Were Early Churches Governed by Individual Bishops, or Groups of Elders?

70 comments

1. Very fine article, Joe. I guess the reason why so many people still ascribe to something that has been dismantled time and time again is due to ignorance and the desire to oppose anything remotely close to the Catholic Church. Everyone is on a journey of their own and I’m glad you have this fine site to present things with clarity and charity. God bless.

   Reply

2. Hi Joe,

   Interesting read! I agree with you that Kruger somewhat overstates his case in a handful of places – as you say, the reference to “bishops,” plural, in some of his sources can be read as referring to “the collective bishops of multiple churches.” I’d love to comment further, but I’m having some difficulty getting a post to actually go through, so let me see if this works first.

   Reply

   1. Okay, that worked!

      It seems to me that the larger obstacle is the way in which multiple early sources, canonical and otherwise, use the words “elder” and “bishop/overseer” interchangeably. Kruger cites several of these, and I was surprised to see the Scriptural line of argument unrebutted in your argument. (Unless I missed it, in which case I apologize; it is, as you say, on the long side!)

      But these examples are fairly compelling. Kruger cites Acts 20:17 and following: “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them… ‘Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. That’s an audience of presbyterous, elders, whom he then refers to as episkopous, bishops/overseers. (Note also the plural, from what is clearly the church in Ephesus.) Protestants historically also point to examples like Titus 1:5, where Paul opens by explaining Timothy’s purpose (to appoint elders)… and then immediately follows up with directions for appointing bishops. No directions for elders appear – unless, of course, those are the directions for elders. 1 Peter 5 instructs the elders (presbyterous, v. 1) to oversee (to episkopountes – the thing an episkopous does, v. 2). I was surprised by your reference to Timothy, since the follow-up there seems to support the synonymous reading; Paul clearly recognizes the existence of elders in the church, and yet when he discusses church qualifications a few chapters before, only bishops and deacons appear.

      To step beyond canon, consider again 1 Clement, where, in chapter 44, the author writes, “For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. Here, as in Paul, the author switches freely between titles. Even the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges as much in its article on presbyters: “The following facts may be regarded as fully established: To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest (episkopos and presybteros) are synonymous… In each Community the authority may have originally belonged to college or presbyter-bishops.”

      Other passages simply refer to churches having a multiplicity of bishops. What is one to do with Philippians 1:1 (“Paul and Timothy… to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers [plural!] and deacons”)? For all that Theodoret and Chrysostom would hold to the later Roman Catholic understanding in general, even they acknowledge that Paul uses the terms interchangeably here; Theodoret, for instance, says of this verse, “[Paul] applies the term ‘bishops’ to presbyters, for at that time they had both names.”

      I think it’s also important that, to my knowledge, there is no contradictory usage of these terms in the New Testament: no reference to “bishops and elders,” no mention of a church with a singular bishop. (Again, this pattern repeats elsewhere; Clement names “bishops and deacons,” but gives no third category; the Didache names bishops and deacons, but never elders – surely we should expect to see a distinct church office represented somewhere in our earliest order of worship!)

      It seems to me that the evidence of Scripture and these other sources weighs pretty heavily on the side of the Protestant: they give active support to his claims without providing contradiction.

      Reply

      1. Irked,

         There are basically three ways of reading the Scriptural texts to which you refer:

         1) What you described. This is basically the “Clark Kent” argument for the presbyterian form of government… we never see presbyters and bishops in the same place at the same time, so maybe they’re really the same people with different titles.

         2) Bishops and deacons are grouped (because of the special relationship of the deacon as delegate of the bishop) while presbyters are treated elsewhere. For instance, I know of no instances in which presbyters and deacons are ever mentioned together, but nobody argues that they’re the same office.

         3) The episcopal governance structure is set up from the start, but the terminology takes a while. In modern English, “bishop, “presbyter,” and “deacon” are all terms of art for particular office. In ancient Greek, they weren’t (at least, not originally). Plus, the terms in question just mean “overseer,” “elder,” and “servant” (or “minister”). So we see St. Paul referring to himself as a servant (literally as a “deacon”) in Eph. 3:7, “Whereof I was made a minister (διάκονος),” but we don’t take that to be his claim that deacons and apostles are the same thing (of course). This is what makes the New Testament evidence so confusing on its own – it’s not always clear when the words are being used in a technical, official sense, and when they’re just being used in the order senses of overseeing, being older, or serving.

         Take this example in English: “Vice President Joe Biden presided over his first wedding ceremony Monday, which saw the marriage of two longtime White House staffers” (https://time.com/4434637/joe-biden-white-house-staffers-wedding/). As native English speakers, we get that it’s not saying that the vice president is president, but that he is “presiding” in a different sense. But if we were reading texts like this two thousand years from now, where “presiding” was only retained as a reference to the office of the presidency, you could see how it might sound like we were denying a difference between the presidency or vice presidency (maybe the office of vice presidency hadn’t “emerged” yet, scholars might argue!).

         So it may well be that the terms were originally used more interchangeably, even though the positions were distinct.

         There may be some evidence from this in St. Paul’s letter to Titus. Look at Titus’ own role. Paul puts him there, and gives him the power to ordain presbyters, saying “this is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you,” (Titus 1:5), and says to him, “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). In other words, Titus himself looks and acts like the bishop of Crete, whose authority cannot be ignored.

         —-

         So those are the three ways I see of reading that evidence, though there may be others. The problem with (1) is that if it is true, then it means that at the time the New Testament is being written, this two-fold structure exists with co-rule by presbyters. In other words, it’s not just a grammatical or exegetical claim, but a historical one.

         Yet we have literally no evidence of the two-fold structure being abolished, or of the demotion of a group of presbyters, anywhere in the first- and second-century church. We don’t know the names of any co-ruling presbyters, etc. Instead, we find in every church we know about from the first two centuries that they (a) have the three-fold structure, (b) claim to have always had the three-fold structure, and (c) can often trace the three-fold structure back to the founding of their church and even to the Apostles themselves.

         The historical evidence just doesn’t match what we would need to see to take (1) seriously.

         Reply

         1. Hi Joe,

            Stuff seems to be going through for now, so let me finally give a proper reply here.

            I don’t think it’s fair to reduce option (1) to “Clark Kenting,” as though it were merely the case that we fail to see the two words presented as alternatives (i.e., that we lack a sentence of the form “the bishop and elders”). There are, as I presented, positive examples of the words being used interchangeably (as in Acts 20 and Titus 1) and of single cities having a plurality of bishops (as in both Acts 20 and Philippians 1). If I say to one person, “Hey, Superman, since you’re Clark Kent, you should…” – well, that’s not much of a secret identity, and yet that’s exactly what Paul says to the elders of Ephesus. Or again, to Titus: “Titus, your job is to set up elders. So let me tell you how to set up bishops…”

            That’s positive evidence for the terms being used interchangeably, isn’t it? Nobody argues that presbyters and deacons are the same office (as in your (2)) because there are no passages that switch between those words in the same way.

            That leaves your option (3). As I understand you, this position would require:
            a) There exists a mono-episcopal structure from the very beginning of the New Testament,
            b) There also exists some broader “presbyterian” structure in these same churches, but
            c) There exists at the time no term for reliably distinguishing groups (a) and (b).

            There would seem to be some peculiar consequences of this belief. We would not, for instance, have any actual biblical directions regarding the roles, requirements, etc. for group (a) specifically; unless we adopt a partim/partim view, that would seem to be a problem. There’s a much larger problem with (3), but I think we deal with it in your second post.

            Reply

         2. Perhaps while the Apostles were living, they themselves were the Formal Bishops and they ordained elders to oversee( hence episcopos) the churches to celebrate the Eucharist and the deacons assisted wherever needed. When the church grew or the Apostle was aged, he would ordain others to have the Apostolic oversight that he had at the first. That would explain the interchangeable terminology of presbyters/episcopos and the two fold references in the letter instead of three-fold because the Bishop i.e the Apostle himself is the one writing.

            Reply

      2. Irked,
         In Acts 20:17, Paul is in Miletus, hence the plurality of overseers may have included the Miletus’ bishop as well. Furthermore, as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia also states (in its entirety, without cutting passages as your quote does), “In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or presbyter-bishops. This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates”. Personally, this is my favorite overall assessment of this alleged controversy. If you also see Acts 15, while the Apostles are still alive, the decision in Jerusalem is not given by the college of the present elders. Is it Peter who provides the decision, ratified by James.

         In Titus 1 the Greek is quite different than some English translation. Verses 5-6 deal exclusively with the presbuterous, or elders (plural), and their attributes. Verses 7-8 deal with the episkopon, or overseer (singular), and his attributes.

         1 Peter 5 simply uses a verb that is clear and concise to describe what elders should do, not their title.

         In the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, the entire passage following “The following facts may be regarded as fully established” paints a very different picture than simply “acknowledges as much”.

         Reply

         1. LLC,

            In Acts 20:17, Paul is in Miletus, hence the plurality of overseers may have included the Miletus’ bishop as well.

            It conceivably could have included a lot of people. But the audience we’re told he’s addressing is the elders (plural) of the church in Ephesus, whom he then refers to as bishops (again, plural). The natural reading seems to be that it’s one group, inasmuch as one has to explain why he’s referring to elders as bishops regardless.

            Furthermore, as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia also states

            Sure. It’s still a Catholic encyclopedia; I don’t expect to agree with it on every point. But we’re debating a specific point, and the point is not whether the churches were wholly independent; I think it’s worth noting that Joe’s reading stands outside the mainstream of even Catholic sources.

            Verses 5-6 deal exclusively with the presbuterous, or elders (plural), and their attributes. Verses 7-8 deal with the episkopon, or overseer (singular), and his attributes.

            Yes. “You’re here to set up dudes. Let me tell you what a dude should look like,” is a very natural construction, and avoids weird sentences like, “Dudes should be the husbands of but one wife.”

            1 Peter 5 simply uses a verb that is clear and concise to describe what elders should do, not their title.

            True! And read literally, what they do is they bishop. I don’t think that’s wholly convincing on its own, but it dovetails nicely with all the other usages.

            Reply

            1. Irked,
               In Acts 20:17, you are correct; it seems that his audience is mainly from the Ephesian church. Regardless, the natural reading to me, like in 1 Peter 5, is that Paul (and Peter) is telling the elders (presbuterous) what to do, not what they are. In other words, presbutes (elder) is a qualification that is not easy to translate into an action, unlike episkopos or diakonos: “You are an elder of the church. Now be old”. It doesn’t work. To reiterate, the 1913 CE states, “This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates”. Therefore, even if the elders did oversee, they were not overseers, in the official meaning of the title.

               Which takes me to the beef with your reading of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: you are leaving out the parts that do not agree with your point, and indeed contradict it. This specific Catholic source is clearly more supportive of Joe’s point than yours, when read in its entirety.

               Regarding Titus 1:5-7, the natural reading is that it’s talking about two different sets of dudes: “You’re here to set up old dudes, who must be blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. Now, for the Overseer: …”. It’s there, in clear Greek. You could say that the latter is chosen among the formers, and there are supplemental specifications for his office; nevertheless, the two groups are quite distinct.

            2. LLC,

               The difference between Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 is that Acts 20 unambiguously uses a noun: “You are overseers,” rather than “You oversee,” in Peter. (He certainly could have said “the church of which God has made you elders,” instead.) In other words, Paul says to elders, “You are bishops”; if that is insufficient evidence to suggest that elders are bishops, what would be sufficient?

               To reiterate, the 1913 CE states, “This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates”.

               Sure. But the thesis under debate is not whether presbyter-councils were independent of a larger church organization; it’s whether, as Joe says, “local churches were run by a single bishop” or “by a group of elders and deacons.” And here, the Encyclopedia agrees with the Presbyterian. The bit you’re quoting is not the point under debate, which is why I left it out.

               Or let me put it this way: if Joe said, “I agree in toto with what what the Catholic Encylopedia says in that article,” I would consider the current subject of debate resolved.

               Regarding Titus 1:5-7, the natural reading is that it’s talking about two different sets of dudes: “You’re here to set up old dudes, who must be blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. Now, for the Overseer: …”.

               I disagree. There is no disjunctive, “Now, for the…” – the thought simply continues with the same subject under an equivalent label. Notice that the list of qualifications, cumulatively, very closely matches the single set in 1 Timothy 3 – where, again, only two roles (bishops and deacons) are identified.

               As far as I can tell, mine is the traditional reading on Titus 1: the student of Cassiodorus says the same (Commentary on Titus, “he calls him a ‘bishop’ whom earlier he called an ‘elder'”), to add another example to the patristics I’ve already cited. Who is the earliest father you know of to say otherwise?

            3. Irked,
               Regarding Acts 20:28, the Greek doesn’t say, “…the Holy Spirit has set [you] the overseers…”; it says, “…the Holy Spirit has set [you] overseers…”, further reinforced by the immediately following “poimainein”, indicating a specific action, not nominal role. In other words, Paul doesn’t say “to be the overseers”, but “to oversee”, which is consistent with my reading that this is an indication of what an elder does, not who he is.

               Regarding the 1913 CE, the thesis here is that, even if at first there was a plural elder-episcopate ruling office, it was simply because the final, governing power was still in the hands of the Apostles or their delegates. In other words, therefore, even if at first the terms elder and bishop could be seen as exchangeable, it didn’t make the elders overseers, because the ultimate overseeing was done at a higher level.

               As for Titus 1, “There is no disjunctive, “Now, for the…” – the thought simply continues with the same subject under an equivalent label” = I disagree. There’s no “and”; the subjects are different, and the attributes for the episkopon appear even more severe. 1 Timothy 3 is interesting, because again there is one overseer (singular) but many deacons (plural). If anything, 1 Timothy seems to agree with my position, that an overseer can be chosen among the elders, hence he must possess the same attributes and more.

               As for the student of Cassiodorus, I am not familiar with this source. I am simply reading the Greek as it is written. But, even if (if) Paul used these two terms interchangeably, Joe’s point still stands: “Titus himself looks and acts like the bishop of Crete, whose authority cannot be ignored”. Hence, the 1913 CE is correct, where it allows for an initial plural elder-episcopate ruling office only because the final, governing power was still in the hands of the Apostles or their delegates.

            4. LLC,

               Irked,
               Regarding Acts 20:28, the Greek doesn’t say, “…the Holy Spirit has set [you] the overseers…”; it says, “…the Holy Spirit has set [you] overseers…”, further reinforced by the immediately following “poimainein”, indicating a specific action, not nominal role.

               Okay. I’m not a Greek scholar. Are you? (You may well be – I have no idea.) Jerome certainly was, and his reading matches mine; can you point me to a source that establishes that we should expect to see an article in this passage specifically.

               Regarding the 1913 CE, the thesis here is that, even if at first there was a plural elder-episcopate ruling office, it was simply because the final, governing power was still in the hands of the Apostles or their delegates.

               I understand. That is not, however, the point under debate.

               As for Titus 1, “There is no disjunctive, “Now, for the…” – the thought simply continues with the same subject under an equivalent label” = I disagree.

               Okay. You are factually incorrect, then; there is no “Now, for the” disjunctive in the text. In fact, Catholic translations like the NABRE make the continuity of subject even clearer: “appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless…”

               I asked you for a father who supports your reading of Titus 1. Do you have one, or is this reading original to you?

