There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church. For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use. From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.
And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church. What form of government did the earliest Christians have? Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play. But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?
Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius (pictured above).
But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?
The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.
But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:
1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”
2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.
3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).
In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.
What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.
This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).
Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.
Print This Post
John Bugay says
Fantastic summary here Dr. Kruger. Of course, this is “not inconsistent with” Christ having ontologically founded the Roman Catholic Church at Caesarea Philippi.
Alfred Green says
***And the fact that Christ founded the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
Ralph W. Davis says
Given the hierarchical structures of priests, rabbis and elders among 1st C. Jews, going all the way back to Jethro’s advice to Moses (Ex 18), I wonder if a plurality of Elders in hierarchy…that is WITH/AND Overseers amongst them existed all along…. Certainly the Apostles acted as supervisors of Elders in the 1st generation, and it would be natural for them to appoint supervisors-of-Elders-with-lesser-authority-than-Apostles, Bishops, as their successors. This doesn’t diminish the singular nature of the Apostolic office–nor claim that full Apostolic authority was passed on.
Tim Reichmuth says
Ralph,
The biblical pattern in the entire N.T. is a plurality of leaders. Your arguments make assumptions that are not supported by the actual texts.
Tim
PeaceBy Jesus says
Indeed. Considering the cardinal importance Rome places upon a supreme infallible head in Rome to whom all the church looked to, then we should certainly see evidence of that in Acts and the rest of the NT that follows, which is interpretive of “upon this rock” in Mt. 16:18.
But what we see, and not see? While Peter is manifest as the street-level, non-exalted leader among the 11, and of the first organic church, (Acts 5) and as (the second listed) among those who seemed to be pillars, (Gal. 2) and as exercising a general pastoral ministry later on, yet nowhere is submission to Peter in particular called for or commended, not even in the Lord’s critiques and commendations to representative churches (which displays their diversity) in Rv. 2+3.
Added to this conspicuous absence is the lack of even regular prayer for Peter being exhorted, and the overall rare mention of Peter in the NT after Acts 15, and the utter absence of any mention of Peter even in Romans, not even among the 34 individuals named as acquaintances of Paul in Rm. 16.
It is James who provides the conclusive, Scripturally substantiated judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter’s exhortation and testimony, and that of Paul and Barnabas, while it is only Paul who is shown calling for an ecumenical council, and expressing the most fervent burdened love for the care of all the churches, and acting as a personal father to a disciple.
More on that: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/51-biblical-proofs-of-pauline-papacy.html
Finally, the only apostolic successor was that for Judas, in order to maintain the original number of 12, (Rv. 21:14) but there is no mention of a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
Catholic scholarship as well as others provide testimony that the NT church did not look to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over all the church. The Catholic church is a result of progressive critical and extensive deformation of the NT church: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html .
Garet D Robinson says
Thank you for the post.
Recently I wrote and defended (successfully thankfully) a dissertation on the leadership structures of the earliest Christian communities, looking specifically at external influence and controls. Part of that research necessarily dealt with the nature of leadership in local churches. In general it should be noted that pluriformity is the rule through the end of the third century. That is to say, there are many kinds of local ecclesial structures and leadership patterns within the early Christian communities.
It is likely that, at least initially, the first Christian communities lacked authority patterns in their local congregations but that, particularly following the Apostolic Age, these began transitioning to more established forms that represented the communities and cultures in which a particular church would have existed. Some took on more Jewish-centric forms, others in the model of the Greco-Roman Voluntary Associations, and still others some blend of these or another kind of system. Some communities had a plurality of elders, others (the Johannine for instance) likely a singular elder, and even others had no formal leadership structure (a very Sohmian view.)
Only after the first quarter of the second century do we begin seeing formalization happening and it is precisely for the reasons you mentioned above…to reply to heretics and false teachers.
So again, thanks for the post. This is indeed helpful.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Garet. Is your dissertation published? I would be interested in reading it.
