘elders’ (presbuteroi) present. How these elders were chosen to represent the people of Israel is unknown. That they were appointed is made plain from the fact of their existence as representatives of the local tribes. In I Sa 8.1-ff for example, the ‘elders of the people’ met with Samuel the Prophet to voice the needs of the people. Before we explore the role of the elders in the OT communities, it would be helpful to explore the evolution of the role of leadership within the covenant people of God itself. God appears to work in terms of a progressive nature. He does not give the whole all at one time, but doles it out over time, sometimes over hundreds of years. Some theologians have called this ‘progressive revelation.’ The leadership within Israel has gone through, then, a process of evolution and development until it arrives under Samuel’s tenure in a king. Israel did not start out as a theocratic nation. They became a theocratic nation.
Beginning with Abram/Abraham, Israel takes on its formative years under his guidance. It is within the covenant God made with Abraham that ‘a nation’ will be born through him. This nation, in turn, will bless ‘all the nations.’ It is in this theme of the covenant blessings to ‘all the nations’ that the eschatological promises detailed by the later Prophets would concern themselves with. When we run across the promises in Isaiah, for example, and the blessings given ‘to all the nations’ we should be able to tag this to Jesus’ commission: ‘go into all the world.’ Indeed, we find the direct tag in Paul’s letter to the Roman house churches in 1.5. Paul’s apostleship, which was a ‘grace/gift’ and calling from God as directly as it was to Moses, was given ‘to call people from out of all the nations to the obedience of the faith’ (1.5). It is in this that we find Paul’s theology, and indeed his eschatology, being worked out in terms of the Abrahamic promise ‘to all the nations’ and the prophetic Scriptures concerning ‘all the nations.’ This is a crucial point to keep in mind, for it provides the eschatological framework within which we must work out all doctrine and practice today. Scholarship, contra Dispensationalism, is confirming this point for us more and more. Reformed theology, with its A-millennial and Post-millennial schools, contra Dispensationalism, has confirmed this point. Reformed theology is also referred to as ‘covenant theology’ in that it sees the world in terms of the New Covenant. Indeed, Roman Catholic theology is worked out within these terms as well (Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in the fifth century, was A-millennial). I will discuss all of this in time as it relates to these matters, for how one views the covenant relationship of God to His people today, if in fact there is any, greatly affects how they will live for God and under what perception they will interpret the world around them. Dispensationalism denies the ‘new covenant’ today (we are in the age of grace, not the new covenant), as well as some errant Preterists (the new covenant is fulfilled, and thus, done away with).
The nation of Israel comes under its first Patriarchs which was through a flesh and blood relation genealogically tied to Abraham. In short, a sort of nepotism played a role in who would be regarded as a ‘leader’ within these first years. The son of so and so became critical. No one who could not trace their genealogy directly to Abraham could play a role in the leadership of Israel. Though Gentile servants of Abraham’s household became circumcised, they never served in any leadership capacities. The same is true for any of the Gentile converts to OT Judaism. This changes, however, after the exile under Cyrus the Persian. I will come back to that later in another article, perhaps. The point is, Gentiles came to be defined as anyone not able to trace their lineage to Abraham. A true Israelite, that is, a blood Israelite, could. Even though in Adam all were related (Paul’s point), the covenant formation of a ‘peculiar people’ began with Abraham. It was from that point in the history of the nations that a singular, peculiar nation was created. From that point on, any not adhering to the circumcision of Abraham, and any not able to trace their lineage back to Abraham, were not truly a part of Abraham’s ‘seed’ according to the flesh. God elected Israel through Abraham, and he marked out all those born through Abraham with a badge of circumcision. This establishes my point that only those from Abraham on were regarded as leaders within the ‘assemblies’ of Israel. We find no record whatsoever of any Gentile occupying this position. This is an important point to keep in mind when we come to the NT assemblies. For, within the New Covenant, ‘there are no more Jews and Gentiles.’
The first period of leadership within Israel’s assemblies were fathers. This is the Patriarchal period of Israel’s development. It is not until we come to Moses where this begins, for the first time, to develop into something else. Exodus 6.13-25 takes great pains, before the plagues of Egypt narrative begins, to show that Moses is genealogically related to Levi (6.19,20), who we know was a son of Jacob (Genesis 29.34), who was a son of Isaac, son of Abraham. By strategically placing the genealogy of Moses in the narrative, Moses’ claim to leadership was confirmed. Had he not been directly related to Abraham, he could not have led God’s people.
However, while in Egypt, Israel grew numerously. Moses could not possibly, single-handedly, rule the people. In Ex 18.17-26 we have the first movement towards dividing the load of ruling responsibility. Jethro, without any command from the Lord, gave Moses advice to divide up the people under ‘capable men’ (18.21). The qualities listed for these men sound much like Acts 6.3-ff. There, the church was growing, and the Twelve could not handle the load and preach the Gospel at the same time. Seven capable men were chosen who met certain qualifications, Stephen being one of them. The proposal in Acts was not explicitly directed by the Spirit. There was no ‘thus saith the Lord.’ Rather, ‘The proposal pleased the whole group’ (Acts 6.5). It was a congregational decision based on organizational principles of ordinary protocol. It was not commanded by God, it was not explicitly stated by the Spirit. It was an organizational breakdown that led to their appointment. It was a complaint from the people, the solution was handled by the people, and the people chose and appointed these seven out from among their congregation. Many commentators have noted the similarities between Acts 6 and Ex 18, and here I must concur. Of equal importance are the qualifications of Paul given for ‘elders’ and ‘deacons’ in I Tim 3.1-ff. I will come to these considerations later on in our series.