            5. Irked,
               Regarding Acts 20:28, if I understanding correctly, you are asking for a source that says that there should be an article in order to make those who oversee “the” overseers? There is no article, the text and grammar are plain, so…

               Regarding Jerome, Joe has already addressed him.

               Regarding the 1913 CE, the point under debate is that you have removed parts from the paragraph to make it sound a supporting source for you, while the entire text is closer to Joe’s point than yours.

               Regarding Titus, my disagreement is with the interpretation, not the absence or presence of a disjunctive. Specifically, as there is no “Now”, there is also no “For”, as the NABRE translation seem to imply. You assume that there is continuity from the first to the second group; I do not. The Greek construction here is neutral. The CFs’ commentaries on Titus 1 I found discuss the candidates’ characters and the detrimental aspect of multiple marriages.

            6. LLC,

               Regarding Acts 20:28, if I understanding correctly, you are asking for a source that says that there should be an article in order to make those who oversee “the” overseers? There is no article, the text and grammar are plain, so…

               Your argument in this passage is based on some fairly particular claims about Greek grammar – and in particular, about the use of Greek articles (which follow different rules than they do in English). I’m asking you for some authority in Greek translation to back up those claims; otherwise, I think it’s fair to take Paul’s statement to the elders “You are overseers” as evidence that elders… are overseers.

               Regarding the 1913 CE, the point under debate is that you have removed parts from the paragraph to make it sound a supporting source for you, while the entire text is closer to Joe’s point than yours.

               Yes, I understand your argument; again, the question, “What authorities existed above the level of the local church?” is not germane to our topic.

               Regarding Titus, my disagreement is with the interpretation, not the absence or presence of a disjunctive. Specifically, as there is no “Now”, there is also no “For”, as the NABRE translation seem to imply.

               What is the standard grammatical function of the word “gar” in verse 7?

               You assume that there is continuity from the first to the second group; I do not.

               There is one significant difference, though: I’ve cited both church fathers and modern Catholic sources that see clear continuity, whereas you’ve appealed to your personal interpretation that there is not. Who reads this passage like you? Which fathers claim discontinuity in v. 7? Which modern scholars favor your reading?

            7. Irked,
               I think you are correct; I completely missed ‘gar’. I need better glasses (or bigger books).
               Good, this was fun. Thanks, and until the next one.

            8. Oh, hey, cool, we reached agreement! (On at least one thing.) That’s always nice.

               Heh, I actually do need new glasses (and have been putting it off), so we’re in the same boat. Thanks for the conversation!

      3. The problem, it seems to me, is the failure to distinguish between the ministry of the elders in the local churches and the itinerate ministry, such like Paul, Apollos, Timothy and others. It’s a combination of presbyters of the local assemblies and the episcopals of the itinatate ministry, preaching to the unconverted and guest preaching during their stops at local churches. So, I think you’re right: it was a three tiered arrangement.

         Reply

   2. But he also doesn’t explain why the New Testament has two distinct terms

      Others, however, do; Philip Schaff, for instance, argues that presbyteros corresponds to the Greek version of the Jewish word zekenim, or synagogue leaders – cf., for instance, Matthew 26, where the same word is used of the Jewish leaders. He argues that this explains why episkopous only appears rarely of church leaders, and only during discussion of Gentile churches.

      ***

      I’ll admit to some puzzlement in your remarks regarding 1 Clement. Contra your claim, Irenaeus does not appear to say in the quoted passage that “the author of 1 Clement was Pope Clement I” – rather, he says only that the letter was authored during Clement’s tenure. (Regardless, surely the key element is the letter’s contents, not its author.)

      But I was most puzzled by this bit near the end, where you say:

      The first is that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of this transition happening. Nobody talks about how in X year, or under Y circumstances, or in response to Z heresy, the church of such-and-such decided to go from “presbyterian” to monoepiscopal governance. It never happens.

      You earlier critiqued Kruger for arguing from silence – surely this is such an argument, as well. More pressingly, you’ve already mentioned the father who answers those questions: Jerome, who tells us “under what circumstances” (because “each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized”). Does a father reflecting back on the transition not count as evidence of the transition? If he’d argued so clearly in favor of the other side, one would think you’d have brought forth Jerome as conclusive evidence in the early church! (Amusingly, Jerome cites several of the exact passages I’ve appealed to here “should anyone suppose that it is not the position of Scripture, but our opinion only, that bishop and elder are the same.”)

      It seems like you’re dismissing him as overarguing on the grounds that he identifies places with early mono-episcopates, but that’s uncompelling – both mono- and multi-episcopates can coexist in the early church. Indeed, Jerome is very clear in his conclusion: “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.” That’s… pretty straightforward, and hardly seems like an accidental implication. Even Urban II seems to have made similar claims: “The sacred orders are the deaconate and the eldership; we read that the primitive church had these alone; in respect to these only have we apostolic precedent.”

      I don’t think it’s contestable that some early churches had mono-bishop structures, and did so fairly quickly. I don’t think it’s contestable, either, that Ignatius considers this the legitimate form of church government. I do not see that either of these things establish it as indeed the only legitimate form – and that is, ultimately, the question under debate, right? We’re not questioning whether a mono-bishop is a valid form of church government; the question is whether it is the only valid divinely-permitted form.

      And historically, even Roman Catholics have said it is not.

      Reply

      1. Hi Irked,

         What is your position regarding the metaphorical exegesis regarding the ‘angels’ described in the of Bk. of Revelation, Chps. 1-3? Do you think these various ‘angels’ referenced are in all actuality the historical bishops of these same Churches?

         Reply

         1. Al,

            I don’t think there’s sufficient context to state with certainty what (or who) John means by “the angels/messengers of the seven churches.” I don’t take a position personally.

            Reply

      2. Irked,

         Some of this I addressed in my other reply to you, so I won’t belabor the point by repeating myself. But I did want to confirm that yes, one of my arguments is an argument from silence. I didn’t really “critique” Kruger for offering an argument from silence, I merely pointed it out. Arguments from silence are fine if you can show that we would expect something to be said that isn’t. I give a fuller explanation here, but without using the phrase “argument from silence.”

         The absence of evidence supporting a shift in Church governance is a detail that presbyterians have to account for. Why do literally none of the local churches describe the allegedly widespread change that happened within them? But the argument isn’t just an argument from silence, because these churches don’t just not mention that. There are tons of churches that describe the exact opposite – that the Apostles founded their church with a particular bishop, whose name is still known and venerated in the church.

         It’s easy to simply assert that somewhere beyond the evidence, in a city we don’t know anything about, they must have had a presbyterian form of government. But the person who believes this should be able to show it in the evidence. And the fact that they can’t makes their argument seem pretty implausible.

         Reply

         1. Hi Joe,

            Still having some trouble getting comments to go through, but let me try here:

            It seems to me that, if this is admissible as a form of argument, I can dismiss (3) in the same way: “Well, we never see anyone argue for giving different meanings to ‘bishop’ and ‘elder,’ so that must not happen either.” At that point we have no viable theories, which seems… rather a problem.

            But more to the point, if this change primarily happens late in the first century – during a time of intense persecution, when division in the church was effectively fatal – it could only really be narrated as a current event in first century documents. As you know, the set of Christian works we can reliably date to that period is a very short list. Plausibly, it contains

            -the books of the New Testament
            -the Didache
            -1 Clement
            -the Shepherd of Hermas
            -the Epistle of Barnabas

            … and probably something I’m forgetting. The first three of these give positive evidence (and fail to give negative evidence) for the existence of only two church offices. The latter two at least fail to contradict the thesis, even if we drop Kruger’s more favorable reading of Hermas.

            If the first century sources mostly support my reading, and at minimum fail to contradict it, that seems pretty compelling! By your own argument, wouldn’t the Catholic expect something here to draw an unambiguous distinction between bishops/elders – some word from the apostles, something? I don’t think it’s fair to set a standard of evidence that says, “Unless one of these sources is specifically an argument on the transition – never mind those that portray plurality as a default – we must assume it never happened.”

            Certainly Jerome didn’t think so.

            Perhaps that’s a point on which I’m a little unclear here: does modern Catholicism require that Jerome, Urban, the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. are wrong regarding an early “elder college,” or is it your personal conviction that they are? Are we debating Catholic doctrine, or just a reading of history?

            Reply

            1. Irked,

               My point was that “Arguments from silence are fine if you can show that we would expect something to be said that isn’t.” I even bolded the conditional.

               The argument isn’t “I don’t hear explicit evidence of this, therefore it didn’t happen.” It’s more like, “the thing you’re claiming happened WOULD generate news, and it didn’t, so it likely didn’t happen.”

               For instance, if you say, “Clint Eastwood had eggs for breakfast yesterday,” and I said, “I don’t see news of that anywhere,” that’s a weak argument from silence. Why? Because it’s not surprising that I wouldn’t find any evidence of that. But if you said, “Clint Eastwood DIED yesterday,” and I said, “I don’t see news of that anywhere,” that’s a much stronger argument from silence. Why? Because that’s the kind of thing that WOULD make the news. And so if we can add on that, “In fact, there are several news sources saying just the opposite – that he’s alive, and that it was a hoax,” now the argument from silence is paired with a positive disproof, and I’m convinced that Eastwood is alive. (This literally happened to me yesterday).

               So again, every single church we look at says that they didn’t have a presbyteral governing structure, and you claim that they did (or at least, that some of them did). At a certain point, it’s wholly unreasonable to expect me to disprove your assertion in 100% of cases, if you can’t marshal any actual historical evidence to support your read of Scripture.

            2. Joe – I have some short(ish, heh) responses here and to several of the other posts, but I’m having a lot of my messages disappear with “Connection Reset” notices. I don’t know whether that’s on your end or mine, but either way it’s limiting the conversation; just wanted to let you know, and to apologize if I can’t reply more broadly.

            3. Irked,

               I’m so sorry! It may be some sort of issue with the site on my end. I’m pretty technically incompetent. Maybe it’s a divine “that’ll do for now, boys…”

               Joe

            4. Joe,

               Heh, well, hopefully that’s more of a cooling-off period than a full stop, if so! (It seems like it may be an issue with posting from work vs. home.)

               So I guess broadly, I don’t agree with your characterization of the evidence, here. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I “claim” that first century churches have multiple bishops; rather, first century documents say that they did.

               Three things seem to me to be clear: first, there exist second-century sources that discuss churches with single bishops, or with clear bishop/elder splits. Second, there exist first-century sources that discuss churches with multiple bishops, and that treat “bishop” and “elder” as synonyms. Third, there do not, so far as has been demonstrated, exist first-century sources that distinguish the existence of a singular “bishop” role, under whatever name.

               Would you dispute any of those three statements?

               To say that “every single church we look at says that they didn’t have a presbyteral governing structure” is to presume that these first century sources are not describing precisely that circumstance, but are instead using the same words with some other meaning. It is conceivable that this is so – but we may not assume that it is without the argument becoming circular. If we are to assign some other meaning to the passages, we require some positive reason to do so, and “Our half-a-dozen non-NT sources from the first century don’t mention a transition” does not seem a sufficient reason to do so – particularly when, again, several of those sources affirm the synonymous construction. It particularly does not seem sufficient to insist from this evidence that the only historically valid form of church governance is the mono-episcopate – and, indeed, Catholics throughout the ages have acknowledged otherwise. This is not some bizarre Protestant invention; it’s the ancient testimony of the fathers.

            5. Hi Joe and Irked,

               Can either of you help me understand the stakes of this conversation? For example, there are a great many dioceses in the Catholic church today that are governed by multiple bishops. Obviously, though, we would still describe the Catholic church as having a “mono-episcopal” form of government. They seem to be compatible, in other words, so if we found out with absolute certainty that every city in the 1st century had multiple bishops, I’m not sure what we would learn one way or another.

               By the way, if you’re looking for a *really* long read on this topic, I’d suggest “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith” over on Called to Communion (link below). They have some relevant things to say about arguments from silence as well. Worth the time.

               https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

            6. Hi Joe and Irked,

               Trying to post this again…

               Can either of you help me understand the stakes of this conversation? For example, there are a great many dioceses in the Catholic church today that are governed by multiple bishops. Obviously, though, we would still describe the Catholic church as having a “monoepiscopal” form of government. They seem to be compatible, in other words, so if we found out with absolute certainty that every city in the 1st century had multiple bishops, I’m not sure what we would learn one way or another.

               By the way, if you’re looking for a *really* long read on this topic, I’d suggest “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith” over on Called to Communion (link below). They have some relevant things to say about arguments from silence as well. Worth the time.

               https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

            7. Hi Jordan,

               I can take a stab at that, from my side, and if Joe wants to jump in on the Catholic side, great!

               One request: I’d like to be clear in advance that I’m mentioning these to try to answer your question. Any of them could spawn new conversations, and I would really like to not launch those off – I want to try to stay on Joe’s main question.

               Let’s start with the big one: there is significant evidence that there is no monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century. Now, if “bishop ruled, priests beneath” is the only model the church has ever known, presumably that evidence is being misread; if it’s not the only model, though – if a plurality of elders is in fact the original default – we have to at least consider the possibility that, say, Peter was not the bishop of Rome because there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time. That has, as you might imagine, some significant side-effects; Rome itself aside, it raises questions about the entire idea of apostolic succession through the bishops, if bishops are just elders by another name.

               Second, if bishop and elder are synonyms, then “priest” is not a distinct category from “laity” and “bishop” – and so there can be no supernatural authority given to priests as distinct from both laity and bishops.

               If any of those are true – if they’re even plausibly true, such that they’re a reasonable reading of the evidence in hand – then that presents… problems… for particularly a post-Trent understanding of Catholicism. It isn’t in itself fatal, but it complicates the argument substantially

               A more personal concern is how Protestant churches should be run. If Joe is right, we’re in error to turn to a plurality of elders for leadership, all matters of apostolic succession to the side. So if there are good arguments to the contrary here, I want to hear them!

               But they have to be really good. Joe’s original post presents the Protestant position as basically unsupported by evidence. That’s not really borne up; the claim that elders and deacons are originally interchangeable is held, not just by Protestants, but by multiple fathers, by Catholic authorities, and by most secular historians. (See, for instance, the Cambridge History of Christianity: “The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.”) We’ve got the majority read, and the historical one, on this point; Joe’s read of the evidence, as far as I can tell, is pretty far in the minority.

               So a final stake is that it’s an interesting subject, and one where I’m pretty sure we’ve got the right end of it, and I like arguing those.

            8. Hi Irked,

               Thanks for the response. As you might be able to guess from our previous conversation, I also don’t like to get off topic. No worries there.

               There seem to be multiple issues being argued here, and though they are related, it’d probably be helpful to try to keep them separate. I’ll just focus on one for now, and address the “bishop / priest” distinction later, if possible.

               You write, “there is significant evidence that there is no monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century.” What is that evidence? (Apologies if I missed it above. I didn’t a quick page search and didn’t see anything.) If we find evidence, for example, that the church in Rome was governed by multiple bishops in the first century, that doesn’t really tell us anything. To go back to my earlier point, there are at least ten bishops who govern Rome today. But of course, we know that one of those presides over the others. The evidence we would need to support an argument for a “presbyterian” form of government would also need to indicate that these bishops ruled as essentially equals.

