Eschatology and Office
Charles G. Dennison*
At the beginning of my article "Worship and Office,"1 I mention Paul Woolley's comment about the future of theological study. He stated that it would concentrate on the doctrines of the church and eschatology. My article was what I called a "lesser contribution" to a discussion in which I hoped one day for better integration of these two great doctrines. What I have to say today is another "lesser contribution" in the interest of the grander enterprise that awaits some remarkable individual or individuals the Lord is pleased as yet to raise up.
Let me start with comments about eschatology. To say the least, there has been a radical shift in the last century when it comes to the subject of eschatology. Negatively speaking, this redirection has come about because of : (1) the modern antipathy toward the supernatural; and (2) the exhaustion and frustration over the failed schemes of nineteenth century millennialism and the fantastical claims of the cults. More positively, this shift was the result of a growing suspicion about the adequacy of the traditional systematic theology format with its concentration on logical categories and its leveling effect on all doctrines.
Most pressing, however, in the area of sophisticated theological discussion, was the collapse of the liberal view of Jesus and its Kantian conviction that Christianity equals ethics. Men like Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906), Johannes Weiss (1863-1914), and Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) recognized that the apocalyptic in the Biblical record was anything but marginal, as the liberals had contended. Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology" approach to the New Testament rescued Jesus from the liberal misinterpretations, but delivered him into the apocalyptic fevers of first century Messianism with its overactive interest in the imminent eschatological events. But the questions now became, what do we do with this bizarre Galilean? If eschatology is central to Jesus' self-consciousness, how do we relate to such extremism?
Schweitzer answered that, contrary to liberal opinions, we must look to Jesus' eschatological interest for the timeless and eternal. That the historical Jesus had expectations of the immediate catastrophic arrival of the kingdom of God and died a disappointed man makes no difference. The important thing is the impact of the eschatological habit of mind on the behavior of those who would profit from the historical Jesus. Only such a habit of mind can appreciated the power of Jesus' "world-negating" ethic and its freedom from the "world-accepting" and self-protective habits of modern theology and Protestantism generally. (Schweitzer's medical work in French Equatorial Africa was consistent with his reading of the gospels.)
With eschatology redefined and made all the more insistent in its demands, the battles over eschatology erupted in this century. At their center stood the imposing figure of Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976). Bultmann very bluntly said:
But while rejecting the particulars of New Testament eschatology, Bultmann labors, as Schweitzer, to salvage the category. He therefore redefines eschatology as an event in which man encounters the truth of his own existence.3 Such an encounter confronts man with the continual end of an old world and the beginning of a new. There is no future consummation, only its existential realization as man comes to understand that he is placed before a decision for the future every moment. Here is genuine eschatology and true freedom.
C. H. Dodd (1884-1973) accepts Bultmann's conviction that the world will not end as the Bible describes, and he agrees that eschatology has nothing to do with last things. But while for Bultmann, the kingdom in Jesus' preaching is wholly future, according to Dodd, it is wholly present. Dodd's famous book The Parables of the Kingdom (1935) sets forth what he calls "realized eschatology", the view that Jesus' language, while cloaked in apocalyptic fantasy, means to call attention to the genuine experience of the eternal in the here and now. What references, therefore, we might find in the gospels to the future of the kingdom are either interpolations by the first century church to meet its eschatological crisis or texts that have been misinterpreted. For Jesus, the kingdom was spiritual, said Dodd—a perspective, it has been noted, not far removed from the older liberal point of view.4
In the middle of this debate, both chronologically and theologically, stands Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999), whose book Christ and Time appeared in 1946. For Cullmann, Christ is the so-called mid-point of history. His message announces the kingdom's presence, but also anticipates its future appearance in an "already/not yet" tension. But does this orthodox sounding analysis of Jesus' message present a real alternative in the discussion we have reviewed thus far? Cullmann admits that linear time is only background to what is really important, namely, the present-future tensions.5 But if linear time is reduced to background, what about the reality and importance of linear time's movement to a definite conclusion? Cullmann may be in reaction to modern theology's removal of the end of the world from its catalogue of accepted doctrines, but is he anymore committed to it? It appears not, and his "present-future" construct becomes just as philosophical as Bultmann's eschatological moment and Dodd's spiritualized kingdom.6
To summarize, despite the intense debate, those most directly involved in the recent discussions about eschatology have argued two things. First of all, eschatology is not about last things; instead it is about ultimate things. In fact, an eschatology that insists upon talking about a literal end of the world, be it from Jesus or anyone else, is primitive, unscientific and unacceptable. Second, and as contradictory as this sounds, eschatology is at the center of New Testament consciousness. To be true to this consciousness and to humanity's greatest interest, the church must retranslate the New Testament's primitive eschatology and place that retranslation at the heart of her life and theology.
