What is the church as Jesus intended?

[Melville]

Much of this instruction is found in the Pastoral letters. Here we read directions from the Apostles to the bishops they appointed. We learn that those in authority are placed there because God has ordained it (just as He did the appointment of Matthias to the Apostles), and that ordination is confirmed by the Apostolic authority, or one the Apostle has ordained. We learn that those in the flock are expected to be subjected to their authority, and to remain in union with their bishop, to pray for the bishop, support him, and that he carries the teaching authority passed down from the Apostle.

I plan to look at these letters in more depth. First, I wanted to see what we could learn in scripture, and go from there.

I’m with Scalco here, about first determine what scripture actually says and does not say, and see where that takes us.

Speaking strictly biblically, there was not a single bishop described as being over a flock in the Apostolic period, which I am defining as the period of the original Apostles, from Matthew to Revelation. Bishops in the churches are always plural. It’s always “the bishops” [overseers] never “the bishop” when the apostle is writing to a church. A single bishop and the diocese appear only after the apostolic period. The New Testament never suggests there would be a single bishop to appeal to. There is a consistent principle of plural leadership in the local assemblies.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m with Scalco here, about first determine what scripture actually says and does not say, and see where that takes us.

Speaking strictly biblically, there was not a single bishop described as being over a flock in the Apostolic period, which I am defining as the period of the original Apostles, from Matthew to Revelation. Bishops in the churches are always plural. It’s always “the bishops” [overseers] never “the bishop” when the apostle is writing to a church. A single bishop and the diocese appear only after the apostolic period. The New Testament never suggests there would be a single bishop to appeal to. There is a consistent principle of plural leadership in the local assemblies.

It would seem St. Clement in 80 (or 90AD) was the first example of a Bishop of Rome using an authority over another Diocese.

But there is another thing to consider. With the first 30 Popes being martyred, it would have been a little difficult for these Popes to have exerted much authority, for they would have seemed to have lived in hiding during their bishoprics.

 

[NotWorthy]

There is a different possible take on this verse. At the beginning of the chapter (John 21:3) Peter said, “I’m going fishing.” He went back to his old trade. Then the Lord appeared on the beach and and invited them to a breakfast of bread and fish. “Do you love me more than these?” What is the antecedent of “these”? Did He mean more than the other disciples or more than the fish? I am not sure that the Lord was comparing Peter to the other disciples and not possibly referring to Peter’s old livelihood.

Are you sure that this is how the Greek would have been interpreted? I’m not sure, with the Greek as specific as it is, that this translates into your hypothesis.

Peter certainly had prominence up until Acts 12, though I am not at all sure these equals headship, when the focus shifted over to Paul. After this and for the rest of the New Testament I cannot see evidence either of headship or prominence for Peter.

This is because the rest of Acts focuses on the Growth of the Church throughout the region. The first half of Acts seems to focus on the solidification of the Church, and how it developed its early doctrines (Jews first, then Greeks, etc.).

Nowhere is he described as head in Acts or the Epistles. Paul calls him the Apostle to the circumcison. Peter calls himself an apostle and an elder.

This would have been understood by first century Christians, since the listing of any group of people is typically done by order of importance. Peter is nearly always first listed of all the Apostles.

The only anecdote about Peter after Acts 12 that I can think of appears in Galatians and Paul finds himself having to openly chastize him. One would frankly expect more firm evidence of his headhsip, such as having been looked to for dispensation of doctrine and exercising discipline.

Again, 1st half - the church is formed. 2nd half - the Church grows. Peter was less a part of the growth into outlying areas then Paul.

In all honestly, isn’t “all throughout the New Testament” something of an overstatement?

Again, simply by listing Peter first among Apostles strongly implies (if not definitively declares) Peter’s leadership role.

