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.
Good post.
The first half of the article is all that’s needed by those who wish to follow the teaching of the Lord’s apostles. If we can discover, through the Scriptures, what the churches of Christ looked like (and what they did, etc.), we can follow that inspired pattern and form churches of God today.
The second half of the article may be of interest to those who wish to construct churches of men.
“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?”
No, No and No! Quite the contrary. At least in the East, his definition of The Church is what we use today, the Bishop surrounded by his clergy and laity centered on the Eucharist. For us, this demonstrates the fullness of The Church.
Acts 15.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
It appears that the apostles and also the elders among the Church were listened to and given the right hand of fellowship in the earliest Church which was at Jerusalem.
Mathew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
The only ordinances given to the gentiles was
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Preaching the message of Jesus was the object, not who was in authority.
That does not seem to come from the early Church at Jerusalem.
Interesting. Is the misspelling in the accent marks?
Excellent reply.
There can only be one Head of the Body - Jesus. Whether its a husband and wife, or a group of Believers, always seek God’s Will individually, and collectively. There is no priesthood or religious monarchy in the Body of Christ. God has provided something far better - His Word and the Holy Spirit. Believers, children of God, are led by the Spirit of God, not the flesh. (see Romans 8) Believers are complete IN CHRIST, and seek those things which are above where Christ sits. (see Colossians 2 & 3) In comparison to what we have IN CHRIST, religion looks silly.
When the religious place people in charge apart from God’s will, things go catawampus. Let the Head do the calling and placement in the Body, then Believers will not be tossed to and fro like children by the reasoning of men and their religious traditions.
Ephesians 4:11-16 (KJV) - (see also 1 Corinthians 12)
11 And he [Jesus] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Indeed it is. Those marks are important in Greek. In one instance, a word pronounced and marked as “POte” means “when” while “poTE” means “never”.
No, it doesn't and never did. The way you want it spelled is used 3 times in the New Testament. Here they are.
Luke 15:25 "Now his older (πρεσβύτερος) son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.
2 John 1:1 The elder (πρεσβύτερος) to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
3 John 1:1 The elder (πρεσβύτερος) to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.
In the first example you would have the "older son" be a priest? And in the second two are you saying that John who is referred to there, was considered a priest? Nonsense! The word πρεσβύτερος means presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder. [http://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm]
Trying to make πρεσβύτερος into meaning priest is simply not possible. The word for priest in Greek is hiereus and is used in Luke 1:5.
Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest ( ἱερεύς hiereus) named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
There is no such office of priest in the New Testament church other the Christ as the High Priest and the priesthood of all believers.
Sad to say my old TDNT is up in the barn in a plastic tote.
However, I know your background and facility with Greek, so I’m not doubting you for even a millisecond. I’m betting you even have an old family moussaka recipe lying around.
:>)
Elders. Read the New Testament, it describes the duties and qualifications for an elder. Disregard 2,000 years of human traditions and stick with the source.
**This article is correct**
According to the authors at ...... Fodder!
**I am President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC. In addition, I am an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serve as an Associate Pastor (part-time, of course) at my home church, Uptown PCA.**
Not a Catholic site at all.
Hardly Christian language.
**Not a Catholic site at all.**
Well we do want the truth after all, not dubious facts disguised as tradition.
Yeah, what would I know about Greek? Probably I should listen to WASPs about what the Mother Tongue means in a given context, right?
As quoted by you, the term in the story of the Prodigal Son does indeed mean "older". In the two passages from John's Epistles, the could mean elder, in the sense of an elder priest, or it could simply mean priest.
There are all sorts of Greek words which have multiple meanings, the correct one depending on context, usually a cultural context. Many times here on FR we have discussed the various passages in the NT referring to Jesus' "brothers". The relevant word does mean brothers. It also means male blood relatives, usually cousins. In Greek there are times when the word for "uncle" is applied to a cousin. The list goes on.
One of the reasons Holy Tradition is so important is because it gives us both context and guidance for what we read in the NT. This is especially true when people are trying to gain spiritual insight by reading the Scriptures in a language other than Greek.
BTW, ἱερεύς does indeed mean priest. We still use it. There are other words for priest too, "προιστάμενος" and "παπάς", for example, which we also still use.
“I’m betting you even have an old family moussaka recipe lying around.”
You mean the 100+ year old written in Greek one of my great grandmother which still sits in my grandmother’s hand written in English cook book? Yup, I’ve got that! In fact, maybe She Who Must Be Obeyed will make it tomorrow (no meat today!).
Most people are unable to do that. Whether 2,000 years or 20 years, most are unable to set aside their own religious preconceptions and traditions, and follow the Good Shepherd.
Well; it appears that they have a LOT of debt!
Not as much per citizen as Americans; but a lot, anyway.
:)
I beg of you to send it via freep or email.
Unless it’s one of those family secret things.
If so, then tell “She Who Must Be Obeyed” that I will honor her in song and verse in perpetuity if she would deign to smile on this small corner of the world.
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.