Episcopacy in the Early Church

You can always find some disputing just about anything.....even the obvious.
The Church has always had bishops, priests and deacons. Some bible translations use differing words like elders and overseers but it's the same thing.
This only arose with the protest against things sounding too catholic.

GoingByzantine said:

In the Early Church what form did the episcopacy take? I have heard some non-denominational and non-episcopalian Christians claim that there was no episcopacy at all. The claim seems to be that Bishops were little more than pastors, and deacons/deaconesses were simply their helpers. Usually accompanying this theme is the idea that there was no one Church, and that each individual parish/community was essentially on its own, only sharing letters to one another in fellowship.

My read is that bishops were indeed highest in honor, and beneath them were priests and deacons/deaconesses . There were some bishops who seem to have more power than others, Titus for instance was given the authority to appoint elders across Crete...that authority was vested in him by Paul. Yet I think once the initial appointments were made, all bishops viewed each other as equals and leaders of their communities.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing a documentary/lecture by Paul Meier, a Lutheran Pastor, historian and archeologist. Certainly it was often the case that a Bishop was a Pastor of a very small group, some times 2 or three; but as these groups grew and spread out that Bishop would have more and more congregations to oversee, and would appoint "presbyters" to shepherd these individual flocks. The office of Bishop evolved in a very short time into what we now know as Episcopal form of governance.

My entire Christian life has been spent in Charismatic or Baptist churches. Although the baptists (at least SBC/IFB) teach that each church is autonomous, I've always felt that the episcopal form of governance is what is modeled in the bible.

Unfortunately, I have some theological disagreements with the historic apostolic churches which would prevent me from communing with them (I'm not looking for a debate on this, I do respect your faith and devotion, and I do believe that there is the deposit of faith in the churches)

GoingByzantine said:

In the Early Church what form did the episcopacy take?

Click to expand...

The "early church" and the "apostolic churches" as shown in the New Testament are not identical. The churches began to be corrupted even while the apostles were alive (Rev 1-3).

There was no episcopacy in the NT.
The shepherds of the churches "in every city" were called elders (Acts 14:23;Tit 1:5) because they were mature Christians with the appropriate qualifications, and they were also called "bishops" (episkopos) because they were overseers -- "taking the oversight" (1 Pet 5:1-4). These men were definitely NOT a class of "priests", since the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers, with Christ as our great High Priest.

The spiritual gifts they would need would be those of pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). Thus they would be pastor/elder/bishops. There was always a plurality of elders, never just one pastor, based upon the pattern given to Moses (Num 11:14-17) since one man is not supposed to "bear this burden" of responsibility, and also needs to be accountable to other elders (1 Tim 5:17-20).

The clearest indication that elders, bishops and pastors were exactly the same is found in Philippians 1:1 where three groups are listed -- all the saints, the bishops (plural), and the deacons. Had there been one bishop over the elders, Paul would certainly have said bishop, saints, elders, and deacons to teach us how churches would be structured. This also indicates that all believers are "saints" (sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit).

There is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that churches were reporting to a "mother church" or had a "bishop" in oversight of all the churches. Had that been the case, it would have shown up in Rev 1-3, where all the churches were in the same area, but each one was addressed individually by the Lord Himself.

There was one situation where the church at Jerusalem had to rule on the application of the Mosaic Law to Christians, since that was the centre of Jewish believers (Acts 15). But none of the churches were "reporting" to Jerusalem, and Peter was definitely not the bishop of Jerusalem (nor Rome). He humbly regarded himself as an elder (1 Pet 5:1) even though he was an apostle.

The hierarchies which were established later were not strictly according to the NT pattern established by the apostles. And most churches today do not adhere to the NT pattern anyhow. But it is there for all to see.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

I remember seeing a documentary/lecture by Paul Meier, a Lutheran Pastor, historian and archeologist. Certainly it was often the case that a Bishop was a Pastor of a very small group, some times 2 or three; but as these groups grew and spread out that Bishop would have more and more congregations to oversee, and would appoint "presbyters" to shepherd these individual flocks. The office of Bishop evolved in a very short time into what we now know as Episcopal form of governance.

Click to expand...

That's long how I've understood it. I think it might be fair to say that during the earliest years of the Church there may not have been too terribly a distinction between the episkopos and the presbyteros, but within a matter of a few short decades a clear distinction did exist.