Garet D Robinson says
I haven’t sought out a publisher for my dissertation yet, though that is on the horizon. Let me send you an email with it attached. Thanks!
Veda says
I would also like to read it.
Bryant J. Williams III says
Dr(?) Garet,
I graduated back in 1986 from Northwest Baptist Seminary.
Now, I have indicated that the whole issue of pastor=elder=bishop is fraught with exegesis.
I am firmly of the opinion that”elder” is used in several ways:
1. Broadly of the leading men of the assembly including deacons, teachers, etc.
2. Specificly of the leading pastor/bishop of the assembly.
3. The use of the plural “elders” would reflect the fact or reality on the ground of multiple assemblies located in house churches scattered throughout the city (Acts 20) since church
buildings, as known today, would not be seen until the 3rd-4th Century AD.
4. That each area of Greco-Roman-Judean world mirrored by the type of secular govt.
Examples:
The churches of Judah were based on the synagogue.
The Greek speaking churches would reflect the more democratic ideals modified by the Apostle Paul with synagogue practices.
The Roman or Latin churches would reflect apostolic, synagogue and Roman government forms.
5. The Apostolic appointments of the Early Church reflect the authority as emmissaries of Christ. Once the Apostles died, then their type of authority passed away. Thus, the PASTOR, became the authority within the local church.
6. Each of the churches founded by an Apostle or known associate would clearly be in the line of succession of the gospel as reflected by Tertullian NOT as the Roman Catholic Church understands it. Thus, the elders were responsible for the accuracy of the Apostolic Doctrine of the Gospel.
Please send me a copy of your dissertation, if possible.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
Bryant J. Williams III says
First paragraph should be “eisegesis.”
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
Corey Fleig says
As I’m writing this I’m watching your skype podcast with Darrell Bock on inerrancy. I’m so glad you all did this! I was telling a friend I took my daughter to a junior’s camp this weekend, and the camp theme was inerrancy! I was so encouraged that the staff thought junior’s age kids would understand the basics of this doctrine. I’m so glad you emphasize this subject as well. Michael, please keep it up! I can’t tell you how blessed I feel for all you and others do for the Kingdom.
Paul Owen says
Nicely written summary here. There is no doubt that a good case can be made for presbyterial church government as the earliest model. However, there are other points that complicate the issue. The earliest churches were governed by local presbyters under the pastoral authority of the apostolic college, the earliest episcopate (Acts 1:20b). So there was a three-tiered structure of apostles, presbyter-bishops and deacons. We also know that a three-tiered structure of ministry was the norm in Christendom at the end of the second century: bishops, presbyters and deacons. The question is how to account for the transition in terminology from apostles to bishops. The evidence from Ignatius is key, as you noted, because Ignatius shows that at the very beginning of the second century, episcopal church government was already the assumed norm, at least in Syria and Asia Minor. And this strongly suggests that the origins of this transition reach back to the first century, and thus within the lifetime of people who had direct contact with the apostles. Ignatius himself almost certainly knew the apostle John, given their geographic proximity. The question then becomes what weight we give to the Ignatian model of the church. Anglicans follow the Ignatian model, whereas Presbyterians generally see this development as a departure from the apostolic pattern of government. I would also note the irony that Presbyterians today (following Calvin) generally still have a de facto three-tiered system: bishops/teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons, though some southern Presbyterians have argued for a two-tier structure, with the title “bishop” being equally applicable to both teaching and ruling elders.
chrishutchinson says
Yes, very helpful summary, thanks. I actually thought Calvin in the Institutes, beginning in Book IV.4 also has very helpful insights, assuming his research accurate. As I remember, he asserts that the first bishops were much more “presbyterial” than they later became. For instance,. they were still pastors of particular congregations, and thus served more as presiders/moderators than as those who could execute jurisdictional power severally as most modern Bishops are able to do. Secondly, they were often elected by members of all the churches of a city, not just fellow ministers. Thus, even as Bishoprics developed, there was a democratic/cordial element to early church polity which was later lost.