It is in the context of this discussion that a number of figures from within Reformed orthodoxy, and especially from within the Westminster Seminary tradition, have made a great contribution. Coming to mind are Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), Ned B. Stonehouse (1902-1962), Edmund P. Clowney (1917- ), Meredith G. Kline (1922 - ), Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (1936- ). Also of great significance is Herman Ridderbos (1909- ) of the Netherlands. All of these scholars have been deeply influenced by the twentieth century debate and have concluded that eschatology is the center of the Biblical consciousness. This conclusion has been pursued in the interests of a biblical-theological commitment. The result is that biblical theology and its eschatological concern have brought tremendous pressure to bear upon the traditional systematic theological enterprise and typical discussions about eschatology.7 For example, Vos's insights that the historical precedes the theological and that eschatology precedes soteriology have become lynchpins to this approach.
As a result, many who have felt the pressure of their insights to the traditional scheme have responded in uncertainty and even open hostility. Some have suggested that Vos and company are merely playing off of and into the hands of the modernist agenda. But in all fairness, it is important to acknowledge how hard both Vos and these men have fought against the modernist position. To begin with, they insist on the biblical doctrine of the end of this world order by God's direct action. A contrast of Vos's and Cullmann's famous diagrams illustrates the point. Vos's, as you know, anticipates a literal endpoint.8 Cullmann's, as you might not know, does not.9 Also, the Reformed biblical theologians insist on the present interaction between the present world and the real substantive world to come, as well as (for the saints) a participation in that highest heavenly world now. Again, the contrast between the Vos and Cullmann diagrams is significant. Vos's vertical interest clearly comes through.10
At the same time, it must not be forgotten that Vos saw himself as defending Reformed orthodoxy and, although judged innovative by some, as actually reintroducing the genius of Reformed theology into the discussions. Here Vos contended that the covenant, the Reformed faith's contribution to the theological world, has at its center the hope of a higher and eternal existence in which permanent communion with God is the greatest blessing and that this hope belonged to man even in the garden prior to the fall. According to Vos, Reformed theology, being covenantal, is inherently eschatological in its most basic impulse and particularly suited to address not only the profound meaning of Scripture but the current crisis over eschatology.
If the past one hundred years have witnessed unsettling changes in the area of eschatology, what might we say about office? The old view saw office as a unique calling grounded in God himself (and specifically in Jesus Christ). As God preceded and stood above the man called to fill an office, so the office itself preceded and stood above the man. The man had the office confirmed on him; he entered the office the language here reflective of this perspective.
Many things, however, have been at work in the church to change this view. For instance, universal enfranchisement and general endowment have increasingly taken their toll. A few months before his death, Machen complained that fundamentalists held to a democratic view of office. Fundamentalism said any "man who 'has been washed in the blood of Christ and saved'" had a right to office.11 Recently, Gregory Reynolds has provided a useful analysis of the democratizing trend in the church.12 His study references the convictions expressed by others that the roots of this phenomenon in this country are found in the emerging evangelical movement, in the misshapened notions of the relationship of secular government to church polity, and eventually in the convictions of the charismatics.13
One result of the democratizing trend, especially among conservatives, was the trivializing of office. Ordinarily, imbued with dignity and commanding respect, office became common. Often it was received as a mere formality, providing title where it was thought necessary to satisfy social and ecclesiastical custom, but unessential for ministry. After all, everyone has a ministry.