To Summarize his leadership of the New Church:

• 1st Sermon of the new Church - Peter
• 1st Teaching “necessity” - Peter (Repent and be baptized).
• 1st to heal someone in the post-Ascension era - Peter
• 1st to slay someone by the Holy Spirit - Peter (actually the only one).
• 1st authorizing of a New Apostle - Peter (draw lots for Matthias)
• 1st to open up the Church to Non-Jews - Peter
• 1st to declare that Gentiles should not be placed under the Mosaic yoke - Peter

 

[SCALCO]

Melville & NotWorthy> Regarding bishops…

I Timothy 3:1, 5 Douay-Rheims-
A faithful saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work…For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Other versions use “office of overseer”, but notice it is singular and not plural. Deacons are also discussed in Timothy.

 

[NotWorthy]

Melville & NotWorthy> Regarding bishops…

I Timothy 3:1, 5 Douay-Rheims-
A faithful saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work…For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Other versions use “office of overseer”, but notice it is singular and not plural. Deacons are also discussed in Timothy.

I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand. Are you saying there is only one bishop? As Peter says in Acts, there is an office, a bishopric, but each Apostle held this office, so there had to have been more than one office.

In the context of this saying, in each city, there would have been only one bishop, so I’m not sure if your point is applicable.

 

[SCALCO]

I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand. Are you saying there is only one bishop? As Peter says in Acts, there is an office, a bishopric, but each Apostle held this office, so there had to have been more than one office.

In the context of this saying, in each city, there would have been only one bishop, so I’m not sure if your point is applicable.

Actually, I agree with you. 1 Timothy 3:1,5 indicates there is only one bishop for each city, not a group of bishops as suggested by Melville. I may have misunderstood his post about plural leadership.

Melville> Can you please clarify?

 

[Melville]

Are you sure that this is how the Greek would have been interpreted? I’m not sure, with the Greek as specific as it is, that this translates into your hypothesis.

This is because the rest of Acts focuses on the Growth of the Church throughout the region. The first half of Acts seems to focus on the solidification of the Church, and how it developed its early doctrines (Jews first, then Greeks, etc.).

This would have been understood by first century Christians, since the listing of any group of people is typically done by order of importance. Peter is nearly always first listed of all the Apostles.

Again, 1st half - the church is formed. 2nd half - the Church grows. Peter was less a part of the growth into outlying areas then Paul.

Again, simply by listing Peter first among Apostles strongly implies (if not definitively declares) Peter’s leadership role.

To Summarize his leadership of the New Church:

• 1st Sermon of the new Church - Peter
• 1st Teaching “necessity” - Peter (Repent and be baptized).
• 1st to heal someone in the post-Ascension era - Peter
• 1st to slay someone by the Holy Spirit - Peter (actually the only one).
• 1st authorizing of a New Apostle - Peter (draw lots for Matthias)
• 1st to open up the Church to Non-Jews - Peter
• 1st to declare that Gentiles should not be placed under the Mosaic yoke - Peter

Thanks for the list of Peter’s “firsts”. There’s no arguing that he did these things.

I am not sure these, even taken all together, prove either a perpetul pre-eminence given to Peter or office of centrtal authority during the Apostolic period, however. We have to compare with the rest on the New Testament and see how Peter is treated. This is where my quandary arises.

I was not only referring to Acts but the rest of the NT, where Peter is not seen as a primary dispenser or authority over doctrine. Nobody says, over a dispute, Well, we’ll have to go ask Peter. While it was Peter who stood up in the council over circumcision in Acts 15, the actual letter that was sent to Antioch was on behalf of the apostles and elders.

If the Church (the ekklesia or “out-assembly”) was to be built upon Peter as the rock, and the apostoloc churches were indeed nothing less than churches, I don’t know why he was never referred to in this regard. Paul wrote a great deal about the church as something in existence, not future, so I don’t know why he wouldn’t have somehow deferred to Peter or called attention to him. Paul only refers to Christ as the head of the church, with apostles, prophets, etc. as gifts the Lord gave to the church. He says nothing about a centralized chair of authority on the earth.

This gap gives me considerable pause.

 

[Melville]

Actually, I agree with you. 1 Timothy 3:1,5 indicates there is only one bishop for each city, not a group of bishops as suggested by Melville. I may have misunderstood his post about plural leadership.

