Friday, February 13, 2015

James (the Just): leader of the Church at Jerusalem


In the combox of the previous thread here at AF, Ken Temple called into question the view held by numerous scholars (and yours truly) that James (the Just) became the leader of the Church at Jerusalem shortly after Peter was imprisoned. Ken wrote:

Off the top of my head, on the main issue - it seems your main argument is that James was the mono-episcopate (one bishop over a college of elders) at Jerusalem. And the later church records seem to read mono-episcopasy back into the earliest decades. (Eusebius, Irenaeus, etc.) Acts, Titus, 1 Timothy, I Peter 5, I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache are all earlier (60s-125 AD) and don't jive with the bishop's lists of 200-325 AD.

Actually "the main issue" is whether or not Ken's original assertion is accurate. Once again, here is what Ken wrote back on 01/28/15:

Moreover, NONE of the earliest churches had a mono-episcopate. They all had a plurality of elders at first.

The "earliest" church, Jerusalem, most certainly did not have "a plurality of elders at first". The first leaders of the Church at Jerusalem were 'the Twelve' (apostles). When 'the Twelve' began to spend less time at Jerusalem and more time in missionary activity, James (the Just) became the permanent, resident leader of the Church at Jerusalem; holding a position of authority above the elders/overseers at Jerusalem, but below 'the Twelve'.

Ken also wrote:

Why doesn't Acts 15 say that? Acts 15 does not call James a "bishop/overseer, who is one over the college of elders" in authority. Both he and Peter stand up and give their opinions/judgments and quote Scripture. 

It says that Paul and Barnabas came there and reported to "the apostles and elders" (Acts 15:4; and 15:6; 15:22 and "with the whole church").

James, the brother of Jesus is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Cor. 15:7. 


Ken is being evasive here, for he knows that none of the governmental systems held by various Christian denominations (congregational, episcopal, presbyterian) have explicit support in the NT. The view that James (the Just) held a position of leadership in the Church of Jerusalem is built upon implicit information in the NT and explicit information from post-apostolic writers. When all the evidence is brought together, an extremely strong case for this view emerges; a case so strong that even a number of scholars who do not adhere to a espiscopal form of polity support it. Note the following from a respected Presbyterian scholar:

When Peter, Paul, and Barnabas have spoken, the leader of the Jerusalem church assume the task of addressing the assembly and formulating a decision that meets the approval of the entire council. This person is James, the half-brother of Jesus, who succeeded Peter as the head of the church (12:17) and who was highly respected for his authority (compare 21:17-19). When he speaks, he literally has the last word.

A paragraph later, we read:

James functions as the chairman of the assembly. Everyone present is eager to listen to what James has to say on the subject of adherence to the law, namely, circumcision. His opening remarks are, "Men and brothers, listen to me." The similarity between these words and those of the Epistle of James is remarkable. In his epistle James writes, "Listen, my beloved brothers" (2:5). The command listen to me occurs nowhere else in the entire New Testament. It reveals that James has respect and authority in the church and that apostles, elders, and delegates to the council value his leadership. (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary - Acts, p. 550; note: Dr. Kistmaker was the scholar chosen to complete the NTC series started by the esteemed Reformed theologian, William Hendriksen.)

From the pen of the F. F. Bruce we read:

Then the eyes  of the company turned to James the brother of the Lord, a man who enjoyed the respect and confidence of all. By this time James appears to have occupied a position of leadership among the elders of the Jerusalem church; if the elders were organized as a kind of Nazarene Sanhedrin, James was their president, primus inter pares. (F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament - The Book of the Acts, p. 309.)

A Baptist scholar wrote:

The rise of both the monepiscopacy and the succession concept occurs in internal crises in the earliest periods of the Church. An "overseer"—a term preferred for its connotation of function, in contrast to "bishop," with its connotation of office—emerged naturally in house churches. From such overseers, or "elders" as they were often called, there was at least in some cases an overseer for a city, whom we shall term a monepiskopos (to distinguish this person from the single leader in the house churches), appointed by apostolic design at the departure of the apostles. Such a city overseer also arose apart from apostolic design, not necessarily against it, in various connections with the death of James, the monepiscopal leader of the Jerusalem church. A succession of bishops was perhaps first suggested in Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem Council, among Jewish Christians with nationalistic hopes, by James's kinship to Jesus in the Davidic line. The succession of bishops arose in Rome from Jewish Christian interpretation of apostolic plans in reaction to erosion of established presbyteral authority. These developments set the stage for the initial use of succession lists in internal crises rather than in dialogue with Greco-Roman society. (Robert Lee Williams, Bishops Lists, p. 45.)