Now, in Ex 18.21 Moses is told to ‘select’ capable men who fear God and set them ‘over’ the people as ‘chieftains.’ These men ‘would serve as judges’ and would ‘decide themselves’ various problems within their represented branches. This is a considerable amount of freedom here. The Hebrew text emphasizes that these were ‘men’ and not women. The word for ‘judge’ here is actually verbal: ‘one who is judging.’ Hebrew frequently employs a verb for a designation. One who teaches is a teacher. One who judges is a judge. One who leads is a leader, and so on. If a person within the community of the people ‘teaches,’ then he is, by nature, a teacher. They were to ‘judge for themselves’ many matters.
What is of interest is that ‘the elders’ appear before Moses is told to divide up the people. In Ex 3.16,18;4.29 Moses and Aaron ‘assemble’ or ‘gather together’ all of the ‘elders of the sons.’ They speak to them their plans. Again, we see the principle of representative leadership very early on. After Jethro gives Moses the advice to divide up the chieftains, Moses again ‘assembles the elders of the people’ (19.7). Who these men were, how they were appointed, and what constituted them as representatives of Israel we are only left to guess. There was no divine appointment outlined for them. They simply just appear for the first time in Ex 3.16. Equally important is that God tells Moses to assemble the elders. Therefore, God recognized their appointment, but he never commanded their appointment. This is a principle that acknowledges that God knows those who are self-appointed, or appointed by others, and accepts that appointment.
As our study continues through the Pentateuch, I noted that Israel became a nation that, at first, was governed by fathers. Elders, as early as Ex 3 appear as representatives of the people while living in Egypt. The word of the Lord to Joseph to the time of Moses was not heard. How, then, apart from revelation, did Israel function and maintain their religion? How did they function without priests? How did they function without a prophet? How did they function without these offices? It is plain that they knew of God’s stories through Abraham and the Patriarchs. They intermarried among themselves, keeping their bloodline as Hebrews (Ex 1). In Ex 2.1 ‘A man from the house of Levi married a Levite woman.’ How did they know, before Moses, that they were Levites? The answer is obvious. Secondly, the ‘elders of the people’ were easily assembled when Moses received his commission, along with Aaron. The only conclusion to come to in answer to the above questions was that fathers within each of the families ruled their homes as heads, and elders, in turn, ruled as representatives. No doubt, these ‘elders’ would petition the Egyptian officials to voice the needs of the people (Ex 3.18). Without revelation, without prophet, and without a Moses, Israel was functioning normally under elder leadership. They knew of the stories of God, since they believed in Moses’ message (4.30). Therefore, these stories were kept alive among the communities probably by oral tradition and later recorded by Moses and various Scribes. In non-revelatory times, elders and fathers governed the communities and kept the faith alive.
After the great exodus, Moses appoints and trains Joshua (Ex 17.9), and Joshua, in turn, appoints fighting men. Thus, we have in these formative years priests (Aaron and his sons), elders (appointed by communities), chieftains (appointed by qualification), Moses (appointed by God), and army captains (appointed by Joshua). The ‘elders’ are elevated to a status of leadership and are marked by that status. In Ex 24.1-ff the covenant is confirmed and ‘seventy of the elders’ represent the people of Israel. Moses alone is separated out from the seventy because of his special status. In the appointment of ‘seventy’ we find, once again, a parallel in the NT. Jesus commissioned ‘seventy’ of his disciples to go out and preach the Gospel (Lu 10.1-ff). Many commentators have noted here, too, an allusion to the ‘seventy’ of Moses. We will find more parallels as we continue in this study.
The ‘priests’ (sons of Levi) were set up as a nepotistic society. Bloodline was the norm that brought one into levitical leadership. Although one had to be an Israelite to be a leader and an elder, it is not true of them that their sons continued in unbroken succession. The ‘priests’ were set apart as ‘holy’ unto the Lord for a specific task. But, this does not mean that Israel was not holy, either. All Israel was a ‘nation holy to the Lord’ (Ex 19.6). Le 21.8, for example, states that the priest was ‘holy’ but also states that Israel is ‘holy’ as well. The holiness of the priests did not take away from the holiness of the people. It did not in the least demean their status as ‘the people of God’ and ‘the firstborn of the Lord’ as Israel was. Just because someone is called within the community and separated out for a holy vocation does not invalidate the holiness of the community. The people of Israel were just as much the people of God as any Levite was. Their tasks were different as well as their vocations and responsibilities, but that did not make them any more holy than anyone else. The only one separated out in a unique and distinguishable role at this point was Moses (one may get a hint here of Paul’s “body” analogy – a single nation functioning in different roles).