And despite some who would argue that this represents "corruption in the church" I think it was a perfectly normal, organic evolution of the Church meeting the needs of more and more people.

With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD at a fundamental level the link between Christianity and Judaism was severed. Previously Rome had dealt with the Christians as "a funny group of Jews" and with Nero they were harshly persecuted, but after Jerusalem fell the separation between Church and Synagogue was made complete. There must have also been a stark realization within the Church that they were here for the long haul. As by the time of St. Ignatius there seems to have developed the basic episcopal and diocese structure of the Church. The diocese, of course, having been a Roman unit of civil jurisdiction appropriated by Christians out of convenience, the same as Christians having made use of Rome's extensive road network to bring the Gospel to every corner of the civilized world within just decades of our Lord's Passion.

-CryptoLutheran

Job8 said:

The "early church" and the "apostolic churches" as shown in the New Testament are not identical. The churches began to be corrupted even while the apostles were alive (Rev 1-3).

Click to expand...

I'm always fascinated by the people who accuse the Church of almost instantly becoming corrupt and apostate, but then appeal to Scriptures which they would not even be able to read had not these same "corrupt" churches received them, confessed them, and accepted them as Canon.

If you believe the Church went down the crapper immediately, then why are you reading a corrupted and fake church's Bible. That Bible is ours, and if you believe we (being traditional and confessing Christians) are all part of a corrupt, false church system, then please stop using our Bible and get your own.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I'm always fascinated by the people who accuse the Church of almost instantly becoming corrupt and apostate, but then appeal to Scriptures which they would not even be able to read had not these same "corrupt" churches received them, confessed them, and accepted them as Canon.

If you believe the Church went down the crapper immediately, then why are you reading a corrupted and fake church's Bible. That Bible is ours, and if you believe we (being traditional and confessing Christians) are all part of a corrupt, false church system, then please stop using our Bible and get your own.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So very true.

Job8 said:

The "early church" and the "apostolic churches" as shown in the New Testament are not identical. The churches began to be corrupted even while the apostles were alive (Rev 1-3).

There was no episcopacy in the NT.
The shepherds of the churches "in every city" were called elders (Acts 14:23;Tit 1:5) because they were mature Christians with the appropriate qualifications, and they were also called "bishops" (episkopos) because they were overseers -- "taking the oversight" (1 Pet 5:1-4). These men were definitely NOT a class of "priests", since the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers, with Christ as our great High Priest.

The spiritual gifts they would need would be those of pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). Thus they would be pastor/elder/bishops. There was always a plurality of elders, never just one pastor, based upon the pattern given to Moses (Num 11:14-17) since one man is not supposed to "bear this burden" of responsibility, and also needs to be accountable to other elders (1 Tim 5:17-20).

The clearest indication that elders, bishops and pastors were exactly the same is found in Philippians 1:1 where three groups are listed -- all the saints, the bishops (plural), and the deacons. Had there been one bishop over the elders, Paul would certainly have said bishop, saints, elders, and deacons to teach us how churches would be structured. This also indicates that all believers are "saints" (sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit).

There is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that churches were reporting to a "mother church" or had a "bishop" in oversight of all the churches. Had that been the case, it would have shown up in Rev 1-3, where all the churches were in the same area, but each one was addressed individually by the Lord Himself.

There was one situation where the church at Jerusalem had to rule on the application of the Mosaic Law to Christians, since that was the centre of Jewish believers (Acts 15). But none of the churches were "reporting" to Jerusalem, and Peter was definitely not the bishop of Jerusalem (nor Rome). He humbly regarded himself as an elder (1 Pet 5:1) even though he was an apostle.

The hierarchies which were established later were not strictly according to the NT pattern established by the apostles. And most churches today do not adhere to the NT pattern anyhow. But it is there for all to see.

Click to expand...

You cite Acts, yet within Acts, at the council of Jerusalem we see a very obvious example of Leadership over the "Church" and the result was Christianity as we know it today. As Crypto posted above, the Bible that you read came from a God, but was compiled, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by who? A whole bunch of Bishops.

Job8 said:

The "early church" and the "apostolic churches" as shown in the New Testament are not identical. The churches began to be corrupted even while the apostles were alive (Rev 1-3).

