The Priesthood of All Believers and Why the New Covenant Requires Congregationalism
September 16, 2025
September 16, 2025
The church is God’s new covenant people. Properly understood, this truth requires a congregational form of church government. Why? I will answer this question in three steps. First, I will define congregationalism. Second, I will establish that the church as God’s new covenant people is constituted as a regenerate, believing people in contrast to the “mixed” people of Israel under the old covenant. Third, I will conclude that congregationalism is the most consistent polity given what the church is.
Congregationalism is a form of church government by which the congregation functions as the final court of appeal in local church matters. This doesn’t mean, contrary to some caricatures, that congregationalism requires a pure democracy to settle every church decision, or that it disallows God-ordained pastors/elders who are to exercise authority and spiritual leadership in the local church. Instead, congregationalism is best viewed as the congregation living under Christ’s lordship, and under the authority of ordained pastors/elders who are called to spiritually lead the congregation, yet who, in the end, is the final court of appeal in church matters.
Evidence for congregationalism can be found throughout the NT. As believers covenanted together, elders were chosen (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), God’s Word was preached, and the ordinances were practiced (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:26), the church took on visible expression in local assemblies that governed their own affairs. This is why a vast number of NT letters were written to local churches, not merely to church officers or some larger ecclesiastical body. The letters were written to instruct the entire congregation of their responsibilities to govern themselves and to protect themselves from false teachers. For example, in Galatians, Paul expects this young church to sit in judgment of angelic and apostolic authority if they should preach something contrary to the apostolic message (Gal. 1:8). As Mark Dever notes, “He [Paul] doesn’t write merely to the pastors, to the presbytery, to the bishop or the conference, to the convention, or to the seminary. He writes to the Christians who compose the churches, and he makes it quite clear that not only are they competent to sit in judgment on what claims to be the gospel, but that they must!”11 . Mark Dever, A Display of God’s Glory: Basics of Church Structure—Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism, and Membership (2nd ed.; Washington, DC: 9Marks Ministries, 2001), 35.
Congregationalism is further confirmed in the practice of church discipline. It’s not only leaders who are to exercise discipline but the entire congregation. The church is to exercise authority over false teachers (2 Cor. 10–13; Gal. 1:8; 2 John) and people’s lives (Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5:1–13; 2 Cor. 2:5–11). This is why Paul is distraught by the behavior of the Corinthian church who cannot settle disputes from within and instead seeks the help of non-Christians. For Paul, the church is acting contrary to what she is, and by a series of pointed questions, he makes this abundantly clear (see 1 Cor. 6:2–5a). Paul’s consternation with the church only makes sense if he assumes that the entire church is involved in these kinds of decisions. Each member has a role to play because the entire church is ultimately the final court of appeal for her own affairs under the lordship of Christ.
But the question now is this: Why? What understanding of the church best accounts for congregationalism in the NT? If we grasp what the new covenant is and that the church is God’s new covenant people, then the answer should be self-evident.
In thinking about the nature of the church, it’s crucial to remind ourselves that in the redemptive sense, God only has one people (elect) over time. In the OT, God’s people were saved by grace through faith in the promises of God. The same is true in the new covenant era, except that God’s promises are now Christologically defined with greater clarity due to the progressive unfolding of God’s redemptive plan through the covenants (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:9–12; Gal. 3:6–9; Heb. 11:8–19). We can affirm this point without affirming that Israel and the church are constituted in the same way. In fact, the church, as God’s new covenant people, is different than Israel under the old covenant in at least two ways.
First, the church is new in a redemptive-historical sense because she is the people of the new covenant. The previous covenants have reached their fulfillment in the new covenant. So the newness of the church is because of Christ, who in his obedient life and triumphant cross-work has won our eternal redemption, secured the new covenant promise and gift of the Spirit, and given birth to the church.
Second, unlike Israel under the old covenant, the church is new because she is constituted as a regenerate, believing people rather than a “mixed” people, i.e., consisting of believers and unbelievers. In contrast to Israel, true members of the new covenant are only those who have been born and gifted of the Spirit, united to Christ, and justified before God, and which we, to the best of our ability, identify by their profession of faith and visible signs of conversion. In the NT, the only ones who receive the sign of the new covenant (baptism) are those who have professed faith in Christ.
Evidence for these truths is found in OT anticipation and NT fulfillment. In the OT, all of the prophets anticipate the coming of Christ and the new covenant. The prophets contrast the new covenant with the old in at least two ways.
First, unlike the “mixed” people of Israel, the new covenant will consist of people who all know God directly, who all have the law written on their hearts (i.e., who are “circumcised in heart” or “regenerated”), and most significantly, who all are forgiven of their sin (Jer. 31:33–34; Ezek. 36:25–27). Thus, what makes the new covenant different than the old is that what was only true of the elect within Israel, will now be true of the entire new covenant people.
