What is the church as Jesus intended?

[NotWorthy]

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.

Acts: 1:20 - NASB

20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘(A)LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
‘(**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 1:20;&version=49;#cen-NASB-26944B”))LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

KJV

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

As you can see, it depends on the translation. Another word for Bishoprick is Episcopate which is used in other translations… All of these lead us to understand that this position is an office.

 

[Melville]

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

A couple of questions and an observation.
Is this Clement the one who wrote the letter to Corinth and in that does he identify himself as “the bishop of Rome.”

Where do we draw a line between what we use in scripture as foundational and what we interpret by later tradition? I can use the plural elders example.

I have heard the argument used against the Sola Scriptura doctrine (which I am not interested in defending or debating at the moment) that Paul told the Thessalonians to adhere to the traditions they had received, and therefore there was an ongoing oral tradition that was equally valid as scripture. I don’t know if that is your view but I infer that. Now the apostolic command and tradition was for there to be a plurality of elder/overseers.

But then we see Ignatius changing this. Whether it was his idea or he was reporting an existing practice I don’t know, but I have read that he was the first to strongly support the office of a single bishop and it runs counter to the apostolic practice.

Now here’s my observation. There is a big distinction between reasoning and what is scripturally demonstrable. We can all reason and justify our positons. We can see that people who are completely off base have reasoned justifications, which may be very elaborate. I can read your reasoning about post-biblical (apostolic) practices. But it is reasoning. Doesn’t scripture have more authority than what we come up with to say was a good reason for later people to do things differently? The scriptural pattern was a plurality of elders and there nothing in the apostolic writings that say this was going to be changed.

Then again, I don’t really follow the argument that bishops were elders because the church was small. I can follow having more elders to deal with more people but I can’t get what is accomplished by creating a separate, new office in terms of numbers. There’s no basis for thinking that the apostles made any distinction between two offices when appointing elders who are overseers. Making the one office into two I can only see as a departure from the apostolic tradition.

P.S. I don’t see where Paul puts anyone as presiding over a eucharistic meal, if you are referring to 1 Cor 11. Where do you get this?

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[NotWorthy]

I think the keys to refute your points Melville are three-fold.

1. Ignatius was probably ordained by Peter. He was the Bishop of Antioch, the Church that Peter had started, so he certainly knew Peter first hand (probably) or second hand (at least). There would be some influence of Peter’s teaching in Ignatius’ letter.
2. If Ignatius is truly creating this new doctrine, there would have been some uproar from those losing out on their previous power. People tend not to release any perceived authority that they have without putting up some kind of resistance (Just think of the Pharsisee’s and Jesus for example), and we hear of no resistance from Ignatius’ letters. Instead, we see his letters treated as authoritative, even going far enough to consider them as part of the pending NT Canon.
3. There’s a third point. Who would create a new Tradition knowing that they were going to their deaths? Wouldn’t Ignatius wish to clean up his past, rather than cause more confusion. I know if I loved the Lord as much as Ignatius showed, I wouldn’t want to create anything that would put my soul at risk.

 

[utunumsint]

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.

I believe there were many elders that are spoken of during the time of the Apostles, but I do think it clear that they were under the authority of the Apostles, or their delegates, and that when it came time or close to the time when an Apostle was going to be martyred, he vested his authority into a successor, who would rule over the college of bishops, just as they had.

This is the only way I can explain why the institution of the monarchical bishop was so prevalent throughout all the towns and cities that Ignatius visited and the Apostles themselves had founded (e.g. Ephesus, Philadelphia, Galatia, Rome, etc…)

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

Acts: 1:20 - NASB
KJVAs you can see, it depends on the translation. Another word for Bishoprick is Episcopate which is used in other translations… All of these lead us to understand that this position is an office.

Thanks very much. I would not have found this easily. This is about the position held by Judas, which he vacated. Can we say that Judas at one time a bishop, prior to the betrayal? Hmmmm . . . Not being contentious, just wondering, because the office of overseeer had not been described at that point.

I see the word is also translated “visitation” in Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12. Hmmmm . . . What is the connection I wonder? Any thoughts? Greek scholaship needed.