There was no episcopacy in the NT.
The shepherds of the churches "in every city" were called elders (Acts 14:23;Tit 1:5) because they were mature Christians with the appropriate qualifications, and they were also called "bishops" (episkopos) because they were overseers -- "taking the oversight" (1 Pet 5:1-4). These men were definitely NOT a class of "priests", since the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers, with Christ as our great High Priest.

The spiritual gifts they would need would be those of pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). Thus they would be pastor/elder/bishops. There was always a plurality of elders, never just one pastor, based upon the pattern given to Moses (Num 11:14-17) since one man is not supposed to "bear this burden" of responsibility, and also needs to be accountable to other elders (1 Tim 5:17-20).

The clearest indication that elders, bishops and pastors were exactly the same is found in Philippians 1:1 where three groups are listed -- all the saints, the bishops (plural), and the deacons. Had there been one bishop over the elders, Paul would certainly have said bishop, saints, elders, and deacons to teach us how churches would be structured. This also indicates that all believers are "saints" (sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit).

There is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that churches were reporting to a "mother church" or had a "bishop" in oversight of all the churches. Had that been the case, it would have shown up in Rev 1-3, where all the churches were in the same area, but each one was addressed individually by the Lord Himself.

There was one situation where the church at Jerusalem had to rule on the application of the Mosaic Law to Christians, since that was the centre of Jewish believers (Acts 15). But none of the churches were "reporting" to Jerusalem, and Peter was definitely not the bishop of Jerusalem (nor Rome). He humbly regarded himself as an elder (1 Pet 5:1) even though he was an apostle.

The hierarchies which were established later were not strictly according to the NT pattern established by the apostles. And most churches today do not adhere to the NT pattern anyhow. But it is there for all to see.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. If you look at the writings of Christians in the very early Church, you can already see the episcopal structures, as have been described. You are looking at the Bible and interpreting it in a way that the first Christians obviously didn't, because that is not what they did.

What is more, these are the same people that decided what writings should be read liturgically, ad those are the writings that became the Bible. How is it that these people were on the one hand corrupting the Bible while at the same time they were the ones deciding what should be read as Scripture?

Job8 said:

The "early church" and the "apostolic churches" as shown in the New Testament are not identical. The churches began to be corrupted even while the apostles were alive (Rev 1-3).

There was no episcopacy in the NT.
The shepherds of the churches "in every city" were called elders (Acts 14:23;Tit 1:5) because they were mature Christians with the appropriate qualifications, and they were also called "bishops" (episkopos) because they were overseers -- "taking the oversight" (1 Pet 5:1-4). These men were definitely NOT a class of "priests", since the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers, with Christ as our great High Priest.

The spiritual gifts they would need would be those of pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). Thus they would be pastor/elder/bishops. There was always a plurality of elders, never just one pastor, based upon the pattern given to Moses (Num 11:14-17) since one man is not supposed to "bear this burden" of responsibility, and also needs to be accountable to other elders (1 Tim 5:17-20).

The clearest indication that elders, bishops and pastors were exactly the same is found in Philippians 1:1 where three groups are listed -- all the saints, the bishops (plural), and the deacons. Had there been one bishop over the elders, Paul would certainly have said bishop, saints, elders, and deacons to teach us how churches would be structured. This also indicates that all believers are "saints" (sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit).

There is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that churches were reporting to a "mother church" or had a "bishop" in oversight of all the churches. Had that been the case, it would have shown up in Rev 1-3, where all the churches were in the same area, but each one was addressed individually by the Lord Himself.

There was one situation where the church at Jerusalem had to rule on the application of the Mosaic Law to Christians, since that was the centre of Jewish believers (Acts 15). But none of the churches were "reporting" to Jerusalem, and Peter was definitely not the bishop of Jerusalem (nor Rome). He humbly regarded himself as an elder (1 Pet 5:1) even though he was an apostle.

The hierarchies which were established later were not strictly according to the NT pattern established by the apostles. And most churches today do not adhere to the NT pattern anyhow. But it is there for all to see.

Click to expand...

I want to see you work with Ephesians 4:11-13 more. That is a much more detailed text than Philippians 1:1, which seems to be the leg of your stale argument. There are so many flaws with your arguments, both textually and historically that I don't have the energy to respond to all of it now.