From the same book, a bit later, we read:

Evidence suggests that the churches in Antioch and the five cities addressed by Ignatius in Asia Minor began monepiscopates at the death of two first century leaders, James in Jerusalem and the "elder" of the Johannine letters in who exercised authoritv beyond their own cities. Telfer was correct in thinking that "an emergency or crisis ... in view of their loss of the guiding and supporting mother-church" led churches to adopt monepiscopacy in Antioch and Asia. (Ibid. pp. 67, 68.)

In the previous thread I provided selections from four more authors that are in agreement with the above scholars. Once again for emphasis:

In the traditions recorded by Eusebius (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen), James was the first bishop of the Jerusalem church. His election to this position is located at the beginning of the life of the Jerusalem church. He was thus the first bishop of the leading (mother) church of the growing Christian movement. The account in Acts portrays the key role of the Jerusalem church, and even the letters of Paul confirm the importance because they show Paul contested and struggled against that leadership. But according to popular understanding, in Acts Peter is at first portrayed as the prominent leader among the twelve, giving way to James only when he is forced to leave Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). The account of the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15) portrays James "presiding." and this position of leadership is consistent with the remaining narrative of Acts. (John Painter, Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1997, p. 4.)

The earliest leaders of the church [Jerusalem] were the Twelve, whom Luke calls 'the apostles'. At some point in the first ten or fifteen years of the church's existence an office of elder was created similar to that of the Jewish synagogue, either to succeed the Twelve, whose members began to leave Jerusalem in order to preach the gospel, or as assistants to the apostles in the administration of the church. James replaced Peter as the leader of the church and the elders took the place of the apostles. (R. Alistair Campbell, The Elders, T & T Clark International, 1994, p. 160.)

In the 2001 book, The Brother of Jesus - James the Just and His Mission, co-authors, Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, present solid evidences that James was clearly the leader of the Jerusalem church by the time of Acts 15. Less convincing is their view that he was already the leader of the Jerusalem church when Peter was arrested by Herod. Note the following:

Against this background [Gal. 2:1-10] we may read Acts 12:17. It is normally taken to mean that, after Peter's arrest by Herod (12:1-3), he was miraculously released from prison but forced to flee from Jerusalem. Before leaving he came to the house of the mother of John Mark, where the church used to gather. There he passed on a message, "Tell this [news of his release and forced departure] to James and the brethren." How is this message to be understood? It is commonly understood as a cryptic message from Peter, the leader, to James, indicating that James must take over the leadership in absence of Peter. This is less than clearly the intended meaning. More likely we should understand Peter's message in the context of his report back to James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. Nothing is more natural than that Peter should report to the leader. (Page 31.)

In pages 32-35, the authors present numerous quotes from post-apostolic sources (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Hegesippus) which clearly affirm that James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. They begin with the following:

The role of James as leader of the Jerusalem church is uniformly found in early tradition. (Page 32.)

And then conclude the section with:

Nevertheless this tradition is unanimous that James was the first leader of the Jerusalem church, and this emphasized by the numerous references to the throne of Jesus. (Page 35.)

Before leaving Chilton and Neusner, I would like to provide one more informative selection:

James died in the year 62 C.E., so that his example had been there to influence the emerging model of episcopal hierarchy within the church attested within the Pastoral Epistles for some three decades before the Pastoral Epistles themselves were written. James was clearly a local leader, who made decisions on the basis of Scripture, and the exercise of his authority—owing to his familial relationship—brought with it a personal link to Jesus himself which was reinforced by his own martyrdom. The personal model of James as bishop was evidently sufficient to elevate that office above other possible contenders for what was to be the predominately authority within the church by the end of the first century. (Page 157 - bold emphasis mine.)