Second, this regenerate community will be a people who are all gifted by the Spirit. Under the old covenant, God empowered and gifted various leaders to lead Israel, specifically prophets, priests, and kings. But in the new covenant, the OT anticipates that, instead of God pouring out his Spirit only on prophets, priests, and kings, by the work of Christ as the true prophet, priest, and king and due to our union with him, all those in the new covenant will be born and gifted by the Spirit. This affirmation becomes the underpinning for the NT teaching on the “priesthood of all believers.” In the new covenant, no longer will the Spirit merely empower various leaders within the covenant people for acts of leadership and service; instead, all people in the new covenant will be gifted by the Spirit (Num. 11:27–29; Joel 2:28–32), which is precisely what the NT announces has occurred (Acts 2).
This doesn’t mean that all people have the same gifting, nor does it negate the ordained leadership roles of elders and deacons. But it does mean that these leaders don’t function in the old covenant sense, namely, as distinctive mediators between God and the people, or even as authoritative rulers over God’s people without any involvement of the people. Instead, they function as fellow believers, gifted by God for a specific task to lead the church, but in concert with the entire Spirit-born and Spirit-gifted congregation. This is borne out, for example, in the list of qualifications of church leaders (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). When one investigates these lists, we discover that all of these characteristics are true for all Christians, except being “able to teach.” Elders, then, shouldn’t be viewed as a special class within the congregation but as men who excel in these characteristics and who are called and gifted to serve the church in this significant way (Acts 14:23; 20:17–29; cf. Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:1–2).
Much more could be said, but given that the church is God’s new covenant people due to Christ’s glorious new covenant work, why does this understanding of what the church is require congregationalism or, at least, minimally best account for it? Let me offer two reasons.
First, the new covenant rejects any hierarchical governing of the church. Yes, Christ is the head of the church (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 5:25–27). But unlike the old covenant, in the new covenant there is a direct relationship between Christ and his people. This is why the entire congregation not only has direct access to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19–25), but also why God’s grace and presence are not mediated through various leaders to the people, in contrast to the old. Although God has gifted and ordained pastors/elders to lead the church and exercise authority, elders don’t function as mediators or dispensers of grace. They are simply fellow believers who serve and lead Christ’s church.
This teaching shouldn’t surprise us, nor should we think it’s in conflict with the congregation functioning as the final authority. After all, it reflects the nature of the new covenant. It also makes sense of a number of other truths, specifically the body imagery of the local church (1 Cor. 12–14). Christ is the head of the church, but the church is comprised of many body parts (members). All members have an important role in the life of the church. All are gifted by the Spirit to carry out their God-ordained role, but not in exactly the same ways. Ultimately, every member governs the church, which is evidenced by the entire congregation’s role in choosing leaders, guarding the gospel, and carrying out church discipline.
Second, given the nature of the new covenant, under the lordship of Christ, the final court of appeal in church matters must be the congregation. Why? Because congregationalism follows from what the new covenant church is. As we noted above, in contrast to the old, what is “new” about the new covenant is that all God’s people are born, empowered, and gifted by the Spirit; all have access to God; all know God; and all are priests.
Again, this fact doesn’t negate the importance of divinely gifted elders in the church. But it is to say that these elders don’t function in an old covenant sense, namely, as distinctive mediators between God and the people, or even as authoritative rulers over God’s people without any involvement from the people. Rather they are gifted by God for a specific task to lead the people of God but in concert with the entire Spirit-born and gifted congregation, and ultimately accountable to the Lord of the church. To remove the congregation as the final court of appeal and to replace it either with a hierarchical order or even a leadership hierarchy such as elder rule ultimately undermines what the church is as God’s new covenant people. It’s to function more in line with old covenant categories where various leaders acted for and on behalf of the people. It is a failure to realize the differences between the old and new covenant communities.
To grasp that the church is God’s new covenant people should lead us to affirm elder-led congregationalism. In fact, the two require each other.
Unfortunately, what often occurs in church government discussions is one side of the biblical evidence is elevated and set against the other side. In this case, there is a tendency either to elevate the authority of the congregation at the expense of the leaders or elevate the rule of the leaders without acknowledging the final authority of the congregation. This kind of reductionism must be rejected.
Instead, we must account for all the biblical data, so that our churches continue to conform to what the church actually is for God’s glory and the life and health of the church.
Polity is not the gospel, but it’s an outgrowth of the gospel, given by God to protect and promote the gospel, particularly over time.
Go to Journal →
All Scripture—including the Old Testament—is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. But it’s important to know exactly how and when to apply it.
Confessional Baptist theology disputes theonomy in three areas.
It is not our primary purpose here to provide analysis, but to describe and define, and to supply a preliminary sketch of the theoretical and environmental origins of the Christian Reconstructionist movement.
What is a deacon? What does a deacon do? In this second 9Marks Book Club, Jonathan Leeman and Matt Smethurst discuss the important topic of deacons in a local church. Buy the book here: https://9marks.myshopify.com/products…
Discussing the book “Sound Doctrine” with the author Bobby Jamieson.
Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, and friends discuss Revival vs. Revivalism, a conversation about two different ways of doing ministry today.