I just can't believe in congregationalism. The episcopalian interpretation of church polity is just obvious- bishops aren't some corruption of the church but a natural organic development. The early Christians were obviously concerned about issues of authority, even in the New Testament this is evident, especially with Paul and the Council of Jerusalem. And once we get into the post-apostolic age, with the early Church fathers, they frequently cited having an apostle as their mentor as part of their claim to speak with authority.

It seems to me every ancient religious movement was concerned with authority, it's only in the modern era people were comfortable with forgoing it.

FireDragon76 said:

It seems to me every ancient religious movement was concerned with authority, it's only in the modern era people were comfortable with forgoing it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think actually that this is a very important point.

While I think the evidence shows that the early Church in many ways had a kind of dispersed authority, it is impossible to say that they were not very much concerned with the authority of teachers and where it came from - who it came from. It wasn't just - so and so teaches what the Scriptures say - it was, so and so learned from John.

I think it is probably related to the way ancient people understood themselves to be part of a group, with a natural kind of a hierarchy.

In my opinion, the early Church probably had a hybrid system of Presbyterian and Episcopalian system while the far sectors were probably somewhat Congregationalists (kind of hard to ordain priests if the Apostles are pretty much on the other side of the known world). From what I can see, the current Episcopal model is a natural evolution of the old system after the Apostles died and passed their authority to their successors, the bishops.

GoingByzantine said:

Some of the recent points brought up are interesting, I'm guessing that each local area had its own internal structure but they still considered themselves as being part of a greater organization. There was definitely a degree of Autonomy not found in many denominations today.

The core was definitely the Mediterranean, but the periphery spread as far out as India.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is natural and actually even what we see now. You have the basic unit of the diocese, and that is broken up into sub-units of parishes which have their own internal structure and rights. The diocese are connected under various larger bodies, often regional in nature - the patriarchates filled that function I think at one time though maybe in a little more of a directly sensible way. And then there were ways for all the diocese to relate to each other when necessary.

But there would be no way before modern transportation and communications to see the kind of tight administrative bodies found today. I know too within Anglicanism, it used to be the case that the diocese was a pretty light organization - in the army we would say that it didn't tend to hold many assets at the diocesan level, they typically belonged to individual parishes. This was reflected in the funding required to support the diocese, which was not great. In the last few generations though that has changed, with the diocese become larger and more expensive compared to parishes. In part it seems to be an effect that always happens in institutions where power and money migrate more and more to the center.

But if you were a church in Alaska, or even Scotland, in the 10th century, it would be pretty hard to be anything other than almost entirely self-sufficient.

Keep in mind that early Christianity was primarily urban. It wouldn't have been a stretch to imagine at least one bishop being present in every city that had a church. The monarchial episcopate would come later, but still the idea was that there was someone that had been given authority by the apostles. This became especially important in the second century when Gnostic sects started claiming to be Christian, but we can already see issues of authority becoming prominent in the New Testament epistles.

I don't think congregationalism was likely, early Christians frequently sent bishops as missionaries to other regions. This implies there was something special about the role of the bishop that a priest could not fulfill..

The picture in Chadwick’s Penguin History of the Church is roughly as follows:

• 1st Cent: presbyters and deacons in the local church, coordinated by apostles and prophets, who traveled around. The impression is that the Apostles weren’t just the Twelve, but that there was a next generation. Looking through references to apostles in Acts, it’s a bit unclear to me whether they were just 12. I get the impression that there were more, but I certainly can’t prove that. Paul and Barnabas are referred to as Apostles. You could argue that Paul is an exception, but with Barnabas the impression of a second generation of apostles is strengthened.
• 2nd Cent: by the early 2nd Cent, there were still presbyters and deacons, but the office of bishop was separating from presbyter, and effectively replaced the apostles and prophets as the highest level leadership
• Initially bishops referred to themselves as fellow presbyters, and presbyters were involved in consecrating bishops, but during the 2nd Cent bishops developed into a separate office, with other bishops consecrating them.

This account is simplified. One would assume that practices varied.

hedrick said:

[*]2nd Cent: by the early 2nd Cent, there were still presbyters and deacons, but the office of bishop was separating from presbyter, and effectively replaced the apostles and prophets as the highest level leadership
[*]Initially bishops referred to themselves as fellow presbyters, and presbyters were involved in consecrating bishops, but during the 2nd Cent bishops developed into a separate office, with other bishops consecrating them.
This account is simplified. One would assume that practices varied.