In ending, it sure seems to me that Ken is reading his congregational polity back into his interpretation of the NT and early post-apostolic data, rather than reading the data in an objective, systematic manner.


Grace and peace,

David

23 comments:

Ken said...

Ken is being evasive here, for he knows that none of the governmental systems held by various Christian denominations (congregational, episcopal, presbyterian) have explicit support in the NT.

No; because Acts 14:23 and the other earlier passages in the NT and 1 Clement confirm this, and Acts 15 does not tell us that James is an mono episcopate. (one bishop over the other elders/overseers.( Acts 15 clearly says "the apostles and elders" several times and I already gave you the verses. Peter and James seem to be equal in giving their opinion/judgement and James quotes from Amos and they agree with Paul and Barnabas against the Judaizers.

I am not being evasive, because of what I also wrote to Rory.

All of those verses together are clear evidence that the church government that is earliest is a plurality of elders for each church.

Rory asked at the previous thread:

1) What makes you think his ecclesiology begins with the first letters he wrote?

Because everything before that indicates that each local church has a plurality of elders (presbuteroi)

Acts 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν

πρεσβυτέρους (accusative plural- object of the verb in Aorist active, "they appointed") , "they appointed") κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν (literally, "according to each church")

All the other earlier passages are consistent with this:

Acts 20:17 - called the elders (plural)

Acts 20:28 - tells the elders that the Holy Spirit has also made them overseers (all the elders are also overseers - uses plural there) and they are to do the work of pastoring (verbal form - to pastor, shepherd, feed and guard the flock)

Titus 1:5-7 - appoint elders (Plural) and verse 7 shows the elder is same as overseer, "for the overseer" - the Greek word "for" ( γαρ) proves this.

1 Peter 5:1-4
Again, he speaks to "the elders" (plural)
and says that their job is
to shepherd the flock (1 Peter 5:2)
and
exercise oversight (verbal form related to episkopos; episkopeo = επισκοπεω

and I Clement 42 and 44 show the elders are the same office as overseer or bishop.

Ken said...

you never deal with the clearest and simplest of these, Acts 14:23.

Ken said...

Jerome says

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as the bishop . . . "
and

that the mono-episcopacy arose out of a practical situation, rather than a divine command.

". . . by custom than by divine appointment." (Commentary on the Epistle of Titus, PL 26:562-563; cited by Jame White in Perspectives in Church Government: Five Views, page 251-252.

It is easy to see one of the elders becoming more of the leader/spokesman/more gifted preacher-teacher-leader.

What Ignatius says is not infallible, and just reflects the human tendency to need a one man leader in order to practically get things done, as in modern Baptist churches who have a paid staff pastor or
Senior pastor or Teaching-Preaching Pastor or Elder, but who is accountable to other elders, but because of their jobs, cannot always meet often and quickly enough to "get things done".

Seen in that light, Ignatius is not so bad.

The problem is when that is developed over the centuries into something that was never intended by all the Biblical data which I provided for you above.

Ken said...

Also, Acts 15 points to a plurality of elders, but there is nothing wrong with, after Peter left (per your comments above), that the more gifted leader James rose to the top, in a practical way. That does not mean he was over the other elders.

It says that Paul and Barnabas came there and reported to "the apostles and elders" (Acts 15:4; and 15:6; 15:22 and "with the whole church").

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

Good to see you back...

You wrote:

== No; because Acts 14:23 and the other earlier passages in the NT and 1 Clement confirm this, and Acts 15 does not tell us that James is an mono episcopate.==

First, the term 'monepiscopate' was not used until the second century, but the concept of the term (monarchical leader over a group of elders/bishops) is in the NT. You believe that the 'Trinity' is true concept found in the NT, but the term itself was not used until the second century; consistency would be greatly appreciated.

Second, you continue to avoid the fact that the terminology used in the NT and early CFs for various church offices was not set. The terms apostle, bishop, elder and deacon were quite interchangeable in the NT and early post-apostolic writings. For instance, anyone of the “Twelve” disciples that were appointed by Jesus Christ could be called an “apostle”, “bishop”, “elder” and “deacon”. Context and function become extremely important in determining the type of office that is being described. To assist our continuing discussion, I shall present my view of the hierarchical offices in 3 distinct periods: mid-30’s – 66/67 AD; 66/67 – 100 AD; post 100 AD; and I shall argue that all 3 periods had three distinctive offices.