               Second, you seem to indicate above that you believe that there were multiple legitimate forms of church government in the first century, some that resemble the current Catholic government and some that resemble the current presbyterian governments. Since most of these churches were founded by Apostles or their immediate successors, are you saying that the Apostles set up these churches in different ways?

               Have a blessed Sunday.

               Peaceful days,

               Jordan

            9. Hi Jordan,

               Figured you would be amenable, but I wanted to be clear for anyone else following the conversation. 🙂

               From your earlier link, I assume you’ve seen Brandon Addison’s piece here; that’s the clearest web-friendly argument re: the episcopate in Rome I can find that’s not behind a paywall. If we believed that the monoepiscopate was everywhere normative, I’d agree that the evidence he presents there is not enough to deny its presence in Rome; if we don’t believe in a normative monoepiscopate, it starts to look fairly persuasive. (I hate outsourcing an argument to some other link, but since this is a side-topic, I hope you’ll forgive the offloading.)

               I don’t know whether any churches were set up with a monoepiscopate. I don’t find that unthinkable; a goal of the pastor of my own (rather small) church, for instance, has been to train up men he felt could be other elders… but that was a process that he felt would take some years before it could properly conclude. My limited experience with Jamaican churches suggests they sometimes are in a similar position, due to a lack of Christian men in the church; I don’t think it’s unthinkable that some of the early churches might have had single elders for similar reasons. I don’t think that’s a morally wrong organizational plan – just that Paul, for example, assumes a plurality as default.

               But I think there is a distinction between “early churches that had singular bishop-elders” and “early churches that had singular bishops, with lesser elder-priests beneath them,” and perhaps that’s more to the core of your question. In that regard, I’ve not seen compelling evidence that the earliest churches had anything equivalent to a modern priest.

               Does that answer your question?

               Hope your Sunday goes well, too!

            10. Hi Irked,

                Yes, you’re correct. I’m familiar with Brandon’s piece and of course I linked to the response to his piece. No need to get into that conversation, of course, since that’s a whole other site.

                I’m not sure you’ve quite answered the question I’m asking, so let me try again. I’m not asking at this point whether you think “the earliest churches had anything equivalent to a modern priest.” I’m asking about the possibility that the earliest churches had multiple bishops, but that one of those bishops had authority over the others. Joe lists two possibilities at the head of his post, the “monoepiscopacy” view and the “presbyterian” view. However, I’m actually asking about a third possibility. Let’s call it the “auxiliary bishop” view. (To state this again, the auxiliary bishop form of government is the actual form the Catholic Church has today in many locations.)

                You have argued that the historical evidence points to multiple bishops/elders present in the early church, and that this evidence gives us reason to prefer the presbyterian view over the monoepiscopacy view. Do you also think it gives us reason to prefer the presbyterian view over the “auxiliary bishop” view that I have outlined?

                I have a second question regarding your previous post, but I will pause there for now.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            11. Jordan,

                At some point, something like “council of elders with one elder in charge” clearly came to exist. Did any church in the first century have that as its original model? I don’t know – and it seems like there’s a lot of variability possible there that would complicate the question. (For instance, how “in charge” are we talking – something more like the chair of a committee, or more like a king over his councilors? I’m not sure how well we could tease that out from this temporal distance; which, if either, describes James in the Jerusalem Council?)

                That’s not a very good answer, but I’m not sure a definite one is possible. I guess I’d just say that such arrangements, if they existed, seem to be voluntary and not divinely prescribed.

                Is that closer to what you’re asking?

            12. Hi Irked,

                Yes, that’s closer to what I’m asking. You don’t think the historical evidence is clear enough to prefer the presbyterian view over the auxiliary bishop view. The evidence is too ambiguous, in your view.

                How do you reconcile that with your earlier statement, that “there is significant evidence that there is no monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century?” In other words, if the evidence is too ambiguous to distinguish between the presbyterian view (in which no monarchical bishop exists) and the auxiliary bishop view (in which a monarchical bishop exists, along with auxiliary bishops), then isn’t the evidence too ambiguous to make the claim you do, that “there [was] no monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century?” I’m not trying to trap you in your words or ‘score points’ or anything like that with this question, so please clarify if I’m missing something.

                Second, I realize I haven’t made a positive case yet. The complete positive case is at least a book, of course. However, I do want to make one comment.

                You mentioned above that, “If we believed that the mono-episcopate was everywhere normative, I’d agree that the evidence he [Brandon] presents there is not enough to deny its presence in Rome; if we don’t believe in a normative mono-episcopate, it starts to look fairly persuasive.”

                Obviously I’m not arguing for a strictly “mono-episcopate” view, but Joe covered much of the historical evidence I would offer to argue that the monarchical bishop was normative. You and Dr. Kruger cover much of the historical evidence indicating that multiple bishops in a location was – if perhaps not normative – at least common. The auxiliary bishop view, is in my opinion, the correct synthesis of all that evidence.

                The one additional piece I’d share for your consideration is the pattern of leadership that we see throughout the Old Testament. In any group of God’s people governed by God’s will, there is always a singular leader at the top. This is true of the family (Abraham), the nation (Moses), the kingdom (David), and the priesthood (Aaron). In other words, God always established monarchical systems of government for his people. Deviations from this pattern are viewed negatively, as a deviation against the will of God.

                So I see this pattern in the Old Testament, and I see clear evidence of the same pattern in the church age, after a certain date (not sure where you would set this, but let’s use Dr. Kruger’s date of the end of the second century.) I also see ambiguous evidence of this pattern in the first and early second century. But given the patterns we see in the Old Testament and the promises of divine assistance that Jesus makes to his church in the New Testament, the most reasonable approach is to read the evidence assuming continuity with what came before and after. We should assume that Christ and the Apostles established a monarchical system, with one earthly head, and not shift that approach on the basis of ambiguous evidence.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            13. Hi Jordan,

                Yes, that’s closer to what I’m asking. You don’t think the historical evidence is clear enough to prefer the presbyterian view over the auxiliary bishop view. The evidence is too ambiguous, in your view.

                No, I think you’ve misunderstood me (or perhaps I misunderstood your question). I think it’s clear that the presbyterian view is described in Scripture and practiced at least commonly in the early church. What I said is that I would not claim that literally every first-century church was a fully-equal council in its original formulation; it’s plausible that some churches may have had a “spokes-elder” with some variable degree of greater authority. That’s a very different claim from “I can’t tell whether the early church ever practiced presbyterianism.”

                I think that maybe resolves some of your follow-up questions?

                The one additional piece I’d share for your consideration is the pattern of leadership that we see throughout the Old Testament. In any group of God’s people governed by God’s will, there is always a singular leader at the top. This is true of the family (Abraham), the nation (Moses), the kingdom (David), and the priesthood (Aaron). In other words, God always established monarchical systems of government for his people. Deviations from this pattern are viewed negatively, as a deviation against the will of God.

                This seems like something of a different line of argument, though, and I’d note a couple of things in response:

                1) It’s not true that God always establishes a human monarchical system of government for his people. Indeed, in the most notable case where we see the Israelites specifically enact a monarchical system – in 1 Samuel 8 – their doing so is presented as a rejection of God’s intent. For much of Israel’s history, spiritual leadership is decidedly not provided by the kings, but by the prophets: individuals who hold no formal authority or hierarchy. (One could argue with considerable justification that the OT pattern is that human monarchical structures rapidly become corrupt and stray from the truth!)

                2) That said, the NT does identify a singular monarchical head of the church: a high priest over the priests, a shepherd over the undershepherds. But that person is always Christ: thus 1 Peter 5:4, Hebrews 4:14, Colossians 1:18, etc. We’re repeatedly told that he fulfills all the singular leader archetypes – the Davidic king, the Mosaic lawgiver, the Adamic progenitor, the Abrahamic seed, etc. Perhaps that does not strictly preclude some temporal manifestation of these roles – but when we are explicitly told that these archetypes point to Christ, some further argument is required to show that they also must point to a merely human fulfillment.

            14. Hi Irked,

                Thank you for clarifying. You write, “I think it’s clear that the presbyterian view is described in Scripture and practiced at least commonly in the early church.” What passages from the New Testament do you think unambiguously describe a presbyterian view, as opposed to an auxiliary bishop view? I’ll touch briefly on three that you mention in previous comments so you don’t have to repeat yourself.

                Acts 20:17, 28 – “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church… Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” These verses would apply equally to both forms of government.

                Titus 1:5 – “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you.” This verse would apply equally to both forms of government.

                Philippians 1:1 – “Paul and Timothy… to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons…” This verse would apply equally to both forms of government.

                What other verses would you point to? The references to 1 Peter and 1 Timothy don’t seem relevant to this particular discussion we are having, so I left those out. Or do you think the verses already cited would unambiguously apply only to a presbyterian view? What am I not considering?

                The biblical argument is only relevant if we agree that the evidence from the New Testament and the first century is ambiguous with respect to the two views. Since we don’t agree on that, I’ll refrain from responding unless we can agree on that point.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            15. Hi Jordan,

                Fair question. I want to focus on a particular aspect of what you said: that we’re discussing the standard existence of a monarchical bishop – not merely one who teaches most regularly, or a respected older figure, but one with ultimate authority to direct the others.

                I cannot flatly deny the possibility of such a figure existing. However, I can deny that he makes any unambiguous appearance in the first century Christian literature. No New Testament church letter greets him in any identifiable way. No biblical description explains how to select him, or what qualifications he should possess, or how his authority relates to that of his under-bishops. No title appears for him. No one is described as filling his role. Titus is not told to select him (nor, for that matter, is Titus declared to be him). He makes no appearance in councils, nor do we have any report of him issuing monarchical directives to the other bishops of his church.

                He does not identify himself, to lend his authority to 1 Clement; nor does that letter accuse the Corinthians of expelling him. For that matter, when the letter discusses how the elders of Corinth were appointed, he plays no role; that decision seems to be made by a group, with consent of the whole body. Hermas says nothing of him. The Didache identifies no role for him in the order of the church. He is, if present in the first century, an absolute ghost in the records of the time.

                This does not, as I say, flatly preclude his existence. But one would hardly expect to find a passage declaring his nonexistence; silence in the several passages where we might expect him to appear is about the strongest evidence that can be hoped for. I do not think any reasonable standard of evidence may assume him, and I’m not sure material sufficiency can fairly permit him a divinely ordained role.

                So when I say that the presbyterian view is described in Scripture, I mean that the only thing Scripture mentions as normative for church government is a group of men with the same titles, the same qualifications, the same identified responsibilities, and the same greeting addressed to all of them. We may speculate any number of alternative schemes in which these men are subservient to some silent, unnamed other position; I do not think we may then ground other arguments on that speculation.

            16. Hello Irked,

                Thanks for the response. You write, “I cannot flatly deny the possibility of such a figure existing. However, I can deny that he makes any unambiguous appearance in the first century Christian literature.” Yes, we agree on this point. My argument concedes that the evidence is ambiguous.

                You write, “So when I say that the presbyterian view is described in Scripture, I mean that the only thing Scripture mentions as normative for church government is a group of men with the same titles, the same qualifications, the same identified responsibilities, and the same greeting addressed to all of them.” The problem with this argument is that Scripture addressing a group of men with the same titles, the same qualifications, the same identified responsibilities, and the same greeting is perfectly compatible with the auxiliary bishop view.

                You continue, “We may speculate any number of alternative schemes in which these men are subservient to some silent, unnamed other position…” Yes, we certainly can. The presbyterian view is as equally a speculation as any other view that is consistent with the evidence that we have.

                You’re making an argument from silence here. Normally, it’d be a good idea first to agree on what counts as a standard of evidence for an argument from silence. In this case though, it doesn’t really matter what your standard is. The Scriptures are as silent on the specifics of the presbyterian view as they are on the specifics of the auxiliary bishop view. Like you, I can deny that this council of equals makes any unambiguous appearance in the first century Christian literature. No New Testament church letter greets this council of equals in any identifiable way. No biblical description warns against one man leading the others, or asks that decisions be made via consensus building, or by majority vote. Again, one would hardly expect to find a passage declaring the nonexistence of this council, etc.

                It is not safe to assume that the presbyterian view is the default form of government, especially in a culture and time in which that form of government was uncommon, if not non-existent, and the monarchical form of government was dominate.

                You conclude, “I do not think we may then ground other arguments on that speculation.” I agree. That is not what I am attempting to do.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            17. Hi Jordan,

                My argument concedes that the evidence is ambiguous.

                So I think there’s a fundamental error in your framing, here. The presbyterian view is, in effect, that church government is by the people positively described in ancient texts as taking part in church government: a plural group of elder/bishops. To hypothesize a monarchical archbishop is to assume that leadership in the local church is ultimately the role, not of this group, but of a figure who nowhere appears in the texts.

                These are not equivalent propositions. The evidence is “ambiguous” between them in the sense that the evidence is “ambiguous” as to whether the earth was actually created last Tuesday with all details intact to suggest a prior existence: sure, we can’t prove that didn’t happen, but there’s no positive reason to believe that it’s true. We build our models on the strength of what evidence actually exists.

                And the evidence in hand is this: there are multiple references in first century literature to elder/bishop councils. When these references are made, the members are treated as a group. When requirements, or roles, or responsibilities are specified, they are specified equivalently for the whole group. The natural read of this evidence is that members of the group are, in the most fundamental sense, equivalent authorities – and that is precisely the presbyterian read. “But maybe one of them was really king” is not an equivalently supported hypothesis simply because nothing ever explicitly says it isn’t so.

                The problem with this argument is that Scripture addressing a group of men with the same titles, the same qualifications, the same identified responsibilities, and the same greeting is perfectly compatible with the auxiliary bishop view.

                Your own wording demonstrates that this isn’t true. To even describe your view, you have to invent a title – “auxiliary bishop” – not found in these passages, and to give meaning to the role, you have to apply a further responsibility: to be the final, monarchical decider. If this person is a bishop, then bishops are necessarily not men with equivalent titles and responsibilities.

                The presbyterian view is as equally a speculation as any other view that is consistent with the evidence that we have.

                “Church government was by entities described, and not by entities not described” is (a) not equivalent to the alternative in terms of evidentiary support, and (b) as far as I can tell, the only position consistent with material sufficiency.

                Like you, I can deny that this council of equals makes any unambiguous appearance in the first century Christian literature. No New Testament church letter greets this council of equals in any identifiable way.

                This is untrue. Philippians 1:1 contains just such a greeting: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philippi, together with their overseers and deacons.”

                No biblical description warns against one man leading the others, or asks that decisions be made via consensus building, or by majority vote.

                Acts 15, however, shows us the church making decisions by consensus building – and by the very group in question: “The apostles and elders met to consider this question.” (Note that this same group is subsequently identified as the source of the reply.) Likewise, 1 Clement approvingly notes that a major decision of the church of Corinth (the appointment of new elders) was made by a group decision backed by church consensus. These are the operational patterns of the early church.

                Again, one would hardly expect to find a passage declaring the nonexistence of this council, etc.

                But one would expect to find letters describing its role, responsibilities, requirements, etc., as indeed we do. The difference, again, is that we have positive evidence for a leadership council, and none for a king.

