MRS 550 Ecclesiology and Church Leadership

An historical, biblical, and analytical survey of

church leadership and ecclesiology

The church has changed much since the first century, yet its mission has remained the same. In this
course, students will discover how the view of the church has changed over the last 2,000 years and the
implications of those changes of church organization and leadership. In particular, the student will learn to
assess the relationship between modern ecclesiological views and church polities on the church’s
mission. 3 semester hours of graduate credit.

Objectives

• Explain the function, organization, roles, and purpose of church leadership from a biblical perspective.
• Examine the development of ecclesiology in the Ante-Nicene period of church history.
• Critique the development of modern ecclesiologies as developed through the period of the
Reformation to modern times.
• Relate the mission of the church and the dynamics of church life to modern church polity.

Credit for the course requires a score of 70% or greater on three multiple-choice examinations, a book
review, and a final essay. A sample exam problem is given below.

At the beginning of era of the monarchies in Israel, the elders

(A) Retained the same level of power as before the monarchies (B) Surrendered their authority to the king
(C) Became a council for the king to consult as he wished (C) Focused primarily on local family matters.

Resources. The student is expected to read at least 600 pages (15 hours) of the student's choosing
from the Extended Resources, Select Library, or comparable books and/or articles.

Course Learning Outcomes

At the end of the course, the student will be able to

1. Discuss leadership models as they appear in Scripture and the early church.

2. Critique the emerging forms of ecclesiology in the ante-Nicene and post-apostolic church.

3. Define and critique modern forms of church polity.

1
Introductory Remarks
Dear Student,

I am pleased to welcome you to the MRS 550 Church Leadership and Ecclesiology. This course is
designed to help you understand the differences between the various views on church structure and
church leadership. In a sense, it is a comparative study. While normally comparative studies are focused
on different religions, this study focuses on practical differences in theological interpretations of church
and leadership. While “practical” and “theological” are not often combined as one focus, in this course you
will begin to see how such can be so. Ultimately, a better understanding of ecclesiology will help you lead
more scripturally and prepare you to have informed dialogue with churches that adopt different forms of
governance.

The course is practical in many regards, but it is not designed to train you to be a church leader. Courses
in ministry and pastoral leadership are available in the M.Div. program at NationsUniversity.

Finally, you may find material that you are generally unfamiliar with or with which you disagree. As a
graduate-level theology course, you are expected to be able to assess these different perspectives and to
defend your own tradition’s choice in governance and leadership. When you encounter a topic that needs
more explanation to be understood, seize the opportunity to broaden your study skills and comprehension
by re-reading portions that apply.

Above all, do not become discouraged; if you need help, contact your advisor by email if you have
questions or need more explanation of course material. Your advisor is trained to answer questions and is
experienced with the course material. If your question needs to be referred to me for further explanation,
he or she will contact me.

May God bless your studies and your personal growth throughout this course.

Expectations
Academic Engagement

Individualized interaction with student advisor and other academic personnel (5 hours)
Examinations (3 hours)
Using the course syllabus as a guide for reading and study (20 hours)
Reading and critiquing selected Internet articles (6 hours)
Book Review (12 hours)
Sub-total—46 hours

Preparation

Studying for module exams (9 hours)

Watching and critiquing videos from the Video Library (4 hours)
Reading the textbooks (880 pages) (36 hours)
Reading selections from Extended Resources (15 hours)
Congregational Leadership Assessment (25 hours)
Sub-total—89 hours
Grand Total – 135 hours.

2
Procedures
1. Review the entire syllabus to see the layout of the course and what is expected.

2. At the beginning of each module, you should read carefully the material in the syllabus. Where
textbook readings are assigned, read them in conjunction with or prior to the syllabus material.

3. Begin your study of the syllabus with Module 1. When you are ready to take the exam over Module 1,
you may access it from the Course Menu. Once you have passed the exam with a score of 70% or
better, move on to the next module and repeat the process for Modules 2 and 3.

4. At the end of Module 2, you will write a book review on Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor. The
electronic version of the book can be access with the link provided below and in the assignment.

5. After completing all three modules, you will write an analysis and defense of your church tradition’s
ecclesiology and church polity. You must compare the practice of your church with (1) Scripture, (2)
traditional ecclesiological understanding, and (3) membership involvement. More details are given in the
assignment.

5. Having completed all assignments, please fill out the Course Evaluation. You will find the form under
the Course Summary on the Menu.

Things to Know
Module 1

1. The functions of elders, kings, priests, and prophets in ancient Israel

2. How ancient Israelite leadership compared and contrasted with that of her neighbors.
3. The unique positions of leadership that developed during the Intertestamental Period
4. Leading Jewish institutions that arose during the Intertestamental Period and continued into the first
century
5. The function of apostles, deacons, elders, evangelists, prophets, and other ministries in the New
Testament
6. Transitional and permanent ministry in the 1st century church

Module 2

1. The concept of episcopal rule

2. The historical development and spread of episcopal rule
3. The rationale for apostolic succession
4. How early bishops were elected
5. Development of the concept of ordination.
6. The meaning of sacerdotalism
7. Definition and comparison of major ecclesiological views.

Module 3

1. Define church polity.

2. Critique hierarchal models of church polity.
3. Define and discuss connectionalism.
4. Critique congregational models of church polity.
5. Distinguish between single-elder and multiple-elder models.
6. Distinguish between elder rule and elder led church polity.
7. Identify the biblical characteristics of the church and discuss their influence on church polity.

3
Electronic Collection
Ellingson, Stephen. The Megachurch and the Mainline: Remaking Religious Tradition in the
Twenty-first Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. 256 pp.

Fair, Ian. Leadership in the Kingdom: Sensitive Strategies for Churches in a Changing World.
Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2006.

Ferguson, Evertt. The Early Church at Work and Worship, Vol 1: Ministry, Ordination, Covenant,
and Canon. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2014. 356 pp.

Goncharenko, Simon V. Church Government According to the Bible. Eugene, Oregon : Wipf and Stock.
2014

For the Book Review: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (online resource)

Extended Resources

Agosto, Efrain. Servant Leadership: Jesus and Paul. Chalice Press, 2005. 240 pages. $22.74
ISBN: 978-0827234635

Akin, Daniel. “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/ Single-Elder-Led
Polity.” Pages 25-86 in Perspectives on Church Government: Five views of Church Polity. Edited
by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman. Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
2004.