In the first period we have a three-fold governmental ministry of apostles (and deutero/lieutenant-apostles—i.e. Apollos, Timothy, Titus, etc), bishops/elders, and deacons. The apostles and their close lieutenants (sometimes also called apostles) had the primary task of establishing churches throughout the Roman Empire. One of their important functions was the appointing of local officers called bishops/elders. Each major city had many bishops/elders, and each “house” church probably had one bishop/elder (per scholars previously quoted)—e.g. Campbell, Lightfoot, Willliams). The bishop/elders were the “leaders” of the “house” churches, and like the apostles, had deacons to assist them—the deacons being the 3rd, and lowest office in the Church.

Sometimes, the apostles and lieutenant apostles took up semi-permanent residence in one of the major cities that was in the region they were ministering in. It is my belief that this practice, coupled with the example of monarchical leadership of James (the Just) in Jerusalem, which gave rise to the, emergence of the “monarchial episcopate” (most likely under the supervision of the last Apostle, John).

Now, moving into the second period, two important events must be noted: first the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman troops in 66/67 AD (followed by it’s destruction in 70 AD); and second, the loss of the majority of apostles (eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection). It is my belief that either just prior to the beginning of this period, or shortly after its beginning, the apostles began to appoint one individual to take the lead in each major city that had no apostle or lieutenant apostle in residence. I would point to the letters of Ignatius which attest to practice of the monarchial episcopate in the early second century as support for my thesis.

A perpetuation of ordination apart from the apostles is in place during this second period, as attested by Clement of Rome. So, as the top level of the threefold ministry is disappearing in this second period, it is being replaced in a sense by what has been termed “apostolic succession”. Thus as we enter in the 3rd period, the period with no apostles; we still have intact a three-fold ministry; and by the middle of second century the title of bishop was being used for the highest level, elder/presbyter for the middle, and deacon for the lowest.

This view (held by a number of scholars from differing denominations) sure seems to make much more sense than that of the congregationalist.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

You still don't deal with Acts 14:23 and don't comment on the other verses either.

You just ignore them, and build your case on the fact that the Apostles are the high office, but later ceased (agreed).

Answer the question - Why did they appoint elders for each church in Acts 14:23 ?? (and no mention of mono-episcopacy)

Ken said...

using the fact of the lack of the word Trinity in the inspired 27 books is comparing apples and oranges.

Since many texts teach:
One God (Unitas)
The Father is God
The Son is God (John 1:1-5; 1:18; 5:17-18; 8:56-58; 10:30; 20:28; Hebrews 1:6, 1:8; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-8; Col. 1:15-20; Revelation 5:13-14
The Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 5:3-5; John 14, 16; Genesis 1:2)
Each of the Triad (Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14) - each one relates to the other - denoting personal relationship.

It is clear that Trinitas (threeness) comes from those texts, and since they each relate to one another - send, love, pray to, testify to, glorify each other, etc. - they are "persons"

So, using that as an example as somehow parallel is a "cheap shot", IMO.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

A bit earlier today you wrote:

== You still don't deal with Acts 14:23 and don't comment on the other verses either.

You just ignore them, and build your case on the fact that the Apostles are the high office, but later ceased (agreed).

Answer the question - Why did they appoint elders for each church in Acts 14:23 ?? (and no mention of mono-episcopacy)==

If you had read my posts a bit more carefully you would have discerned that I have answered the import of your question. I pointed out that in the time period of Acts 14:23 three primary offices existed: apostles, elders/bishops and deacons. The monespicopacy, apart from James (the Just) in Jerusalem, did not yet exist. There was yet no need to appoint apostolic successors, for the ministry of the apostles was still in full swing. As such, the apostles Barnabas and Paul, appointed elders in each of the various cities mentioned in Acts 14. And further, just as the Church at Antioch was composed of numerous house churches, so too the other cities mentioned in Acts 14. So, each of the house churches in each city Church had an elder appointed, which, of course, means that each city Church had multiple elders appointed by Barnabas and Paul; and all those elders appointed by them, were under their authority.

