Bishops in Early Christianity

This document contains the show notes for a podcast I made in November 2019 about bishops in early Christianity and the counsel in the Pastorals regarding the choosing of a bishop. I was interested in doing something like this for a while, due to the scholarship that exists regarding the Pastoral epistles – 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Scholars say these were not written by Paul. Why? Well, one conclusion they come to is that bishops didn’t exist when Paul wrote the authentic Pauline epistles, so as the reasoning goes, bishops probably didn’t exist in early Christianity. Well, the question I have is, if this is the case, when did bishops arise in Christianity? We don’t really know when bishops first arose in Christianity… we are dealing with a highly oral culture, so we may never know, unless documents come to light which give us more knowledge than we have right now.

The argument from scholarship comes down a lack of evidence – which leads to a kind of evidence. The counter argument to this is that the lack of evidence is also not proof. The phrase that is sometimes used is, “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

It is kind of like the Documentary Hypothesis, scholars make assumptions and calculated guesses based on textual clues, these clues help them come to conclusions based on many sound principles and assumptions. But still, there is a lot of guessing.

For example, for the majority of the “authentic Pauline epistles” we essentially have Paul writing to the churches and not necessarily the bishops of those churches…

Q: Why isn’t Paul writing to bishops of these churches?

A: Because there are no bishops in the 50’s A.D.

All we have historically are the following sources:

1. The New Testament
2. The Apostolic Fathers
3. The rise of the Episcopacy

When do bishops arise in early Christianity?

We don’t really know, but this whole thing really starts up with Judaism… We have elders and overseers in Jerusalem all the way back to Alexander the Great in the 300’s B.C.

What we have here is a tremendous black hole in Christian history – we can make a hypothesis and create models to see how things might have played out in early Christian history, but we really don’t know for certain.

Where are our footings? Do we believe the account in the Pastorals? Were there bishops in Paul’s day? We certainly do not know. But we can guess that this was probably not the case because Paul isn’t addressing bishops in his “authentic” letters anywhere. These are probably concerns of a later time period. When we read Galatians, for example, Paul isn’t straightening out the false teachings going on by writing to a bishop.

The Didache talks about bishops… it was probably textualized in the late first century (there is some debate here) .

The Didache says:

Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Ignatius is talking about bishops in 110 A.D., warning the saints of false teachings and encouraging the saints to trust their bishops.

Ignatius writes:

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever (the bishop) shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

The Hierarchy – According to Ignatius

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

There is no church apart from the bishop – According to Ignatius

“It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all […] let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church… he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Trallians; Chs 2-3, 7)

These episkopos or overseers (bishops) follow Jesus and in some cases the presbyters were co-equal with bishops, in fact out of the elders or presbyters an overseer was chosen to lead the group of believers. This comes out of Judaism. This comes out of their faith tradition. This is from way back during the time of Alexander the Great – 323 B.C.

What does the New Testament teach?

Outside of the Pastorals, and a short reference in Philippians 1.1, the New Testament by and large is absent from this idea of bishops.1 Other than the pastorals, we have Jesus with his special witnesses, out in the country sharing the message that he, Jesus is the savior, the one who can redeem mankind from sin and death. This is the message of much of the New Testament.

What is fairly convincing is this:

Read 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Galatians… what do you see?

Paul is addressing house churches, and he is never mentioning that this is an address to bishops. He is not encouraging bishops to “straighten out” the flocks. He is writing to those in the churches and warning them of dangers, false teachings, etc. of their time and place. There seems to be little structure in the churches of these official Pauline epistles. What we do have is a small group of elders or loosely configured house churches throughout the Roman Empire, with very little structure.

It is not until the Apostolic Fathers (1^st and 2^nd Century Christian leaders – Clement of Rome, Ignatiaus of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna) that we have more codified instruction regarding sacraments and bishops and order and structure.

Councils

Bishops had councils and so did Rabbis in Judaism around the time of Jesus. In the Talmud we read that 1 council is good, 3 is better, and a majority ruled. This is how the “church” was governed. This is how the synagogue was run. We see some of this in Acts 15, where a decision is made by a body, or a council. It seems from the text of Acts 15 that James is giving the instruction. He is giving “his sentence” (Acts 15.19)… now this is something that is difficult in the Greek text. 2

Does his sentence mean he is giving a “final sentence”? That he is totally and completely in charge? Or does this mean that James is giving his piece, just one piece of the counsel? I see people read this all kinds of ways.

Eusebius later will write that James is the bishop of Jerusalem, and of course he will say this! Why? Because Eusebius is reading this back into history (we think) because he is on the side of the winners of the arguments of orthodoxy, the side that has determined that bishops are the ones that will carry on the tradition of the Apostles. The tradition, this torch, must be carried by someone, and so this is Eusebius’ argument. He of course sees things this way because he is in a position of power and authority. So much of history comes to us this way.

Nowhere in the actual text does it say in Acts 15 that James is the bishop in Jerusalem, but perhaps Eusebius has access to records that we do not have, we just do not know. I can certainly see why modern readers see it this way, especially in light of how the arguments regarding who had the right to declare orthodoxy was fought. Early in Christianity, when the lights went out (the Apostles killed), someone had to step in and lead. Someone had to declare orthodoxy. With all of the disparate Christianities swirling around in the early years of the Christian movement (50-150 A.D.), these early bishops moved into the vacuum and worked to establish orthodoxy and authority in a time of crises.