Does this establish that all the apostles equally hold the office of bishop as well as apostle? They did not use that term to refer to themselves as bishops from my reading and word searches, but you may have something I missed. In any case I don’t see that this takes away from the apostolic appointment of elder/overseers as being plural.

 

[utunumsint]

A couple of questions and an observation.
Is this Clement the one who wrote the letter to Corinth and in that does he identify himself as “the bishop of Rome.”

Later church fathers ascribe this letter to Clement, and he does not identify himself as bishop.

Where do we draw a line between what we use in scripture as foundational and what we interpret by later tradition? I can use the plural elders example.

For Catholics, it is easy. It is whatever is approved by the magisterium of the Catholic church. All of this is capital “T” tradition for us. All the rest is small “t” tradition, but we hold it in high esteem as providing a clear witness to what the early church was like.

I have heard the argument used against the Sola Scriptura doctrine (which I am not interested in defending or debating at the moment) that Paul told the Thessalonians to adhere to the traditions they had received, and therefore there was an ongoing oral tradition that was equally valid as scripture. I don’t know if that is your view but I infer that. Now the apostolic command and tradition was for there to be a plurality of elder/overseers.

I know of no command or clear tradition for this. Can you provide a source for your statement?

But then we see Ignatius changing this. Whether it was his idea or he was reporting an existing practice I don’t know, but I have read that he was the first to strongly support the office of a single bishop and it runs counter to the apostolic practice.

Well my issue with this is that throughout all of the churches he corresponds with, there is clear evidence of monarchical bishops with presbyters under them, and then deacons. Ignatius does not seem to be teaching anything new to these people. So my conclusion is that this hierarchical church was something handed down throuhout the early church during, or almost immediately after the Apostles.

Ignatius also writes to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was taught by the Apostle John. Polycarp is important because he lived nearly a hundered years, and was known to Ireneaus as well. We have no evidence from him that he dissaproves of this institution in any of the several events that are recorded concerning his life.

Now here’s my observation. There is a big distinction between reasoning and what is scripturally demonstrable. We can all reason and justify our positons. We can see that people who are completely off base have reasoned justifications, which may be very elaborate. I can read your reasoning about post-biblical (apostolic) practices. But it is reasoning. Doesn’t scripture have more authority than what we come up with to say was a good reason for later people to do things differently? The scriptural pattern was a plurality of elders and there nothing in the apostolic writings that say this was going to be changed.

Again, I see no scriptural writings that clearly define what the structure and hierarchy of the church should be. But I do find clear evidence from tradition for what the church should look like.

Then again, I don’t really follow the argument that bishops were elders because the church was small. I can follow having more elders to deal with more people but I can’t get what is accomplished by creating a separate, new office in terms of numbers. There’s no basis for thinking that the apostles made any distinction between two offices when appointing elders who are overseers. Making the one office into two I can only see as a departure from the apostolic tradition.

See my previous post.

P.S. I don’t see where Paul puts anyone as presiding over a eucharistic meal, if you are referring to 1 Cor 11. Where do you get this?

Well that is another topic for another night, when it isn’t so late. I will post again soon. Maybe we could start another thread on this?

God bless,
Ut

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D…

What other church was reffered to before 107A.D ?

As far as history seems to reveal none.

The Christian churches formed by the apostles in the beginning certainly held the same beliefs, they were seperated into communities of the same faith in Jesus Christ not other beliefs in the word.

This is what St.Paul has to say about dissentions, which apparently started very early.

1 Corinthians 1:10, I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[utunumsint]

I had another thought about Clement in order to explain the multiple bishops refered to. During disputes in the early church, the local churches would often try to deal with the issue in a synod of bishops. This would be a gathering of local bishops within a specific region. If this synod was not able to solve the situation, they, as a group, would appeal to a higher authority, which was Rome. Clement then responds to the church of Corinth on behalf of this group of local bishops. But the bishops may still have had authority over different regions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

Wow, here’s something I was just studying from AgapeBibleStudy.com

In these New Testament books of Acts, the Letters of St. Paul the Apostles and the *episkopoi—*the presiding council of elders, are mentioned in connection with each other and/or in association with the *diakonoi [deacons], *or ministering servants or attendants who serve the needs of each faith community. The governing body of the New Covenant Church appears in passages like Titus 1:5-6 and Acts 20:17 & 28, to be either serving with the elders or are themselves elders.