But, as the apostles began to pass off of the scene, successors were being appointed to overseer the house church elders of each city Church, with the Church at Jerusalem, serving as the model. James (the Just) was not an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ, nor was he a mere elder of a house church. His was in a position below 'the Twelve' but above the elders of the house churches. No precise name for this position is given in the NT, that came later.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ken wrote:

==using the fact of the lack of the word Trinity in the inspired 27 books is comparing apples and oranges. ==

I compared the lack of the use a specific term to describe a concept contained in the NT.

The term "Trinity/Trinitas/Trias", was not used in the NT, but was coined in the second century to describe a concept contained in the NT.

The term "monepiscopcay", was not used in the NT, but was coined in the second century to describe a concept contained in the NT.

My goodness Ken, THINK !!!

==So, using that as an example as somehow parallel is a "cheap shot", IMO.==

Sigh...that you deny the explicit parallel that I have detailed for you (twice now) is nothing short of amazing...


Grace and peace,

David

Jamie Donald said...

Ken wrote, Acts 15 does not tell us that James is an mono episcopate. And in another place, Ken asked, Why doesn't Acts 15 say that? Acts 15 does not call James a "bishop/overseer, who is one over the college of elders" in authority.

However, it is important to note that Acts 15 also does not say a lot of things. First, Acts 15 discusses only the testimony and deliberations for the Council of Jerusalem. It does not say anything about if there was or was not a hierarchy in the day-to-day operation of the Church in Jerusalem. The chapter makes no statement in favor of, nor against, a hierarchical system that culminates in a single bishop ranking over all the rest.

Second, Acts 15 does not say whether or not a single Apostle presided at the Council. It could have been a free-for-all, or it could have been an orderly meeting where a presider allowed each individual an opportunity to say his piece. Instead, the chapter focuses only on the highlights of the debate. It doesn't even record the entire discussion! (See v7, After much debate had taken place, Peter ... ) So, even for the specific event being recorded, Acts 15 also makes no statement in favor of, nor against, a hierarchical system that culminates in a single bishop ranking over the rest.

The remaining examples of the use of the plural for bishop/elder/presbyter fall into the same category. They simply say that there was more than one. They do not discuss whether or not there was a hierarchy among the multiple individuals. Please note that vague states such as, "They were all in agreement," do not describe how the agreement was attained, nor whether or not there was some form of hierarchy in working out that agreement. These statements simply say that agreement was reached.

Additionally, multiple bishops does not necessarily imply a plurality system (no hierarchy). For example, the Church in Philadelphia (USA) has 7 bishops. But there is definitely a hierarchy in place under Archbishop Chaput.

It is the fact that these mentions of multiples do not say anything in favor of, nor against, a hierarchical system that allows David to say, none of the governmental systems held by various Christian denominations (congregational, episcopal, presbyterian) have explicit support in the NT.

Those who would want the matter settled should look to other passages that address these matters. Those who favor a hierarchical system (such as Catholics or Orthodox) would look at Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Paul appointed both Timothy and Titus, and he retained authority over them. Timothy and Titus are charged with appointing others. One who appoints has authority over the appointed. A (simple) hierarchy is implied.

Finally, trying to use Acts 15 to demonstrate a collegial plurality of elders at the local church level is a huge misapplication and mismatch in scale. First, Paul and Barnabus are not of the local church for Jerusalem to be making the decision. Second, the council decided on an issue where the local church had no issues. The problem was noted in other "local" churches. And these other "local" churches were not handling the issue with their own "pluralities of elders" (nor with their hierarchies).

Nick said...

I'm catching up on comments here, but two points I'd like to make are:

(1) A Plurality of Bishops in a city in *no way* suggests they were equal. Even to this very day there are multiple bishops in a city, one ARCHbishop and multiple assistant bishops. So the 'monoepiscopate' argument is weak IF it's being used to ASSUME that a plurality negates a head bishop with subordinate bishops.

and

(2) For those who are curious, as a tangential issue, I don't think Paul rebuked Peter in Antioch in Galatians 2, but rather another disciple named Cephas. Here's a post I made on the evidence:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/04/did-st-paul-really-rebuke-st-peter.html

Back to catching up on comments.