Anthony, Michael and James R. Estep (eds.). Management Essentials for Christian Ministries. 3rd ed.
B & H Academic, 2005. 464 pages. $30.88. ISBN: 978-0805431230

Barna, George. Finding a Church You Can Call Home. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1992.
152 pages. ISBN: 0-830715002.

Buswell, James O. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, MI.:
Zondervan, 1962.

Carson, D.D. “Church Authority,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2001.

Dever, Mark. 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. 287 pages.
ISBN: 978-1581346312.

__________. The Church: The Gospel Made Visible. Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2nd rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998.

__________. “Polity,” in Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. Rev. ed. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway Books, 2001.

Farrer, A.M. “The Ministry in the New Testament.” Pages 113-182 in The Apostolic Ministry,
ed. Kenneth E. Kirk. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946.

Frame, John. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ.:

P&R Publishing, 2013.

4
Garrett, James Leo Jr. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, 2 vols., 2nd ed. North
Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 2001.

__________. “The Congregational-Led Church: Congregational Polity.” Pages 157-208

in Perspectives on Church Government: Five views of Church Polity. Edited
by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman. Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2004.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.

Kirk, Kenneth E. “The Apostolic Ministry” in The Apostolic Ministry, ed. Kenneth E. Kirk.
London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946.

Hodge, Charles. An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI.:
Eerdmans, 1956; 1st publ., New York, 1857.

Ladd, George E., A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner;
Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1993.

McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume 3:

The Doctrines of Salvation, the Church, and Last Things. U.S.A.: Detroit
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010.

McKim, Donald K. “Polity,” in Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville, Ky.:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Morris, Leon. “Church, Nature and Government of (Episcopalian View),” in Encyclopedia

of Christianity. Ed. Gary G. Cohen.Marshalltown, Del.: National Foundation for
Christian Education, 1968. Vol. 2.

Malphurs, Aubrey. A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the
21st Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007. 201 pages. ISBN: 978-0801091896.

Ogden, Greg. Unfinished Business: Returning the Ministry to the People of God. Rev. ed.
Zondervan, 2003. 288 pages. $10.812003. 978-0310246190

Rainer, Thom. High Expectations: The Remarkable Secret for Keeping People in Your Church.
Nashville, TN; B&H Publishing Group, 1999. 213 pages. ISBN: 0-80541266.

Reymond, Robert L. “The Presbytery- Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government.”

Pages 87-156 in Perspectives on Church Government: Five views of Church Polity.
Edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman. Nashville, TN.: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 2004.

Reynolds, J.L. “Church Polity or The Kingdom of Christ in its Internal and External Development.”
Pages 295-404 in Polity. Edited by Mark Dever. U.S.: Nine Marks Ministries, 2001.

Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth.
Chicago, Il.: Moody Press, 1999.

Saucy, Robert L. The Church in God’s Program. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Seamands, Stephan. Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service.
IVP Books, 2006. 189 pages. $13.23 ISBN: 978-0830833382

5
Stein, Robert H. The Method and Message of Jesus' Teaching. Rev. ed. Westminster John Knox Press,
1994. 220 pages. $9.42 ISBN: 978-0664255138

Strobel, Lee. Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1993. 236 pages. ISBN: 978-0310375616.

Thompson, James W. Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision. Baker Academic,
2006. 174 pages. $19.07 ISBN: 978-0801031090

Welch, Robert H. Church Administration: Creating Efficiency for Effective Ministry. 2nd ed.
B & H Academic, 2011. 416 pages. $22.51 ISBN: 978-1433673771

White, James. “The Plural-Elder-Led Church: Sufficient as Established—The Plurality of

Elder’s as Christ’s Ordained Means of Church Governance.” Pages 255-296 in
Perspectives on Church Government: Five views of Church Polity. Edited by
Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman. Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2004.

Wilson, Michael Todd and Brad Hoffman. Preventing Ministry Failure: A Shepherd Care
Guide for Pastors, Ministers and Other Caregivers. IVP Books, 2007. 265 pages.
$16.28 ISBN: 978-0830834440

Zahl, Paul F.M. “The Bishop-Led Church: The Episcopal or Anglican Polity Affirmed, Weighed,
and Defended.” Pages 209-254 in Perspectives on Church Government: Five views
of Church Polity. Edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman.
Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004.

Video Library
Dever, Mark. Six Reasons a Right Ecclesiology is Important for the Church Today. DTS, 2014.

Keller, Tim. What Should a Local Church Look Like? The Gospel Coalition, 2011.

Copyright Policy
NationsUniversity®, as a non-profit educational institution, is entitled by law to use materials protected by
the U.S. Copyright Act for online education. Any use of those materials outside this environment may
violate the law.

Identity Fraud Policy

Committing identity fraud is considered particularly serious and could have legal as well as institutional
implications. Any student who has another individual impersonate him/her or in any other way commit
identity fraud in any course, assignment, exam, or academic exercise will be permanently suspended
from NationsUniversity®.

6
 Church Leadership and Ecclesiology

MODULE 1 Leadership within a Biblical Context

Ministry is not necessarily a religious word, but it is a word that describes a religious function. In the Old
Testament, we use the term to describe service offered by several categories of leaders. A priest
represented the people by offering sacrifices to God. The king and prophet also performed services on
behalf of God's people. At the family and clan levels, elders supervised the welfare of the community of
Israel.

The differences between the old and new economies make it difficult to see any clear relationship
between the ministers of God in physical Israel and the church. The chief similarities fall into two
categories. One is general and the other is specific. The first connects the law with all individuals as they
perform humane service, such as assisting the poor and helping a neighbor in an emergency. The
second relates to elders and other officials in their intended role of spiritual shepherds. Humane service is
a mark of all godly people in Old and New Testament contexts. The elders under both covenants
consisted of men of age, wisdom, and religious knowledge, whose concern was the spiritual well-being of
God's people. In Israel, kings, priests, prophets, judges, and elders were public officials, whose
responsibilities included providing spiritual oversight. In the Christian era, Christ is the king and high
priest, every believer is a priest, and elders care for the spiritual well-being of local congregations.