                It is not safe to assume that the presbyterian view is the default form of government, especially in a culture and time in which that form of government was uncommon, if not non-existent, and the monarchical form of government was dominate.

                This seems a remarkable claim, given that – for instance – the Sanhedrin had no monarchical rule and decided matters by vote.

            18. Hello Irked,

                Thanks again for the response. We seem to be going round the same things here. I had trouble sleeping last night, and I was praying to God and asking him why that is the case. The answer that came to mind was that the conversation was lacking love, lacking a spirit of brotherly affection. I won’t pretend to know your heart, but I know I have not cultivated that love in my own. For that I ask your forgiveness.

                I’m hopeful that we can have a dialog as real brothers and not perform a debate as opponents. I’m grateful for the time and diligence that you put into these conversations. You are only the second Protestant online or offline who has been willing to actually talk with me at length about these things, and the first one is Craig, who you might know from the comments section of this blog, and who is now Eastern Orthodox.

                Second, you wrote, “The evidence is “ambiguous” between them in the sense that the evidence is “ambiguous” as to whether the earth was actually created last Tuesday with all details intact to suggest a prior existence.” I know this wasn’t your intent, but this statement actually hurt my feelings! I’m hopeful that you do not actually think the evidence between the two cases is similar. It might be my fault, however, in not making a more positive case. So rather than repeat myself again, I’d like to lay part of that case out more.

                Let’s start with Paul’s letter to Titus. St. John Chrysostom wrote a series of five homilies on Titus in the 4th century. In the very first part of the first homily, he writes:

                “Titus was an approved one of the companions of Paul; otherwise, he would not have committed to him the charge of that whole island, nor would he have commanded him to supply what was deficient, as he says, ‘That you should set in order the things that are wanting.’ He would not have given him jurisdiction over so many Bishops, if he had not placed great confidence in him.”

                Chrysostom’s view, in other words, is that Titus is a monarchical bishop of the whole island of Crete, and that he was appointed to that position by Paul. If you were to ask Chrysostom where the Bible refers to a monarchical bishop, he would simply point you to the opening verses, where Paul addresses Titus.

                Now if we read through the letter to Titus with that idea in mind, everything falls into place nicely. If Titus is the monarchical bishop of Crete, it makes perfect sense that he has the job of appointing other bishops. And when Paul writes of the bishops Titus is supposed to appoint, it makes sense that he would describe the requirements, roles, and responsibilities equivalently for the whole group. The requirements, roles, and responsibilities *are* equivalent for this group. It would not make sense for Paul to explain to Titus how to select a monarchical bishop. Titus already held that role! Paul’s silence regarding this position is perfectly understandable in this light. It’s not a silence that can count against the monarchical bishop view.

                If instead we read the letter to Titus through a presbyterian lens, we encounter some problems. You write,

                “1 Clement approvingly notes that a major decision of the church of Corinth (the appointment of new elders) was made by a group decision backed by church consensus. These are the operational patterns of the early church.”

                But this is not the case with Titus. He alone is responsible for appointing elders, and Paul says nothing about making this a group decision backed by church consensus. It is, rather, a monarchical decision, made by a single person with the authority to make that decision.

                Second, if we suppose that Titus is an elder like any other, with the same level of authority, than any authority Titus has is an authority that all of the elders possess. This mean that all the elders have the authority, as individuals, to appoint other elders. That power also doesn’t fit with the form of presbyterian church government that you have articulated so far.

                Now this isn’t the kind of evidence that is completely unambiguous, but Chrysostom certainly has a lot more evidence for his position than we do for the position that the world was recreated last Tuesday.

                We can go through similar exercises with other passages in the New Testament. You write that Philippians 1:1 contains a greeting to a presbyterian group of elders, but this isn’t clear. If you were writing a letter to the bishops of Los Angeles, for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to address them as a group, rather than calling out the monarchical bishop and the auxiliary bishops separately.

                Finally, I appreciate your mention of the Sanhedrin as a possible parallel to the presbyterian form. From what I’ve read, the Sanhedrin had a president who served as head of the assembly. This president seemed to have more power than a moderator of a presbyterian assembly might. He had executive authority for collecting taxes and administering the Jewish state under Roman rule, for instance, and assemblies without his presence were invalid. Do you have sources you could point me that would help clarify his role further?

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            19. Hi Jordan,

                So I’d like to lead with an apology: I definitely didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, or to speak without charity. My personality is such that I tend to focus on ideas rather than people, and I sometimes word critiques of ideas more harshly than I should. (My wife has made me better at this, but it’s a long road.)

                Anyway. I’m sorry; I appreciate your conversation, and I particularly appreciate that you don’t descend into invective or dismissal in that conversation. If you’re up for trying to find a more brotherly way forward, so am I.

                In that spirit, let me try to reply.

                and the first one is Craig, who you might know from the comments section of this blog, and who is now Eastern Orthodox.

                This has nothing to do with the topic, but yeah, Craig’s pretty great.

                I know this wasn’t your intent, but this statement actually hurt my feelings! I’m hopeful that you do not actually think the evidence between the two cases is similar. It might be my fault, however, in not making a more positive case.

                Definitely no offense was meant; I struggled for a while with the right example to use there. (My initial idea was that apostles toured as a boy band named “Peter, Paul, and Probably Not Mary” – which might have conveyed the intended tongue-in-cheek tone better, but seemed likely to distract us.)

                Questionable example aside, I think you hit on the thing I was trying to say: that while I think there’s a positive case to be made for something like a council of roughly-equal elders, I didn’t feel that one had been made for the monarchical-bishop position. It seems like you’ve taken exactly the right response to that challenge.

                Chrysostom’s view, in other words, is that Titus is a monarchical bishop of the whole island of Crete, and that he was appointed to that position by Paul. If you were to ask Chrysostom where the Bible refers to a monarchical bishop, he would simply point you to the opening verses, where Paul addresses Titus.

                I wondered if we’d talk about Titus, and I think he is the natural challenge to my position. So a couple of thoughts.

                First, I think we have to be clear about exactly what we’re talking about. As I understood you, we were discussing the possibility that one of the bishops within a given church could act as a monarchical authority over the other bishops – not a separate role, but a preeminence within the elsewhere-described position of church elder.

                I think this is a pretty vital point, so if I’ve misunderstood what you’re arguing, please set me right.

                Because under that understanding, I think we have to say that Titus does not fit the pattern you’ve laid out.Titus is not Cretan, and, per 3:12, does not plan to stay on the island long – perhaps six months, from the way Paul writes, during which he’s got a lot of travel between towns to do. He’s not an ordinary part of any of the new churches on the island, and there’s no indication he’s part of any one of the bishop councils that may be formed. (And councils, plural, does seem to be the right word here, to judge from 1:5) He does not seem, in other words, to fit the role you’ve elsewhere described; someone might argue that Titus is evidence of an authority above that of the local churches, but that’s a separate conversation. (It seems to me that you acknowledge this below, when you say that Titus is not given directions for someone occupying his office – surely that implies that his office is not “bishop!”)

                Second, I think we have to be careful about making Titus’s situation normative. We have here, pretty clearly, a direct apostolic representative on an island where he may be the only person to have been a Christian for more than a couple of months. I think it’s understandable that, in those circumstances, Titus comes in “with all authority” – he is literally the only one present who knows Christian doctrine, and the island has already been infested with heretical arguments. I think even a Protestant missionary today might function similarly in a newly-reached people group – but that’s not to say that the missionary would occupy a standardized (and persistent) church office. Nothing we see in Titus argues against this reading – he’s not told to appoint his own successor when he leaves, for instance, and Paul never describes him as holding any formal office. (More on this line of argument in a minute.)

                Third, I think it is not surprising that Chrysostom – who lives in a period where mono-episcopates have become common – should assume a mono-episcopate in reading back into history. But Chrysostom’s contemporaries – most notably Jerome – dispute this view; what are we to make of this?

                Now if we read through the letter to Titus with that idea in mind, everything falls into place nicely. If Titus is the monarchical bishop of Crete, it makes perfect sense that he has the job of appointing other bishops.

                It’s definitely possible in logic to argue, “If X were true, we would see such-and-such evidence; we see that evidence; this suggests X is true.” The problem, however, is that there may be several such plausible Xs – the classic example of this is that “my grass is wet” may be plausibly explained either by “it rained today” or “I have a sprinkler system.” In such cases, we must look to evidence that would make one or the other of those explanations more likely. (For instance, if there were no clouds today, rain becomes less plausible.) Here, our alternate hypotheses are “Titus is a monarchical bishop” and “Titus is an apostolic rep in a weird situation” (and perhaps other alternatives, e.g., “Titus is a standard church authority above the level of the bishop councils”).

                And here I think we run into a significant difficulty: we still lack any positive evidence for the monarchical bishop view. We have at best evidence consistent with the monarchical bishop view – and even then, as I say, we seem to be describing some other role than what I’ve understood the MB to be. Since positive evidence was your original objective, this seems to me to be a major problem.

                This is different, I think, from the evidence we have for roughly-equal bishop councils (again, that groups of bishops for a given church are explicitly said to exist in Scripture, that they are described here and elsewhere with common requirements and responsibilities, etc.). This is over and above the similar arguments I might construct for where we would expect to hear reference to a MB and do not, which seem parallel to your argument here.

                It would not make sense for Paul to explain to Titus how to select a monarchical bishop. Titus already held that role! Paul’s silence regarding this position is perfectly understandable in this light.

                Let me ask this a little more explicitly: since Paul explicitly tells Titus to plan to leave soon, shouldn’t we expect some instruction on finding his replacement, under your reading? What is to happen to Crete once Titus leaves? (Note that he’s not told, for instance, “Wait for your replacement to arrive.”)

                “These are the operational patterns of the early church.”

                But this is not the case with Titus.

                I agree. Would you agree that it is the pattern described for both Corinth and Jerusalem? If so, what do you think explains the difference between them? (My reading is above.)

                Second, if we suppose that Titus is an elder like any other, with the same level of authority, than any authority Titus has is an authority that all of the elders possess.

                I agree. I would not read Titus as a church elder of Crete in any ordinary sense.

                You write that Philippians 1:1 contains a greeting to a presbyterian group of elders, but this isn’t clear.

                It does, however, greet all members of a bishop group in equal fashion. My point was more that when I appeal to government by a bishop group, I’m appealing to something we know existed in a way that we do not know that the MB existed.

                Finally, I appreciate your mention of the Sanhedrin as a possible parallel to the presbyterian form. From what I’ve read, the Sanhedrin had a president who served as head of the assembly.

                That’s true, and a fair point. But I think it takes us back to the original argument: we were, as I understood it, debating whether the early church might be familiar with majoritarian systems, or only with monarchical ones. And the Sanhedrin, for all that it was not a council of perfect equals, was not ruled by a monarch, and did rely on votes for many its verdicts – right? I could try to multiply examples – Roman government offers a fair few – but my point is just that “consensus building, majority vote” systems would not have been unknown to (or considered invalid by) the early Christians.

            20. Hi Irked,

                I wanted to let you know I’m part way through a response, but it may take a while to get to it all. Life is busy.

                I did want to say, though, that I really appreciate (and identify with) your opening comments. I’m sure our wives could share notes and horror stories.

                Secondly, I wanted to respond to your question about the monarchical bishop view. You wrote, “As I understood you, we were discussing the possibility that one of the bishops within a given church could act as a monarchical authority over the other bishops – not a separate role, but a preeminence within the elsewhere-described position of church elder.”

                I’m basically trying to describe a view that is compatible with the current Catholic system that bishops use to govern. In that system, there are some regions where a single bishop is in charge of many individual churches (or parishes in the current terminology). There are some regions where multiple bishops work together to govern, with one having final responsibility. It’s important to note that there are church councils in this system, where bishops vote on matters pertaining to all of them, so that consensus building in actually an important part of how the church as a whole is governed. But there always remains a single point of decision making power at some level. It’s also important to note that the size of the region varies greatly. I don’t mean to imply that every single local church has a monarchical bishop. In the case of Titus, for instance, that single point of responsibility is at the island level, rather than the individual church level.

                Please ask some follow up question if that still leaves things unanswered.

                Since we are on the subject, I’d also like to ask a similar question of you. When you use the word “presbyterian” I’m taking you to mean that the following:

                –All important decisions which affect a local church are made by vote by a council of equal elders.
                –There is no single person who can overrule the vote of the group
                –Elders are appointed and removed by a council of other elders, and only with the consent of the local church (perhaps by vote? not sure about the mechanism).
                –There is no single person who can appoint or remove an elder.

                Please correct or expand on that understanding if I’m missing something.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            21. Hi Jordan,

                That clarifies nicely – thank you. I guess I’d just say it feels to me a bit like we’re changing subjects at that point. If we return to Joe’s original post, the question is specifically how the local church was run – and it’s on that point that I’ve dedicated my efforts here. “Is there any persistent governmental structure above the level of the local church?” is an interesting question – it just seems to me like it’s a different one, and from your description of the MB here, it sounds like that’s what you’re talking about. I could in principle offer argument regarding interchurch hierarchy, but it’d be different from the arguments I’d make regarding local church government.

                Or putting that another way: as you define MB in this last post, isn’t the existence of a MB totally compatible with “Local church government is presbyterian?”

                Since we are on the subject, I’d also like to ask a similar question of you. When you use the word “presbyterian” I’m taking you to mean that the following:

                –All important decisions which affect a local church are made by vote by a council of equal elders.
                –There is no single person who can overrule the vote of the group
                –Elders are appointed and removed by a council of other elders, and only with the consent of the local church (perhaps by vote? not sure about the mechanism).
                –There is no single person who can appoint or remove an elder.

                Heh. So a proper presbyterian might insist on all of those; I don’t see that they’re all unambiguously present in Scripture. 1 Clement tells us that in Corinth, the elders were appointed by “other worthy men” – a phrase that doesn’t otherwise appear in the letter – and approved by the whole body. That sounds rather like a vote of some sort – but it’s historical description, not a biblical prescription.

                I would probably say that the biblical evidence regarding elders is something like the following:
                1) They have certain criteria (male, obedient children, able to teach, etc.).
                2) Their function is to oversee the church (as distinct from serving the church, as deacons do); they are the only role identified in Scripture with that function.
                3) We may infer that they also have a function of teaching, since that’s a requirement for them (and the only one that clearly sets them apart from deacons). More broadly, we might infer similarity to the role of the Jewish synagogue elders, though such inferences become increasingly shaky.
                4) The normative assumption is that a church has more than one of them; Scriptural descriptions and contemporary literature give no indication of divinely-appointed gradations within them.

                And that’s… probably not everything, but it’s close? We’re not told how to select them, or how to depose them, or what the limits of their authority are, or to what extent they should share that with the congregation, or whether they function by vote or unanimous decision, or etc. Since Scripture does not prescribe a single correct answer to those questions, I tend to think there are multiple valid approaches. (1 Clement, again, argues that the expulsion of the elders of Corinth is foolish and unjust, though it’s not clearly invalid.)

            22. Hi Irked,

                Long response below. Thanks again for the conversation!