Many conservatives rallied to these conclusions because of their interests in greater access to the culture and greater effectiveness in outreach. At the same time, mainline theology was doing its part to downgrade office and that in a way which worked well with the attitudes gaining ground among conservatives. A growing anti- or supra-denominationalism, for example, could not help but relativize views of church polity. This was, in part, Machen's concern in his battle against the 1920 Plan of Union and against the attitude of J. Ross Stevenson and Charles Eerdman at Princeton. Machen's logic was simple: if the Westminster Standards were biblical and therefore true; and if the Westminster Standards taught Presbyterianism; then Presbyterianism is true and meant for the whole world.13
But even apart from the growing anti-denominationalism, the polity issue had entered a critical phase of its history. The struggles in England in the earlier part of this century illustrate the point. As highly as the Church of England had held the office of bishop, views began to be heard within it calling into questions age-old fundamental convictions. B. H. Streeter challenged established Anglican order with his statement: "there is no one form of church order which alone is primitive, and which therefore posses the sanction of apostolic precedent."15 Arthur C. Hedlam said, "[Christ] left the Church to organize its own form and order."16
As these statements become representative of an attitude pervasive in mainline Protestantism, they give us a fair idea of where things presently stand. Not only do Episcopal claims about apostolic succession fall to the ground, but so do any claims about the early church's structural uniformity. Also left without support are those drawing upon the jus divinum doctrine that God has established in his word one form of polity.
Of interest in this regard, and closer to our situation, is the statement in the PC(USA)'s Confession of 1967:
This statement is far distant from the commitment of historic Presbyterianism as found, for instance in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, "The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church-officers . . . "17
Another reason for the downgrade of office within mainline theology, at least from the perspective of orthodox Protestant expression, is the rise of existentialist interpretation. The existentialist approach builds upon the critical conclusions of the last century, particularly the views of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the Tubingen school.
The upshot of this position is that the original liberties of Paul's view of faith and church life are brought beneath the stifling restrictions of an emerging early Catholicism.
This position has been updated and powerfully presented by Ernst Kasemann (1906-1998), who has brought an existential philosophy to bear on the question of church order. Kasemann was convinced that the fact the world did not end, as the early church had hoped, threw the church into an organizational crisis. As a result, Paul's rather free and functional approach to the church's structure was reassessed in light of the rising strength of an early Catholicism. Office and church structure were objectified in the new order, and the Spirit was joined to office by definition,19 polity was established by an appeal to a permanently settled definable past, and church unity was mandated as an essential expression of organizational strategy.20
Over against this early Catholicism stood Paul's gospel, the enemy of all who look to external guarantees for the inward realities of faith. Paul's gospel loses ground to the church that places its confidence in office, order, and tradition. Needed is the proclamation of the eschatological event of the turn of the ages. Such proclamation, as takes place in the word and sacraments, calls for a decision. Only in the encounter through proclamation is the Lordship of Christ exhibited. True authority exists only in the event of obedient service. Office exists only in ministry; that is, only in the act of ministry.
To summarize our discussion about office, we take note of the general drift of the church. Traditional understanding has been subjected to radical reassessment inherent to the democratizing and anti- even supra-denominational attitudes that prevail so widely. Office loses not only its historic definition but its definitive Biblical warrant as the twentieth century decides the New Testament provides no settled polity At the same time, Scripture (or at least certain portions of Scripture) are claimed as normative for polity, but only insofar as order and office are juxtaposed with the Spirit and reinterpreted as an event.
Clearly, discussions about office have become quicksand. Even from a traditional Reformed and Presbyterian point of view, this may seem to be the case. (Note the difficulties many are having with the two-office/three-office debate.) Thus, the question becomes one about the quest for solid ground. In this quest, no simple appeal to the Bible will do without a commitment to a wider vision of the Bible's meaning.
