DAmmit!
We are!!!
Posted on 07/15/2015 5:31:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church. For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use. From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.
And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church. What form of government did the earliest Christians have? Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play. But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?
Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius.
But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?
The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.
But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:
1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”
2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.
3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).
In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.
What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.
This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).
Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.
Plural bishops does not necessarily mean there wasn’t a monarchical rule. From the earliest times down to the present dioceses have had auxiliary bishops.
The tradition in the Liber Pontificalis was that Peter appointed three episcopoi (Linus, Cletus, and Clement) over the Church of Rome to perform the sacraments and fulfill the priestly offices while he preached and taught. I’m sure there was no confusion about who the head of the Roman Church was while he lived though.
I’m reading a book the history of the Papacy. Communication was very difficult and there were theological differences in the church. I’m only up to about 700 AD. It was frequently difficult to figure out who was in charge.
I imagine the individual churches just winged it. Popes and Bishops had emperors and generals to worry about.
This article is correct, and the change from having a plurality of elders govern to one man leadership is easily explained.
It is simply a natural result of the spiritual declension of churches/the church.
For a plurality of men to lead together in oneness requires a miracle: Men in complete submission to God/the Holy Spirit, truly allowing the Lord Jesus to be Head of His church in a practical/functional way. Oneness among men is impossible - apart from God. Hey! Oneness between just two (marriage) is impossible apart from God!
In every matter, they would get on their faces before God to seek His will and His face, and would not move until they heard from Him together. They had to submit to one another, have an ear to hear from one another. Only men full of the Holy Spirit, wholly submitted to God can do this.
The testimony of the early church is that God was in their midst (I Corin. 14:25), because the Holy Spirit who was invisible led the gatherings - and unbelievers knew this was impossible to men. Today, the testimony of churches in never, “God is in your midst!”, but sadly, “Wasn’t that a great sermon?!?” or “What a great pastor!” A man is central and most important - not God.
That the churches declined spiritually in the first century is confirmed by Paul in scripture itself.
No human organization/institution can function without someone in charge - a man as head. Neither can any church nor any church leadership that is not practically, functionally under the headship of Christ. It will falter and fail.
The most natural thing to happen is for one man to take control - there is always someone who wants power, authority, and position who will step into any vacuum of leadership. It is also most natural for people to WANT a single leader to follow, to tell them what to do and what not to do - so they don’t have to be responsible before God themselves to hear from Him and follow Him.
So, as the spirituality of the churches declined, there were always men ready to jump into the role of “pastor” or “bishop”, and there were always people who wanted them to do so.
One man as the single leader of a local church is only a testimony to the fallen/unspiritual state of God’s people, is NOT God’s design - but is the universal pattern because only spiritual men can work together in oneness under Christ’s headship.
As a result, believers end up following men more than knowing how to walk with God, hear from Him, and men are given power, position and authority (”PP&A”) that God never meant any man to have.
Another result is that this unnatural power, position and authority goes to mens heads, they become proud.......and fall. And the higher they are in PP&A, the bigger they fall.
A third result is that often hundreds, if not thousands, are led astray by men’s false teachings - e.g., Jim Jones.
Often when there is a true spiritual recovery, churches find their way back to coming under Christ’s headship and a plurality of leaders - such as the Brethren did in England in the 1800’s - but here again - it never lasts long.
Spiritual declension always comes with time.
Always.
Love your tagline.....
Ping to those interested.
Thanks for you post. It has always been so. The Israelites wanted a king. Even a plurality of leaders can fall under the overpowering force of one man who claims ‘God’s will’. But elder led congregations are in line with NT.
My Church in Ohio had Church Elders, but I don’t know all the functions they did.
I assumed they were the ones that made the church ready for the Priest each service since I always saw them unlocking the doors, filling pamphlets, and stocking candles.
"For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? "Whatever else he says about bishops and presbyters being the same, he's carved out an interesting little exception here.
bookmark
Only TWO choices?
It appears like the CATHOLIC churches in Asia that John wrote about were 'led' by someone with a bifurcated tail and carrying a pitchfork!
DAmmit!
We are!!!
The MORMONs have 12 men that UNANIMOUSLY vote YES! to everything the Living Prophet® says.
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University) http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
A very interesting article.
Before 300 ad ...only the "bishops " would administer the eucharist ... when the church came to believe the mass was a sacrifice they began to have "priests" to offer the sacrifices
The tradition in the Liber Pontificalis
There is no evidence that Peter was even ever in Rome ...
Thanks for the ping
"πρεσβυτέρος" is spelled wrong. It's "πρεσβύτερος". That makes it difficult to take this piece seriously. The word means priest in Greek; still does.
By the very early 2nd Century (105 or so), +Ignatius of Antioch, second successor to +Peter as bishop Of Antioch, wrote to the Christians at Smyrna:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid."
However, there is the scripture that says:
1 Co 12: 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 2
There is a hierarchy of position there. Apostles outrank prophets (preachers?), and they outrank teachers...
1. The Didache's episcopoi in the plural is valueless as evidence of plural bishops--because it isn't clear whether the author is addressing one church, or multiple churches. Here's the Greek: Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους…. Choose (plural) for yourselves (plural)… How do you assume from that he is only talking to one church choosing multiple bishops? He could easily be telling multiple churches to choose one bishop each.
2. In Clement the sense even seems to favor a reading of multiple churches: "So preaching *everywhere in country and town*, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe." So again, we're not sure if this means multiple bishops in one location or not. And what's this business about the "entire Church" giving approval? Forget about episcopal…that sounds positively papal. Then Clement launches into a discussion about contention over the office of bishop (της επισκοπης……singular!) and cites the Scripture of Aaron's rod going into bloom--God choosing one tribe out of twelve to prevent disorder.
3. Likewise, in the Shepherd of Hermas, there is no indication that "bishops" in the plural means a council of bishops in one location: "Hear now concerning the stones that go to the building. The stones that are squared and white, and that fit together in their joints, these are the apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons". And later: "And from the tenth mountain, where were trees sheltering certain sheep, they that believed are such as these; bishops, hospitable persons, who gladly received into their houses at all times the servants of God without hypocrisy." Yeah, ok, "bishops" is in the plural. But what's the context? Is the context of a bishops' council governing a region without any head bishop? Absolutely not...it's referring to all the bishops throughout the world.
This piece is stretching a bunch of speculation to provide an early model for presbyterian government. Contrast this with the bold model of episcopacy outlined by Ignatius, where there's no doubt. The evidence far better supports a sort of hazily defined governance of presbyters and bishops that then *crystallized* into monarchical episcopacy, without any huge substantive change.
So let’s suppose our friends are correct, and that this was indeed the model of early Church governance.
Then the great St. Ignatius comes along and powerfully argues for the monarchical episcopacy.
Did anyone call him a heretic? Did any Church object to what he said? Did any “presbyterian governing council” in Rome or Alexandria or anywhere else excommunicate him for these ideas that would (I imagine) get one tossed out of a Presbyterian governance today?
Seems odd that this revered martyr could make up a doctrine like this out of thin air....and none of those good Presbyterians back then complained about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.