Melville> Can you please clarify?

I don’t think that the passage in Timothy indicates there is only one bishop in a city because Paul is writing about the qualifications of for an individual to become an overseer. It would make no sense to say, “If a man aspires to the office of overseers.”

It might be good to find out first of all if there is a distinction between elders and bishops. One evidence that they are equivalent is in Titus 1:5,7, where first elders are to be appointed in every city and then Paul writes, “For the bishop must be blameless, etc.”

This is somewhat confusing because, while elder and overseer are seen to be equated, he says to appoint “elders” and not “an elder” in every city, but there is a definite article before bishop.

Another place where elders and bishops are equated is in Acts 20:17, 28. Paul called the elders of the church in Ephesus to come to him and in vs. 28 says that God had made them overseers.

A third place where elders are seen to exercise the oversight is in 1 Peter 5:1,2, where he addresses “the elders who are among you” (calling himself an elder) and then speaks of them exercising oversight, with the word episkopeo, which is the verb form that corresponds to the office of overseer/bishop, episcope.

I can’t find any place to make a distinction between elders and bishops, and while there are elders and deacons spoken of together I can’t find elders and bishops together.

Paul called the “elders” from the church in Ephesus, neither the “elder of the church” nor the “elders of the churches.” When he wrote to the Philippians he addressed “the bishops and deacons”, plural. When James took up the topic of illness, he said to call in the “elders of the church and let them pray . . .” (5:14).

Elders are always plural in the Bible, whether it’s the village elders, the Sanhedrin, or the church elders in Jerusalem, or the 24 elders before the Throne. That is, they are spoken of as forming a group. Elders form collective councils. Unless I’m mistaken, there is never a head elder spoken of as being over a council of elders.

From James it is clear that there are multiple elders in a place and, again, they are collective. He doesn’t say to bring in an elder to pray. If elders are bishops and vice versa, then here he cannot be talking about elders from different dioceses. The poor sick person could well die before they could reach him. They have to be local and plural.

If we want to say Peter was a bishop, I don’t see we can do so from scripture any other way than taking the cited passage above where he calls himself an elder and then say he was a bishop because he speaks of elders exercising “bishoply” oversight.

But then Paul spoke of “the bishop” to Titus. Then again, John identified himself as “the elder” in his 2nd and 3rd letters. I feel a need for someone who really knows Greek here because I am not sure if the definite article works the same as in English. Some translations, including the King James, have “a bishop’ instead of “the bishop”.

With John there would be a problem if we think he was saying he’s somehow the only elder there is or the top elder, and which would run against the preponderance of scripture in regard to elders. (It would also seem to upstage Peter, if we assume John is taking pre-eminence.) There has to be another interpretation of his referring to himself this way.

The same principle would apply to Paul in Titus. A single verse cannot override the preponderance of scripture. Elders are plural and form collective groups. Elders in the New Testament (which is our only record of the apostolic period) are bishops, exercising local oversight.

There is no place in the New Testament where a single man is in charge of a local assembly, except one, and it is bad, not good. This is Diotrephes in 3 John.

I hope this is clear and will be read with an open understanding.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[SCALCO]

Melville> I will be taking a closer look at the passages you have sited. This is exactly what I wanted to study.

I would also like to better understand the role of the Apostles since they seemed to have appointed/ordained elders in every church.

Thanks!

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t think that the passage in Timothy indicates there is only one bishop in a city because Paul is writing about the qualifications of for an individual to become an overseer. It would make no sense to say, “If a man aspires to the office of overseers.”

It might be good to find out first of all if there is a distinction between elders and bishops. One evidence that they are equivalent is in Titus 1:5,7, where first elders are to be appointed in every city and then Paul writes, “For the bishop must be blameless, etc.”

This is somewhat confusing because, while elder and overseer are seen to be equated, he says to appoint “elders” and not “an elder” in every city, but there is a definite article before bishop.