                You asked, “[As] you define MB in this last post, isn’t the existence of a MB totally compatible with ‘Local church government is presbyterian?’”
                To a certain extent, yes, they are compatible. That’s part of what drove my original question around the stakes of the conversation. The way Joe framed the original question was basically, “groups of elders or a single elder?” And I don’t think that these two models are mutually exclusive. Rather, the historical evidence seems to indicate that both groups of elders and single elders governed the church, both at the local and non-local level. Trying to choose one over the other raises some problems, and so my question is how to reconcile that data together. And quite interestingly, the essential elements (by which I mean the dogmatic necessities) of the modern Catholic system actually does reconcile them.

                The only thing that the MB view is not compatible with is your very last sentence in the definition you gave of “presbyterian.” You write, “Scriptural descriptions and contemporary literature give no indication of divinely-appointed gradations within them.” The MB view does argue that there are “gradations” or differences within them, and that these differences are indicated in the scriptural and historical evidence. (Potentially we might talk about the idea that, “The normative assumption is that a church has more than one of them.” I assume by “normative” you don’t mean that it’s God’s will that all local churches necessarily have multiple leaders, but rather that this was common in the early church. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

                So let’s turn to (some) of that evidence again.

                You ask, “Let me ask this a little more explicitly: since Paul explicitly tells Titus to plan to leave soon, shouldn’t we expect some instruction on finding his replacement, under your reading? What is to happen to Crete once Titus leaves? (Note that he’s not told, for instance, “Wait for your replacement to arrive.”)

                Chrysostom actually poses and answers this question. In his sixth homily on Titus, he writes, quoting Paul at first:

                “‘When I shall send Artemas unto you, or Tychicus; be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis.’
                “What do you say? After having appointed him to preside over Crete, do you again summon him to yourself? It was not to withdraw him from that occupation, but to discipline him the more for it. For that he does not call him to attend upon him, as if he took him everywhere with him as his follower, appears from what he adds:
                “‘For I have determined there to winter.’”

                In other words, Paul’s ask of Titus seems to be, “Come see me in Nicopolis while I winter there.” It does not seem to be asking him to leave Crete permanently. (As a side note, later tradition held Artemas and Tychicus to be bishops as well, so it’s quite possible that Paul was telling him to wait for his replacement. That gets dicey, though. Chrysostom’s reading resolves the difficulty in either case.)

                Now, when we encounter this kind of thing, where we could potentially read a passage multiple ways, I think we ought to try to take the historical context into account. As you said, “In such cases, we must look to evidence that would make one or the other of those explanations more likely.”

                The historical context we have for this particular question would include the following:

                –Eusebius (3rd century) tells us that Titus was the bishop of Crete.
                –Chrysostom (4th century) tells us Titus was the bishop of Crete.
                –A basilica was erected in his honor in Crete (6th century) and his bones were kept there.
                –Jerome and Theodoret also comment on the epistle of Titus, but I don’t have access to English translations of those texts.

                You write, “But Chrysostom’s contemporaries – most notably Jerome – dispute this view; what are we to make of this?” I assume you are referencing “Letter 146” that Joe quotes above. The focus of that letter is on the relative authority of priests and deacons, but Jerome says the following with regard to Titus:

                “And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: “For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed you…”

                Now this is a bizarre passage to me. He seems to be citing Titus as an example to argue for two distinct things. First, there was only one bishop in a single church. Second, the terms bishop and presbyter referred to the same position. An alternate reading is that he’s saying something like, “Just because there was more than one bishop, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.”

                He writes further:

                “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, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon.”

                Again, a confusing passage for our purposes. He seems on the one hand to say that a more “monarchial” system was only chosen to prevent schism. Yet he immediately follows that by saying that one bishop was chosen from among the presbyters as a general might be “elected” in an army. (A confusing metaphor. No general is elected by a well-functioning army as far as I know!) And he dates this raising of one bishop over the presbyters to the time of Mark, the writer of the gospel. In other words, he dates this “general-bishop” to the apostolic age.

                He continues, “For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?” Here, while arguing for the equality of bishops and presbyters in their authority over deacons, he nonetheless notes one exception: bishops can ordain, presbyters cannot. This, of course, is one of the key Catholic distinctions between the two orders.

                If we look further afield in Jerome’s writings, we see, as Joe pointed out, that he elsewhere refers to the historical church in terms of a “single-bishop” sort of view. On balance, then, it’s hard to pin Jerome down on exactly what he thought Titus’s role was. The overall body of his writings don’t seem to be clearly arguing for or assuming a presbyterian view, as you have described it.

                With that historical context in mind, we can reread Titus again, just as we would try to put any passage in the New Testament in its historical context as much as possible. And that context makes it more likely that Titus was a monarchical bishop than some other plausible explanation that we might offer.

                You ask, “Would you agree that [the presbyterian view] is the pattern described for both Corinth and Jerusalem? If so, what do you think explains the difference between [Crete and these cities]?”

                No, I do not think this is the pattern described in those cities. When we read of the first church council in Acts, the two voices that are prominent are Peter and James. Now, we might read that and conclude that James is simply a well-respected leader in that church, and someone related to Jesus’s family. But the historical context is as follows:

                –Eusebius (3rd century) tells us that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, citing Clement of Alexandria (3rd century) and Hegesippus (2nd century) as his sources.
                –Pseudo-Clementine (4th century) addresses James as “the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews.”
                –Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) says that James was “the first bishop of this diocese.”
                –Jerome (4th century) says that James was “ordained by the apostles [as] bishop of Jerusalem.”
                –Chrysostom (4th century) says that James “received the Bishopric of Jerusalem.”

                As for Corinth, the context is as follows:

                –St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that, “I planted [the church in Corinth], Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” The phrasing there indicates that Apollos was the primary leader of the church in Corinth after Paul left. This reading is strengthened by the occasion for the letter: a contention among the church members where people were picking sides among various leaders, some with Paul, some with Apollos, some with Peter. They seemed to see Apollos as in some sense equivalent to these apostles.
                –Eusebius names three men as the bishop of Corinth at different times during the mid-to-late-second century, Primus, Dionysius, and Bacchylus.
                –Later traditions cite Apollos, Sosthenes, and others as bishops of Corinth. I have trouble figuring out when exactly these traditions arose.
                –St. Clement writes a letter to the church in the Corinth, and speaks of bishops and presbyters only in the plural. He writes that the men were appointed to the office of the episcopate publicly by the Apostles, and that the Apostles left instructions “that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” He continues, “[T]hose appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church…cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”

                The historical context for the whole church during this time period is outlined well by Joe above:

                –Eusebius always and everywhere records a single person as bishop of particular cities.
                –Ignatius, writing about ten years after Clement, consistently assumes a monarchial bishop in every church that he addresses.

                Now, given that historical context, I think a monarchial / auxiliary bishop view of the early church is more likely than a presbyterian view. I also think it is more likely than a “single” bishop view, which might claim that there was only ever one bishop in each church / city / region.

                However, it doesn’t “prove” it in any undeniable sense. There’s enough of a time gap and ambiguity in all of these that we can’t absolutely rule out the presbyterian thesis. When I’m confronted with that kind of evidence, I find myself facing a choice:

                1. I can choose to believe in continuity between the church at a later date and the church at an earlier date.
                2. I can choose to believe that there is discontinuity between the church at an early and later date.

                Given Jesus’s promises to his church to lead it into all truth, send the Holy Spirit, act as its husband and head, etc. I think the first option ought to be our default view as Christians. Unless we have clear evidence otherwise, we ought to believe in continuity. Do you disagree with that?

                You wrote, with regards to Philippians, “It does, however, greet all members of a bishop group in equal fashion. My point was more that when I appeal to government by a bishop group, I’m appealing to something we know existed in a way that we do not know that the MB existed.”

                The point of disagreement is not whether “government by a bishop group” existed. We both agree that it did. The point of disagreement is whether it is more reasonable to conclude that this group governed according to presbyterian norms (as you have defined it) or auxiliary bishop norms (as compatible with the dogmatic teaches of the Catholic Church).

                Now I’m sure I’ve missed some things here, but this is getting quite beyond the bounds of a comments box. I certainly can’t continue at this pace, but I’m interested in your view, particularly on the continuity / discontinuity question. In the near term though, I’ll probably have to keep responses short. Thanks again.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            23. Hi Jordan,

                Long responses all around! I think this is the heart of it, though:

                The point of disagreement is not whether “government by a bishop group” existed. We both agree that it did. The point of disagreement is whether it is more reasonable to conclude that this group governed according to presbyterian norms (as you have defined it) or auxiliary bishop norms (as compatible with the dogmatic teaches of the Catholic Church).

                I appreciate you restating the core issue, and I think that helps to clarify a couple of points for me.

                Just to be explicit, it seems pretty clear to me is that both of our views, as we’re presenting them here, are incompatible with Joe’s original argument. (This was probably clear to you already, but I wasn’t 100% until now.) Joe’s argument, as I understand it, is that the monoepiscopate is the only historically valid governmental model of the church, whereas you’re arguing that:

                To a certain extent, yes, [the MB and presbyterianism] are compatible. That’s part of what drove my original question around the stakes of the conversation. The way Joe framed the original question was basically, “groups of elders or a single elder?” And I don’t think that these two models are mutually exclusive. Rather, the historical evidence seems to indicate that both groups of elders and single elders governed the church, both at the local and non-local level.

                And phrased in that way, I don’t know that I even disagree with the thesis. It’s clearly true that historically there have been cases where single bishops have governed churches; we can argue about which churches, and how early, but obviously my thesis is not that “no church has ever had a singular bishop.” Clearly single-bishops are common by the second century; I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for me to insist (say) that there are zero single-bishop churches prior to that.

                So hey, point conceded – progress! The point I’ve been trying to argue is somewhere closer to this, I think: when the New Testament describes the model for church governance, it does not by default include a monarchical bishop in that model, and indeed nothing in the first century evidence suggests such a model as necessary or the default. The evidence does not strictly preclude that model, to be sure, and as I’ve just noted, it’s entirely possible that some churches within the first century do practice single-bishop – but there is no evidence in hand that would cause us to say, “Yes, to be a proper church, you needed to have this thing.”

                There have been, I think, a couple of complicating factors in that argument. I’ve been confused until very recently as to whether you were arguing for a person within a church who served in this role, or a person who served at a level above the local church who served in the role. I now understand your answer to be “Both of these things are monarchical bishops” – correct?

                But I’m still not clear on a couple of points. First, are you saying that some early churches plausibly could have had monarchical bishops, or that all first century churches must have had monarchical bishops? Because if it’s the former, I think we’re basically in agreement; if it’s the latter, I think we’re back to an evidentiary question: what first century evidence requires that this is so?

                Second, if you’re using the term “monarchical bishop” to refer to someone who oversees multiple churches – and arguing that an MB is still a bishop – then it seems like we need evidence for the first century church using “bishop” in that sense. Do you see any evidence in the first century for the usage of the terms “elder/bishop” to describe an office that governs multiple churches?

                Third:

                And quite interestingly, the essential elements (by which I mean the dogmatic necessities) of the modern Catholic system actually does reconcile them.

                I would be interested to hear you outline what, for a Catholic, are the relevant dogmatic necessities here.

                ***

                Okay, so I think that’s the sweeping issues. Let me address some of the specifics.

                The MB view does argue that there are “gradations” or differences within them, and that these differences are indicated in the scriptural and historical evidence.

                It seems like, for this to be true, we would need to see some case where two people are both identified as bishops/elders of a church, with one of them over the other. Do we have such a case in the first century?

                I assume by “normative” you don’t mean that it’s God’s will that all local churches necessarily have multiple leaders, but rather that this was common in the early church. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

                I do not see anything in the New Testament that strictly requires a multiplicity; on the other hand, the fact that elders are (as far as I can recall) always described as plural for a church suggests it is the assumed practice. Again, Titus 1:5 (“appoint elders,” plural, “in every town,” singular) seems suggestive here. So yes, I think you’re basically reading me right.

                Chrysostom actually poses and answers this question…
                In other words, Paul’s ask of Titus seems to be, “Come see me in Nicopolis while I winter there.” It does not seem to be asking him to leave Crete permanently.

                So I think that’s a fair reply; would you agree, though, that saying this is what the request “seems to be” is pretty purely speculative? Paul does not say anything regarding the purpose of the request, nor about a limited duration; indeed, the only scriptural thing we know of Titus’s eventual travel is that later, as of 2 Timothy, he’s off in Dalmatia – that seems like an odd fit for the thesis that he returns to Crete after seeing Paul.

                Of course, my insisting that Titus cannot return from Paul to Crete, sometime before he again leaves for Dalmatia, would also be speculative – so this is a possible resolution! But there’s nothing in the letter that backs either interpretation over the other – right? There’s nothing here, in other words, that suggests the monarchical bishop reading.

                The historical context we have for this particular question would include the following:

                –Eusebius (3rd century) tells us that Titus was the bishop of Crete.
                –Chrysostom (4th century) tells us Titus was the bishop of Crete.
                –A basilica was erected in his honor in Crete (6th century) and his bones were kept there.
                –Jerome and Theodoret also comment on the epistle of Titus, but I don’t have access to English translations of those texts.

                On the first three of these: sure, that’s fair. Even if my view is entirely correct, however, we’d expect later Catholic commentators to read the monarchical bishop as they experience it back into the past, right? (Eusebius certainly is never going to miss an opportunity to frame things in imperial terms.) It’s clearly the case that by the end of the second century, the Ignatian perspective has become dominant, and monarchical bishops have become the norm; I would expect that later authors would interpret church history in terms of “what we’ve always done.” Indeed, since some of these authors do not acknowledge that many of these churches had multiple bishops – as you and I both do! – then they must have done this to some degree, right?

                So we still seem to have an ambiguity here: this later evidence can be read either as “Titus was a MB, and later generations recognized that, because MBs were always a thing,” or as “Titus was not a MB, because those didn’t generally exist yet, and later generations that had MBs simply assumed he was.” It’s for that reason that I’ve been mostly trying to hold things to first century sources – and on those grounds, I don’t think we have any clear evidence that there exists such a role for Titus to fill.

                (Also, a combination nitpick and genuine question: does Eusebius argue this in the third century? Most of his writings that I know of are fourth century.)

                But even then, I think we have to weigh these claims against those Jerome makes in his commentary on Titus. (Which, as you say, is tragically hard to find complete and online and in English!) Here’s a couple of relevant portions from that book, though; some of them show up in Kruger’s piece, although Joe seems to focus more on Letter 146:

                “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’
                …
                “Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.
                Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common,” emphasis mine.

                And it seems to me that this is exactly the point I’m arguing: that while clearly there come to be single leaders, this is done by custom, and not by divine appointment. If that’s your view of the monarchical bishop as well, I think we’re in agreement here; at a minimum, I think we have to say that we both have fourth century evidence in support of our readings – which again suggests to me that we kick things back to the first century data.

                An alternate reading is that he’s saying something like, “Just because there was more than one bishop, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.”

                That would be my reading, yeah. “If you’re going to say, ‘But Jerome! Then there would have been several bishops in the same church, and THAT can’t be right,’ well, look here.”

                On balance, then, it’s hard to pin Jerome down on exactly what he thought Titus’s role was. The overall body of his writings don’t seem to be clearly arguing for or assuming a presbyterian view, as you have described it.

