Ignatius of Antioch may have proposed a three-point system of ecclesiastical rank, but the Primitive Christians knew of no such arrangement. Concerning EPISKOPOS, J. Rohde contends: "one is not to conclude from the [singular usage in 1 Tim. 3:2] that already a single bishop is assumed as a monarchical leader at the head of the community" (Exegetical Dictionary of the NT, Vol. 2:36).
Rohde reasons that the use of the singular in 1 Tim. 3:2 is generic and the context likely supports his view. He thus concludes:
"The monarchical bishop appears first in Ignatius. It
is not certain, however, whether Ignatius describes
existing conditions or sets up ideal requirements that
do not correspond to reality." (Ibid.)
Again, Christ taught: "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. You, though, are not to be that way. But let him that is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one acting as chief as the one ministering" (Lk. 22:25-27).
Based on these dominical utterances from our Lord, I have no problem acknowledging that there are individuals in the
congregation, who take the lead and even govern the Christian ecclesia (Hb. 13:7, 17). But I would no more call these men "leaders" than call myself the "leader" or "chieftain" of my family since my decisions are "binding" (in principle) as head of my family. But the family head is not necessarily the family "leader" (1 Cor. 11:3).
One Catholic commentator believes that the term EKKLHSIA in Mt. 18:17 has reference to the local Christian community (A.T. Robertson explains this passage in a similar fashion). The Catholic scholar writes: "The local congregation is meant, whether in formal assembly for meeting or through its board of elders" (Daniel J Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew [Sacra Pagina Series], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1991, page 269).
Jehovah's Witnesses take Jesus' words seriously and try to imitate what Harrington (S.J.) calls the "Matthean community." He supplements his observation about EKKLHSIA with these words:
"Against this common Near Eastern tendency toward
social hierarchy Matthew forbids the use of titles and
the exercise of highly authoritative roles (23:8-12) .
. . The resistance to hierarchically structured roles
and emphasis on equality is typical of sects in the
first generation. All the members have begun a new
life together and are to participate fully and equally
in the emerging community" (Harrington, op. cit., page
323).
While I do not agree with Harrington's assessment of Matthew's Gospel as a whole, and while I do not accept his historical-critical presuppositions, his exegesis of Mt. 23:8-12 appears to be on target. If rejecting ecclesiastical hierarchy places me in company with the "Matthean community," then so be it!
To clarify the position set forth here, though, I have no problem with elders, ministerial servants (DIAKONOI) or different types of overseers supervising the ecclesia today.
15 comments:
I like the part where the husband and father of a family, but he doesn't have to lead. Really the head of the woman and children is man and the head of the man is Jesus, it keeps everything in perspective likewise elders strive to keep this in mind, if they don't, then they don't remain elders for very long. More than likely they may never be an elder again if they don't humble themselves. It all comes down to leading by example. The scripture I like the most for elders, those taking the lead is found at Romans 12:10. That is what moves an elder to be a good elder and any christian to have the Christ like attitude.
Good thought from Rom 12:10. I checked the WT Library to see if husbands are ever called "leaders" of the family, and did not find anything. As you mentioned, elders take the lead (and so do husbands), but they are not leaders. They lead by example and must be servants as Jesus taught. See also 1 Peter 5:1-6.
Hi Edgar.
As with the theology of Ignatius of Antioch (discussed here on earlier occasions) I very strongly suspect that the "monarchical" (from "monarchy" = rule by one person) hierarchy found in what survives of his writings, have more than likely been corrupted during transmission. And should not be taken as authoritative.
That's my two cents worth for the discussion.
On a side point. I'm wondering if you have access to, in any way, an article on a passage Irenaeus' "Proof of Apostolic Teaching" 43?