The presence of kings, prophets, and priests, notwithstanding, the primary formal functionaries in ancient
times were the "elders." The elders in Israel supply the best backdrop for understanding the nature of
local church ministry and its implication for present Christian activity. We do not imply that the work of the
elders defines all ministry, but we suggest that it is the center piece from which permanent Christian
ministerial activity springs.

Indeed the direction of an entire society is determined by the quality of leadership provided by the older
generation. At the time of the great flood, no good leaders, save Noah, could be found. Later, Israel's
exile was due in large measure to the failure of her spiritual overseers. Even so, today, the health of the
Christian community depends upon healthy spiritual leadership.

Spiritually mature leaders inspire believers to brings glory to God. To help one gain perspective, a
consideration of ministry under the old and new covenants will prove fruitful. Inasmuch as spiritual
shepherding was expected first and foremost from the elders of Israel, a description of their work is in
order.

The module contains three units. The first presents the Old Testament background for ministry. The
second is dedicated to theology and ministry of the church as it appears in the New Testament. The third
module explores the application of various ecclesiologies to church leadership. As you proceed with the
investigation, keep before you the thought that form must not take precedence over action; neither should
action be undisciplined if a worthy goal is to be achieved efficiently and without bad consequences.
Proper form hardly guarantees proper results, but if it gives way to self-serving ambition, it can easily
morph into something never intended. Organizational structure enables efficiency in goal attainment. But
if it grows beyond its purpose, it can become a means by which one gains undue control over others.

7
Unit 1. The Old Testament Background
Numerous passages attest to the presence and function of elders in the Old Testament period.
References are distributed fairly well throughout the Scriptures, although they are almost non-existent in
the Minor Prophets. The term "elder" most frequently stands alone and must be determined by the
context. The most common determinations are elders of Israel and elders of a city, respectively. While
elders held primary responsibility for the leadership of their families, clans, and tribes, others shared this
responsibility. Priests, kings, and prophets were all expected to provide spiritual leadership for the people
of God.

As you study the material provided in this unit, look for relevance. First, what can be learned from
studying about elders in the Old Testament period? How similar were the elders of Israel to those of her
neighbors? What role similarities do you find between the function of elders in ancient Israel and the
church described in the New Testament? Read for general comprehension of the ancient situation, but
keep in mind that application may have limitations.

From among a variety of terms and renderings, two basic Hebrew words are used for "elders" in the Old
Testament. One of these, zaken, varies from signifying the firstborn to meaning persons advanced in age,
and from "senior" priests to magistrates. However, lexicographers generally agree on the root meaning of
the term. In the noun form, zaken is understood to mean beard or chin. The verb carries the meaning to
be or be gray, old, as one who has the chin hanging down. When used as an adjective, zaken has the
meaning of old, aged, of ripened age and, with a substantive, may be rendered old man or elder. The
second word, sab, denotes hoary, to grow or be gray, old. It too is translated elder or old man. While
descriptive in meaning, the word "elder" sometimes assumed an official use.

In Hebrew, there are several titles that are somewhat synonymous with "elder." These include prince,
captain, chief, leader, noble, head, ruler, and officer. You may want to check these references: Exod.
24:11; Num. 2:3; 36:1; Judg. 20:2; 1 Sam. 14:38; and Zech. 10:4. Elders may be coupled with heads,
judges, and officers to denote the leaders. References for this combination may be found in Deut. 29:10;
31:28; and Josh. 8:33.

Elders and princes are closely associated in Israel. Elders and princes stand alternatively for the same
persons of Moab and Midian (Num. 22:7, 14). The two stand side by side in Israel (Judg. 8:14; Isa. 3:14)
after settlement in Canaan. Ezra 8:29 uses princes with reference to the heads of fathers' houses. Elders
are found governing Succoth. The men, officials, and elders of Succoth are loosely referred to as the
town's responsible citizens (Judg. 8:5-16), but the terms are not necessarily interchangeable. "Men" may
be signifying the male population in general, while the officials and elders stand for two groups of
responsible men, the total number being seventy-seven. It would seem safe to assume that the function
of the elders and officials would be distinct, although officials may have been elders as well. Elders are
also found at Jezreel (2 Kings 10:1). They called an assembly (Ezra 10:8) and exercised judicial power
with the judges (Ezra 10:14). Sometimes they oppressed the people (Isa. 3:14). It does not follow that the
elders and princes are identical, especially in the roles they play within the larger community. The
relationship, however, is not entirely clear. After the monarchy, the princes became kings' men, royal
officials. The princes appear to have been early local military officers, drawn from the elders.

Isaiah's list of the "stay and staff" of Jerusalem and Judah well portrays the variety of functionaries
associated with the elders in ancient Israel (Isa. 3:1-3). Numerous titles employed with reference to the
leaders and men of responsibility among the Hebrews do not preclude elders from being categorized
among these. In fact, it is more likely that the majority of the officials were elders. It will be helpful now to
begin with the place of elders among Israel's neighbors.

The unit is partitioned into three sections. These are titled (a) Near Eastern social organization, (b) Elders
in Israel, and (c) Jewish Leadership During Intertestamental and New Testament times.

a. Near Eastern social organization. The basic units of local social structure were similar throughout the
ancient Near East. There we meet clans and tribes, where councils of elders bore group liabilities. In the

8
absence of evidence for the council structure in ancient Israel, it is surmised that the outstanding elders of
the clans served the tribe. The various family heads shared in the community responsibilities either by
functioning as elders or by standing alongside the elders as representatives. There were times, however,
when one family would gain sufficient power to dominate others (cf. Judg. 9:1-6).

Mesopotamia. Ancient Near Eastern societies that existed before and alongside Israel, had their "elders."
During the 3rd millennium B.C.E., free citizens and a city-governor held political power. Free citizens were
known to form a bicameral assembly consisting of an upper house of "elders" and a lower house of
"men." Barbaric intruders eventually forced development of military leadership and the appearance of the
king.

