The emergence of a differentiation between presbyter and episcopos

[John Peel]

I am intreagued by the transition from the apostolic era, (By that I refer to the original Apostles), into what became an episcopal/presbyterian form of government. To kick off the whole subject would someone please to explain the emergence of a two fold ministry from one that was clearly, in Biblical terms, a singular office?

In Scripture the titles elder and bishop were interchangeable signifying in context difference aspects of a singular role. 1 Clement 44:1-6, continues to recognise this duality of title but singular office, (cf vv2 & 5). He also speaks of the such being appointed by "reputable men with the approval of the whole church". As the letter is addressed to the Corinthians "the whole church" must surely refer to that singular congregation. Clement rebukes the local church for removing, as he saw it, godly men who were serving honourably, implying that no rebuke would have been forthcoming had the men really been unworthy. To my mind therefore Clement views the local curch to have the authority of appointing and removing men in the office of elder/bishop.

By the time we get to Ignatius we find (Trallians 3:1ff) the beginnings of a threefold ministry with deacons being urged to respect the bishop "who is the model of the Father, and the presbyters as God's council and as the band of the apostles". Without these, deacons, elders and a bishop, he argues, "no group can be called a church". As I see it the early church fathers sought always to support their findings from Scripture. In what ways can this be shown to fit that pattern?

In Jesus, John

[Michael Stickles]

St. John Chrysostom (c.347 - 407) has somewhat to say on this. Here are comments from the beginning of his 9th homily on First Timothy (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.xii.html):


Discoursing of Bishops, and having described their character, and the qualities which they ought to possess, and having passed over the order of Presbyters, he proceeds to that of Deacons. The reason of this omission was, that between Presbyters and Bishops there was no great difference. Both had undertaken the office of Teachers and Presidents in the Church, and what he has said concerning Bishops is applicable to Presbyters. For they are only superior in having the power of ordination, and seem to have no other advantage over Presbyters.

In his 1st homily on Philippians (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.iii.ii.html), St. Chrysostom speaks of the interchanging of titles between the distinct offices:


"To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons." What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, "Fulfil thy ministry [i.e., diakonate]," when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, "Lay hands hastily on no man." (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, “Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop.

And again, in writing to Titus, he says, "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders [i.e., presbyters] in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife" (Tit. i. 5, 6.); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, "For the Bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward, not self willed." (Tit. i. 7.) So then, as I said, both the Presbyters were of old called Bishops and Deacons of Christ, and the Bishops Presbyters; and hence even now many Bishops write, "To my fellow-Presbyter," and, "To my fellow-Deacon." But otherwise the specific name is distinctly appropriated to each, the Bishop and the Presbyter.

You can see that St. Chrysostom treats the threefold ministry as being already in place at the time of the apostles, not as coming into being at some later time.

As to the interchangeable use of terms, similar patterns could be observed in the use of the term "minister" in various Protestant churches I used to belong to. It normally referred to the preacher, who was usually ordained, yet the term was also used (with some qualifying term to describe what the person was minister of) for offices which were not ordained and came closer to their understanding of a deacon; those churches which actually had an office of deacon still occasionally used other names besides "deacon" in referring to the men (or women) holding that office.

Another thought:


He also speaks of the such being appointed by "reputable men with the approval of the whole church". As the letter is addressed to the Corinthians "the whole church" must surely refer to that singular congregation. Clement rebukes the local church for removing, as he saw it, godly men who were serving honourably, implying that no rebuke would have been forthcoming had the men really been unworthy. To my mind therefore Clement views the local curch to have the authority of appointing and removing men in the office of elder/bishop.

First, note that Clement said that bishops are appointed "by reputable men," not by the local church. The church gives its approval, but does not do the appointing. In what little I've read about appointment of priests and bishops, it looks like the church's "authority" in this is essentially a strong advisory role, so that those who appoint priests or bishops normally will not appoint a given person if the church's approval of that person is not practically assured. How this works in practice I don't know - even though my own diocese will be selecting a new bishop soon, I'm still fuzzy on the procedural details.