Richard says
I think it’s also worthy to note Jerome’s discussion elsewhere on presbyters/bishops and notes that as far back as Mark the Evangelist, it has been the custom that “When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general…” –Jerome Letter 146 to Evangelus.
So while it is quite possible a plurality of presbyters were appointed in each city, there also appears an early (back to Mark as noted) practice of electing a “general” of the elders…in essence the same thing as the “bishop” connotation that goes with the word today. Therefore we would *expect* to find historical references to plural elders/bishops in each individual city because the word is interchangeable, yet we also see the tradition linked back to the earliest of times of electing from that group a general, or “bishop” in the modern sense. That understanding relieves any tension between the modern connotation and the actual practice of the time. We wouldn’t at all be surprised to see plural bishops in that first sense, and at the same time find reference to “generals” which got associated with the term bishop alone, as compared with the presbyters they led.
It seems to me the adoption of a bishop in the modern sense was something realized in the time of the apostles’ lives…and gained traction quite broadly and quickly as a result.
NewTestamentActivist (@wgpnta) says
Before we think of this profound question what really the New Testament demands from its readers or Christians as a whole. JESUS never asked anyone to be BELIEVERS in Acts 1:8 but only WITNESSES as this position is not obviously testified by anyone among the Christendom but mostly ‘believers’. The present scenario is post Pentecost and simply a believer is not the doctrine of JESUS as his word invalidate rest of the scriptures in the past as far as position of a Christian is concerned.
Its clear, when they call themselves as a believer that they’re not received the Holy Spirit into their physical body, though most of the Christians again just believes that the Holy Spirit dwelling in them
but those believes are subject to proof, there’s no wrong in believing, so a believer can come to the point wherein reception of the Holy Spirit into his/her body can happen, thereafter there’s no need to believe again, eventually he/she could become a WITNESS fulfilling ACTS 1:8, the reception of the Holy Spirit into the physical body is called a psychic-reorientation or born again.
There’re enough insights in the New Testament to study and to research to become Witnesses of JESUS, without this position if any Christian group ponder over who is to rule, either elder or bishop
in a Church is something never ending story. Thanks, [email protected]
Tony Costa says
In Jerome’s quoation above which Dr. Kruger cited, it is quite telling that Jerome shows no awareness of the Papacy or the bishop of Rome holding supremacy over all bishops/elders as universal head of the visible church.
John Bugay says
Referring to this comment: — it is quite telling that Jerome shows no awareness of the Papacy or the bishop of Rome holding supremacy over all bishops/elders as universal head of the visible church.
We need to be careful about thinking that, just Jerome said what he did in this one passage, that he wasn’t aware of the importance of the bishops of Rome. Jerome needs to be understood in the context of his day. He was actually an assistant to “Pope Damasus”. Eamon Duffy writes:
Th[e] Romanisation of the Church was not all a matter of worldiness, however. The bishops of the imperial capital had to confront the Roman character of their city and their see. They set about finding a religious dimension to that Romanitias which would have profound implications for the nature of the papacy. Pope Damasus in particular took this task to heart. He set himself to interpret Rome’s past in the light not of paganism, but of Christianity. He would Latinise the Church, and Christianise Latin. He appointed as his secretary the greatest Latin scholar of the day, the Dalmatian presbyter Jerome, and commissioned him to turn the crude dog-Latin of the Bible versions [currently] used in the church into something more urbane and polished. Jerome’s work was never completed, but the Vulgate Bible, as it came to be called, rendered the scriptures of ancient Israel and the early Church into an idiom which Romans could recognize as their own. The covenant legislation of the ancient tribes was now cast in the language of the Roman law-courts [emphasis added], and Jerome’s version of the promises to Peter used familiar Roman legal words for binding and loosing — ligare and solver — which underlined the legal character of the Pope’s unique claims. (Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes, New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press ©1997 and 2001, pgs 38-39)
Elsewhere, Duffy noted, “Round the papal household there developed a whole clerical culture, staffed by men drawn often from the Roman aristocracy, intensely self-conscious and intensely proud of their own tradition – Jerome dubbed them ‘the senate’.”