The assemblies corresponded with kings, fighting for exemptions and privileges that only the king could
confer. They also made legal decisions and sold unowned real estate within the city. They assumed
corporate responsibility in cases involving murder and robbery committed within and within a specific
distance of the city. The elders appear in the exercise of judicial powers from the days of Hammurabi
(18th century B.C.E.) to the Neo-Babylonian period (6th century B.C.E.). From the Mari archives in upper
Mesopotamia (18th century B.C.E.) to the royal correspondence of the Sargon dynasty (8 th century
B.C.E.), the elders represented the populace and defended their interests, but without administrative
function. Parallels to the situation in Israel appear in the elders' relation to the king (see 1 Sam. 8:4; 2
Sam. 5:3; 19:11-15; and 1 Kings 20:7-8).

Palestine and north. Among the Hittites, affairs of the city appear to have been in the hands of a council
of elders who, together with the commander of the garrison or provincial governors, settled disputes.
There are possible parallels in Israel during the monarchy in the position of the princes and the elders.

The Phoenician people resided in Mediterranean coastal cities north of Canaan. Their cities of Bylos and
Tyre had assemblies of elders according to non-biblical and biblical sources. See Ezek. 27:9 for the
biblical source. Other Canaanite people represented a major group who occupied Palestine, thus
contributing the ancient name for the area. Canaanite towns were governed by a king. A group of nobles,
perhaps corresponding to the elders of Israel, stood between the king and the people. Compare Josh.
9:11 and the Hivites of Gibeon.

East, South, and West of Palestine. Descended from Lot (Abraham's nephew), the Moabites occupied
territory east of the Dead Sea. Moab was ruled by a king, but he had assistance from a group of men
known variously as elders or princes. See Num. 22:4, 7-8.

Before the death of Moses, the Midianites were governed by five kings (Num. 31:8). One of these five is
elsewhere called a prince and the head of the people of a father's house in Midian. It is interesting to note
that the same expression is given a man in Israel of the tribe of Simeon (Num. 25:15, 18). The context
thus suggests the same clan organization in Midian and among the tribes of Israel. Midianite elders joined
with the Moabite elders in seeking Balaam's assistance against Israel (Num. 22:4, 7), but those of Moab
overshadow those of Midian in the text. See Num. 22:8, 13-15, 18, 21, 35.

Sheiks were characteristic in governing the clans of Arabia. These would have been elders.

Egyptian society is important to the present subject because of Israel's contact with that nation during its
infancy. Many things about Egyptian life remain unknown. Even the time period of Israel's stay in Egypt
carries uncertainties. Nevertheless, Egyptian sources suggest functions for men who might answer to the
description of elders of Pharaoh's household or elders of the land of Egypt (Gen. 50:7). The elders of
Pharaoh's household may have been a group of officers who served as Pharaoh's personal attendants,
and the elders of the land of Egypt, in turn, were those who held leadership positions.

Throughout ancient Egyptian history, administrative officials dispensed justice. During the Middle
Kingdom (ended 1788 B.C.E.), there were six "Great Houses" or courts of justice, with the vizier at their
head and a "House of Thirty."

9
After driving out the Hyksos (1580 B.C.E.), the purely Egyptian government became more highly
organized. Town rulers bore more administrative duties and served as judicial officials. The courts were
largely composed of priests. A new official class, drawn from the old middle and landed nobility classes,
arose to fill government and military posts.

The presence of "elders" in ancient Israel coincides with organizational structure of the people of the area.
The needs of the Israelite community for guidance, judgment, and order were no different from those of
their neighbors. It was only natural that older, wiser men head the social order.

Whether in Israel or elsewhere, one might expect the possessors and dispensers of wisdom to lay down a
high moral code and lead lives worthy of imitation. But these were men; some were weak and devoid of
leadership skills. Others were strong and forced control over others. Even when the leadership was good
and sound, the younger generation did not always listen to the wisdom of the aged and experienced.
They may leverage their way to gain control, as did Absalom, the son of David. So, having elders was no
guarantee that the moral code would be observed or that peace would prevail.

b. Elders in Israel. In ancient Israel, society was family-oriented. Five distinct organizational units
existed. The most basic was the individual. The second unit would have been the household or family in
the strict sense, which recognized the rule of the father. The third was the clan--an embrace of the
greater household or family, known as the father's house, with a father at its head. Then, came the tribe--
a combination of related clans, also called a father's house and having its father. Social organization
culminated with the nation. See Num. 36:1 and Josh. 7:4ff.

Elders in pre-monarchial times. From its infancy, Israel had its elders. In Goshen the Hebrews appear
to have led a simple life. The elders of the families, acting as their chiefs, were undoubtedly consulted on
important matters. But no supreme chieftain appeared. Within a few generations, when the descendants
of Jacob had become a group having 600,000 soldiers, Israel had its elders even while in bondage to
Egypt (Exod. 3:16). These elders were probably no more than the family-clan heads who bore
responsibility in the Hebrew community. They are a known and recognized class whom Moses is told to
assemble them to declare God's intentions for his people. The elders are the proper persons to make the
request for Israel's leave from Egypt (Exod. 12:21).

The existence and function of elders in the community of Israel was firmly established by the time the
young nation arrived at Sinai. Their functions would surely develop as Israel developed into nationhood.

There are three accounts of the appointment of men to assist Moses in judicial matters, though the third
differs substantially from the first two. It is not clear whether the able men chosen out of Israel by Moses
to be rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens and to lighten the judicial burden which heretofore
had rested upon Moses (Exod. 18: 13-27) are to be considered "elders." The only stated qualifications
are those expressed by Jethro, Moses' Midianite father-in-law. In making the recommendation, those
chosen should be "able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who
hate a bribe" (Exod. 18:21).

There is a marked similarity between the divisions of the people and those of the military organization
(Num. 31:14). The arrangement was probably linked with the natural divisions of tribes and families. The
decimal divisions suggest natural family organizational units and may be, therefore, only
approximate. The smaller numbers represent smaller family units, with the "ten" referring probably to the
single family.

A second and similar account of choosing judicial assistants (Deut. 1:9-18) suggests another setting but
does not necessarily demand a reinstitution of the same judicial organization. The organization has all
appearance of being one and the same. Men of wisdom, understanding, and experience were chosen
according to the tribes and appointed "heads" over the people--"commanders" of thousands, hundreds,
fifties, and tens, and "officers" throughout their tribes. Their function was to make impartial judgments.