Another place where elders and bishops are equated is in Acts 20:17, 28. Paul called the elders of the church in Ephesus to come to him and in vs. 28 says that God had made them overseers.

A third place where elders are seen to exercise the oversight is in 1 Peter 5:1,2, where he addresses “the elders who are among you” (calling himself an elder) and then speaks of them exercising oversight, with the word episkopeo, which is the verb form that corresponds to the office of overseer/bishop, episcope.

I can’t find any place to make a distinction between elders and bishops, and while there are elders and deacons spoken of together I can’t find elders and bishops together.

Paul called the “elders” from the church in Ephesus, neither the “elder of the church” nor the “elders of the churches.” When he wrote to the Philippians he addressed “the bishops and deacons”, plural. When James took up the topic of illness, he said to call in the “elders of the church and let them pray . . .” (5:14).

Elders are always plural in the Bible, whether it’s the village elders, the Sanhedrin, or the church elders in Jerusalem, or the 24 elders before the Throne. That is, they are spoken of as forming a group. Elders form collective councils. Unless I’m mistaken, there is never a head elder spoken of as being over a council of elders.

From James it is clear that there are multiple elders in a place and, again, they are collective. He doesn’t say to bring in an elder to pray. If elders are bishops and vice versa, then here he cannot be talking about elders from different dioceses. The poor sick person could well die before they could reach him. They have to be local and plural.

If we want to say Peter was a bishop, I don’t see we can do so from scripture any other way than taking the cited passage above where he calls himself an elder and then say he was a bishop because he speaks of elders exercising “bishoply” oversight.

But then Paul spoke of “the bishop” to Titus. Then again, John identified himself as “the elder” in his 2nd and 3rd letters. I feel a need for someone who really knows Greek here because I am not sure if the definite article works the same as in English. Some translations, including the King James, have “a bishop’ instead of “the bishop”.

With John there would be a problem if we think he was saying he’s somehow the only elder there is or the top elder, and which would run against the preponderance of scripture in regard to elders. (It would also seem to upstage Peter, if we assume John is taking pre-eminence.) There has to be another interpretation of his referring to himself this way.

The same principle would apply to Paul in Titus. A single verse cannot override the preponderance of scripture. Elders are plural and form collective groups. Elders in the New Testament (which is our only record of the apostolic period) are bishops, exercising local oversight.

There is no place in the New Testament where a single man is in charge of a local assembly, except one, and it is bad, not good. This is Diotrephes in 3 John.

I hope this is clear and will be read with an open understanding.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

From scripture, I believe the Bishops were considered Elders and vice-versa. During the Apostolic era, the Apostles were the obvious holders of authority. But after they passed, a distinction between elders and Bishop quickly took place to fill in the authority gap, so to speak. The Bishop took the authoritative role of the Apostles, and the elders, or presbyters took a secondary role. We can see this clearly in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and in Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to all the churches in Asia Minor and to the church in Rome.

Bear in mind that John was probably alive at the time that Clement wrote, so we can see that the transition was occuring quickly and naturally.

As for the issue where Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians, you should remember that in Galatians 2, Paul goes to consult with Peter, James, and John over the Judaizer controvery “lest he run in vain”. That is to say, lest his Gospel be in vain. He recognized them as men of repute who could settle arguments in the churches.

Hope this helps,
God bless,
ut

 

[Melville]

From scripture, I believe the Bishops were considered Elders and vice-versa. During the Apostolic era, the Apostles were the obvious holders of authority. But after they passed, a distinction between elders and Bishop quickly took place to fill in the authority gap, so to speak. The Bishop took the authoritative role of the Apostles, and the elders, or presbyters took a secondary role. We can see this clearly in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and in Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to all the churches in Asia Minor and to the church in Rome.

Bear in mind that John was probably alive at the time that Clement wrote, so we can see that the transition was occuring quickly and naturally.

As for the issue where Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians, you should remember that in Galatians 2, Paul goes to consult with Peter, James, and John over the Judaizer controvery “lest he run in vain”. That is to say, lest his Gospel be in vain. He recognized them as men of repute who could settle arguments in the churches.

