Back on January 28, 2015, Ken Temple published a
thread at the Beggars All blog (link), wherein he made some pretty bold assertions
concerning the government/ministry of the Christian Church during the apostolic
(i.e. NT) and early post-apostolic (i.e. late 1st century-early 2nd century)
periods. Ken wrote:
...the earliest
writings affirm that a college/plurality of elders and the office of bishop is
the same office. The names of elder and bishop is interchangable[sic] in the NT
and earliest writings of the early fathers.
After citing 5 passages from the NT and Apostolic
Fathers, Ken then posted:
Also, James Swan pointed out that the evidence for Rome is that
it did not have a mono-episcopate until much later. ( I Clement, Shepherd of
Hermas, Peter Lampe's book and work; John Bugay wrote a lot in this area also,
both here and over at Triablogue. see at the Addendum below)
Moreover, NONE of the earliest churches had a mono-episcopate.
They all had a plurality of elders at first.
Ignatius (writing around 107-117 AD, ?) is the first evidence of
the mono-episcopate, and seems to be where that custom/practice started.
Pretty much every assertion made by Ken in the
above quotes is either irrelevant, problematic, or an error.
First, though the terms elder/presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros) and bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos) are certainly both used for individuals who
filled the 'office' of what later came to known exclusively as that of the
elder/presbyter; this fact does not address whether or not three distinct
'offices' existed in the Apostolic period which later came to be known as
bishop/overseer, elder/presbyter, and deacon; as such, it is irrelevant. [FYI:
I believe that four distinct 'offices' existed in the Apostolic period, and
that the highest of the four—represented by the Apostles appointed by Jesus
(plus Matthias)—became non-existent after the death of the Apostle John.]
It must be kept in mind that a number terms which
later developed into limited and exclusive usage, had much broader application
in the NT and early CFs. Not only were
the terms elder/presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros) and bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos) at times used for the same individual/s, but also
the terms apostle (ἀπόστολος,
apostolos) and deacon (διάκονος, diakonos). Peter is called an apostle and elder/presbyter;
John an apostle and elder/presbyter; Paul an apostle and deacon; Timothy is designated as an apostle and a deacon. All four terms may be used of an
'office', but also have much broader usages.
Second, the purported "evidence" that
Rome "did not have a mono-episcopate until much
later", is based on presuppositions and theories from liberal scholars of
the higher-critical paradigm—those presuppositions and theories have been fully
addressed by more conservative scholars.
Third,
the assertion that, "NONE of the earliest churches had a
mono-episcopate", is just wrong. Fact is, the earliest 'church',
Jerusalem, had one individual designated as it's leader: James. (The terms
church and churches need to be qualified for THE Church at Jerusalem was
comprised of numerous 'house-churches', with each individual 'house-church'
having an elder/bishop in charge.)
And
fourth, "Ignatius of Antioch is most certainly NOT "the first
evidence of the mono-episcopate". As noted above, "the first evidence
of the mono-episcopate" was the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of
James.
So
much for my counter-assertions. Now, before I offer support each of them, I
would first like to provide a working definition for the term, monepiscopacy
(or monarchical episcopate):
The
view that in addition to the elder/bishop who presides over a single, local
church (originally a 'house-church')—who is supported by deacons—there exists a
third office held by one who has authority/jurisdiction over a plurality of
local churches and their elders/bishops. Example: the early Church at
Jerusalem, led by James.
First
assertion -
The
fact that the terms elder/presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros) and bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos) are certainly both used for some of the same
individuals who filled the 'office' of what later can to known exclusively as
elder/presbyter has virtually no bearing on whether or not there was a third
office which was above it/them. I can think of no better representative of this
view than the man who established beyond any reasonable doubt that those two
terms were used interchangeably in the NT and early CFs: J. B. Lightfoot. His Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (1868), The Christian Ministry (1868) and massive 5 volume work, Apostolic
Fathers (1885-1890) established him as one of the top scholars who has
written on this topic. And to
my knowledge, there is not one scholar who has successfully questioned
Lightfoot's monumental contributions on this issue.
Interestingly enough, though countless authors have cited Lightfoot
concerning the use of the terms
elder/presbyter (πρεσβύτερος,
presbuteros) and bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos) in the NT and Apostolic Fathers, it is quite rare
to find an author who also points out that he believed the monepiscopacy
(and the three-fold Christian ministry) had an
Apostolic origin. Please note the following from his The Christian Ministry, one of three
disertations which were printed with his commentary on Philippians:
If bishop was at first used as a synonym for the presbyter and afterwards came to designate the higher officer under whom the presbyters served, the episcopate properly so called would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. In other words, the
episcopate was
formed not out of the apostolic order by localisation but out of the presbyteral by elevation : and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them.