So, Jerome did not explicitly write in papal language, but he knew of the importance [in his own world] of the bishops of Rome of the 4th century.
Tony Costa says
Hi John. Thanks for your comments. I don’t doubt Jerome believed the bishops of Rome were important. Are you suggesting that Jerome believed the bishop of Rome was the supreme pontiff, the supreme leader of the church, and bishop of all bishops as Vatican I defined the Papacy?
John Bugay says
Hi Tony — no, he didn’t believe that the bishop of Rome was the supreme pontiff etc at that time. No one had a Vatican I concept of the papacy at that time, and to suggest so would be anachronistic. However, it’s important to understand him in context. And in context, he seemed to be sucking up to the hand that fed him.
To bring the discussion into the context of a Roman Catholic apologetic, as my first comment indicates, the Roman Catholic will say that Jerome’s comments reflected the “development” from the “seed form” in Jerome’s day, which was a stop on the path to the “fuller understanding” of Vatican I. So in saying “Jerome did not believe that the bishop of Rome was the supreme pontiff, etc.”, it is not an effective apologetic against the papacy. More is required.
Tony Costa says
Hi John. Thanks. That’s what I thought about the anachronism of the Papacy. Vatican I of course says that their view of the Papacy has always been the constant view of the church throughout its history which of course is false. The “seed form” was one of Cardinal Newman’s main arguments to get away from the absence of evidence for the Papacy in the early church.
Michael Philliber says
To go along with Dr. Kruger’s singular Jerome quotation, it is worth noticing that it is not a one-off statement. Jerome, in Letter 146 “To Evangelus” in the first paragraph makes a very similar point.
Richard says
Michael, as noted in my quote from that work, Jerome makes the point that each local group of bishops elected a “general” bishop to lead them (he notes as far back as Mark the Evangelist). Essentially a bishop in the modern sense. Letter 146 discusses deacons vs elders in terms of their status in relationship to one another, refuting the deacon is equal to elder idea.
jimpemberton says
Thanks for this article, Dr. Kruger. I found a link to it on Triablogue. I just had early church history last year (Reformed Baptist Seminary), and this material is consistent with Dr. Waldron’s lectures. It’s something I’ve been studying over the summer as part of a teaching series to help the church we work with in Venezuela when my family goes back there in a couple of weeks. The leaders of the church are without a pastor at the moment and are questioning their role as leaders. I haven’t had time to delve into the patristic writings, so I’m mostly regurgitating what I’ve been taught so far since the early church history of church leadership isn’t the primary focus. However, I plan to mention it in support of what I think is the biblical model of a plurality of elders with a dedicated group of deacons.
Your blog is now being added to my news feed. Thanks again!
M says
I think that the Jerome “model” of a “general bishop” is what happened. We know from the testimony of a number of contemporary/near contemporary commentators, that Aristobulus was sent probably by the Church at Jerusalem to be bishop of Britain. He was the only one, and what he established seems to have been a system of clan-based bishops. So the single bishop model would have been operative in the British Isles from very soon after the Ascension. These clan-based bishops may not have been much more than Vicars – the chief Priest of the clan depending on how widespread the clan was. Certainly they acquired lower clergy fairly early on. This may in part have been caused by the relatively easy conversion of the Druidic colleges, but that is just speculation.
Michael Cunis says
How and why did succesion lists come about?
