Early Church Leadership

We don’t have much detail about the first century. My impression is that Jewish and Gentile led churches coexisted, probably in different areas. The Gentile churches grew more rapidly, for the obvious reason that there were more Gentiles. From Acts and Paul’s letter it looks like the center of Jewish Christianity was Palestine. The war with Rome would have closed most of those. But there some reason to think that a few Jewish congregations survived into the 2nd century. But if so, it would have been dwarfed by the growth of Gentile Christianity.

Carl Emerson said:

I early Acts we see the church being led by Jews.

At some point this leadership transferred to Gentiles.

When did this happen and why?

Click to expand...

I think because of the Great Commission to spread the gospel to all nations. Naturally there would be more non-Jewish nations than Jewish ones.

David Kent said:

Of course some Jews may have stayed, but the Christians fled. Eusebius said that not one Christian died in the war as they all fled mostly to Pella. Some came back and started the new revolt against Rome. But is there any evidence that Christians did, or are you just assuming?

Click to expand...

The Jewish Christians did not fight, that was one of the reasons for the split of Judaism and Christianity. All of our Bishops of Jerusalem were (of the circumcision) Jewish until 135 AD. Gentiles (Greeks) afterward.

Carl Emerson said:

I early Acts we see the church being led by Jews.

At some point this leadership transferred to Gentiles.

When did this happen and why?

Click to expand...

Sometime in the first century. As we know, the first disciples continued to go to synagogue, but they rapidly found that they were not very comfortable there. Although missionary efforts focused on Jews for awhile, even outside of the lands where Jesus had lived, Gentiles soon joined and produced the election of non-Jewish elders for these newer congregations.

Why the Gentiles were attracted to the religion of a Jewish Messiah is, I suppose, a separate question, and the usual answer is that Christianity was almost unique among the many religions of the Roman Empire for not being what we might call today, a "niche" faith--mainly women or mainly warriors or intellectuals, or mainly the poorest elements in society, etc.

Albion said:

It happened quite early on. As we know, the first disciples continued to go to synagogue, but they rapidly found that they were not very welcome with their belief in Christ having been the long-awaited Messiah.

Click to expand...

I think it really began between 50 and 70 AD with Paul, then the killing of James and the destruction of the Temple.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I think it really began between 50 and 70 AD with Paul, then the killing of James and the destruction of the Temple.

Click to expand...

You are still ignoring that Jesus ordered the Christians to flee Jerusalem and Judea when they saw the armies surround Jerusalem. Which they did.

David Kent said:

You are still ignoring that Jesus ordered the Christians to flee Jerusalem and Judea when they saw the armies surround Jerusalem. Which they did.

Click to expand...

I am not ignoring it. The Non-Christian Jews did not flee.

David Kent said:

You are still ignoring that Jesus ordered the Christians to flee Jerusalem and Judea when they saw the armies surround Jerusalem. Which they did.

Click to expand...

You have documents from the period confirming that all the Christian Jews fled Jerusalem?

Carl Emerson said:

I early Acts we see the church being led by Jews.

At some point this leadership transferred to Gentiles.

When did this happen and why?

Click to expand...

Hello Carl, sorry, I don't believe that leadership ever officially transferred? I assume that you are not talking about Replacement Theology either?
To the Church, there are no Gentiles or Jews, obviously (Galatians 3:28). So your proposition is not Biblical, nor Christian.
In other words, if the Gentiles began to outnumber the Jews, in both congregation and leadership positions, this would not be due to either a premeditated or concerted effort on the part of the Church.
Of course, because the Gospel was only preached to Jews within the first decade of the Church, the Jews obviously outnumbered all other ethnic groups within the Church, at that time. But once the Word extended to include the non Jews also, then the natural course of anthropological history would come into play. That is, there has always been more Gentiles on earth, than Jews, and thus, the demograph of the Church would change accordingly, in both laymen and clergy.