If this account be true, we might expect to find in the mother Church of Jerusalem, which as the earliest founded would soonest ripen into
maturity, the
first traces of this developed form of the ministry. Nor is this expectation disappointed. James the Lord's brother alone, within the period compassed by the apostolic writings, can claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term. (Pages 196-197.)
The evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy throughout
proconsular Asia,
the scene of St John's latest labours, may be considered irrefragable. (Page 214.)
It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered from the name of St John. (Page 234.)
If the preceding
investigation be
substantially
correct, the threefold ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction ; and short of an express statement we can possess no better assurance of a Divine appointment or at least a Divine sanction. (Page 267.)
Interestingly enough, even
during the lifetime of Lightfoot himself, some folk were evidently attempting
to twist Lightfoot's own words, for in the preface of the sixth edition of Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians he penned:
The present edition is an exact reprint of the preceding one. This statement applies as well to the Essay on the Threefold Ministry, as to the rest of the work. I should not have thought it necessary to be thus explicit, had I not been informed of a rumour that I had found reason to abandon the main opinions expressed in that Essay. There is no foundation for any such report. The only point of importance on which I have modified my views, since the Essay was first written, is the authentic form of the letters of St Ignatius. Whereas in the earlier editions of this work I had accepted the three Curetonian letters, I have since been convinced (as stated in later editions) that the seven letters of the Short Greek are genuine. This divergence however does not materially affect the main point at issue, since even the Curetonian letters afford abundant evidence of the spread of episcopacy in the earliest years of the second century.
But on the other hand, while disclaiming any change in my opinions, I desire equally to disclaim the representations of those opinions which have been put forward in some quarters. The object of the Essay was an investigation into the origin of the Christian Ministry. The result has been a confirmation of the statement in the English Ordinal, 'It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' But I was scrupulously anxious not to overstate the evidence in any case; and it would seem that partial and qualifying statements, prompted by this anxiety, have assumed undue proportions in the minds of some readers, who have emphasized them to the neglect of the general drift of the Essay.
September 9, 1881.
Second
assertion -
The
position that monepiscopacy was a very late development in Rome (many liberal
scholars have speculated that it did not appear before the middle of the 2nd
century), is based on highly questionable presuppositions, theories, and a
subjective interpretation of archeological data. The beginnings of this
position are found in the late 19th century higher critical works of Harnack,
Hatch and Sohm. The higher critical presuppositions, methods and theories that
were being applied to the NT for decades in Germany, were now also being
unleashed on post-NT period. I have touched on the infiltration of higher criticism
into 20th century scholarship in a number of threads under the "Peter
Lampe" label - LINK.
Some of the most troubling issues of the higher critical paradigm for me are:
1.) treatment of the NT as any other literature of the same period; 2.) the
assumption that many of the NT writings were not written by apostles and/or
immediate associates of the apostles (e.g. Paul did not write the Pastorals,
nor some of the other epistles attributed to him; John did not write the Gospel
attributed to him, nor the 3 epistles, nor Revelation; Peter did not write
either of the epistles attributed to him; et al.), which means that those who
did write a number of the NT contributions were liars; 3.) the men who wrote
the early bishops lists were either liars or ignoramuses (or both); 4.) the
unwillingness to seriously interact with conservative scholars who have
addressed many of the issues raised by the higher critical paradigm.
Third
assertion -
The view James was the
first Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem has such a broad spectrum of supporters
(Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, conservative, moderate, liberal),
those who reject this position need to present overwhelming evidence to the contrary
(this to date has not been done).
Bishop Lightfoot himself
was a supporter (see above), and the following are a few selections from modern
scholars who also affirm that James was the first Bishop of the Church at
Jerusalem:
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 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.)
I could add many more
examples, but the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ken's assertion is in
error.
Fourth
assertion -
Ken's fourth assertion is
directly related to his third; as such, I see no need to provide further
documentation to show that it too is in error.
I shall end here with a
couple of important notes: first, this thread is by no means intended to be an
attack on the person of Ken. I like Ken, and consider him a brother in Christ. Yet
with that said, I at times feel compelled to address some of the views that he defends in his internet publishing. And second, this post is neither a defense,
nor attack, of the Papacy. Though monepiscopacy is certainly an important component
in any debate on the Papacy, monepiscopacy itself can be, and is, a
'stand-alone' issue, and has been treated as such in this thread.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. In "Addendum 2", Ken provided a link to
an apologetic contribution by Brandon Addison. I have already published two
thread on this, and urge those readers who have read Brandon's treatment to
check out the resource I mentioned in this thread, and my own reflections here.