10
The third reference to the selection of men to assist Moses in carrying the burden of the people was
brought about by Israel's complaint over the lack of meat (Numbers 11). When Moses complained to
God, he was instructed: "Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the
elders of the people and officers over them." Given some of the Spirit that rested upon Moses, their task
was to "bear the burden of the people" with Moses. Clearly, on this occasion there were three "ranks" of
elders: (1) elders in general, (2) men known to be elders, and (3) the seventy elders.

The selection of the seventy may have served as a governing council and assumed more of the burden
resting on Moses than had been assumed by previously appointed heads. A precedent for the selection
of seventy had been previously set in the choosing of seventy elders to approach the Lord with Moses at
Sinai (Exod. 24:1, 9). The duration of service of the Spirit-filled seventy is unknown.

The function of elders was not limited to the judicial matters but was closely tied to the care for the
revelation and laws of God. Their importance as representatives and leaders of the people is evident at
the crisis over the lack of water in the wilderness (Exod. 17:5-6) and at the giving of the law at Sinai
(Exod. 19:7).

The same social organization that existed previous to the Conquest persisted during the days of Joshua
and the judges. Between Joshua and Saul, there appeared no strong individual to govern the
nation. There were "judges," of course, who appeared as saviors from foreign oppressors. But in the
absence of centralized government, matters were left, for the most part, in the hands of local
elders. These elders met at the city gate to administer local affairs. The elders of Gilead acted in an
emergency by calling Jephthah, whom they had exiled, to become their head and leader (judge,
governor, prince) against the Ammonites (Judg. 11:1-11).

In the settlement of Canaan, everyone belonged to a city community. Elders would therefore be the
elders of a town. Mention of the "elders of Israel" (1 Sam. 4:3; 8:4; 2 Sam. 3:17; 5:3) does not imply
another institution. Rather, these were responsible Israelites from the various towns.

Even though the previous order was not broken, three passages in Joshua (Josh. 8:33; 23:2; 24:1)
intimate the further refinement of functionaries. A specific group known as "judges" appears with mention
of the elders and officers. There is no reason to assume these judges were not themselves elders. The
separation of categories indicates there were men other than those specifically designed "elders" who
administered justice. Let it be remembered, however, that elders still functioned in judicial matters (Ruth
4). A covenant made by Joshua and confirmed by the leaders (elders?) with the deceitful Gibeonites was
honored, in spirit of the displeasure of the people.

The period of the kings to the end of the Old Testament. The demand for a king came from the
elders of Israel who represented the feelings of the masses (1 Sam. 8:4, 7). The request was more
serious than a simple personal rebuff to Samuel and his evil son-judges. It was a denial of God's
immediate rule.

The kings themselves needed the approval and support of the elders. Saul sought restitution before the
elders after his sin over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:30). Though it was the Lord's plan for the throne to be
transferred to David, the elders were the human agents responsible for bringing it about (2 Sam. 3:17-18;
5:1-3; 1 Chron. 11:1-3). Ish-bosheth's power to retain his father's throne rested on the decision of the
elders. The continuance of David's reign was likewise contingent upon the support of the elders. Even
after the death of the usurper Absalom, David had to await the elders' decision to return him to the
kingship, since Absalom had been anointed king (2 Sam. 19:10-15).

At the death of Solomon, Rehoboam went to Shechem for all Israel had come there to make him king (1
Kings 12:1). His rejection of their pleas for a lighter yoke led all but Judah to declare Jeroboam as their
king (1 Kings 12:20). These actions having taken place in "assemblies" indicate an orderly process of
legal procedure where, no doubt, the elders of the people were in control.

11
Ahab felt it necessary to assemble the elders of Israel in the face of the molesting from Syria's Ben-hadad
(1 Kings 20:7-8). Josiah gathered the elders of Judah and Jerusalem at the reading of the rediscovered
book of God (2 Kings 23:1). The powerful influence of the kings over the elders can be seen in the
Naboth incident (1 Kings 21) and in the rise of Jehu (2 Kings 10:1-7).

The rise of the new class of officials associated with the king affected the capitals by dissolving the power
of the old families, because the king raised up men of his pleasing (cf. 1 Kings 12:8). In the closing days
of the monarchy in Judah, the elders offered an opinion in the case of Jeremiah, but princes or king's
officers were in charge of the judicial proceedings (Jer. 26).

Centralized government established high royal officials of the state (1 Kings 4:1-19), but there is no
evidence that the inner organization of the towns of Israel was altered by the kings. The leaders and
nobles (1 Kings 21:8) or the elders and rulers of the city remained the responsible governing body in the
local communities. There existed elders of a city (1 Kings 21:8), of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:1),
and of Israel (2 Sam. 5:3).

In the monarchy the king became the highest judge (cf. 2 Sam. 15:1-6; 1 Kings 3:9ff.; 2 Kings 6:26ff.; 8:4-
6). Jehoshaphat of Judah appointed judges in all the fortified cities of Judah. In Jerusalem he appointed
certain Levites, priests, and heads of the families of Israel as judges to hear cases from the surrounding
cities. The chief priest was placed in charge of the religious matters. The governor of the house of Judah
was set over the king's matters. The Levites were made assisting officers (2 Chronicles 19). If the heads
of the families were elders, then elders held responsibility for administering justice in civil affairs of the
kingdom under the governor appointed by the king.

The Hebrews were stripped of their king and independent government by the Babylonians. But the
Babylonians allowed them to maintain a type of self-government under their watchful eye.

The elders in exile probably functioned in a similar manner as in the early days of the nation. They were
found assembled at the home of Ezekiel the prophet from time to time. On one occasion, it is specifically
stated that they had come "to inquire of the LORD" (Ezek. 20:1-2). Yahweh would not entertain them with
platitudes but reminded them of the sins of their fathers and of those remaining in Palestine before the
destruction of Jerusalem. Not only did these elders share the blame for the unspiritual state of affairs
back home, they stood condemned personally for an evil and idolatrous heart (Ezek. 14:1ff.). The elders
remained the recognized representatives as they shared in the receipt of an instructive letter from
Jeremiah, the prophet in Judea (Jer. 29:1). It can probably be inferred from the mention of the elders in
Ezekiel and Jeremiah, that the elders in exile exercised the spiritual and civil leadership in the exilic
community.