The Greek word* presbyteros, *which comes from the pagan Greek culture world, is probably is an equivalent for the Hebrew title *zaqen *found in numerous Old Testament passages including Exodus24:1, 9, and 14 which indicates the function/ duty of an officer or overseers who represented the 12 tribes, while the Greek word *episkopos/ episkopoi, *also from the Greek Gentile world, indicated the dignity or higher status in a leadership role of the same overseer. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, the term episkopos is used to translate the Hebrew words for military officers, overseers of workmen, temple supervisors and tribal officers.

In Acts of Apostles the apostolate is called the office of an episkopos in Acts1:20 concerning Judas’ lost office and in quoting Psalms109:8. Today we would designate such an official in the Church a bishop. The Greek word presbyteros was also used in the New Testament to designate a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jewish leaders of Judea [see http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts4.htm#v5”]Acts

4:5, 8, 23; 5:21 (“assembly of elders” meaning the Jewish civil and religious law court known as the Sanhedrin); 6:12; 23:14; 25:15].

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry if this is a long post:

We can understand from the use of these terms in Scripture that the duties of the office of the Christian presbyteroi or episkopoi and diakonoi not only concerned the practical side of organizing and administering the community but also teaching morals and doctrine:

·1 Timothy 3:1-2; “Here is a saying that you can rely on: to want to be a presiding elder (episkopes) is to desire a noble task. That is why the presiding elder (episkopon) must have an impeccable character.”

·1 Timothy 5:17: “Elders (presbyteroi) who do their work well while they are in charge earn double reward, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”

·Titus 1:7-9: “The presiding elder (episkopon) has to be irreproachable since he is God’s representative: never arrogant or hot-tempered, nor a heavy drinker, or violent, nor avaricious; but hospitable and a lover of goodness, sensible, upright, devout and self-controlled; and he must have affirm grasp of the unchanging message of the tradition, so that he can be counted on both for giving encouragement in sound doctrine and for refuting those who argue against it.”

St. Paul in addressing the presbyters of Ephesus in Acts20:17 and 28 calls them “bishops” (episkopoi) who are appointed by the Holy Spirit to care for the flock of which they are the shepherds.

For further references to these terms of leadership in the early Church please see:

v Episkopos/episkopons/episkope(s)/episkopoi(s): Acts20:28 (episkopons); Philippians 1:1 (episkopois); 1Timothy3:1 (episkopes), 2 (episkopon); Titus1:7 (episkopon); 1 Peter2:25 where Peter identifies Jesus as the shepherd and “bishop” (episkopon) of souls.

v *Presbyteros/presbyterion/presbeuo: *Jewish Old Covenant council of elders = Acts4:5, 8, 23; 5:21 (assembly of elders); 6:12; 23:14; 25:15. New Covenant elders of the Church of Jesus Christ = Acts11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 24:1; 1Timothy4:14; 5:17; Titus 1:5

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, so here’s the part that surprised me:

As the Church of Jesus Christ exploded out of Judea into Samaria, Asia Minor and later into Greece and the other Roman occupied provinces, what began as a local assembly or body of bishops or episkopoi** very soon evolved into the present system of one regional bishop responsible for the priests (presbyteroi) who served various New Covenant faith communities. Initially Peter and the Apostles governed the fledging New Covenant Church in Jerusalem, ordaining Matthias to replace the Episcopal office vacated by the death of Judas Iscariot Acts1:15-26].