Ironically, Kasemann, despite his radical orientation, may be of help. His attempt to bring the issues of polity into connection with an over-arching eschatology is interesting. Not that we are interested in or believe the particulars of Kaseman's eschatology. However, in his zeal for eschatology as that which is concerned with ultimate things, Kasemann has admitted to eschatology's pervasive reach and to the fact that it touches upon the entirety of Christian existence, even the matters of office and order. To this extent, we should be listening.
Eschatology and Office
If Kasemann is a prod for us in the providence of God, it is to the end that we would appreciate the depths and riches of our Reformed heritage and look again at those whose interest in eschatology lays before us hints of the relationship between eschatology and office. I say hints because there has not been as thorough a working out of the biblical-theological approach to the church and its offices, keeping in view the Bible's eschatological interest.
Many hints are found in the programmatic work of Vos. Although he does not draw out the implications explicitly for office, his insights into the eschatological character of Christian existence are foundational. His work on Pauline eschatology shows that Christ's work has in view the eschatological goal to which he is brought by his death and resurrection and that by the Spirit the believer's union with Christ is not only unto glory with Christ in heaven, but a participation in glory in a provisional way presently.21 Vos's work on Hebrews makes similar points, although here he is specifically concerned with the linear progression from the old to the new covenant and to show the heavenly reality's relationship to both. In the old covenant, the heavenly reality is shadowed down; in the new, the very substance of that reality has become available or accessible through the ministry of Christ, our great and final high priest.22
The doctrine of the church is, of course, implied in the work Vos sets before us in his studies of Paul and Hebrews. It is expressly considered in his study of The Teaching Of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (1903). Again, office does not enter the discussion, but Vos is direct about the relationship of eschatology to the church. He writes, "The church actually has within herself the powers of the world to come. She is more than the immanent kingdom as it existed before Jesus' exaltation. She forms an intermediate link between the present life and the life of eternity."23 Along these lines, Vos stated his position more fully in his Biblical Theology where he wrote about Matthew 16:18-20:
Drawing from these sources for Vos's view of eschatology, we are able to summarize his position under two headings: first the category of motion which would be inclusive of the redemptive-historical movement from promise to fulfillment (as from Old Testament to New Testament) and the consummating movement from this world to the next; second is the category of the consummate kingdom itself or better heavenly reality which intrudes upon the present life of the church from the future but also provides the pattern and substance from the heavenly world for the church's enjoyment and well-being presently.
It has remained to others beside Vos to work with these categories when it comes to the relationship of office and the eschatological character of the church's life. Edmund Clowney has written extensively on the doctrine of the church from a biblical-theological point of view. He has stressed the eschatological character of the church as the assembly of the Lord, the body of Christ, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. He is very much aware of how the church through the work of Christ and the blessing of the Spirit, comes into possession of the heavenly realities and is made heir of God.25 Thus far, Clowney's position builds well on the second category, that of consummate kingdom and heavenly reality, in our analysis of Vos's eschatology. When it comes to office, the emphasis will fall on the first category that of motion as the church moves toward her goal in ministry. To be sure, Clowney sees offices grounded in Christ,26 but his interest is as these offices are effective for ministry in the areas of worship, edification, and evangelization;27 in other words, as they are useful for the church in making progress toward her goal in this world.
Clowney's labors have been greatly beneficial. He has self-consciously built upon Vos for the purpose of bringing the biblical-theological and eschatological structure of revelation to bear upon the matters of the church, its life, and offices. But, as yet, Clowney has not related these matters fully to the second category we cited earlier, namely, the category of the consummate world and heavenly reality. The individual who has begun to move us in this direction is Meredith G. Kline.