                Would the above quotes from his commentary on Titus suggest greater clarity in this matter? “[B]efore dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil… Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters,” seems pretty explicit, even if he doesn’t think “before” lasts very long (as you say, not even past the time of Mark).

                No, I do not think this is the pattern described in those cities. When we read of the first church council in Acts, the two voices that are prominent are Peter and James.

                Paul and Barnabas seem to be, as well. But here’s the more interesting bit, to me: you’re the first Catholic I’ve conversed with who acknowledges that Peter is present at the council and yet, if anyone is leading the meeting, it’s James. How does that fit into the whole notion of a hierarchy rooted at Peter?

                I think my comments re: reading into the past above apply here as well (though, relatedly, is it not remarkable to see someone other than Peter referred to as “bishop of bishops”?). But again, notice the format: the group is said to meet to consider; decisions are made by the group; letters are sent by and attributed to the group; etc. James is clearly influential, and may serve some function similar to “chair” here, but there does not seem to be enough evidence to conclude that he is monarch.

                As for Corinth, the context is as follows:

                –St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that, “I planted [the church in Corinth], Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” The phrasing there indicates that Apollos was the primary leader of the church in Corinth after Paul left.

                Mm. Apollos clearly mentors the church; I don’t think it follows that he’s the monarchical bishop. And if he were, wouldn’t that be Paul’s proper response? “Stop all this factionalism; Apollos is the rightful bishop of your church, and you should follow as he leads you toward the gospel?”

                But I’m puzzled by your inclusion of the following as supporting evidence:

                –St. Clement writes a letter to the church in the Corinth, and speaks of bishops and presbyters only in the plural. He writes that the men were appointed to the office of the episcopate publicly by the Apostles, and that the Apostles left instructions “that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” He continues, “[T]hose appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church…cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”

                Right, precisely. Where in that explanation of how leaders in the church arise – plural elders, appointed by a group of men, with the church’s consent – is the idea of a monarchical bishop?

                –Ignatius, writing about ten years after Clement, consistently assumes a monarchial bishop in every church that he addresses.

                Except, interestingly, when he writes to Rome.

                When I’m confronted with that kind of evidence, I find myself facing a choice:
                1. I can choose to believe in continuity between the church at a later date and the church at an earlier date.
                2. I can choose to believe that there is discontinuity between the church at an early and later date.
                Given Jesus’s promises to his church to lead it into all truth, send the Holy Spirit, act as its husband and head, etc. I think the first option ought to be our default view as Christians. Unless we have clear evidence otherwise, we ought to believe in continuity. Do you disagree with that?

                Broadly, yes, I do disagree. Let me ground that in a couple of ways.

                First, in the general case, we know that there are major historical discontinuities. We know that early church fathers mostly read Matthew 16 as referencing the faith of Peter; later Catholics read it as Peter himself. We know from the Didache that at least a portion of the early church baptized people who were old enough to fast, and that they defaulted to immersion; later Christians didn’t. We know – to consider just the case of Arianism – that churches, and bishops, and popes, and massive councils can turn against the truths of Christianity, to where Athanasius can be said to stand virtually alone for orthodoxy; to shift and look just at the last couple of years, we know that there’s a discontinuity in Catholicism’s view of capital punishment. In a world where these things are true – a world where the Great Schism happened, where the Western Schism divided the Catholic church for forty years – I see only two possibilities:

                1) Christ lied.
                2) Christ did not intend to promise that human institutional discontinuity in doctrine, practice, leadership, etc. was impossible.

                (1) is unthinkable; (2) must be true.

                (I want to pause and catch my breath there, because that feels like it came off kind of harsh, and also because I recognize that we could have a long conversation about each of those subjects, and I’m not trying to smuggle in your agreement with me on these points. I guess all I’m trying to say is that, in my view, these things present clear discontinuities; the argument that none of them are discontinuous in a meaningful sense is beyond plausibility for me. Even one discontinuity would cause me to say, “Okay, that’s not what Christ is promising, then” – particularly since I don’t think “no discontinuities” is the most natural read to begin with. And if Christ does not intend to promise in this way, I don’t think we have the default conclusion you suggest. Semper reformandum is the principle that we should always be trying to return to the original faith precisely because the church so frequently steps away from it: “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it!” applies to churches as well as individuals.)

                But second, I think in this case specifically we should be open to the possibility of discontinuity because, as I understand you, we agree that there’s discontinuity here. At some point, the Catholic church begins using “bishop” and “elder” to refer to separate titles, where we’ve agreed that’s not the case initially (right?). At some point, the Catholic church introduces an office of “priest” that’s nowhere in this earliest hierarchy, save in reference to all Christians. At some point, we reach a stage where many smart Catholic apologists (Joe included!) would reject the idea that bishop and elder were ever synonymous. All of this argues for discontinuity on the question of roles here – and if we acknowledge that the roles have substantially changed, it seems to me we have to concede that it’s plausible that the monarchical bishopric, too, is a change. Do you disagree?

                Because having reached a point where such change is plausible, the question becomes: “Can we say that first century Christendom must have had, in all cases, government by a monarchical bishop: a title that is nowhere named, nor described, nor given qualifications or bounds or hierarchical description, nor even unambiguously mentioned, anywhere in the first century literature? Or is it plausible that the earliest churches may not, in general, have had this role?” Absent the effort to maintain continuity with modern Catholic doctrine, which is the more likely hypothesis?

                ***

                I’m afraid that was a pretty monstrous post, but I feel bad even as-is for not giving parts of your reply the attention they deserve. Best wishes, and thanks for the continuing conversation!

            24. Hi Irked,

                Thanks again for the response. As I said, we are getting into book territory here, so I’ll give a few thoughts.

                You write, “It seems pretty clear to me is that both of our views, as we’re presenting them here, are incompatible with Joe’s original argument.” I’d actually like to hear Joe’s thoughts on that, since after rereading it I’m not exactly sure. I’d assume, for example, that he’d agree that Titus was the bishop of Crete, which would mean he’s not strictly arguing for a “one parish – one bishop” rule. I don’t know if he (or anyone else at this point!) is still following this conversation though.

                You ask, “First, are you saying that some early churches plausibly could have had monarchical bishops, or that all first century churches must have had monarchical bishops?”

                I’m saying the second one, but only in a broad sense. I’m not saying each and every single “parish” (to use a modern term) in every location had a monarchical bishop. I do think each and every parish had a monarchical bishop at some level, whether that is at the city, the region, the island, or however else the Apostles and their successors decided to arrange things. In other words, I think the church as a whole was hierarchical, and that for every individual parish, there was a single head somewhere.

                You ask, “Do you see any evidence in the first century for the usage of the terms “elder/bishop” to describe an office that governs multiple churches?” I’m not aware of that particular evidence, but I don’t think that’s required in order to demonstrate the point. I think the description of Titus’s role in the first century coupled with the historical evidence from the following centuries is evidence of the role existing. It also depends on how you define “church” in that question. Does every single group of Christians gathering in a home count as a “church”?

                You write, “I would be interested to hear you outline what, for a Catholic, are the relevant dogmatic necessities here.” That’s a great question, and I’ll put my initial thoughts down here without really consulting any sources. (I just need to buy Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*. It’s good about these sort of questions) I would say the following are necessary:

                –The church is a single, unified organization.
                –The church is governed by the Apostles, the successors they appoint, and the successors that those successors appoint, etc., such that no one properly has authority in the church unless they received it in this manner, from the top-down.
                –The church has a hierarchical structure (as I briefly described above) and a single head – Peter and his successors.

                I’m forgetting something, I think, and of course we’ve been discussing only a single narrow point within this scope. We haven’t really touched on the three-tiered structure of Holy Orders questions, but briefly, I don’t know of any Catholic dogma that would prohibit or conflict with the idea that only bishops and deacons were ordained initially by the Apostles. (however long “initially” lasted).

                You write, “Even if my view is entirely correct, however, we’d expect later Catholic commentators to read the monarchical bishop as they experience it back into the past, right?” Bias exists, of course, but as a general rule, I’m super hesitant to start down those lines of thinking unless we have a very good reason. It tends to unravel any evidentiary value for historical texts. And I think it’d be much more likely to take place in someone like Jerome (who is using the texts to argue for a very particular point) than Eusebius (who stated goal is simply to record history and is not arguing against any opposing view). Also, apologies on the date, that was just a mistype.

                You write, “But here’s the more interesting bit, to me: you’re the first Catholic I’ve conversed with who acknowledges that Peter is present at the council and yet, if anyone is leading the meeting, it’s James. How does that fit into the whole notion of a hierarchy rooted at Peter?” Great question that I’m afraid I don’t really have time to explore.

                You write, “But I’m puzzled by your inclusion of the following as supporting evidence:” I should have been clearer. It’s not supporting evidence for my thesis; it is historical context. My goal is to include all relevant historical context I’m aware of, not just the ones that I think clearly support my thesis. I think 1 Clement is good evidence of apostolic succession, but since your particular definition of presbyterian doesn’t really preclude that one way or another, I think 1 Clement is more aligned with your thesis than mine. (Put another way, I’m looking to find truth here! Not “win” an argument!)

                Finally, I greatly appreciate hearing your thinking on the continuity question. I’ll leave most of that alone because I really was mostly just curious. I’ll just clarify one thing. One of the possibilities you mentioned was, “2) Christ did not intend to promise that human institutional discontinuity in doctrine, practice, leadership, etc. was impossible.” And I certainly agree with that. I don’t think it’s possible for the church as a whole to contradict itself (we’ve talked about that on other threads) but obviously I don’t attend Mass at a place that is exactly the same as 1st century Christians did. My presumption, though, is that if it’s reasonable to believe in continuity (in other words, if we have good evidence to support it and no evidence to rule it out), then that should be preferred over believing in discontinuity.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            25. Hi Jordan,

                Seems like we’re winding down – I’ll see if I can continue your pattern of bringing it back in.

                I’d actually like to hear Joe’s thoughts on that, since after rereading it I’m not exactly sure. I’d assume, for example, that he’d agree that Titus was the bishop of Crete, which would mean he’s not strictly arguing for a “one parish – one bishop” rule.

                I’d be interested in this, too.

                I’m saying the second one, but only in a broad sense. I’m not saying each and every single “parish” (to use a modern term) in every location had a monarchical bishop. I do think each and every parish had a monarchical bishop at some level, whether that is at the city, the region, the island, or however else the Apostles and their successors decided to arrange things. In other words, I think the church as a whole was hierarchical, and that for every individual parish, there was a single head somewhere.

                I thought so, but didn’t want to assume. I think that hits the question of burden of proof pretty squarely here: where the argument is that the church always practiced this mode, it seems to me that some pretty solid supporting evidence is required for the claim.

                To go to your later point, I don’t think it’s enough to say “Well, the later church is hierarchical; by default, assume continuity” – like I argued above, all else to the side, we know there’s discontinuity as to how the church thinks about elders/bishops/priests, and the only question is how extensive that discontinuity is. And I think if we’re going to bind a belief on the conscience – to say, “You must, as a point of doctrine, believe that the church has always been hierarchical” – we need some piece of contemporary evidence that explicitly supports the claim.

                That’s about where I land on a lot of Catholic/Protestant issues: I think it’s rare that there’s evidence that firmly, flatly makes the Catholic position impossible under all conceivable readings. I think it’s much more common that the evidence mitigates against the Catholic reading, or is at best ambivalent. But where we require a belief as doctrine, I don’t think that’s enough.

                I’m not aware of that particular evidence, but I don’t think that’s required in order to demonstrate the point. I think the description of Titus’s role in the first century coupled with the historical evidence from the following centuries is evidence of the role existing.

                I think this is where we part ways on the evidence. We can credibly read Titus in a couple of different ways; as I’ve argued, I think that leaves us without any clear, positive contemporary evidence for monarchical bishops. (I think we also have evidence against hierarchy, implicit and otherwise – again, cf. 1 Clement – but that’s a second conversation.)

                Does every single group of Christians gathering in a home count as a “church”?

                It could, yeah – cf. Romans 16:5. I think “church” gets used to describe a lot of different levels of organization – this is a church that’s part of that church that’s all part of the church.

                Bias exists, of course, but as a general rule, I’m super hesitant to start down those lines of thinking unless we have a very good reason. It tends to unravel any evidentiary value for historical texts.

                Ah, I don’t agree. I think there’s a lot of value to historical texts – but I think the past is also a foreign country, and that it’s always hard for people to accurately discuss a past outside their own generation. Look at how much medieval art assumed David rode around in full plate, etc.

                And I think it’d be much more likely to take place in someone like Jerome (who is using the texts to argue for a very particular point) than Eusebius (who stated goal is simply to record history and is not arguing against any opposing view).

                Heh, that’s a more charitable view of Eusebius than I would take. I am in no way expert on him, but my impression is that his histories are an argument: a telling of church history (rightly, as he sees it) in a way that supports imperial partnership – and “the church is hierarchical” is part of that argument. I think there’s some indication of his tendency to read the world through this model in (to go back to Brandon Addison’s article) the way he inserts the word “bishops” into Hegesippus’s succession list: not as a deception, but as an assumption.

                Great question that I’m afraid I don’t really have time to explore.

                Aw. (Probably wise.)

                Take care!

            26. Jordan,

                I was thinking back over our posts, and I think maybe this is what it comes down to for me: what evidence would it take for it to be a reasonable conclusion that the early church does not, universally, have monarchical bishops in the first century?

                I can see where, for a Catholic, the answer might be, “You’d have to totally overturn my faith in Catholicism, so quite a bit” – and if so, I think that’s fair. If that would be your answer, maybe this is what I’m more asking: for someone who didn’t believe Catholic doctrine was inerrant, what evidence would be reasonable to believe this possibility is plausible, or even most likely? Maybe that’s what I’m really asking about: to what extent is “This is the RCC’s position” the determinative evidence?

                (It seems only fair I answer the reverse question: “What evidence would it take for it to be a reasonable conclusion that the early church does, universally, have monarchical bishops in the first century?” And I think I would need to see something in Scripture unambiguously establishing this position: some discussion of it as a standard role, some command to obey the monarchical bishop, something. Beyond that, seeing it consistently in the first century literature would be highly suggestive, but I think it’s the Scripture that would make it definitive for me – i.e., to show that this was the divine will, and not just a cultural practice.

                I don’t know whether we actually want to get into that question at this point, but it feels like something I should have asked a good while back.

            27. Hi Irked,

                It’s funny, you write, “That’s about where I land on a lot of Catholic/Protestant issues: I think it’s rare that there’s evidence that firmly, flatly makes the Catholic position impossible under all conceivable readings. I think it’s much more common that the evidence mitigates against the Catholic reading, or is at best ambivalent.” If you invert the words Catholic and Protestant in that sentence, you have very accurately described my reading of the evidence.

                You write, “I think “church” gets used to describe a lot of different levels of organization – this is a church that’s part of that church that’s all part of the church.”

                Do you see each of these different levels of churches belonging to a single organization? In other words, when you say they are all apart of “the church” do you mean church in the typical Protestant sense of an invisible set of believers, or do you think that all the local churches “reported up” so to speak through a single, visible organization? If you think there are multiple “churches” in Phillipi, for instance, and also that “the church in Phillipi” was governed by multiple bishops, how do you think that worked? Do you think each individual house church was governed by multiple bishops in a presbyterian structure or that the city as a whole was governed that way, or something else I’m not thinking of?