After the return from exile, the function of elders was strengthened beyond that of the days of the
monarchy, rising in significance and organization. The Persians granted Israel extensive rights of self-
government and permitted the people to manage their own affairs according to the Law. A governor
supervised the collection of taxes, civil matters, and social concerns. Sometimes the governor was
Jewish. Religious matters were placed in the hands of the high priest. Both the governor and high priest
answered to the satrap of Syria. City-elders were recognized by the citizens as standing with the judges
as their officials and representatives (Ezra 10:14).

The leaders of Israel lived in Jerusalem, together with chiefs of the province who were chosen by lot
(Neh. 11:1). Many or all of these were, undoubtedly, elders and provided the foundation for formation of
the Sanhedrin. Having traced the presence of elders historically, attention is now focused on the position
and function of elders.

The position and function of Israel's elders. From the early days of Israel, elders appeared as the
heads of families and clans. They exerted a fatherly influence established on the honor and submission
due to parents. As their title indicates, they were men of maturity and wisdom, men who could be asked
about the past (Deut. 32:7). Elders represented three kinds of influence or authority: that of the head of
the family--patriarchal; that of age and wisdom--personal; that of government--official.

12
The elders naturally commanded the respect of the people they represented, but there were occasions
when men of power like Jehu dominated them and when their decisions were made under the shadow of
the king. At the time of Judah's exile, favor was lacking altogether (Lam. 4:16; 5:12).

The number of elders existing at any given time depended, probably, on the size of the local
community. In contrast to the rule of kings in Canaanite cities and that of the single elder of Babylonia,
the cities of Israel were administered by a plurality of elders. There were seventy-seven elders at
Succoth (Judg. 8:14). The question of membership is bound up in the social organization, although some
would make wealth and influence the determining factor.

The elders were the proper shepherds and governors of the people of Israel. Age and experience placed
them in the best position to know and judge their people. They functioned as a body responsible for the
conduct of government (Judg. 11:5-11; 1 Sam. 4:3; 11:3; 16:4; 2 Sam. 17:4, 15; 1 Kings 20:7-8; 21:8; 2
Kings 10:1; Ezra 5:5; 6:7, 14; 10:8; Psa. 107:32; Isaiah 3:14), representing a community or the nation in
religious (Exod. 12:21; 19:7; 21:1-9; 24:1; Lev. 4:13-15; 9:1ff.; Deut. 5:23) and political (Exod. 3:16; 4:29;
1 Sam. 8:4; 2 Sam. 3:17; 5:3; 19:11) matters. Often they stood with the leader in administering important
affairs (Exod. 3:18; Deut. 27:1; Josh. 7:6; 8:10; 2 Kings 23:1; 1 Chron. 21:16) and acted as judges in
social concerns (Deut. 19:11-12; 21:18-21; 22:13-21; Josh. 20:1-4; Ruth 4:1-12).

The place of the elders in terms of leadership in the religious life of Israel was present from the nation's
earliest history. When giving instructions for the observance of the initial Passover, Moses disseminated
the Lord's words to the (Exod. 12:21). In the wilderness the elders were made eyewitnesses to the
striking of the rock so they could bear witness to the unbelieving nation (Exod. 17:5-6). At Sinai Moses
set the words of the Lord before the elders and the people (Exod. 19:7). When Moses was commanded
to go up before God, he was instructed to take along Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of
Israel and worship afar off (Exod. 24:1). These went up and saw the God of Israel (Exod. 24:1, 9-10).

The elders were closely associated with the laws of God. Following the rehearsal of God's laws to Israel,
Moses and the elders commanded the people to keep all the commandments given that day (Deut.
27:1). After delivering the written law to the priests and the elders (Deut. 31:9), Moses ordered that the
book be placed in the side of the ark of the covenant. Knowing their rebellious nature, he assembled all
the elders of their tribes and their officers to speak concerning the future (Deut. 31:25-30). Their personal
responsibility for informing the people of the contents of the Law is suggested in Deut. 31:11-13.

Although the elders joined Moses in directing the people to inscribe the Law on stones at Mount Ebal
(Deut. 27:1-8), it is safely concluded that this would be the responsibility of the elders to see that it was
done. Looking forward to its accomplishment, the Scriptures bear record that "all Israel . . . with their
elders and officers and their judges" were in attendance at the reading of the Law (Josh. 8:33). They
were given, furthermore, a heavy responsibility for the discharge of the Law (Deut. 19:12; 21:2-6, 19-21;
25:7-9). Joel indicated the place of leadership expected of the elders in spirituality (Joel 1:14; cf. 2:16),
while Ezekiel notes the failure of the elders to provide it (Ezek. 14:1-3; 20:1ff.).

There was an association of the elders with repentance and intercession for the people in periods of
crisis. At the disobedience of Achan in the conquest of Jericho, Joshua and the elders rent their clothes,
fell to the earth before the Lord, and put dust upon their heads. The action was insufficient; Joshua was
commanded to rise and dispose of the sin in the congregation (Josh. 7:6, 10). There were similar
occurrences when David numbered the people (1 Chron. 21:16) and when Jerusalem was destroyed
(Lam. 2:10). In a time of faithlessness in post-exilic Israel, the men of Judah and Benjamin suggested
that all who had taken foreign wives come with the elders and judges of their city until the fierce wrath of
God be averted (Ezra 10:14).

As pertains to religious institutions, the elders of the congregation were given responsibilities in regard to
the sin offerings, being instructed to lay their hands upon the head of the bull before its death (Lev. 4:15;
cf. 9:1ff.). They declared the innocence of their city and offered a heifer when a murder was committed
(Deut. 21:1-9). A psalm calls for the extolling of the Lord in the congregation of the people and praising

13
him in the assembly of the elders (Psa. 107:32). The elders accompanied David and the commanders of
thousands when the ark of the covenant was moved from the house of Obededom to Jerusalem (1
Chron. 15:25).

Finally, an interesting futuristic passage occurs in Isa. 24:23, where God promises to reign on Mount Zion
and in Jerusalem, manifesting his glory before his elders. The reference is timely against the twenty-four
elders mentioned in Revelation.