Hope this helps,
God bless,
ut

Thanks very much,

While I would like to go further with scripture itself on the topic of the church as Jesus intended before going into the post-apostolic period, do you have the speficic quotations from Clement and Ignatius that show that the office of bishop had become invested in a single man instead of a plurality and that the bishop was now distinguished from the elders? The Letter of Clement is long, but if it’s not handy can look for it. I have not read Ignatius.

In Galatians 2, once again, I am somewhat surprised that Peter is not given more preeminence or referred to as head of the church in some way. By the way, the order of words in my text is James, Peter, and John, of whom Paul says they were reputed to be pillars. I don’t know what to make of it but it’s just interesting wording to me, that Paul would refer to them as reputed to be pillars, thought to be pillars and not just that he went to “the pillars.”

In any case, Paul went to confer with a plurality, not a single man, and that goes to my concern over switching plural elders over a local church to a single bishop. Here is where I would like to first get a good hold on any solid scriptural basis for an ongoing apostolic succession and then go on to how this evolved historically. There is likely a thread already devoted to that. I do want to bear in mind that this thread is about the church Jesus intended so I don’t want to go off from this.

The only examples I can think of are the case of Matthias, who was specifically appointed to fill up the number of 12, and that Paul delegated Titus and I beleive Timothy to appoint elders. I don’t see any apointment to replace James the brother of John . . .

Regarding the authority of the Apostles over the churches and transferred to (singular) bishops, I don’t see the Apostles were, per se, in direct authority over a local church. There was no Apostle of Jerusalem or of Ephesus. The most description of the apostolic role and function is given with Paul and how he dealt with the churches is an (name removed by moderator)ortant study that I would like to spend more time on before getting too involved with what happend afterwards. With Peter and John, their letters are general epistles or to individuals, not churches. I am not sure that the more generalized role of apostle correctly translates to a single, localized bishop. But then, while I do understand your line of reasoning, Ut, I’d also like to take more time to look at the exercise of authority during the apostolic period.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks very much,

While I would like to go further with scripture itself on the topic of the church as Jesus intended before going into the post-apostolic period, do you have the speficic quotations from Clement and Ignatius that show that the office of bishop had become invested in a single man instead of a plurality and that the bishop was now distinguished from the elders? The Letter of Clement is long, but if it’s not handy can look for it. I have not read Ignatius.

You can find all of the letters of Ignatius here as well as those of Clement of Rome.

Here is a quote from his letter to the Ephesian church in chapter 2.

As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your honour and that of your bishop.

So here you have one bishop and one deacon for the church of Ephesus.

Here is a letter to the Magnesians showing one bishop, two presbyters, and one deacon.

Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ, .

Again, Ignatius to the Trallians.

I know that you possess an unblameable and sincere mind in patience, and that not only in present practice, but according to inherent nature, as Polybius your bishop has shown me, who has come to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ, and so sympathized in the joy which I, who am bound in Christ Jesus, possess, that I beheld your whole multitude in him. Having therefore received through him the testimony of your good-will, according to God, I gloried to find you, as I knew you were, the followers of God.

Here again we have this distinction in his letter to the Philadelphians.

For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.

I’ll provide more from Clement when I have some time and respond to your other points.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Here is a passage from Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians concerning the appointment of bishops and deacons.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be **bishops **and **deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their **bishops **in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Here again, it seems as though presbyter and the episcopate are the same.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, **they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. **We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

It seems as though Clement is still equating presbyter and bishop here. But there is still a clear destinction in terms which solidified in a clear hierarchy as shown in Ignatius.

And again in 47:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.

Hope this helps.
God bless,
Ut

 

[guanophore]

Hello all you gracious and sincere people,

Regarding the mustard seed analogy . . .

In Matthew 18 the Lord’s gave the last resort as to go to the church, the assembly, regarding a brother who sins. It does not say go to a man but to the assembly.

Actually, he starts by telling them to go directly to their brother. Then, take one or two with them, and talk to the brother. The “assembly” are the Apostles, elders, and those in union with them.