Click to expand...

Thanks Hedrick.

This just confirms what I have pointed out earlier. Furthermore, if the Lord had had a mind to install an episcopacy, it should have been evident in Rev 1-3 where "the bishop" would receive the message to the 7 churches in Asia, and he would be held accountable to the Lord.

I believe we have every reason to conclude that:

(1) those were literal angels (aggelos) which delivered Christ's words to the churches, not pastors, elders, or bishops and

(2) the true NT pattern (Phil 1:1) of
(a) saints,
(b) elders/bishops/pastors/presbyters (one office different aspects, and always a plurality) and
(c) deacons
was still in existence when John wrote Revelation.

So the question for all churches is "Do you believe the NT pattern of church structure was God's pattern?" If so, then men corrupted that pattern shortly after it was instituted (regardless of motive).

Job8 said:

So the question for all churches is "Do you believe the NT pattern of church structure was God's pattern?" If so, then men corrupted that pattern shortly after it was instituted (regardless of motive).

Click to expand...

In the Acts we find the apostles making a pragmatic decision to create the diakonate, deacons, in order to help split the duties in an organized way.

There's nothing in the text that presents this as an act Divine will, it is a pragmatic decision. No where does Christ, for example, establish the office of deacon, no where does God command it, no where do the Apostles suggest it came by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was a human decision.

So question: Was the creation of the diakonate a corruption of God's pattern of church governance?

If no, then we must admit that the structure of Church governance is not strictly a matter of God ordaining a specific pattern to be followed to the letter, but a matter of human organization for the sake of good order and to ensure the continued operation of the Church for the sake of the Gospel.

Arguing that episcopacy is a corruption is fundamentally no different than saying the diakonate is a corruption. The only difference between that the latter is mentioned specifically as happening early on in the Church's lifetime, while a developed episkopate just a little later. That is if one is arguing that human structures are innately a corruption of Divine structure.

Instead this is what I see in the New Testament:

1) Christ appoints His apostles and sends them out.

2) The apostles going forth established churches, and with that came the need for pastors to act in the apostles' stead as shepherds of Christ's flock.

3) As the first century progressed these apostle-appointed pastors became differentiated as the churches grew and need arose; to accommodate that need a differentiation between a house pastor and a regional pastor came to be. Presbyters served the immediate needs of each individual congregation, with bishops serving as pastors of a group of individual congregations.

This isn't a corruption of the "NT pattern" since if we go strictly by Scripture there is no established "pattern". Scripture offers no strict outline of how to "do" Church polity, it merely describes the situation(s) at different points in the Church's early history, from the Acts recounting the beginning of the Church in the 30s, Paul's letters up and through the mid 60s, some of the catholic epistles for the remainder of the 1st century. No proscribed hard outline ever appears in the New Testament texts because none of the books of the New Testament ever set out to do this, they are written with assumed circumstances and situations, which are evolving within the period of their writing.

Things have clearly evolved from when we first see the disciples huddled together in the upper room on Pentecost and by the time the Pauline pastoral epistles were written. Such changes in how the Church operates are seen within the New Testament itself, and unless we want to charge the pastoral epistles as "corruption" then we have to admit that such changes are perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

The problem with Primitivism, which is what you are advocating, is two-fold:

1) Primitivism claims to seek a return to a "pure" New Testament Christianity, but in reality will only read backward into the New Testament the anachronistic opinions of modern people.

2) The first century Church and the twenty-first century Church are never going to be the same thing. Just like both are never going to look like the twelfth century Church. These are moments in the Church's history which were unique because of culture, language, political climate, and all those unique historical factors that we simply are not going to be able to replicate. The best that could ever happen with such a pursuit is a shallow facade, a cheap imitation. Like a poorly done Civil War battle reenactment.

Every attempt toward Primitivism has resulted in nothing more than the creation of a new denomination based on the limited, fallible opinions of its founder thinking he or she has reinvented the wheel. The problem is that their new wheel is a poorly constructed square.

I assure you, the wheel works, the wheel ain't broke.

-CryptoLutheran