                You ask, “What evidence would it take for it to be a reasonable conclusion that the early church does not, universally, have monarchical bishops in the first century?”

                Assuming that the evidence that we already have in favor of the monarchical view still exists, I would need three things. One, I’d want some kind of 1st century source that is incompatible with the monarchical view, not merely silent on it or compatible with a multiplicity of views. Two, I’d want some evidence of the shift point, some evidence of protest, perhaps, by a college of bishops being robbed of their authority. It seems like the presbyterian view requires this event to have taken place many times over throughout the whole world, and that’s difficult for me to conceive of without evidence. Third, I’d want some documentary evidence to explain why all of these lists of monarchical bishops exist, if in fact the bishops themselves never existed.

                And just to clarify, to this point I’ve been making a historical argument – that the monarchical structure was the structure of the 1st and 2nd century church. That’s a separate question from the dogmatic question of whether it was divinely instituted. If what you’re really trying to figure out is, “What structure did God want?” then an examination of the history won’t really answer that question for someone committed to sola scriptura, who doesn’t believe in sacred tradition. As you imply, even if we could both agree it existed, you might still believe that it is simply custom, not part of the deposit of faith.

                This is related to the question you ask, “to what extent is “This is the RCC’s position” the determinative evidence?” That’s determinative for me on the dogmatic question, but not the historical one. Put another way, when I didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, I still had a monarchical view of church history because I think the historical evidence most clearly points in that direction.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            28. Hi Jordan!

                If you invert the words Catholic and Protestant in that sentence, you have very accurately described my reading of the evidence.

                Ha! Well, I guess that makes sense.

                Okay, but, then here’s my riddle for you. If the natural read of the evidence is that the Catholic position re: monarchical bishops is correct here, such that the Protestant position is – at best – an unlikely alternative crammed in around the edges… why does the majority of historical scholarship agree with the Protestant side? I’m not just talking about Protestant scholars, like Schaff, but a majority of secular scholars – and even a fair number of Catholic historians! – don’t seem to believe in a universal monarchical episcopate in the first century. (I can cite evidence for that claim if you’d like, but there are some examples upthread already.) This isn’t a matter of supernaturalism, where biases against divine intervention might sway conclusions; you say below that, even if we discount Catholic dogma on this issue, the evidence is on your side. If that’s true, why is the Protestant view the standard historical position?

                Do you see each of these different levels of churches belonging to a single organization?

                Not humanly. The only “head” we’re ever told the one body has is Christ; I think Paul in Galatians 1-2 pretty firmly repudiates the idea that there’s an authoritative descending hierarchy that the local churches are obliged to obey.

                On the other hand, there’s nothing that precludes churches from forming hierarchy – the house churches in this area grouping together, say. To your question below, that would explain “the church in Philippi” as a reference, and there seems to be some evidence for that pattern in Rome (and for the early problem that results: people kicked out of one house church joining another).

                If you think there are multiple “churches” in Phillipi, for instance, and also that “the church in Phillipi” was governed by multiple bishops, how do you think that worked?

                Best guess? House churches have a teaching elder or two, who are part of the council of elders for the city. That’s some speculation, though.

                Assuming that the evidence that we already have in favor of the monarchical view still exists, I would need three things. One, I’d want some kind of 1st century source that is incompatible with the monarchical view, not merely silent on it or compatible with a multiplicity of views. Two, I’d want some evidence of the shift point, some evidence of protest, perhaps, by a college of bishops being robbed of their authority. It seems like the presbyterian view requires this event to have taken place many times over throughout the whole world, and that’s difficult for me to conceive of without evidence. Third, I’d want some documentary evidence to explain why all of these lists of monarchical bishops exist, if in fact the bishops themselves never existed.

                That’s a clear, explicit answer, which I really appreciate. A couple of thoughts in response:

                1) That seems like a remarkable wealth of evidence required to establish that any church could have practiced anything other than monarchical hierarchy. By default, I would expect “Some churches may have deviated from the overall pattern” to be a claim in need of relatively little support; “all churches followed this same pattern, universally” seems like it would need a much greater burden of proof. To say it would take all three of the above to establish the possibility of multiple patterns – when there is no clear contemporary mention of monarchical bishops! when the fourth century evidence is decidedly mixed! – seems like a big ask.

                2) To your second evidence: assuming this transition does take place around the end of the first century, we’re talking about a point where – outside Scripture – there are less than half-a-dozen extant Christian sources from the era, right? Isn’t it plausible that even some fairly major changes might not be mentioned in those half-dozen?

                3) To your third evidence: Is there not some indication of how this might have happened in, for instance, the way Eusebius rephrases “a list of successors (of teaching)” to “a list of successors (of bishops)?”

                4) To your first evidence (out of order, I know): what does it mean to be “incompatible?” I would think, for instance, that if we could find a description of changes in church government that make no mention of a role for a MB or for a descending hierarchy in general, that this would be incompatible; if not, what would be? Surely we can’t require an explicit denial – if the MB is not yet commonplace, there wouldn’t be any reason to deny him!

                To that end, we mentioned earlier the bit from 1 Clement 44: “[T]hose appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church…cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” Is that not a description of elder succession incompatible with the monarchical bishop view? Elders are appointed seemingly from below: by “other eminent men” (instead of “the MB” or even “the presbyters,” which is the phrase he uses elsewhere) and finally confirmed by the laity. Is there any role in that description for descending authority? (For that matter, doesn’t ch. 44 lend credence to my reading of Titus: that there is an initial appointment of elders from above, when a church is first finding its feet, but that the later pattern differs?)

                And just to clarify, to this point I’ve been making a historical argument – that the monarchical structure was the structure of the 1st and 2nd century church. That’s a separate question from the dogmatic question of whether it was divinely instituted.

                That’s a very good point.

            29. Hi Irked,

                I’m out of town for the weekend, but I’d be interested in whatever sources you might have. Those you cite above seem to be talking about the use of the terms bishop / presbyter, which we haven’t really been discussing. Is there a scholarly consensus regarding our current question? For example, are you saying there is a consensus that James was not the bishop of Jerusalem or that Titus was not the bishop of Crete?

                I’ll likely respond to the rest of your comments Monday.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            30. Jordan,

                Totally fair request. Let me give a representative sampling.

                Let’s start with the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), in its article “Bishops.” There, it says, “The Apostolic and consequently the Divine origin of the monarchical episcopate has always been contested but especially so since Protestantism put forward the doctrine of a universal Christian priesthood. At the present day, rationalistic and Protestant writers, even those who belong to the Anglican Church, reject the Apostolic institution of the episcopate; many of them relegate its origin to the second century.” (The article, of course, goes on to disagree with this position, but it clearly acknowledges the majority scholarly consensus. I won’t cite all those Protestant scholars it lists, but there are quite a few: Heinrich Holtzmann, J.B. Lightfoot, etc. Lightfoot, they argue, would answer your question regarding James in the affirmative – James was a bishop in the modern sense – but would deny that anyone else was.)

                Philip Schaff is a freebie here, of course, but is a monumental church historian nonetheless, and is repeatedly clear that he believes no monarchical episcopate is present in many early churches. Likewise, Seventh Day Adventist historian Dr. Kenneth Strand, in his 1966 article “The Rise of the Monarchical Episcopate,” argues at length in a way that makes short summative quotes difficult, but in his summary, he argues that the monarchical episcopate appeared at different rates in different places: in the east, very early, as a cultural tradition, and in the west some time later in response to heretical challenges.

                I claimed even some Catholic historians were on my side here; let me rip off Addison’s sources for a bit. Here’s his quote from Eamon Duffy, in his Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes: “Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles,” emphasis mine.

                Likewise Raymond Brown, in Priest and Bishop: “[O]ur evidence would suggest that the emergence of a single bishop, distinct from the college of presbyter-bishops, came relatively late in the Roman church, perhaps not until well into the 2nd century. Leaders such as Linus, Cletus, and Clement, known to us from the early Roman Church, were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily ‘monarchical’ bishops.”

                Likewise Thomas Patrick Burke, in “The monarchical episcopate at the end of the first century”: “There is no evidence for a monarchical episcopate at the end of the first century except in Asia Minor and Syria, and even in this region the evidence that it was still in process of development.”

                Or Catholic Francis A. Sullivan, in From Apostles to Bishops: “Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a ‘monarchical’ bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was led by a group of presbyters for at least part of the second century.”

                Or again, Catholic George Edward Dolan, in his dissertation: “In other words, as we interpret Jerome all were bishops in the sense in which this word is understood today, with full powers to confirm and ordain. But when the universal monarchical episcopate was introduced into the government of the Church only the chief priests who were subjected to him (in other words, the presbyters) were given only a limited or restricted share in the power of the priesthood,” emphasis mine.

                Or further, Catholic theologian Georg Schollgen, in his “From monoepiscopate to monarchical episcopate”: “Nevertheless, within a few generations the considerable variety of different models
                of community governance was replaced by this new institution: Christian communities governed by presbyters headed by a single bishop, who was in turn assisted by a group of deacons. This new model of Christian ministry with its three degrees had become established throughout the empire by the year 200 at the latest, with only a few possible exceptions.” (Emphasis mine; note that his paper’s title reflects changes from 200-300 AD, subsequent to the rise of “this new model.”)

                Or here’s Oxford professor John McGuckin, of the Orthodox church, in The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology: “The very earliest structures of the Christian ministerial offices are shrouded in obscurity, but by the second century there emerged a triadic form of episkopos-bishop, presbyteros-elder (which was rendered by the Old English ‘Priest’), and diakonos-deacon. This more and more replaced a range of other offices that had characterized the earliest church (such as apostolic missionaries, wandering prophets, exorcists, and didaskaloi-teachers) and became established by the end of the second century as a common pattern in most Christian communities…For all Cyprian’s insistence on his right to single episcopal authority, his own church wavered greatly over whether he, or the assembled presbyters, or the confessors had the higher standing,” emphasis mine.

                Rather than focus on James or Titus specifically, I’m trying here to address our general question: “Is the first century church universally governed by a descending hierarchy via a monarchical episcopate?” Several of these reference the monarchical episcopate directly; others say that the church was led by a group as opposed to an individual, or that a variety of models existed. I recognize that it’s not hard to compile a list of scholars who believe a particular thing; I hope it may be taken as significant that I’m trying to prioritize non-Protestant scholars and sources, and that indeed even a Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges the weight of scholarship concurs with the Protestant position. (I will also fully own that I am not well familiar with these sources, and that it’s possible I have failed to properly represent some of them. It seems unlikely I have failed to represent all of them.)

                Would that work as a sampling, then?

                Safe travel!

            31. Hi Irked,

                Thanks for taking the time to put that list together. It deserves more time than I can give it, unfortunately, but it’s helpful to have some names for future research. Obviously, I can’t answer your earlier riddle about why the secondary sources argue the way they do without taking the time to examine them. Dr. Kruger notes that many scholars who take the presbyterian view attribute the “development” of the monarchical system to Ignatius. I’ve encountered that claim in previous reading too, such as in Gregg Allison’s *Historical Theology,* and I don’t think that fits with Ignatius’s writings. I agree with Joe in that I read Ignatius as speaking of and taking for granted an already existing structure (at the very beginning of the second century), rather than advocating for or causing a change in structure. Perhaps some of these scholars read him in the same way Dr. Allison does, and perhaps they have arguments as to why that is the case. But in reading the letters themselves, I don’t see it.

                You write, “That seems like a remarkable wealth of evidence required to establish that any church could have practiced anything other than monarchical hierarchy.”

                It is a lot of evidence, yes; that’s partially a reflection of what I think is the strength of the existing evidence. It’s also related to the exact nature of my claim. Again, I’m not claiming that every local gathering had a single bishop, but that the church as a whole was hierarchical, that at some level everybody reported to somebody else (to use a business metaphor). I think here we are each bringing our conception of what the “church” actually is to the evidence. I see it as a single organization and you do not.

                You write, “Isn’t it plausible that even some fairly major changes might not be mentioned in those half-dozen?” Yes, but that cuts both ways. The lack of evidence in general makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions based solely on the 1st century evidence.

                You write, “Is there not some indication of how this might have happened in, for instance, the way Eusebius rephrases “a list of successors (of teaching)” to “a list of successors (of bishops)?”” 
                I don’t have a good understanding of the original language, could you direct me to the source of that claim?

                You write, “what does it mean to be “incompatible?” … Surely we can’t require an explicit denial – if the MB is not yet commonplace, there wouldn’t be any reason to deny him!” 

                No, that’s not what I have in mind. But some kind of explicit command like, “The congregation should appoint multiple elders who each have equal authority,” would certainly be incompatible!

                You cite 1 Clement and write, “Is that not a description of elder succession incompatible with the monarchical bishop view?”

                No, it is compatible with both views. Clement’s purpose in the preceding passage is to argue that authority in the church is handed on in a visible way so as to avoid contention. Christ told the Apostles directly that there would be strife on account of the episcopacy (as always, our Lord is correct!). Therefore, Clement says, the Apostles “appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” In other words, the Apostles took steps to ensure that there would be no confusion as to who had authority in the church and who did not. He earlier makes the comparison between this action of the Apostles, and Moses appointing the family of Aaron to the priesthood.

                He then says “We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” First, given the immediate context, the most reasonable reading here is that the “other eminent men” are identical to the “other approved men” in the previous sentence. And of course, we know that the other approved men are bishops.

                Second, “with the consent of the whole church” can be read in multiple ways. He could be using “consent” to imply that some kind of formal consent was required and only then was a particular person empowered to the office of bishop. Or he could mean “consent” to imply that the action of the Corinthians was especially grievous because the men they removed were not chosen in any contentious way, so as to leave doubt that they have authority. He could be using the word “church” to mean the laity of the local congregation, or he could be using it to mean the church as an institution. So that part of his statement is compatible with either view. For what it’s worth (perhaps not much) it would seem weird to me for the Apostles to say something like, “We appoint bishops, our successors appoint bishops, but after that any group of eminent men in a local congregation can appoint their bishops.” Why wouldn’t the pattern simply continue?

                Elsewhere in the letter Clement writes, “For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.”

                Here Clement is comparing the structure of the local congregation to the structure of the Jewish temple. Each person has a prescribed ministry and should not go beyond what is prescribed to them. Interestingly, he describes four orders: high priest, priest, Levite, and laymen, and says that each person should live in accord with their order. This corresponds well to the monarchical view of local church government, but the presbyterian view is “missing” a layer, so to speak. To make sense of this passage in the presbyterian view, you’d have to spiritualize the the meaning of “high priest” to refer to Christ. This is a possible reading (Clement later calls Jesus high priest), but the immediate context implies all the levels are present in the local assembly.

                Finally, we should ask: Why did the Corinthians write to the bishop of Rome? And why was his response so revered that it was later read at Mass alongside scripture? If Clement is the head of the universal church, both of these facts are explainable, but if he is simply another equal presbyter at a church that is only loosely affiliated with the Corinthian church, then their actions are quite puzzling.