In Nu 12.6-8 we have the mention of ‘the prophet.’ Moses is distinguished from the prophet. He is, in fact, a prophet himself (Dt 18.15). However, he was unique from a prophet. He was a lawgiver. He alone descended from Mount Sinai. He alone gave the Law. It is from this portion in Numbers 12 that Hebrews 3.1-6 comments on. Moses was a ‘builder of God’s house’ and that is exactly what he put together. Jesus, parallel to Moses, builds God’s spiritual house of which the old covenant order represented symbolically the new covenant order. Therefore, without dealing with NT leadership yet (for that would get ahead of our series here), we are warranted for finding patterns and parallels between the OT and NT.
The ‘leaders’ of the people are chosen out by Moses to represent each of the tribes of Israel. Naturally, then, 12 leaders are chosen (Nu 1.4-ff). These men were ‘heads’ (a different term) of their clans, and represented their tribe. These men were ‘to stand’ with Moses and help him. Perhaps this is a modification of the earlier advice of Jethro to divide up Israel into groups. However, this is not necessarily the case. The men picked out under Jethro were ‘judges.’ No mention whatsoever is made that they ruled by tribe. The division we find in Numbers is according to tribe. The division we find in Jethro’s advice is according to simple divisions of groups regardless of tribal ancestry.
Secondly, it is plain from Numbers that these ‘heads’ were not appointed by birthright. That is, the son of one who was a Head of the Tribe did not automatically assume this role after his father died. This is easily seen by comparing the list of heads in Numbers 1 and Numbers 34.19-29. Prophets did not continue like this function, either. Moses was succeeded by Joshua, hardly his son. Samuel’s sons succeeded him, but were rejected by the people and elders (I Sa 8.1-5). We can only assume that ‘elders’ did not practice this, either. It appears that only the king and his sons and the priests and their sons continued their leadership through nepotistic means (one may see here Jesus as King and Priest having many “sons” – thus, “Everlasting Father” – Isaiah 9.6,7 – since the “government is on his shoulders” and he is a “wonderful Prince” – these are nepotistic titles in Israel).
In Deuteronomy we have ‘prophets,’ ‘judges,’ and ‘leaders’ mentioned. The ‘elders of the people’ continue to be a category of leaders, but are never specifically ‘ordained’ for that task. That they are a separate class is made plain by the time Israel evolves under Joshua. In Joshua 23.2 this is made clear: Joshua ‘summoned to all Israel, to their elders, leaders, judges and officials.’ The Septuagint translators use two words for the single Hebrew word for ‘elders.’ They use presbuteroi (the NT word) and gerousian, which means ‘Council.’ This clues us about how these men were regarded among the community. Elders were council members, representatives of God’s people to conduct low-level ordinary affairs of the community. The high-level affairs were conducted by ‘heads,’ ‘rulers,’ and directly appointed by God; offices like Moses, Joshua, the prophets. The priestly heads were commissioned on the basis of birthright within the tribe of Levi. Judges were appointed and shared with ‘teaching the Law’ among the Levites. We can find no direct commission of ‘the elders’ nor any divine appointment of them. They simply appear in these texts, but they are regarded as a category of leaders. We will have to explore their role in a further article, and their evolution of status by the time we hit the period of the prophets, post-exilic Israel, intertestamental Israel, and, finally, Israel in the time of Jesus.
What we have so far, then, in the hierarchichal government of Israel is this:
Moses
Prophets
Priests
Judges
Chieftains
Army Captains
Heads of Tribes
Elders
Fathers
Many of these offices could be held by one person. A ‘father’ could also be an ‘elder’ (Paul states this as the case) and a head of the tribe. A priest, like Moses, could be a prophet (and Samuel). David, a king (which we have not considered, yet), was a prophet, priest (in the order of Melchizedek), judge, army captain and father. Jesus is all of these things and is called all of these things.
Conclusion
In concluding part II we noted that an office is not necessarily by divine commission or appointment. Sometimes, it is a necessity born out the situation. We saw that the Spirit or ‘word of the Lord’ does not always accompany the ‘choices’ made in appointing leaders. The qualifications given are, fearing God, good standing with the community, etc. Also, the people play the role in some cases of pointing out these leaders and commissioning them. It is not commanded by God for them to do so, but it is neither condemned by God for them to do so. Finally, it was noted that in non-revelatory times, elders maintained the people of God and were, without God, appointed by the people on the basis of credentials. This category of leaders was approved by God in that it was never condemned by Him. Moses accepts these elders from the very beginning and their appointment never ceased from the time of Moses, throughout the judges, kings, exile, return under Ezra to the time of Christ and the NT.
In the next article we will finish up our survey in the OT and add more details to the office of elders in particular, allowing other scholars to define this peculiar office. This will set up the fourth article dealing with NT leaders. The fifth and final article will assert the Preterist framework and bring us to today. It is my hope that this biblical survey will convey the will of God for today as it regards the community of the faithful and their leaders. Surely, God has not left us without a vision and a plan.