Entitled:
J.P. Smith, "Hebrew Christian Midrash in Irenaeus," Biblica 38:1 (1957)
I had a PDF copy, but was lost when my old computer's died. It used to be available online for free, but no longer. It has to do with a passage where Irenaeus gives an unusual translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1:
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.): "...So then we must believe God in all things, for in all things God is true. Now that there was a Son of God, and that He existed not only before He appeared in the world, but also before the world was made, Moses, who was the first that prophesied says in Hebrew: "BARESITH BARA ELOWIN BASAN BENUAM SAMENTHARES". And this, translated into our language, is: “The Son in the beginning God established then the heaven and the earth..." - (Chapter 43, "Proof Of The Apostolic Preaching" Translated by Joseph P. Smith, 1952.)
Tertulian mentions the same interpretation in Adv. Prax. 5.1, though not taking it as authoritative. Any help in finding this article, would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Kind regards.
Matt13weedhacker.
https://bible.org/article/who-should-run-church-case-plurality-elders
Much of this is recognised but is it put into action?
It has always been lead by example. I've seen a lot of elders removed for trying to push their thoughts on the sheep, even if they are completely right if the other elders don't agree, it won't happen. That is the way it should be.
But particularly I've noticed in Christendom they don't lead in anyway, they pop off a lot with meaningless chatter. Still the judgement is Jehovah's. Yes being humble as Peter says is so important, modesty is also necessary. But even Jehovah acts with humility. That is the top my brother that is the top.
Hi Matt13,
Thanks for the point on Ignatius. I also tried finding the article you wanted, but our university only holds Biblica issues from 1998-present, which are on the web. It's possible that another university or library might have the article. For some reason, Biblica limits the issues that can be read online.
I wrote about this portion of Adversus Prax and Irenaeus a little in my M.Th. thesis. Here are my comments on the text in Adv Prax 5:
The first text that the skilled Christian rhetorician considers is Gen 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram). He then discloses that “certain people” think the primitive cosmic account contained in Moses' first pentateuchal book should actually read: “In the beginning God made for himself a Son” (aiunt quidam et Genesim in Hebraico ita incipere in principio deus fecit sibi filium). However, Evans suggests that Tertullian has evidently “misunderstood his informant” since this imaginative reading does not seem to reoccur in other Patristic writings. Bernard Lonergan, on the other hand, defends the reliability of Tertullian’s report citing Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 6.7.58; 6.39.2), Jerome (Quaest Hebr In Gen 1:1), and Irenaeus as sources that support Tertullian.
In any event, Tertullian (for sound theological and textual reasons) appropriately rejects such a reading of Gen 1:1 and concludes that God subsisted in a solitary but self-sufficient or autarchic condition before the creation of the cosmos: “until the generation of the Son” (fuit ante mundi constitutionem as usque filii generationem).
See Lonergan, The Way to Nicea: The Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology, trans. Conn O'Donovan (London: Dartman, Longman, and Todd, 1976), 23-24. VL reads: “In principio fecit deus caelum et terram." The Latin Vg says: "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram."
Duncan, thanks for the link, and that's a good point. Not too many churches and pastors follow this example in my area or in the USA.
Philip, I can only affirm what you say. Jehovah sets the example where humility is concerned, and I'm thankful for the way he conbdescends to deal with us lowly humans. The Governing Body (FDS) has often reminded us that elders are fellow workers rather than masters of our faith. They have a heavy load as Heb 13:7, 17 and James 3:1 show. Thanks, my brother.
Hi again Matt13weedhacker,
I didn't have time yesterday to say that the whole authentic writings of Ignatius is interesting. We clearly have some apocryphal stories about him, and one can't help but wonder which words of his are genuine.
Best,
Edgar
Thanks for your comments Edgar.
A fact often overlooked, is that the Middle recension (considered to be "thee genuine" epistles by many) is always accompanied with/by the Long recension in the MSS (at least in the oldest version of the Middle rec. in Greek).
To my knowledge at least, know one has collated the MSS for the Long rec. Which is a pity. There should be a critical evaluation, rather than assumptions based on theological preferences in my book.
Recommended reading:
http://www.bennozuiddam.com/The%20Vossian%20recension%20of%20Ignatius%20reconsidered.pdf
Kind regards, YB.
Matt13weedhacker.