 

[guanophore]

I’m with Scalco here, about first determine what scripture actually says and does not say, and see where that takes us.

Speaking strictly biblically, there was not a single bishop described as being over a flock in the Apostolic period, which I am defining as the period of the original Apostles, from Matthew to Revelation. Bishops in the churches are always plural. It’s always “the bishops” [overseers] never “the bishop” when the apostle is writing to a church. A single bishop and the diocese appear only after the apostolic period. The New Testament never suggests there would be a single bishop to appeal to. There is a consistent principle of plural leadership in the local assemblies.

I think both of you are misunderstanding me. By “pastoral letters” I am speaking here about the letters of Peter and Paul to the communities.

 

[utunumsint]

I can understand why presbyters would also be addressed as bishops in the early church since the assemblies, or the ecclesia would have been small. The meetings would have been in household churches, such as that of Priscilla and Aquilla, and the bishop/presbyter would have presided over the Eucharistic meal, as described by Paul. Given a big city like Antioch or Rome, you would have had several such churches. The overarching authority would have been the local or nearest apostle. So when the apostles were getting near the end of their lives…usually by a pending martyrdom, they would have choosen suitable successors, who would be vested with their authority. These successors would become known as the bishops we know today, distinct from the office of presbyter.

This makes sense in the context of Rome, because only 80 years later, we have Irenaeus tracing down a line of succession from Peter starting with Linus, Cletus, then Clement, up to the Bishop of Rome of his day, Eleutherus, I believe. So there must have been a clear transfer of authority for Linus to be so clearly pointed to as the successor of Peter over an above that of the other presbyter/bishops.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SCALCO]

As Peter says in Acts, there is an office, a bishopric, but each Apostle held this office, so there had to have been more than one office.

Going back to this again, I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying Peter mentions that each Apostle held an office or is this implied? Can you please point this out?

Thanks!

 

[Melville]

I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand. Are you saying there is only one bishop? As Peter says in Acts, there is an office, a bishopric, but each Apostle held this office, so there had to have been more than one office.

In the context of this saying, in each city, there would have been only one bishop, so I’m not sure if your point is applicable.

Going back to this again, I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying Peter mentions that each Apostle held an office or is this implied? Can you please point this out?

Thanks!

I can’t find the word bishop in Acts. Where does it say that each Apostle was a bishop? I don’t think it does.

 

[Melville]

Actually, he starts by telling them to go directly to their brother. Then, take one or two with them, and talk to the brother. The “assembly” are the Apostles, elders, and those in union with them.

But it doesn’t say the assembly is the leadership and those in union with them. It only says the assembly. When Paul writes to the Corinthians he addreses the whole assembly and does not as far as I can see single out the leadership at all. When he chides them for suing one another he doesn’t even ask them how come they don’t go to the elders. He express surprise and dismay that there was not one wise man among them to be able to decide between the brethren, with no reference to office.

Later, in dealing with the man involved with his step-mother, Paul explains how he was going to pray in spirit when they are assembled, also with no reference to hierarchy or leadership there, but the church in general. He ws dealing with this because they weren’t. In the second letter we see that they really rushed to straighten this out with happy success.

If hierarchy was in Paul’s apostolic thought, why didn’t he insist on going through channels?

 

[Melville]

Here is a passage from Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians concerning the appointment of bishops and deacons.

Here again, it seems as though presbyter and the episcopate are the same.

It seems as though Clement is still equating presbyter and bishop here. But there is still a clear destinction in terms which solidified in a clear hierarchy as shown in Ignatius.

And again in 47:

Hope this helps.
God bless,
Ut

Yes, and from what I read here the bishops/elders are plural. There is to be a succession so that when an elder dies another is appointed. I don’t see that this would be a basis for saying that the office of apostle was turned into the office of bishop, whoever suggested that.

Where I am on this is that I see the original apostolic appointment of elders to be plural because that was what was intended. There was a reason for it. It was not intended to distill itself down into a single man.