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.
I will do that, God willing, tonight. I’ll even send the English language version with modern measurements, you know, cups of this, tablespoons of that instead of “a “hoofta” of this, “enough” of that, a “skoopeta” of this “more if you like” something, “less” if you don’t and instructions to cook it “until it’s done”! Greek cooking can be an adventure.
πολυ ωραια, (nicely done)
What exactly is a ‘hoofta’?
And, I’d be making a mistake to think a skoopeta is a small scoop, wouldn’t I. :>)
I grew eggplant last year. Didn’t this year, although I have some remaining dehydrated, evacuated, and frozen. It reconstitutes well. Makes great lasagna.
Saw some at the Jungle yesterday, a huge local grocery/vegetable market in our area. Almost bought, but with that recipe, I’ll buy.
At least you guys are persistent...
“What exactly is a ‘hoofta’?
And, I’d be making a mistake to think a skoopeta is a small scoop, wouldn’t I. :>)”
A hoofta is a handful. Obviously sizes vary!
And yes, if you think a scoopeta is a small scoop you’d be wrong. Had I said “kootala”, you’d be closer... though come to think of it, I suppose a skoopeta could be seen as a sort of “scoop”. Usually it’s used in “She’s so mean/ugly she’d put the skoopeta to cry!”
I’m so glad I didn’t ask. Lol.
There is a specific word for priest in the Greek. The Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the use of that word for New Testament church leadership. Take a hint.
>>It also means male blood relatives, usually cousins.<<
There is a specific word in the Greek for cousin. The Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the use of that word when speaking of Jesus brothers. Take a hint.
Brilliant post. Fascinating that God allows decline, when so many preachers are always “Success! Success! Success!” As you noted, Paul testified to declension in his time. Really, the letters all testify to it. It is reality, though vexing.
Thanks for solid truth to mull over!
“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.”
Amen.
“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.”
No, but it conveniently allows one to invent many schemes and claim they came from God.
“No, but it conveniently allows one to invent many schemes and claim they came from God.”
You mean the Holy Tradition a bunch of Greek speaking bishops used to decide which scritures among the hundreds of contenders would make it into the Bible you folks so love to thump, that Holy Tradition?
I find that boast appalling. The SPIRIT, not you or any other mortal, saw to the faithful preservation of the written Word. The dumbest newborn believer, filled with the Zoe of God, could spot fake texts while feverishly sucking on their milk bottle! Only when they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by those who have gone away from that sweet spot of dependence and joy do they start to second guess and doubt their Spirit-given wisdom.
Scripture—truth coming to us from God about HIM—all by its little old self destroys every dead religion on Earth, easily and handily. Read it, dine on it, and watch the fireworks as one “tradition” after another is blowed up real good.
“I find that boast appalling.”
I’ll just bet you do! Did that Spirit teach you how to read Greek too? I asked the local Rev. Billy Bob Jeff, of blow dried hair fame, that question and he said it was his snake that taught him!
That kind of nonsense doesn’t work on me, sorry. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”
This testimony is true.
Let’s indulge your fantasy for a moment that all of St. Ignatius is spurious, forgeries of the 250s.
Then it’s still the same question, a hundred and fifty years out. Why didn’t anyone complain about the introduction of the monarchical episcopacy in the 250s? You think you’ll find presbyterial governance in St. Cyprian (d. 258)? Or any hint that it was a controverted topic?
But in truth, Calvin was dead wrong. Schaff was dead wrong. The Ignatian epistles in question are genuine, and valid historical evidence for monarchical episcopacy in the early 100s.
Never ceases to amaze me the utter provincialism of some pockets of American Christianity. It occurs to almost no one to think "well if the Greek really said X...that must have occurred to the Greeks!"
Surely everyone just read the Scriptures, decided for themselves what they meant and then gravitated to so called teachers who agree with them. Surely that is what the first and second century practice was.
Right?
Hey, I love articles like this. Maybe some will be tempted to read the didache, clement of Rome, the Shepard and Jerome.
They actually may discover the Holy Spirit was leading men to faith in Christ for 1,500 years before the tradition of men that they follow first appeared on the earth.
Bravo, more Church Fathers please.
The Latin speaking bishops at Carthage may have had something to do with setting the canon, but happily in those years the Latins and Greeks were one.
Seeing the Church Fathers, had exactly the same scriptural base that we do today.. and each of them read them and decided what they meant ... and they often did not agree with each other on them...
How does a Romanist decide with "father" was right and what the scriptures mean
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.