The claim that hierarchy and the office of a bishop were non-existent in the first century contradicts both scriptural and historical evidence. While it is true that early Christian communities may not have used the same ecclesiastical titles that were formalized later, the structure of leadership was already present. The terms episkopos (overseer) and presbyteros (elder) were not devoid of hierarchical connotations, even though they had not yet fully developed into the distinct offices of bishop and priest we see later.
Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century (circa 110 AD), explicitly describes a three-tiered system of leadership: bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyteroi), and deacons (diakonoi). Ignatius makes it clear that bishops were seen as having a unique role, distinct from the elders and deacons. For example, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he writes: "Let no one do anything of concern to the church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints" (Smyrnaeans 8:1-2). This is a clear statement that the bishop held authority over the community and over the celebration of the sacraments.
The argument that Ignatius was simply proposing an "ideal" system and not describing the actual structure of the Church lacks support. By the time of Ignatius, the monarchical episcopate was already a well-established reality in many Christian communities, particularly in Asia Minor. His letters describe the existing structure rather than introducing a novel idea.
The claim that the singular usage of episkopos in 1 Timothy 3:2 does not imply a monarchical leader is based on a misunderstanding of how titles were used in the New Testament. While it is true that in some cases the terms episkopos and presbyteros were used interchangeably, this does not mean there was no hierarchical distinction. As we have seen, even in the early Christian writings, the term episkopos (overseer) took on a special meaning, distinct from that of presbyteros (elder).
The reference to episkopos in 1 Timothy 3:2 speaks of the qualities and responsibilities expected of an overseer in the Church. It is a role that implies leadership, governance, and spiritual oversight. The singular usage could refer generically to the office or role rather than implying that there was no singular leader. Even in plural references (such as Philippians 1:1), where multiple episkopoi are mentioned, this reflects a collective of overseers within a local community rather than a denial of hierarchical roles.
Furthermore, the reference to episkopos in Acts 20:28, where Paul speaks to the "overseers" of the Church in Ephesus, reinforces that these individuals were entrusted with the leadership and spiritual care of their communities. This leadership role inherently carries hierarchical implications, even if the full development of the office of bishop as we know it today was still in progress.
The argument cites Luke 22:25-27 and Matthew 23:8-12 as evidence that Christ rejected hierarchical leadership. However, these passages emphasize humility in leadership, not the abolition of structured roles. Christ’s teaching that "the greatest among you must become the servant of all" does not deny the need for leaders within the Church; rather, it highlights the servant-leadership model that should characterize Christian authority.
In Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus warns against the misuse of titles and the abuse of authority, but this does not negate the existence of leadership roles within the Church. The context of these passages speaks to the attitude and behavior of leaders, not the rejection of hierarchical structures. Christ’s instruction was aimed at promoting humility, service, and the avoidance of arrogance, but the Church was still to be governed by those appointed to oversee and guide the flock, as seen in passages like 1 Timothy 5:17 and Hebrews 13:7, 17.
The argument that episkopoi and presbyteroi were not hierarchically arranged misinterprets their roles in the early Church. The early Church recognized that certain individuals were appointed for leadership and oversight. In Titus 1:5-7, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, clearly indicating a structured system of governance. In this passage, Paul uses both presbyteros and episkopos to describe the same individuals, but this does not imply a lack of hierarchy. It reflects the early use of these terms to describe those who held responsibility for leadership, which later developed into more distinct offices.
While the exact distinctions between bishop, elder, and deacon evolved over time, the early Church already recognized a functional hierarchy in which certain leaders were set apart for specific roles. The argument presented here ignores the fluid nature of terminology in the early Church and imposes an anachronistic reading on the development of ecclesial offices.
The idea that Christ’s teachings prohibit hierarchy is a misreading of Scripture. Christ Himself appointed the Apostles as leaders of the Church (Matthew 16:18, John 20:21-23), and the Apostles, in turn, appointed others to continue this leadership (Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 4:14). The early Church was not a flat organization devoid of structure, but one that recognized the need for appointed leaders to guide the community and maintain doctrinal integrity.