As for what can be inferred from Clement's rebuke, I think that 1 Clement 45, which continues the theme, makes clear his real point, which can be summarized as: You have thrust out holy and righteous men; Righteous men are persecuted and thrust out not by the holy, but by the lawless and unholy; Therefore, what does this say about you? To infer his views on the proper structure of church authority and government is, I think, to go beyond what his letter will support.

Finally, note that "by the time we get to Ignatius" we are still essentially contemporary with Clement. Clement's first epistle is dated anywhere between 80-140 AD by scholars, while Ignatius is commonly believed to have been martyred under Trajan (98-117 AD; 108 AD is usually given for Ignatius' death). From what I've read, it seems likely (though not at all certain) that Ignatius' letter was written before Clement's.

In Christ,
Mike

[Paul Cowan]

First, note that Clement said that bishops are appointed "by reputable men," not by the local church. The church gives its approval, but does not do the appointing. In what little I've read about appointment of priests and bishops, it looks like the church's "authority" in this is essentially a strong advisory role, so that those who appoint priests or bishops normally will not appoint a given person if the church's approval of that person is not practically assured. How this works in practice I don't know - even though my own diocese will be selecting a new bishop soon, I'm still fuzzy on the procedural details.


In Christ,
Mike

About a year after I was Baptised the parish got a letter from the archdiocese to be read in church. We were asked to help vote for the Bishop of someplace very far north of us. I want to say Alaska or Canada, but am not sure. Our priest read each name and their bio. Were were then asked by ballot to choose their new Bishop.

When our Bishop ordained our priest and deacon, the congregation gives the response "He is worthy" to his declaration. I would think that if someone felt strongly eough they could stand up and say , "Wait a minute, maybe you guys need to reconsider his appointment." or some other not so nice show of lack of support.

I say this to think that we as the lay people have the responsibility to approve or appose our eccliastical leadership. Maybe I am wrong, but this seems right to me.

Paul

[John Peel]

Thank you Mike, your comments are helpful. I fully recognise the dating difficulties of Clement vis Ignatius but would be of the view that his monepiscopal concept of church leadership indicates a development beyond that of Clement therefore putting his first epistle later even if he and Clement were contemporaries. I still feel that my, admittedly, interpretative assumption on Clement vis the appointment of Bishops/elders is valid as the character of the men he rebukes would be immaterial if in fact they had no authority to do what they did. He would surely have plainly said,"you are not authorised to do this", their characters being irrelevant to the case.

You also mention that the developing difference between an Elder and Bishop was one of "ordination". I do not challenge the principle of that but, for the point of historic discovery I am concerned to see where, when and why such a distinction became a practical ecclesiastic reality. Thirdly, Clements instructions about having "reputable men" appoint bishops was addressed to the local church. He says in effect, if the apostle is not there, for whatever reason, you do it but ensure that those who do are recognised as reputable by the congregation and have their full support. So I think I still have a problem here!

Keep thinking and giving me input my friend and once again, nmany thanks,

In Jesus John

[Anthony]

I am intreagued by the transition from the apostolic era, (By that I refer to the original Apostles), into what became an episcopal/presbyterian form of government. To kick off the whole subject would someone please to explain the emergence of a two fold ministry from one that was clearly, in Biblical terms, a singular office?


I was once told by a patristics scholar (then Anglican, now Orthodox) that the monarchical episcopacy may have been modelled on the Jerusalem church - as pictured in Acts 21, where St James seems to preside, with the presbyters being present. I can't remember any more details, but this might be a line worth considering in your reading.

[Michael Stickles]

I still feel that my, admittedly, interpretative assumption on Clement vis the appointment of Bishops/elders is valid as the character of the men he rebukes would be immaterial if in fact they had no authority to do what they did. He would surely have plainly said,"you are not authorised to do this", their characters being irrelevant to the case.