                On the whole then, 1 Clement does give us some reasons to believe the monarchical view is correct, and does not contain anything incompatible with that view.

                Peaceful days,

                Jordan

            32. Jordan – not overlooking your post (and pondering how to answer!), but I’m in transit myself this week; it may be a few days before I have space free to reply.

3. Hi Jordan and Irked,

   Why do you guys ignore the evidence provided by scripture itself reading ecclesiastical monarchical authority as found in scripture? The Book of revelations details such authority in the first three chapters.

   In the online version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Chapter 2 starts thus:

   “Directions what to write to the angels or bishops of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus and Thyatira.”

   Has it ever been know that anyone in world history wrote a letter to an angel? No. And all indications is that the term angel indeed means “Bishop”. So, why search through so many of the Fathers of the Church writings, when we have a perfect example of monarchical type bishops ruling over cities? Why ‘hop-scotch’ this evidence??….just because philosophers prefer logic over parable? Well, then, I guess Christian philosophers have to through aways about 50% of everything Jesus said or did in His life…as about 50% of everything He said an did was expressed by example and metaphor and parable.

   I’m just curious why these chapters of the book of Revelation are ignored in this discussion? And especially because their place in the same book are the VERY FIRST THREE chapters…which preeminent placement itself should have significance and be noted well, to all those who love religious wisdom and truth?

   Any ideas?

   Reply

   1. Al,

      Briefly, because the usage of “angel/messenger” is not clearly defined in the passage, and so several interpretations (each with its own flaws) suggest themselves; see here, for instance. “Leader” is a possible interpretation, but only one of several plausible readings.

      Reply

      1. Hi Irked,

         It is very clear that the 7 candlesticks mentioned in the first chapter are the literal 7 Churches of Asia. So, this mystery is solved in the chapter itself. So the seven Churches are metaphorically described as ‘candlesticks’. We can expect the stars which are called ‘angels’ are also too be understood metaphorically as they are closely associated with the candlesticks.

         Now, read this paragraph and it will prove that the angels are mere metaphors for singular personalities which control each individual Church. We would call these single leaders/angels/stars, today, bishops:

         “[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write: These things saith he, who holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: [2] I know thy WORKS, and THY LABOUR, and thyPATIENCE, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: [3] And thou hast patience, and HAST ENDURED for my name, and HAST NOT FAINTED. [4] But I have somewhat against thee, because THOU HAST LEFT THY FIRST CHARITY. [5] Be mindful therefore from WHENCE THOU ART FALLEN: and DO PENANCE, and DO THE FIRST WORKS. Or else I come to thee, and will MOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF IT’S PLACE, except thou DO PENANCE.”

         Irked, angels don’t do penance.The don’t faint. They don’t fall. they don’t return to ‘FIRST WORKS’ (ie..amend themselves). So, these angels are humans that are each in charge of one Church i.e.. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus and Thyatira…etc..

         Moreover, above you will note that it is said of the Angel/Bishop of Ephesus: “MOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF IT’S PLACE” if he doesn’t do penance. The word THY signifies that this Bishop is in possession of his candlestick/church.

         So, Irked, I really can’t see how you have such a hard time understanding this passage? Angels, again, don’t do penance, sinful men do penance. This scripture is very powerful evidence for the existence of monarchical bishops leading the early Churches. It’s not as mysterious as you make it out to be. Other succeeding chapters of Revelation might by confusing…but not these initial 3 chapters.

         Best to you.

         Reply

         1. Al,

            That’s one interpretation of the passage, yes. It’s one of half-a-dozen, and like the others, it has problems: there’s no precedent for referring to church leaders as ‘angels’; it suggests that the ‘angel’ is purely responsible for both the sinful and righteous actions of his church, rather than the congregation who actually commit those acts; it ignores the fact that the subsequent verses switch back and forth between referring to the angel in the plural; etc.

            It’s a possible read! It’s not enough to declare that its option must be true, nor does it overturn the clear passages already mentioned, as most scholars (Catholic or otherwise) agree.

            Reply

            1. Irked,

               If any theologian reads this quote below, and says he doesn’t know if the “Angel” is a human being, or not….then this theologian lacks common sense and simple intelligence. No one needs a commentary on it as it is completely explicit in it’s text. So, no….there is no controversy regarding the nature of the “angel” in this passage”

               1. “… I know thy tribulation and thy poverty [human condense…not angelic],

               2. ” …but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. [ Demonstrates that the ‘angel’ is known personally by the Jews as being a human being]

               3.”Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer [ human/bodily persecution]. Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison [ the Devil will not throw an angel into prison…but his servants will throw human beings into prison, as they did Sts. Peter and Paul]that you may be tried: and you shall have tribulation ten days.

               4. “Be thou faithful until death: and I will give thee the crown of life.” [Angels DON’T suffer death…humans do.]

               Irked, I don’t care what theologian you choose to teach on these words above. If he teaches that the ‘angel’ in the passage above is NOT HUMAN, he is not worthy to be teaching and commenting on sacred scripture.”

               I can’t believe any are so foolish as to think the ‘angel’ here described in these few words is anything but a human being/ disciple who is undergoing severe persecution for the faith of Christ. There should be only ONE READING of this passage….and exactly for the reasons I gave above in the brackets, above.

               End of story.

            2. Irked, I don’t care what theologian you choose to teach on these words above. If he teaches that the ‘angel’ in the passage above is NOT HUMAN, he is not worthy to be teaching and commenting on sacred scripture.”

               That’s a pretty harsh criticism of Origen – especially for a Catholic.

            3. I’m focused only on the particular words from Rev.2 that I provided above, and with my commentary in the brackets…nothing more and nothing less. If Origen thinks otherwise…regarding this very same passage, he’s wrong.

               And, Origin is wrong in very many things, Catholic or no Catholic doesn’t matter. Augustine was wrong in many things as well, as were, likewise, so many of the other Church Fathers. However, in the context of the times they lived in, without the benefit of modern science, their ignorance is very excusable. The early Fathers had some pretty wild opinions regarding the natural world and cosmos. And Origen was not shy in expressing his opinion on such mysterious topics.

               Anyway, truth is more valuable than any title a person gives to himself. Catholicism is no benefit if truth and love in his life is lacking. Catholicism only points the way to truth and love, that is, it points to Jesus Christ and His divinely provided grace and teachings.

            4. If Origen thinks otherwise…regarding this very same passage, he’s wrong.

               And is “not worthy to be teaching and commenting on sacred Scripture,” to be clear?

               I think I’m going to bow out, Al. In our past encounters, I’ve often asked you for a positive reading of the passages I present, and we never seem to get to a point where that’s provided. Without that possibility, I don’t think there’s any point in our continuing to debate; I’ll just note that, from the fathers on down, there have been differing interpretations of “angels” here, none of which are without problems; I’ve noted a couple of the issues with your particular reading above.

            5. It’s OK Irked. I made it very clear here that I was not referring to the term ‘angel’ as presented in other parts of Revelation…but to the term ‘angel’ in Revelation 2…and in the very passages I provided you. The text speaks for itself. For one last time I’ll give you an example. You don’t have to respond. It’s just incomprehensible that you can’t understand that this sentence refers to a sinful human being and not an angelic spirit:

               “THOU HAST LEFT THY FIRST CHARITY. [5] Be mindful therefore from WHENCE THOU ART FALLEN: and DO PENANCE, and DO THE FIRST WORKS. Or else I come to thee, and will MOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF IT’S PLACE, except thou DO PENANCE.”

               How many angels do you think there are that DO PENANCE?

               Don’t answer. I’m just showing how ridiculous it is to think this quote has nothing to do with human beings, their works and their sins. The fallen angels are called devils/demons and even mere children know that they do not convert and do penance.

               I’m sorry that you can’t understand this when it is laid down and proven so simply in these three simple sentences, above.

               Oh well…. 🙁

            6. made it very clear here that I was not referring to the term ‘angel’ as presented in other parts of Revelation…but to the term ‘angel’ in Revelation 2

               So was I.

               Okay, once more: “For I think that just as we see certain names recorded in the Scriptures, both of nations and of rulers, which without any hesitation should be referred to evil angels and to hostile powers… so also things that are written about holy men and about a religious nation, we ought to refer to the holy angels and to the good powers. And again elsewhere, speaking as if about the ruler of some nation, he says ‘How has Lucifer, who rose in the morning, fallen from heaven?’ So if the reckoning of the truth compels all these things to be referred to certain angels of malignant power, is not the consequence of the same that what is also written down about the good rulers or nations is to be referred to the angels and ministers of the good powers, as we have said above? Meanwhile, as we began to say, the angels offer the first fruits, each, I believe, of its own nation, and again each of its own church. These are the angels John seems to be writing of in the Apocalypse, for instance, ‘to the angel of the church of the Ephesians,’ or ‘of the Smyrnaeans,’ or ‘of the Laodiceans,’ and of the others that are recorded. So each of the angels offers the first fruits of its own church or nation, which it has been entrusted to manage. Or perhaps there may even be other angels in addition who gather each of the faithful from all nations.” From Origen, in his Homilies on Numbers, emphasis mine. I would invite you to read the relevant homily before replying.

               Was Origen unfit to teach the Scriptures? Are you familiar with the well-regarded views, in addition to either your view or his, that read ‘angel/messenger’ as (for instance) the abstract personification of the church as a whole, or, y’know, as a messenger from that church?

               Your arguments above don’t seem to address the existence of these possibilities, nor of the standard critiques they offer (a few of which I quoted to you already), nor do they offer any engagement with any of the other clear texts on the subject. Have you done any reading on different views on this passage?

      2. Irked, we don’t need philosophy or logic here. We don’t need to complicate things.

         If a person shows you a painting titled “Chimpanzee” but the figure portrayed has the snout, eyes, tongue, ears, tail, fur, coloring, teeth of a German shepherd… you don’t need to pay attention to the title, the details of the painting prove by themselves that the figure portrayed is in all truth a German Shepherd.

         This is the same here. We need to pay attention to the details provided by St. John which describe the attributes of, for instance, the “Angel” of Smyrna. The focus should not be on the title: Angel…but rather on the details provided which describe the character and attributes of the particular person at Smyrna that he is actually writing to. And these details prove that the person named “angel” has all the attributes of a human being, proving that indeed this person described as an angel is actually a leader of the Church of Smyrna, who will in turn teach the contents of the letter to the Church members there. And this is the PROOF that he is human and not literally ‘angelic’ in nature….just like the painting titled “chimpanzee” but which shows in detail a very healthy German Shepherd dog:

         “And to the angel of the church of Smyrna write: … I know thy tribulation and thy poverty (angels don’t have poverty), but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things (angels don’t have fear)which thou shalt suffer (men suffer in this world not angels). Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison (prisons are earthly and angels can’t be restrained by bars and chains)that you may be tried: and you shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful until death (angels don’t die): and I will give thee the crown of life.”

         This one simple quote is sufficient to teach that the so called ‘angel’ is really a very human Church leader/bishop. The evidence is before your very eyes. And the same goes with all other the other Churches that were written to by St. John.

         Hence this quote…and the others too…are very sufficient to teach that the word “Angel” was descriptive in nature, but not literal. It is probably a quality that each Bishop should try to attain to, considering that he is a leader of the holy Church of Christ…who says “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”.

         So, if you can only focus on the words spoken to the 7 churches….you easily understand that the word ‘angel’ is description of what a true Christian leader should be.

         And yes, I have read a lot from all the Fathers, including Origen. And I like some of what they write and I reject some ‘wacky’ things they write also. And, this includes MANY of the ‘fathers’ …they often include some very wacky stuff included in their writings. On the other hand they obviously have some great teachings and writings also.

         But regarding the nature of ‘angel’ in Rev. 2….the quotes above are very sufficient evidence for those who have ‘common sense”.

         Reply

         1. Irked, we don’t need philosophy or logic here.

            Yes, that’s sometimes my impression in our conversations.

            I made my argument; you’ve opted not to reply to anything I said. Again. Have a nice day!

            Reply

            1. Irked,

               The Pharisees of Jesus’ day took many things that Jesus did and taught and tried to conflate and re-interpret them …. thereby making His words and deeds less understandable to the people following Him. Even His miracles were logically denounced and rebuked for not conforming to their own pharisaical doctrines and liturgical practices. So, we see in the Gospel stories that such philosophy is excellent for fooling and turning people from the truth that Jesus taught..as we read over and over again in the stories of the NT. On the contrary, over and over again, the Lord tried to simplify religious truth and practice, so much so, that even the poor and illiterate might easily understand and fall into love with His Heavenly Father. Jesus was exactly the opposite of the hypocritical Pharissee’s of the gospel message.

               On the other hand, if philosophy and logic can clarify a subject matter, then in all wisdom it should be used. But if it is not needed, because of the preponderance of evidence is abundantly available, then philosophy is not needed. And, in the case that we have regarding the letters to the ‘angels’, philosophy isn’t necessary due to the over-abundant evidence provided by the particular text itself.

               Considering the ‘literal interpretation’ that you seem to support, even the very physical act of writing and delivering a book/letter to a ‘literal’ angel is completely absurd. To see the absurdity abundantly just consider that John is said to be imprisoned on the Island of Patmos. Yet, he is instructed to write a physical letter of parchment and ink to ANGELS located in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis.. etc…

               So, In a ‘literal’ understanding of Rev.2, John on the Isle of Patmos would need to send the Book/letter first by sea and then by land to reach the various destinations of the cities indicated. Yet, when the letters are delivered…exactly where in Ephesus Smyrna, Pergamum, etc… would this final destination for the physical letter be? That is, how does a carrier of a message or book locate an angel of God?? Or, does John just instruct the delivery carrier to walk around the city waiting for the angel to appear to him? The absurdity of delivering a physical letter to a literal angel is over whelming! Has it ever been heard ANYWHERE IN HUMAN LITERATURE that a message or book written to and delivered in a physical way to a spirit/angel of God?

               So, you can see why philosophy and logic is not needed in this case as the literal interpretation is patently absurd on every level. Rather, what IS needed is what St. John recommends later in Rev. 13:18, where he says: ” This calls for wisdom” […ie..to understand the meaning].

               Anyway, “to each his own”…as they say. I have defended my position in “spirit and truth”. If you can’t understand Rev. 2 after all the evidence I gave…and proofs for the absurdity of the literal interpretation of Rev. 2…I guess you just lack the wisdom that John recommends in Rev. 13:18 for just such an understanding?

               Best to you in your search for the truth.

4. auto correct error: “reading” in the first sentence above should actually be “regarding”.

   Reply

5. The replies of Jordan completely disprove Irked.
   I hope he repented of his blatant denial of the truth, in favor of his own personal interpretation and opinions.

   Reply

6. You left out a couple of groups that support you. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses also believe that the office of Bishop (Overseer) and Elder (Presbyter) are different offices. Mormons do have a different opinion than any other group on Elder. Mormons believe the office of Priest and Elder are different. In Romans 15:16 Paul while an Apostle is acting like a Priest or a Presbyter even though he is not a Priest. Many Mormon intellectuals believe there were no Priests in the early church because the Elders did that role in order not to confuse and alienate the Jews who had Levite Priests. When going to Romans 15:16 you have to read many versions to find the Priestly connections. Protestants leave it out and say minister.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.