The suggestion that there were no bishops in the first century or that early Christian leadership was not hierarchical overlooks a substantial body of evidence. The office of episkopos (overseer) is indeed mentioned in the New Testament (1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, Acts 20:28), and while it may not have developed into the monarchical episcopate we recognize today until the second century, the foundations of a hierarchical structure were already present.
Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, is one of the clearest voices affirming this structure. In his letters, he consistently refers to a threefold ministry consisting of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Ignatius not only supports the existence of bishops but insists on their critical role in maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the Christian community. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes: "Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and follow the presbytery as you would the apostles" (Smyrnaeans 8:1). This statement highlights the hierarchical nature of early Church leadership, with the bishop serving as a central figure of authority.
The argument that Ignatius' writings may have been corrupted is not supported by scholarly consensus. The "Middle Recension" of Ignatius' letters, which is widely regarded as the most reliable, has been critically examined by numerous scholars and is generally accepted as authentic. While it is true that the "Long Recension" contains later interpolations, the Middle Recension reflects the genuine teachings of Ignatius and provides a clear window into early Church leadership structures.
Additionally, there is no compelling historical evidence to suggest that Ignatius' writings were deliberately altered to impose a hierarchical system that did not previously exist. On the contrary, Ignatius' letters reflect the ecclesial practices of the communities he addressed, rather than introducing novel ideas about Church governance. The idea that Ignatius was fabricating or projecting an idealized vision of Church leadership is unlikely, given the widespread acceptance and influence of his writings in the early Christian world.
The argument cites passages like Luke 22:25-27 and Matthew 23:8-12 to suggest that Christ rejected hierarchy altogether. However, these passages emphasize humility and servanthood, not the abolition of leadership roles. Christ’s teaching that "the greatest among you must become as the youngest" (Luke 22:26) is a reminder that Christian leaders are to serve others, but it does not deny the existence of leaders or hierarchical structures. Similarly, Matthew 23:8-12 warns against the abuse of titles and authority but does not suggest that the Church should lack leaders.
In fact, the New Testament contains multiple references to leaders who were appointed to oversee and govern the Church. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, Paul outlines the qualifications for episkopoi, who were responsible for overseeing the community. The use of the term episkopos in these contexts suggests a formal office, distinct from other roles within the Church. Additionally, Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17 instruct believers to obey their leaders and submit to their authority, further indicating that a structured leadership hierarchy was in place.
While it is true that the office of bishop evolved over time, this does not mean that hierarchy was absent in the first century. The early Church was still in the process of organizing its leadership structures, and the terms episkopos and presbyteros were sometimes used interchangeably. However, by the second century, the distinction between these offices became more formalized, with the bishop serving as the chief overseer of a local community, assisted by presbyters and deacons.
This development was not a corruption or a departure from earlier practices but rather a natural progression as the Church grew and expanded. The writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp all attest to the existence of bishops in the early Church, and there is no reason to believe that these figures were misrepresenting the reality of Christian leadership at the time.
The analogy of family leadership presented in the argument reflects a misunderstanding of both the nature of Church leadership and the scriptural teachings on authority. While it is true that Christian leaders, like family heads, are called to lead by example (1 Peter 5:3), this does not negate the reality of their authority. Paul clearly teaches that husbands are the heads of their families (Ephesians 5:23) and that they are responsible for leading and providing spiritual guidance. Similarly, Church leaders (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) are entrusted with the spiritual oversight of their communities.
Leading by example does not exclude the exercise of authority. In fact, Jesus Himself modeled this form of leadership. He washed the feet of His disciples, demonstrating humility, but He also commanded them to follow His teachings and obey His instructions (John 13:13-17). This balance of servant-leadership and authoritative guidance is at the heart of Christian leadership.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1476993X20914798
Hübner finds the most likely date for the Ignatian letters to be around 160–180 ce. If so, the letters are forged in the name of Ignatius of Antioch, whose martyrdom made him a prime candidate to become an authoritative voice with which to address believers at that time (Hübner 1997: 67-70).
Post a Comment