First of all, Kline has recognized an intra-testamental development that has much to say about eschatology and office. He lays this out in his book The Structure of Biblical Authority (1972). Kline observes that each testament develops along a similar line. Looking at the Old Testament, we see first the people of God constituted under a mediator during the days of the redemption from Egypt, the wilderness wanderings, and the Transjordan conquests. Next, we see the people temporarily under charismatic leadership in the period of Joshua and the Judges. The third stage finds the people established in the land as the administration of the Old Testament kingdom takes on a sense of finality and permanence. The temple and the institutions of the kingdom speak of permanence, a settledness, and as such they bear the stamp of eternity.
These three stages anticipate what comes in the New Testament. Here we witness again the formative stage in the gospel narratives in which Jesus Christ the final mediator appears for God's great work of redemption. Next comes the period of charismatic leadership and church expansion under the apostles when the Spirit's special gifts abounded. This period is covered in the Acts and evidenced in certain of Paul's letters. Finally, there takes shape "the stable, the permanent, stage of church order,"28 which is reflected in a number of "bridge documents", especially the Pastoral epistles.
Made all the more obvious to us from Kline's presentation should be the interconnectedness of the Old Testament and New Testament. Increasingly clear should be the validity of those arguments that insist upon Old Testament roots to the New Testament offices. Our Presbyterian forebears, the Westminster divines, lacked the finely developed biblical theology of Dr. Kline, but they hardly missed the point when they, without embarrassment or hesitation, grounded the office of the New Testament ministry in the Old Testament priesthood and looked to the Old Testament elder as the precursor to the New Testament governor.29
But more to the point of our argument, the development marked out by Kline carries us toward that which is permanent and, in its New Testament expression, that which uniquely conveys the substance of the heavenly eschatological order. However, the question now becomes, has not the heavenly eschatological order always been there preaching, and providing pattern, and in the end supplying substance to things here on earth, particularly the church in its redemptive-historical context?
Kline moves us toward consideration of these things in his book Images of the Spirit (1980). Kline's thesis is this: Genesis 1:2 introduces the theophanic glory-cloud into the creation account with the words "the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters." The Spirit/glory-cloud provides the heavenly paradigm for the creation and for man himself; thus linking them to the heavenly archtype. In the fallen world, the glory-cloud revisits the earth in the Exodus, again bringing order to God's redeemed people and restoring the image of God in the glowing face of Moses, the investiture of Aaron, and subsequently in the exaltation of the king and the commissioning of the prophets. With the New Testament, what had been anticipated in the Old Testament is realized in Christ, who is himself identified with the Spirit/glory-cloud; he becomes, in his service and by his death and resurrection, the fulfillment of Old Testament types seen in the temple and sacrifices, the realization of the Old Testament offices, and the center of God's new creation.
But Kline's position moves us toward equally profound conclusions when we look at the church. Is there a session in heaven, rooted in God in his triune nature, but also coming to expression in the divine counsel of God and his angelic host? Is not the earthly gathering of church rulers derivative of and correspondent to the heavenly gathering? Will not the earthly assembly, created in the Spirit, in its order and its offices, find its origin and counterpart in heaven? The parallel of Old Testament and New Testament order, therefore, is because they derive from the same heavenly source, with the New Testament order more glorious because it is, as Vos says, the heavenly reality actually manifest in the earth, the Old Testament order being merely shadow.
How exalted then the church and her officers become by the grace of God! Christ declares his church to be, with him, of the eternal order "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). And in its authoritative use of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the church finds the bond between its earthly decisions and the decisions council (Mt. 16:19). But even more glorious is the church, in its order and its offices. For it seems that it is more dear to God than the angelic assembly and its council in heaven above. When Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel in Exodus 24 climb the mountain and there behold God with the pavement of sapphire beneath his feet and there eat and drink in God's presence, it is as if a displacement has occurred. The earthly order with its offices is derived from the heavenly pattern, to be sure, but it is destined to be brought to a position higher than the angelic assembly with its elders. Indeed, "he did not subject to angels the world to come" (Heb. 2:5). "And do you not know that you shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6:3).