Nick said...

I will also quickly add a post I wrote on this on the Called To Communion thread a while ago:

Someone I know just showed me this interesting detail from Paul’s private letter to Timothy. Paul tells Timothy, “remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3), strongly suggesting Timothy was a head-bishop, since even though we already know there were bishops in Ephesus, it’s still Timothy’s unique job to stop the troublemakers. The fact these troublemakers were said to be ‘teaching’ could also suggest they were clergy. And later in the private letter, Paul tells Timothy: “Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses” (5:19). In other words, who judges a presbyter/bishop? Paul says that’s Tim’s job, not the job of the collective of bishops of Ephesus. Such evidence as this, among other things, would suggest that Paul was conditioning Timothy for a transition from a hierarchy of Paul-Presbyter-Deacon to that of Timothy-Presbyter-Deacon, which is Apostolic Succession in its essence.

Ken said...

The term "Trinity/Trinitas/Trias", was not used in the NT, but was coined in the second century to describe a concept contained in the NT.

The term "monepiscopcay", was not used in the NT, but was coined in the second century to describe a concept contained in the NT.

I see what you are saying now. I still disagree with you; but I understand you better now.

Ken said...

So, each of the house churches in each city Church had an elder appointed, which, of course, means that each city Church had multiple elders appointed by Barnabas and Paul; and all those elders appointed by them, were under their authority.

each house church had only one elder?

Acts 14:23 seems to indicate that each house church has a plurality of elders.

I have always wondered about house churches and why the NT usually says "the Church at Corinth" or "the church at Rome" etc. - how the churches became more than one house in each city in early Christianity.

The Scriptures don't tell us much except sometimes it says "The church at Ephesus" or "the church at Corinth" and other times plural "the churches in Galatia", etc.

Jamie Donald said...

Ken,

If you look at Acts 14:23 in the context of verses 20 - 28, I think you will find "church" to be referring to the city level. This passage has Paul's mission going from Derbe to Lystra to Iconium to Antioch where presbyters are appointed in each church. The passage then shows the continued mission through Pisidia, Pamphylia, and Attalia before returning to Antioch. At every turn, the passage speaks to the city level and does not have a single phrase that is below the city level (i.e. down to house churches). When Paul returns to Antioch, the church there is gathered so that he can report on his mission. Again, this is the Church at Antioch, not a house church.

To assume that the passage suddenly references house churches in the middle, then immediately goes back to referencing city-level events is to be out of context.

Ken said...

I see what you are saying, (that is the same kind of idea at the beginning of most the Epistles addressed to one city - Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi - "to the church in Rome" ) (Galatia is a larger area - in fact the Acts 14 cities - Lystra, Derbe, Iconium - southern Galatia - so the plural is used there - "to the churches in Galatia") but weren't all the first churches a house church in that city? They started in each city as one house church.

The text does not tell us that there are many house churches in each city; though it seems that when Christianity grew more in numbers, that would seem to be the assumption.

Ken said...

Titus 1:5 does have "kata polin" κατα πολιν - "according to city" or "for each city" or "city to city"

It seems that after the apostles died, the plurality of elders of each church was supposed to ordain the next generation of elders-pastors-teachers-overseers.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

So good to see you back; thanks much for taking the time to comment.

Yesterday, you posted:

==Paul tells Timothy, “remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3), strongly suggesting Timothy was a head-bishop, since even though we already know there were bishops in Ephesus, it’s still Timothy’s unique job to stop the troublemakers. The fact these troublemakers were said to be ‘teaching’ could also suggest they were clergy. And later in the private letter, Paul tells Timothy: “Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses” (5:19). In other words, who judges a presbyter/bishop? Paul says that’s Tim’s job, not the job of the collective of bishops of Ephesus. Such evidence as this, among other things, would suggest that Paul was conditioning Timothy for a transition from a hierarchy of Paul-Presbyter-Deacon to that of Timothy-Presbyter-Deacon, which is Apostolic Succession in its essence.==

The above is my view as well. In one of my comments in this thread to Ken, I wrote:

