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.
Actually the oldest known NT is in a Greek monastery
Ignatius here was writing to the church at Smyrna, described in the book of Revelation as being the poor of the city, which in that time meant they were illiterate. When the controversies arose regarding the Tenach, the role of the Jews, etc., they did not have resources to deal with the conflict. So Ignatius steers them to the bishop,and the presbytery for the sake of their protection, since they lacked basic knowledge and access to such knowledge.
Not necessarily a pattern for all time and all cultures.
Baptist churches are often prone to falling under the spell of a charismatic leader and ceding all authority to him, while inaccurately claiming they are under the authority of the elected elders.
Hmmm, interesting quotes from a Catholic Bishop who was under the authority of the Bishop of Rome and believed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Food for thought, hey?
Oh, the Catholic Church had way more than 7 local parishes when John wrote Revelation.
What you didn’t find back then was a Baptist Church, Presbyterian, Methodist, Mormon, seventh day adventist, etc.
That confusion was over 1,400 years away.
No, actually the Church Fathers believed in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They were humble enough to first LEARN the Catholic Faith and submitted themselves to the Bishops. They only taught what the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition taught and never tried to draw believers out of the Catholic Church.
Contrast them with the 16th century church fathers who rejected all that and set in motion 500 years of religious strife and confusion.
You may want to check your definition for presbyter.
You know what you won’t find the Church Fathers teaching?
That Jesus no longer has a human nature.
I am not sure what obscure “church” teaches that, even the so called reformers would reject that heresy.
The only reason they had the Scriptures back then and why you have them today, is that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ( both Greek and Latin believers ) received the books, copied the books and examined the books in light of the oral Apostolic Faith they received in order to determine which books were canonical and which were spurious.
Everyone who accepts the 27 book NT honors this Catholic Tradition in doing so, whether one realizes it or not. Thank the holy monks who labored millions of hours hand copying.
Thank you both for bringing this consideration to the fore. Brethren assemblies are still meeting across the globe. It is still the New Testament way for the local Body to yield itself to its Head, Jesus, Lord and Messiah. (Rom. 12:1, 1 Cor. 11:26)
Yes, thanks to ALL the folks, from the Holy Spirit inspired Jewish authors, to the translators, scribes, and printers from ALL backgrounds and ages who worked to get God’s Word into the hands of the people in their respective languages. This was accomplished IN SPITE of religious persecution and the unbelievable STUPIDITY of so-called “church” leadership, who often denied the laity the right to own, or even read God’s Word for themselves.
There was no Catholic Church, and no catholicity of churches. There were local churches planted all across the known world at Paul's time, each of which was independent, autonomous, baptizing by immersion, goverened by elders, and doing what Baptists and Brethren do today. Catholicity was a concept later introduced by marrying the Platonic concept of oversoul with extrabiblical church polity by Gentile philosophers who grasped the reins of power by unifying with the Roman government as its religion, and overcoming Scriptural Christianity.
“Actually the oldest known NT is in a Greek monastery”
Yes; I know a monk from there. Here’s an interesting fact. The Monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai is a completely autocephalous Church, like the Church of Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch etc. It has a fascinating and very long history.
In point of fact, the Hellenistic people of the Levant, and of course of Greece, were highly literate.
I love my Brethren brethren dearly, and owe much to them in my spiritual upbringing and training......BUT,
But they too have for the most part adopted a “pastor” mentality with ONE of the elders doing most preaching/teaching, etc. = dependence on one man.
And, many assemblies have become dead and legalistic, rigid, unbending, not open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and very self-righteous, spiritually proud. They are too often an empty shell of what used to be........
Of course, I only know of a few assemblies personally - but understand that most are the same......
Every move of God in history has ended up thus - there is no reason for the Brethren to be different.....in time, spirituality declines, men take over, supplant Christ while loudly proclaiming His headship, apathy sets in, legalism, form becomes rigid and the most important thing rather than LIFE and personal relationship/walk with the Lord.
One missionary summed it up something like this: Every move of God is born in a cave - and dies in a cathedral.
Meaning, when people are helpless, destitute, they fall on their knees and cry out to God. He hears, He answers, He moves, they are blessed. In a generation or less, they take everything for granted - later, they “earned it” or “deserve it” because they are better, more spiritual than others. Spiritual pride comes in. Apathy. Spiritual deadness.
The form remains - a shell of what once was. The form becomes the emphasis. But there is no life in the form. They build a building. To be spiritual, it is called a “chapel” and not a church. But the thought is the same: a place where God is.
Sorry, God hasn’t dwelt in a place since Ezekiel when God withdrew His presence from the Temple, and that - interestingly - was the subject of Jesus conversation with the woman at the well - brought up by her, not by Him. God is spirit, and true worshipers worship Him in spirit and truth.
His dwelling place is His people - now through eternity - but only where they truly allow Him to be the Foundation, the Center, and the Head in a living, practical way.
While this IS true...
ALL churches are often prone to falling under the spell of a charismatic leader and ceding all authority to him...
Do YOU believe it?
Does Rome TEACH it still?
Drink to wash down the food for thought.
Good way to AVOID discussing the ERROR in those 7 CATHOLIC churches!
Doesn't this describe almost ALL churches today?
Pail had an example...
1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.
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.