We come to the end of our study, which is only a preliminary suggestion with much work to do. Hopefully we have learned or been reminded that our Reformed faith is wonderfully able to address the present day struggle over eschatology. In fact, the debate is elevated and we are able to rise above millennial squabbles. With a firm grip on the Biblical view of history and on heaven to which history answers, we know that eschatology is about ultimate things and last things. And we are prepared to deal with the relationship between the two.
As far as office is concerned, we know better than to oppose order to order, office and Spirit. Also, in the quest to find solid ground, we know to look to the Scriptures. But we are not so naive to think that consideration of Scripture can be well pursued apart from commitment to its over-arching structure and interest, elevating the discussion and finding resolution to the question of how many offices.
Finally therefore, it is my hope that, in taking stock of the Bible's over-arching structure and interest, we will keep in mind that the heavenly end to which we press by grace is already given to us as the means by which we press, that it all might be of grace. Particularly, when applied to church order, there stands above us the heavenly original by which we are brought to our exalted position already and in glory. Hence we know that, in glory, we who are in and with the twenty-four elders will fall down before God and before the Lamb, cast our crowns before them, having led all creation in this consummate chorus:
Blessing and honor and glory and power
In that day, we will also know how much God has desired to display his glory in its full and perfect radiance before his elders in the heavenly Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem (Is. 24:23).
* Complete documentation has been supplied by the editor with the assistance of Grace Mullen, Acting Librarian, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA. This previously unpublished paper is dated 1995.
1 Cf. Mark Brown, ed., Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers (Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993) 257-79.
2 Cited by Ned B. Stonehouse in Eschatologie and the Gospel (Reprinted from the Studenten Almanac: Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, 1960) 212.
3 Norman Perrin, The Promise of Bultmann (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969) 41, 42.
4 Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1962) xxxi.
5 Christ and Time, rev. ed. (1964) 9.
6 Cp. Cornelius Van Til, The Great Debate Today (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970) 33-42.
7 Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1961).
8 Cf. The Pauline Eschatology, 38.
9 Christ and Time, 83.
10 Cp. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974)..
11 Letter of J. Gresham Machen to James E. Bennet, Oct. 23, 1936. Cf. the entire exchange, letters dating from Oct. 22 to Oct. 29, 1936 in the Archive of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, PA.
12 "Democracy and the Denigration of Office," Order in the Offices, 235-55.
13 Cp. my "Worship and Office," ibid., 257-79.
14 J. Gresham Machen, The Attack upon Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play (Princeton, NJ: 1927) 9.
15 The Primitive Church Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry (Macmillan, NY: 1929) 268.
16 The Church of England (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1924) 13.
17 XXX, 1; cp. "The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government" (1644); "A Directory for the Public Worship of God" (1645) found in The Confession of Faith (The Publications Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1967) 395-416 and 369-394 respectively.
18 Charles G. Dennison, Ernst Kasemann's Theology of Early Catholicism: An Inquiry into the Success of the "Lutheran Gospel" (Pittsburgh, PA: M. A. Thesis, Duquesne University, 1984) 9.
19 Ernst Kasemann, "Ministry and Community," in Essays on New Testament Themes (Napierville IL: A. R. Allenson, Inc., 1964) 70.
20 Ernst Kasemann, "Unity and Multiplicity," in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969) 257.
21 Cp. "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit", Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980) 91-125; The Pauline Eschatology (1930), especially chapter 1.
22 Cp. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1974) 57.
23 The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951) 84.
24 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948) 428-29.
25 The Biblical Doctrine of the Church (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979); "The Final Temple." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):156-89.
26 Cp. his article "The Biblical Theology of the Church," in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. by D. A. Carson (Exeter/Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Baker, 1987) 76.
27 Ibid., 77, 78.
28 The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972) 106.
29 Cp. the sections on the "Pastor" and "Other Church Governors" in the Westminster Assembly's The Form of Church Government; also Dennison, Order in the Offices, 271-73.