Were Early Churches Ruled by Elders or a Single Bishop?

Canon Fodder ^ | 7/13/2015 | Michael J. Kruger

[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.

[Kolokotronis]

" So TRADITION is used to VERIFY Scripture."

The canon of scripture is closed, so not now. But it certainly was used; absolutely no question about that. Today Holy Tradition (as opposed to "tradition") among other functions, helps us understand scripture.

[BlueDragon]

We do not hire or fire our priests

Ok, fine.

The Southern Baptists don't call it "hiring", but they do often also (or at least used to) supply a residence for whomever it was who was called, and that man's wife & children, if any.

Can you step away from all the rest which followed long enough to see not only what I was saying, but to then compare things --- as compared to Scripture also?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Can you point me to which post in this thread where this question has been addressed to an extent?

[BlueDragon]

It was one that was included being addressed to you.

[xzins]

Having been raised Baptist, but now being United Methodist, I’ve seen both the ‘independent local church’ concept and the ‘regional bishop’ concept at work.

There is nothing equivalent to a metropolitan in either system. Baptists certainly don’t have anything beyond the authority of the local church pastor as a guide for any individual church. Southern Baptists have the convention, but that really exerts no authority at all over local churches. Those churches are free to enter or leave the association at will and any number of times. It is basically a cooperative arrangement for missions and Christian education, but even that is entirely voluntary.

The Methodists are, I think, an effort to mirror the Anglican system, which they didn’t do a bad job of, except there is no equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In other words, there is no ‘bishop of bishops’.

Our bishops are over a geographic region (that we call a conference) much larger than a city, and their hold is important regarding placement of ministers in churches, but beyond that, the region is normally so many churches that they lose any ability truly to provide any kind of direction. Our ‘district superintendents’ might be a better parallel to a metropolitan in that they are generally centered on a major city in a smaller area within the bishops geographic region, but their authority is limited, dependent on a bishop to react to a district superintendent’s concerns.

Beyond that, we have no authority that seems to have the authority to enforce our doctrine and principles.

In that regard, I appreciate the Orthodox churches. They strike me as much more faithful.

The advantage of the Baptist churches, of course, is that the people definitely are the enforcers of their beliefs, and a pastor can be out on his ear if he goes astray from the doctrine of the people. For the most part, this is a good thing if there is a knowledgeable people. That isn’t always the case, though.

[Kandy Atz]

Thanks for sharing this.

[Elsie]

I am still waiting to find out how you determine Scripture, since there is no Scripture saying what Scripture is.

Since you've told us how ROME does it; it would be moot to tell you any different.

You just keep believing what you're told and all will go well with you.

No need for you to contend for the faith; ONCE given to all the saints.

[Elsie]

... there is no Scripture saying what Scripture is.

Luke 16:29
But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

[Elsie]

We do pay them, however.

The Mormons don't.

However; a stipend is given for expenses.

And PP releases tissue material for DONATIONS; too.

[Elsie]

The canon of scripture is closed, so not now.

The Mormons sure don't think so!!

---

#9

---

Here is MORMONism's own creed:

---

 

 

Articles of Faith

The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.

 

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541

 

 

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
   
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
   
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
   
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
   
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
   
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
   
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
   
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
   
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
   
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
    
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
    
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
    
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

 

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Ok, so the Jews are right.....throw out the NT completely since they are not Moses and the prophets.

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for your comments.

The Methodists are, I think, an effort to mirror the Anglican system, which they didn’t do a bad job of, except there is no equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In other words, there is no ‘bishop of bishops’.

There's a lot of charm to that arrangement. Many advantage come readily to mind, long before contemplation of the likes of Rowan Williams.

After more discussion you had included the following charitable remark;

In that regard, I appreciate the Orthodox churches. They strike me as much more faithful.

Even the "patriarchs" are (theoretically, anyway) not beyond some degree of correction in that system, I take it.

A guy (a bishop, metropolitan, even an archbishop) can (could?) always just apologize, and admit to being in error on some point or another, and if that not be as for change of doctrine -- which statements they naturally enough leave well enough alone, for the most part, then not need be embarrassed beyond recovery and continuance in the position.

The advantage of the Baptist churches, of course, is that the people definitely are the enforcers of their beliefs, and a pastor can be out on his ear if he goes astray from the doctrine of the people. For the most part, this is a good thing if there is a knowledgeable people.

It does take that, and a plurality of deacons who have enough education to support one another and whomever is called as pastor.

That isn’t always the case, though.

That's the down-side. The ill-effects could be (possibly) direct and immediate.

Cutting out the middle-men, so to speak, does leave the people of the church holding the bag -- right away.

I must confess though, that I'm not 'Southern Baptist', and was speaking to the best of my own knowledge about the way they go about things. I hope that I have not misrepresented any facts that I presented as such, while also venturing some amount of opinion not intended to be taken as well established, objective fact.

[Kolokotronis]

“Can you step away from all the rest which followed long enough to see not only what I was saying, but to then compare things -— as compared to Scripture also?”

I thought I did. I suppose all I can add is that we do things the way we have always and everywhere done things. Your ecclesiology is different. In all honesty what you do makes no difference to me. It’s not my place to tell Baptists how to run their communities.

Orthodoxy is here in the West to be seen if people want to look. If people come and don’t like what they see, we tell them that’s fine and offer them another piece of baklava.

Otherwise, my answer is what xzins said.

[Elsie]

Why is the book of Hebrews “scripture”, but the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Peter are not?

Ask the Catholic 'experts'.

(This IS the connection you wanted me to make; isn't it?)

[Elsie]

Ok, so the Jews are right.....throw out the NT completely since they are not Moses and the prophets.

Are not Catholics fond of saying:

Why don't you BELIEVE the words of Jesus??

[BlueDragon]

I thought I did.

No, you didn't..

I suppose all I can add is that we do things the way we have always and everywhere done things.

What you did was the above boasting. Which is not altogether accurate, but does have a lot of truth to it. But as much truth as pride? ...is another story.

Then again, even in "church" men have most often been proud and boastful, and that boast often not being truly Christ, or perhaps better said, not Christ ---- alone.

Your ecclesiology is different. In all honesty what you do makes no difference to me. It’s not my place to tell Baptists how to run their communities.

I'm not a Baptist.

Otherwise, my answer is what xzins said.

What did he say -- to what?

Nevermind, prideful one.

I don't CARE all that much for your opinion. Really. Go have another piece of baklava.

[Kolokotronis]

“Do not pass through the streets of the hot-tempered and quarrelsome, lest your heart be filled with anger, and the darkness of delusion dominate your soul.”

+ St. Isaac the Syrian

[BlueDragon]

“Do not pass through the streets of the hot-tempered and quarrelsome, lest your heart be filled with anger, and the darkness of delusion dominate your soul.” + St. Isaac the Syrian

Good advice.

How would that apply to those Orthodox, that although they may not speak openly (and entirely) of the RCC as the being the 'Great Whore', do seem to apply that principle to pretty much all so-called "Protestants", deriding them as "her daughters"?

When the Orthodox more entirely clear more of that type of thinking out from among themselves (I think *they* do make efforts to do so, some of them anyway), then just maybe there could be wider agreement, rather than (oftentimes hidden, but still rather secretly well-nourished) bitterness, anger, and quarrel.

Or is it that; only a select few are allowed to not only contend for their faith, but dare to attempt discussion and open comparison?

All others --- if not [fill in the blank] in some way or another (including by the 'religiosity' of the pious) condemned for doing so?

One temptation brings out another, my FRiend.