So, leadership never transferred, it evolved, and is not an official Church mandate on any level.

Carl Emerson said:

Yes I appreciate your points.

The original Jewish leaders were all killed, so this may have had some bearing on the change as well.

Some branches of the church emphasise apostolic succession and if this is a valid, and the early church got it right, then the change was divinely appointed.

I sometimes wonder if, as we approach end times, that we will again be led by Jewish appointment but this is conjecture. While there is neither 'Jew nor Greek' the faith was born Jewish and that flavour may be restored, especially if the revival among the Jews that many expect actually happens.

Click to expand...

Hi Carl, understood, ....yes, circumstantial occurrences, like persecution, will also affect the racial demograph of the Church, in one manner or another.

As far as Apostolic succession is considered, I personally don't accept that principle as being divinely inspired. I actually feel that it's heretical. I think that the Pastoral epistles sufficiently define the qualifications for Bishops/Elders, or any type of leader in the Church. Having the qualities of an Apostle (associated to Christ by 1-2°, miracles, divine inspiration, ...), were not requisite in Paul's enumeration of a valid leader (married once/one person, rules family well, reputable to others, non drunkard, ...).

There does seem to be a special place and status for the Jews, in the end times. For example, Paul's statement about them eventually being 'all' saved (I don't think literally all), the 12 tribes judging all nations, the 12 Gates in the New Jerusalem, etc...
But, in my opinion, this will begin to take place during a different dispensation, at least, after the 2nd Coming. In other words, there will be a distinct demarcation point when this 'divine appointment' will be instituted. Until then, the Gentiles will be continuously arousing the Jews to jealousy, and hopefully salvation (leadership or not)....

DNB said:

Until then, the Gentiles will be continuously arousing the Jews to jealousy, and hopefully salvation (leadership or not)....

Click to expand...

and how has that been going for you all so far?

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

and how has that been going for you all so far?

Click to expand...

Carl Emerson said:

What aspect of Christianity are unbelieving Jews currently jealous of?

Click to expand...

Interesting, I assumed that everyone knew what I was alluding to?

Explicit and fundamental
Romans 10:19
10:19. But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, "I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU."

Romans 11:11
11:11. I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Romans 11:14
11:14. if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

Implied
Acts 5:17-17
5:17. But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy.

Acts 13:45-45
13:45. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.

Acts 17:5-5
17:5. But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.

Aussie Pete said:

Israel effectively ceased to exist about AD100. Christians were scattered all over the Roman Empire. Mostly the Jews rejected Christianity and Jerusalem no longer was the "mother" church. Chronologically, the book of James was the first NT book written, so the scholars say. Paul founded churches in Gentile cities and elders were appointed from the membership. The idea of parachuting in leadership is foreign to the early church. The apostles founded and encouraged the fledgling churches, but they did not micromanage or control them.

Click to expand...

There were 5 million Jews living outside of Palestine before the birth of Christ. Alexandria, Aleppo, Elephantine Island, Damascus, Persia and all around the
Mediterranean Sea.. Weren't Paul's early congregations Jewish?

David Kent said:

Unlikely. Jesus told the Jews to leave Jerusalem when they saw the city surrounded by armies, which they did in AD 66. So no church, no bishops.

Click to expand...

Just his Jewish followers fled to Pella.

Many first century Jews in Jerusalem colluded with the Romans.. like the Herodians. In fact, Titus' mistress was Queen Berniece, granddaughter of Herod.

prodromos said:

Sorry, but you mentioned iffy doctrines, not sinful behaviour from church members. What are the iffy doctrines you were referring to?

Click to expand...

One would be a move away from believer's baptism and the underlying theology on that. God Bless

lismore said:

One would be a move away from believer's baptism and the underlying theology on that. God Bless

Click to expand...

I presume you are referring to infant baptism, which is the joining of believers' children to the Church. The Church did not baptise children of unbelievers.