In the early days of the nation, Moses bore the weight of judicial matters, but on recommendation of his
father-in-law, able men were appointed to judge the people, allowing only hard cases to come before
Moses (Exod. 18:13-16, 25-26; cf. also Deut. 1:9-17). Once settled in Canaan, the Israelites had been
instructed to appoint judges and officers in their tribes that they should judge the people righteously, with
justice and without perversion (Deut. 16:18-20). Cases of personal dispute were to be heard by them
(Deut. 25:1-3). Deut. 17:8-13 looks forward to the time when judicial matters too difficult to judge would
be appealed to the priests and judge (at Jerusalem). The word of the priest and judge was final.

The probable difference between the elders and judges was that the judges were elders whose primary
task was to administer justice. The elders themselves were a judicial body. In the cities disputes were
settled by them, where they administered justice at the city gate (Deut. 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Ruth 4:1ff.;
Prov. 31:23; Amos 5:10, 12, 15; Zech. 8:16). They heard and decided cases pertaining to family
relationships, as when a son was rebellious (Deut. 21:18-21) or when an evil husband accused his wife of
not being a virgin (Deut. 22:13-21). Elders residing in the cities of refuge, listened to cases of
manslaughter (Josh. 20:1-4), but if a man guilty of premeditated murder escaped there, the elders of the
accused's home city were commissioned to retrieve him and deliver him to the avenger of blood (Deut.
19:12). The elders also served as the court to hear cases bearing on family responsibilities covered by
the levirate law (Deut. 25:7-9; Ruth 4:1-12). When the death penalty was imposed, it remained the elders'
duty to see that it was carried out.

The actual working of the judicial system is apparent in the cases of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12), Naboth
(1 Kings 21:8-14), and Jeremiah (Jer. 26:10-24). The case of Ruth and Boaz illustrates the working of the
system in the routine process of law. That of Naboth shows it in a corrupt stage under the domination of
a wicked ruler. Jeremiah's case pictures proceedings in the royal court system where elders offer an
opinion but a group of officials, who may or may not have been elders, decide the case.

What might have been a rather informal handling of legal matters, gradually developed to something
more in the order of an organized magistracy. This was true in the capitals during the monarchy to a
greater degree than in the other cities. When the king appeared as chief justice, cases could be referred
to him, but even here it was not dissimilar to the days of Moses or Samuel.

c. Jewish Leadership During Intertestamental and New Testament times. Christian ministry had its
beginning against the backdrop of Jewish elders. Even though dissimilarities tend to dominate the
picture, the background is important for comprehending the proper function of Christian ministry.

To understand the elders in Judaism during the Inter-Testament and New Testament times is to know
them in relation to two basic institutions--the local and the supreme sanhedrins. The local sanhedrins
consisted of elders who were recognized by their respective communities as the men responsible for the
conduct of religious and civil affairs. The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem constituted a national eldership
which represented and spoke for the Jewish race as a whole.

The function of Jewish elders was bound up in the discharge of the responsibilities peculiar to the two
institutions. The differences in the two bodies compel independent handling. Attention will be given to
the Great Sanhedrin first, followed by a look at the local courts. The coincidence of the elders of the local
sanhedrin with the elders of the synagogue introduces a third institution, the synagogue.

14
The Sanhedrin. The origin of the term "sanhedrin" is uncertain, but the word is recognizably
Greek. Derived from sunedrion (sun--together; hedra--seat), the word passed into the Aramaic and
affixed itself to the Jewish assembly. The body, commonly known as the sanhedrin, is actually
represented by an assortment of terms. The Greek terms, presbyterium,gerousia, and boule, although not
synonymous, convey something of the institution's character. The Hebraic Mishna likewise characterizes
the institution by referring to it as the "Beth din" and "Hall of Hewn Stones."

Standing alone, the sanhedrin refers to the supreme council of the Jews that sat in Jerusalem from ca.
200 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. Schürer describes it as "that supreme native court which . . . the Romans had
allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain restrictions with regard to competency" (A History of
the Jewish People,2.1.185). The body bore the responsibility for all judicial matters and administrative
procedure which could not be handled by the local courts or which had not been specifically withheld by
the Roman ruler. In the New Testament, the sanhedrin appears as the supreme court of justice among
the Jews, before which Christ and several of his disciples were brought and judged.

The record of events in the Intertestament period indicates a gradual development of an authoritative
assembly among the Jews, which wielded a wide influence in religious affairs and assumed significant
responsibilities in civil matters. In post-exilic Judaism the high priest came to be recognized by Jews and
their alien rulers alike, as the superior representative authority of the Jewish state. According to the
unhistorical story of Judith, which probably reflects a certain amount of truth on Intertestament civil
administration, Palestine was governed by Jerusalem-based high priest and Jewish senate. The Jewish
city of Bithulia was itself ruled by three magistrates, one of whom was chief. The magistrates were
elders, but other elders stood below them in sharing the responsibilities of the city.

During the Greek period, the Ptolemies and Seleucids elected to allow home rule rather than appoint
governors in Jerusalem. By the time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.E.), the council of elders had
developed into an aristocratic body, known as the gerousia and seemingly enjoyed extensive political
powers. The advent of the Hasmonaeans meant the rise of political independence and virtual
dictatorship, but the basic constitutional status of the state remained unaltered.

Pompey's termination of the Hasmonaean rule in 63 B.C.E. did not change the form of internal
administration of the Jewish state. Political changes occurred at the top level to bring the country under
Roman control, but substantial internal freedom was allowed the Jews. The power of the sanhedrin
increased over that of former days, although it was made subject to review by the Roman procurator.

Only under Governor Gabinius (57-55 B.C.E.) were national self-legislative powers removed from
Jerusalem. For the duration of his administration, the country was divided into five districts with their own
sanhedrins.

Herod's answer to the Jerusalem sanhedrin for actions in Galilee shows an extended jurisdiction of its
authority. He commenced his reign by ordering that all members of the council be put to death, that he
might get rid of the old nobility who had opposed his claims. He later led the sanhedrin to pass the death
sentence upon Hyrcanus.