The 12 Apostles also ordained seven deacons to help them serve the needs of the community Acts6:1-6], and elders to help govern the people Acts15:6]. But as the Apostles prepared to fulfill their mission to carry the Gospel of salvation across the Roman Empire Matthew28:19-20; Acts1:8], they appointed James, the brother to whom Jesus appeared after His Resurrection 1Corinthians15:7], as the Church’s apostolic authority in the Jerusalem church, a role which we would define today as that of bishop of the Church in Jerusalem [see http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm#v13”]Acts15:13

; 21:18; Galatians1:19]. St. James shepherded and governed the Church in Jerusalem, assisted by a council of elders: *“The next day Paul went with us to visit James, and all the elders (presbyteros) were present” *Acts21:18. Today we would characterize Paul’s visit as an audience with the presiding Bishop and the priests of his diocese.

Certainly by the late first century and the early second century AD in the time of the disciples of the Apostles the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons had been firmly established. St. Clement of Rome, the 4th Pope to follow St. Peter (counting Peter as the first Papa or Pope of the Church of Jesus Christ) writes of this established hierarchy in his letter to the Corinthians some time prior to 96AD: “Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above mentioned men, and afterward gave them a permanent character so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

There is considerable evidence that what had begun as the office of the college of presbyteroi serving under the authority of the Apostles or their designated representative had developed within the first generation of the Church after the Resurrection into an assembly ruled by a single bishop, a successor of the Apostles, who had authority over a number of priests serving various surrounding communities. In fact, the seven historical churches of Revelation chapters 2 – 3 may be the communities over which St. John the Apostle governed as the regional bishop or archbishop of what we today would call a diocese or archdiocese. In a letter to the Magnesians prior to his martyrdom circa 107AD St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle wrote concerning these individual offices:

v “Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ.”

And on his journey to martyrdom circa 107AD, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch wrote letters to seven faith communities which reveal the central role of a bishop in the life of the early Church:

v St. Ignatius wrote to the Trallian Christians:* “It is essential to act in no way without the bishop,”*

v To the church in Philadelphia he wrote: *“Obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ” *and “Do nothing apart from the bishop.”

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for these quotes Notworthy. I’ll be looking into them tonight.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, the term episkopos is used to translate the Hebrew words for military officers, overseers of workmen, temple supervisors and tribal officers.

I found it very interesting that the word episkopos was used in a military context as well because Clement uses an military analogy in the same way that Paul uses the analogy of the body with many parts.

Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. **Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. **There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage. Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work harmoniously together, and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.

If Clement sees the Roman military as a paradigm for the order in the church, then we can see he believed in a clearly defined hierarchy within the church with a commander at the head.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, Ut, you have a bunch of Church leaders of the newly formed Christian Church that are all ex-Jews. They considered their Church (correctly) the fulfillment of the Jewish Faith, so they would have followed a lot of what God ordained in the early Jewish Faith with Moses. There was a definite hierarchy there, and it seems the New Covenant Church would be comfortable modeling the same image.

 

[utunumsint]

Right. In fact, Clement lists this Jewish hierarchy in the very next chapter.

For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SCALCO]

Thanks for these quotes Notworthy. I’ll be looking into them tonight.

Same here

Not much time the past few days.

My Greek speaking friend said that Episkopos and Presbyteros are both used within the Greek Orthodox Church today.

Episkopos is the Greek word for Bishop and Presbyteros is the Greek word for elder, most commonly used as another word for priest. He is not an expert on word origin however. In ancient times when these words first originated they may have had a slightly different meaning.

The different spellings are different forms, Episkopos is singular and Episkopoi is plural, for example.

As for the writings of Ignatius, I can see that he is an important link between the Apostles and the early church fathers having lived at the same time as both, perhaps being ordained by Peter, as NotWorthy pointed out earlier.

 

[Melville]

A couple of questions and an observation.

I have heard the argument used against the Sola Scriptura doctrine (which I am not interested in defending or debating at the moment) that Paul told the Thessalonians to adhere to the traditions they had received, and therefore there was an ongoing oral tradition that was equally valid as scripture. I don’t know if that is your view but I infer that. Now the apostolic command and tradition was for there to be a plurality of elder/overseers.

Melville

I know of no command or clear tradition for this. Can you provide a source for your statement?