Early on in the Roman Empire each Christian church is self contained, meaning that it is not “ruled over” by a head council or group of bishops in Rome or anywhere else. Later this will change, but early on each one of these churches is in charge of itself.

All of this is tentative

Elaine Pagels has written about the issue with bishops and authority in her book “Gnostic Gospels” – there was basically an argument based on authority after Jesus’ death and the question was essentially this: “Who has authority?”

The answer from orthodoxy was simply this: Those that witnessed Jesus’ resurrection were the ones with the authority to establish orthodoxy.

This was, according to Pagels, one of the arguments made by the Gnostics – (at least some of them): If Jesus did not gain a bodily resurrection, then the authority of the apostles is totally invalid. They saw nothing, and their witness did not matter – they had no authority. The Docetist Gnostics (docetist, from the word dokeo, meaning “to seem.” Jesus only seemed to take upon himself a human material body) made the following argument: Why would God take upon himself a body made of something corruptible like matter? God is outside of this and taking upon himself a material body is simply something that a God would not do. At least this was the Docetist position.

Because of this argument, the testimony of those that “saw” the resurrection would be totally worthless, hence so would their authority, at least according to many Gnostics.

From Pagels’ book we read the following:

The doctrine of bodily resurrection serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day. Gnostic Christians who interpret resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim to authority: when they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as heretics.

Such political and religious authority developed in a most remarkable way. As we have noted, diverse forms of Christianity flourished in the early years of the Christian movement. Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach the “true doctrine of Christ” and denounced one another as frauds. Christians in churches scattered from Asia Minor to Greece, Jerusalem, and Rome split into factions, arguing over church leadership. All claimed to represent the “authentic tradition.”

The argument of who saw Jesus’ body rise therefore becomes a political argument that establishes authority. The Gnostics claimed “secret teaching” from the 40 day ministry, the Apostolic Fathers claimed authority based on the tradition handed down by the Apostles of Jesus, that they had seen his resurrected body and that they were carrying on with the Apostolic tradition. 3

To me, it is reasonable to conclude that this is one reason why Catholics support the pastoral epistles – this is the doxology of both Catholic and Episcopal tradition, “As it was in the beginning and so shall it be, worlds without end.” In other words, as there were bishops in Jesus’ day so there are bishops today, and this is how it will always be.

As Gnostics fought against orthodoxy and orthodoxy fought against Gnosticism, both sides were strengthened. In this game of ping pong, the ball got faster and heavier. Both sides doubled down and both sides were unwilling to yield.

This is also Paul’s argument: “Listen to me! Why? Because I have seen the resurrected Savior!”

This is the beginning of bishops and the tradition of the Apostolic Fathers in early Christianity.

Notes1

1. Philippians 1.1 says, “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” The word used for bishops here is episkopos, or bishops. This argument can be cut a few different ways, as the earliest text of Philippians does not contain this phrase “with the bishops and deacons,” but, of course, it isn’t this simple. The text is damaged. So was the phrase in this earliest text? We do not know! It could have been. And on and on it goes. Welcome to scholarship. I love the way Skeat ends his paper: “Thus, while there is overwhelming evidence to show that one or other of these two omissions must have occurred, it is impossible to decide which, and although it still remains possible that the scribe omitted the words ἐπισκόποις καὶδιακόνοις, this represents only an even chance, and the result of our investigation must therefore be: non liquet (or Latin for “it is not clear”). For more, see: T.C. Skeat, Did Paul Write to “Bishops and Deacons” at Philippi? A Note on Philippians 1:1, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 37, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 12-15.
2. The word used for “sentence” is kreno – κρίνω . This word can be used in a number of ways. Was James giving his “sentence” or judgment? Was his the final say? Was he giving an opinion? From my reading of Acts 15, and with a view of simply reading the text without (as much as possible) reading my own personal theological preconceptions into the text, it appears that James is rendering a decision. And from my reading of Acts 15, this decision seems to be one that is binding across all of the communities. James seems to be saying essentially, “okay, you guys don’t have to follow all 613 laws of Torah, but we expect you to follow these 4 rules at least. If we can’t have 100% compliance of everything, at least give us this.” I read kreno in this way. To me, this is a final judgment, and it seems to be binding, at least in this text.
3. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 1979, p. 6-7

More quotes regarding bishops in early Christianity

“Being subject to the bishop and the presbyters, you may in all respects be sanctified.” – Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 2, circa 105 A.D., 1.50

(Ignatius, bishop of Antioch) I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles.” – Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, circa 105 A.D.

“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist if it is (administered) either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it… It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the love-feast (the sacrament in LDS vernacular) … Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also… It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God.” – Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapters 8 and 9, 105 A.D.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times… For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries… they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men. – Irenaeus, circa 180 A.D., Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) Notice here how Irenaeus is fighting for the supremacy of the bishops as opposed to those who possessed “hidden mysteries” or secret teachings of Jesus during his 40 day ministry as commonly taught by many Gnostic sects of Christianity in the first few centuries after Jesus. This was a political battle in Christianity, and orthodoxy eventually won out, but it was a fight.

it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. – Irenaeus, circa 180 A.D., Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 26)

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches. – Irenaeus, circa 180 A.D., Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 20)

(Clement of Alexandria) says that Peter, James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem. – Eusebius, quoting Clement of Alexandria, circa 195 A.D., Church History (Book II)