But their character is not irrelevant to the case, since the "case" is not limited to the unrighteous dismissal of godly men from their posts. All through his letter, Clement exhorts the Corinthians to live godly and righteous lives in peace and harmony with each other. Here he shows how far they have fallen from this goal, and later he urges them towards repentance.

As to the dismissal itself, I wonder if 47:6 sheds any additional light on his views:

It is disgraceful, beloved, ... that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.

The Greek for the end of that verse (http://www.dabar.org/ChurchHistory/Fathers/Clement_Rome/4701Genuine-Corinthians.html#47-6) reads:

proswpa stasiazein pros tous presbuterous

I don't know what nuances might or might not be brought out by use of this particular word, but maybe it's worth pursuing. My own understanding of Greek isn't sufficient to tell if there's any significance.


You also mention that the developing difference between an Elder and Bishop was one of "ordination". I do not challenge the principle of that but, for the point of historic discovery I am concerned to see where, when and why such a distinction became a practical ecclesiastic reality.

Well, all I can say is good luck. Even if the distinction does not extend back to the first church in Jerusalem (as Anthony alluded to), it looks like there is at most an 84-year span between then and Ignatius' letter; probably less. If St. Chrysostom is correct in saying that a presbyter/bishop distinction was already in existence at the time of Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, that cuts down the window even more, at least on the "when".


Thirdly, Clements instructions about having "reputable men" appoint bishops was addressed to the local church. He says in effect, if the apostle is not there, for whatever reason, you do it but ensure that those who do are recognised as reputable by the congregation and have their full support. So I think I still have a problem here!

Not necessarily. Going back to Clement's words:


Our 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. 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 ... cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

He is not here giving instructions that bishops be appointed by reputable men, but simply noting it as a given. Nothing said here prevents those eminent men from coming from outside the congregation, as Titus did on Paul's instructions (Titus 1:5):


The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

I'm not saying that the text of Clement's letter by itself rules out your interpretation, either; simply that it is not a necessary inference.

In Christ,
Mike

[Michael Stickles]

One additional thought: To say that the congregation - the local church - does have the authority to remove an unrighteous bishop, or to say that it does not have that authority, might both be over-simplistic. I remembered a post from another thread here that might apply:


Each and every right-believing bishop is the whole Church, but only in so much as what he proclaims is in harmony with what every other bishop in the Church proclaims. When he gets out of step, he starts to step outside the boundaries of the Church. When that happens, what to do?

Being associated with the military most of my life, I tend to think along military lines. One concept that the Navy has is called "defense in depth". This involves having several different lines of defense like concentric circles. The first and largest circle hopefully deals with the threat first (first line of defence), but things that penetrate it will be dealt with by other defenses that form smaller rings with "last ditch" defenses taking care of the "leakers".

If I may be indulged, to apply this to the situation of the Church, we also have "defense in depth". I would see the bishop is the first line of defense, he is expected to lead his flock in proper doctrine and practice, protecting it from false teachings. If he fails to do so, the second line of defense would be his brother bishops. Seeing one bishop fall out of line with the historic teachings of the Church, they would meet in synod to correct the erring brother, and in extreme situations, convene an ecclesiastical court. If a group of bishops fall into error, then the larger Church represented by the Patriarchs may need to act in council to take corrective action. Another line of defense is the laity, the "rational sheep" of the fold, who may complain when they are being misled, appealing to higher authority when matters appear to be aggregious. In extreme situations we even have the flock rising in open revolt, as happened in the days of St. Mark of Ephesus. This is not a desireable situation, but when all else fails, the Holy Spirit will employ the "last ditch" defenses as well.

In Orthodoxy, with the exception of the Ottoman captivity where bishops had civil power, bishops are only leaders of the willing. It is a concensual arrangement, a synergy that also involves the Holy Spirit. There are no simple or even consistent lines of demarcation, the defense shifts as necessary to deal with the circumstances at hand.

In Christ,
Mike