I was referring to the apostolic tradition of plural elders/presbyters as recorded in the New Testament. The command was to appoint elders in every city. It it was the apostle’s intention to appoint a single bishop I do not see that he wouldn’t have said appoint a bishop. But I think we’re pretty clear together on at least this part. Elders and overseers were the same in the apolstolic period and they were plural. This was the tradition that was started and then it was changed.

 

[Melville]

Hi, All

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D…

What other church was reffered to before 107A.D ?

As far as history seems to reveal none.

The Christian churches formed by the apostles in the beginning certainly held the same beliefs, they were seperated into communities of the same faith in Jesus Christ not other beliefs in the word.

This is what St.Paul has to say about dissentions, which apparently started very early.

1 Corinthians 1:10, I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Peace, OneNow1

OneNow1,

But then there is no precedent for a statement like this in the New Testament itself, “where the bishop appears, so let the people be.”

There is leadership (oversight we might should say, which is what bishop refers to) but this clergy/laity division is not there.

I don’t say Ignatius started this but as far as I’ve read so far he’s the first strong, recorded proponent of the single bishop. Any more informaton on the development is welcome, but thus far I’ve read a lot of “probably was” at key points, and probably is not certainty, no matter how plausible it appears.

Yes, this is what Paul had to say about dissensions, but please let’s stay close to the letter he wrote, the circumstances, and how he handles it. There were dissensions in Corinth and the way he characterized the problem was not AT ALL that they weren’t rallying around the bishop. It wasn’t that they weren’t rallying around the leadership. It was that they were still carnal. They were not spiritual. They had not put off the old and put on the new. They were doing something that is a common characteristic of the natural man or the flesh. They were rallying behind individual men.

One of these was even Cephas! If Matthew 16:18 gave Peter personal primacy, with a hierarchy on down the line from him, I really don’t get why Paul wouldn’t have taken this all on a different track. Why didn’t he say, Look, dear brethren, the Lord gave Peter the primacy and the keys, etc.? That was what was said later by others, if I’m not mistaken , and if I read correctly here, that is the remedy offered to dissensions, get behind and under the bishop.
Paul came nowhere near this.
He was also not an elder or overseer of the church in Corinth, though he had spent considerable time there. He was an apostle, but did not appoint a permanent officer to stand in his stead there.

 

[utunumsint]

I was referring to the apostolic tradition of plural elders/presbyters as recorded in the New Testament. The command was to appoint elders in every city. It it was the apostle’s intention to appoint a single bishop I do not see that he wouldn’t have said appoint a bishop. But I think we’re pretty clear together on at least this part. Elders and overseers were the same in the apolstolic period and they were plural. This was the tradition that was started and then it was changed.

Yes, but what is unclear is their relation to one another. Was there a hierarchy within their ranks? Scripture does not say. And although the terms elder and bishop seem to be used interchangeably, we do not know that they are exactly the same. I feel, and the Catholic church feels, that these questions are adequatly answered by tradition.

Hypothetically, if I were to accept your view, then from the time of Paul and Peter’s martyrdom (circa 67 or 68 AD during the reign of Nero) to Ignatius’ epistles (circa 107) and his own martyrdom, we have had a fundamental shift in church structure. That is barely 40 years. Add the fact that John was still alive up until 90 AD, and we have **only 17 years **in between the death of the last Apostle and this fundamental shift.

We also have Polycarp, who was Bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius wrote letters to his church, exhorting them to “follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” and yet Polycarp does say a word against it in his letter to the Philippians. In fact, he attaches Ignatius’ letters to the one he himself sends to them in order that they might be taught by him as well.

He introduce his letter to them in this way “Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.” Polycarp was the bishop of his church, and no one else. He had presbyters with him as well, who served under him.

All of these points make me absolutly confident that this church structure was intended by the Apostles.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

I was referring to the apostolic tradition of plural elders/presbyters as recorded in the New Testament. The command was to appoint elders in every city. It it was the apostle’s intention to appoint a single bishop I do not see that he wouldn’t have said appoint a bishop. But I think we’re pretty clear together on at least this part. Elders and overseers were the same in the apolstolic period and they were plural. This was the tradition that was started and then it was changed.

Yes, but it was changed during Apostolic times. We see this in the practice of the Agape as well.