Brandon Addison says
Michael,
This is an important question. More or less, there needed to be a streamlined apologetic argument as Gnosticism gained traction in the later second century. Supposed “secrete traditions” had been given by the Apostles, but as the earliest Apologists pointed out, none of the churches with Apostolic origins have taught the things the Gnostics were teaching. They could have cited the handing down of this tradition from multiple “lines” in any particular church, but that is not a very usable apologetic methodology. Identifying the “president” of the presbyter-bishops (who was appointed by these presbyters and not other monarchical bishops) as the local successor of apostolic doctrine was the most utilitarian approach.
We do know that the role of the “president” of the presbyter was not monolithic but varied in different locales. The president of the presbyter appears to have functioned differently in Antioch than in Rome which functioned differently from Philippi. Thus, the conclusions that we draw about this “president” of the presbyter will be conditioned not only by our understanding of the NT texts and writings from the Fathers, but also by social historical data in cities of the Roman empire.
Jim says
“John Bugay, you wrote, “No one had a Vatican I concept of the papacy at that time”. Really? Was the term, “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita” coined in 1870?
Actually the concept pr-date the Fathers. It goes back to Jesus selecting twelve men and out of those twelve he chose one
The democratic system isn’t seen in the Bible. Even the case of the Eleven drawing straws to select a replacement for Judas was decided by Peter.
Where do we see a plurality of leaders in anything? Not in government. Not in the Boy Scouts. Not at the local PTA. There is always, at any given time, one president, one scout master, one chair person.
John Bugay says
Jim, have you ever heard of Klaus Schatz?
The saying of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (396-430), Roma locuta, causa finita (“Rome has spoken, the matter is settled”) was quoted repeatedly. However, the quotation is really a bold reshaping of the words of that Church Father taken quite out of context…
You are in fact taking the quote out of context, and trying to make it mean something that it does not mean. Here is some background information for you:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/12/roma-locuta-est-causa-finita-est.html
Joey Henry says
Hi Jim,
The quotation you gave “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita” was supposedly written by Augustine. But Augustine never wrote those words. Augustine actually wrote: “For already two councils on this question have been sent to the apostolic see; and replies have also come from there. The cause is finished; would that the error might be sometime finished also!” (Sermon 131).
The context is that two African councils declared the teachings of Pelagius as heresy. They did not ask adjucation from the Roman Bishop but they were letting him know of their decision. The Roman Bishop agreed with their decison. It is important that he agreed because Pelagius was under his jurisdiction. Also, the previous Bishop, Zosimus, gave conflicting judgment against the African decision. Thus, the current Bishop then has to agree with the African council so that Pelagius would not have any excuse.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Joey
shelleeyoung says
I’m always amazed in discussions like this that some obvious clarifying questions are not asked. Take for example, the question about multiple congregations within a city. We can presume that a city like Antioch would have a fairly substantial Christian group fairly early on. What would happen when two congregations were created? Would they be autonomous or linked? Would there be one ‘leader’ or not?
Also, it is clear that Christian congregations were Eucharistic communities. How could multiple leaders do this. It is really a one man job ( with helpers). Is there any evidence for a rotating system of leadership in early Christianity? As for as I’m aware a leader was a leader for life.
We also need to take into account that bishops were often targeted by the Roman authorities. Would would conduct services when they were imprisioned? The presbyters would act as deputies for the bishop.
Jerome is a biased source. In the context of his argument he is trying to raise the authority of presbyters/priests and minimise the authority of bishops. Can I point out that he never claims that the transition from a collective presbyter leadership to a single ‘leader’ happened in the second century. He made the same case in his letter on deacons when he thought Roman deacons had too much power. Jerome had a stormy relationship with his bishop, John of Jerusalem, so it suits him well to show his bishop is no more important than him.
The evidence of Ignatius of Antioch, which is 300 years prior to Jerome writing his commentary on Titus, implies that the three fold ministry was there in the Apostolic age.
Jesus did not establish the ministry of deacons. It was established by the Apostles in response to circumstances. Are we to believe ‘monarchical’ bishops could emerge without the involvement of the Apostles?