>>Sometimes, the apostles and lieutenant apostles took up semi-permanent residence in one of the major cities that was in the region they were ministering in. It is my belief that this practice, coupled with the example of monarchical leadership of James (the Just) in Jerusalem, which gave rise to the, emergence of the “monarchial episcopate” (most likely under the supervision of the last Apostle, John).>>

We know from Acts 18:11 that Paul spent a year and a half in Corinth. I think it is safe to assume that the leaders/elders/bishops of the house churches there needed hands on supervision. The same can be said of Timothy in Ephesus. These, and other examples from the NT, provide strong support for your take that:

"Such evidence as this, among other things, would suggest that Paul was conditioning Timothy for a transition from a hierarchy of Paul-Presbyter-Deacon to that of Timothy-Presbyter-Deacon, which is Apostolic Succession in its essence."

To which I would add, another transition, that of Timothy-Presbyter-Deacon to Monarchical Bishop-Presbyter-Deacon, so explicitly present in the writings of Ignatius.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Good morning Ken,

Last night, you wrote:

I see what you are saying now. I still disagree with you; but I understand you better now.

It is good to hear that you have taken to time to reflect more deeply on my musings; thanks much for doing so...


Grace and peace,

David

maximus said...

Greetings David and gentleman,

How about the "angels/stars of the seven churches" in the Apocalypse? The Lord held the angel responsible for all that took place within those churches. They couldn't be celestial beings because they would be fallen angels if they were guilty of the charges laid against them. Additionally, men of God were called "angels" going back to the OT, such as the Holy Prophet Malachi (Heb. my angel or messenger)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has some great info: St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxv)... explains it of the bishops. The comparison of a teacher to a star is quite Scriptural: And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (Daniel 12:3). St. Augustine’s reason for interpreting angels of the Churches as the prelates of the church is that St. John speaks of them as falling from their first charity which is not true of the angels.

David Waltz said...

Hi Maximus,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:

== How about the "angels/stars of the seven churches" in the Apocalypse? The Lord held the angel responsible for all that took place within those churches. They couldn't be celestial beings because they would be fallen angels if they were guilty of the charges laid against them. Additionally, men of God were called "angels" going back to the OT, such as the Holy Prophet Malachi (Heb. my angel or messenger)==

You are absolutely correct that, "men of God were called 'angels' going back to the OT". The term angel/angels (Gr.: ἄγγελος, ἄγγελοι), is also clearly used of humans in the NT—in a few instances where there is no doubt—e.g. Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25.

I know of a number of respected NT commentators (e.g. Hendricksen, Lenski, Walvoord) who believe that "the seven stars" (angels) of "the seven churches" in Revelation (1:20 - 3:22) are bishops/pastors. It sure seems to me that your view is in 'good company'.


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

That's fascinating, because I recall "angels" being mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:10 when St Paul says women should cover their heads "because of the Angels," the liturgical has led some (e.g. Aquinas) to say Priests could be the intended meaning.

Also, I was reading a recent article where someone said the Eastern Fathers didn't have much trouble saying the "Angel of God" in the OT was actually Jesus, because "Angel" in Greek had the more generic meaning of Messenger and not so much the emphasis on "white, wings, and halo" that the West naturally associates with the term.

maximus said...

Nick,

Check out this quote from St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage ca. 270-345:

Remember that the Apostle also said, We shall judge angels. 1 Cor. 6:3 And our Lord said to His disciples, You shall sit on twelve thrones, and judge twelve tribes of the house of Israel. And Ezekiel said concerning righteous men, Eze.23:24-25 that they shall judge Ahola and Aholibah. Since, then, the righteous are to judge the wicked, He has made clear concerning them that they shall not come into judgment. And as to what the apostles say, that We shall judge angels, hear, and I will instruct you. The angels who shall be judged by the apostles are the priests who have violated the law; as the Prophet said, The lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and the law shall they inquire of his mouth; because he is the angel of the Lord, the most mighty. Mal. 2:7 The angels who are the priests, of whose mouth the law is inquired, when they transgress the law, shall be judged at the last by the apostles, and the priests who observe the law. (Demonstrations 22.16)