At Herod's death, only Judea and Samaria fell to Archelaus, and the jurisdiction of the sanhedrin was
restricted to Judea. This situation remained unchanged during the administration of the procurators, but
under them "the government became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with a dominion
over the nation" (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.10). This state of affairs is confirmed by the New Testament,
where its authority in religious and non-capital cases was recognized by Jesus and Pilate alike.

The heritage for the sanhedrin is not clear. Tradition has suggested it originated when a council of
seventy elders was appointed to assist Moses (Num. 11:16). Some even think that the seventy
constituted a kind of Jewish senate in Egypt for governing the people in bondage, but there is no
evidence for this. The same council is said to have continued without interruption down to Talmudic
times, but the whole scheme is without verification.

15
The Great Synagogue has been suggested as the connecting link between the prophets and the doctors
of the Law. It remains to be proved, however, that the "Men of the Great Synagogue" constituted a
permanent, organized body. All do not agree with Kuenen's exhaustive study of the subject, but his
generally accepted conclusions point to the assembly of Nehemiah 8-10 as the basis of all the traditions
about the Great Synagogue. Englander appeals to the Talmudic tradition and prefers to refer to the
group as "the Men of the Great Community," identifying them as the elders and nobles. As he makes
clear, there is no evidence to confirm this to be an organized legislative body holding regular meetings.

Before the precise function of the supreme or local sanhedrins can be determined, the vexing problems
presented by the traditional and historical sources should be considered. Throughout the discussion,
three major thoughts need to be kept in mind. First, each type of source represents a situation from a
peculiar point of view. Second, the rabbinic traditions represent a progressive development extending
into the centuries beyond that period of this investigation. Third, the Jewish traditions were not reduced
to the present written form until five and one-half centuries after Christ.

Briefly stated, the major problem is this: The rabbinic sources represent the sanhedrin as a legislative and
judicial body headed by leading Pharisees, whereas the Greek and biblical sources make it appear as a
political court-council, presided over by the political chief of state, that being a king or Sadducean high
priest, or both.

In his analysis of the situation, Mantel discovered that in attempting to deal with the problem, three points
of view are expressed. Schürer and Hoffman represent those who have maintained the existence of a
single sanhedrin, but there is disagreement over who presided. Schürer is of the opinion that it was
always the high priest. Hoffman believes in the Pharisaic rule but thinks that the political rulers often
seized the authority.

A second view is that there were three sanhedrins in Jerusalem. Geiger conjectures a division of the
original seventy-one member council into three twenty-three member ones, one composed of priests, one
of Levites, and one of Israelites. Questions of a general nature would be considered by the united
councils or Great Sanhedrin, which was presided over by the high priest.

The third view is the opinion that there were two Great Sanhedrins, one primarily a religious body and the
other a political or judicial one. Büchrer, representing this class, holds that the bet din ha-gadol and the
Great Sanhedrin were distinct, the former being the religious body. The Great Sanhedrin was dominated
by the priestly aristocracy and presided over by the high priest. It supposedly originated after the death of
Archelaus and terminated with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Variations or syntheses of the above positions further indicate the perplexity of the problem. Jelski falls
between Schürer and Hoffman by editing the rabbinic sources. He takes the position that a single
sanhedrin had two presiding officers, one of these being the high priest who officiated at the political
sessions. Allon thinks Sadducees and Pharisees dominated the sanhedrin by turns. Chwolson
recognizes only one sanhedrin but reduces the Great Sanhedrin of the rabbinic sources to a mere
committee on religious rites, appointed by the sanhedrin.

Aptowitzer believes there were two sanhedrins, both consisting of seventy-two members. Funk, on the
other hand, argues that one of the two courts was a small sanhedrin of forty-five members, presided over
by the high priest. Karlin and Zucker insist that the small council had only twenty-three members. Kohler
offers the possibility of two little sanhedrins, which combined to make the Great Sanhedrin. He identified
one of these with the senate of Jerusalem alluded to by Josephus. He argues for a duumvirate,
reasoning that Pharisean leadership is necessitated by the import of such outstanding rabbis as Jose b.
Joezer, Simon b. Shetah, Hillel, and Gemalel I.

Amid the confusion and speculation relative to the sanhedrin, it should be remembered that the successor
to the Great Sanhedrin, the Beth din at Jamnia, was a very different body. Many of the traditions
appearing in the Mishna relating to this body represent it as the continuation of the Great Sanhedrin,
apparently without realizing the marked differences existing between the two bodies. The council at

16
Jamnia did represent the highest religious authority in Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem, but it
was far from being the continuation of the Great Sanhedrin of by-gone days.

While many of the ancient traditions about the origin and leadership of the sanhedrin are uncertain, the
existence and function of the institution during the first century C.E. cannot be questioned. The Mishna
describes the sanhedrin as having the sole right to judge and decide matters pertaining to (1) a tribe, (2) a
false prophet, (3) a high priest, (4) military subscription, (5) annexation to Jerusalem or the temple court
yards, (6) institution of tribal sanhedrins, and (7) condemnation of a city which lapses into
idolatry. Capital cases were supposedly brought before the "Little" Sanhedrin of twenty-three members,
but it is known that the Great Sanhedrin exercised this authority until the right was removed
approximately forty-years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

In addition to its civil and political duties, the rabbinic sources reveal the major religious responsibilities
shouldered by the great council. It supervised the temple service and religious festivals, determined the
city responsible for an atonement sacrifice in the event of an open country murder, dealt with problems of
adultery, and arranged the calendar. In summary, the Great Sanhedrin settled all doubtful questions
relating to religious law.

The idea that the sanhedrin was chiefly a legislative body which acted as a judicial court only in
exceptional cases, is inconsistent with the evidence and with its very name. It was the supreme
administrative council, the highest court of justice, and the highest religious authority in Judaism. In the
line of administration, it was given by the Romans the task of levying taxes in Judea. Constituted as an
advisory body, it was to be consulted regularly for its opinions. In its judicial role, the sanhedrin had both
civil and criminal jurisdiction. It governed by Jewish law, maintained its own police, and made arrests. In
relation to the local sanhedrins, the Great Sanhedrin was not a court of appear but served as recourse
when local judges could not agree. It defined the law for the lower courts.

The civil authority of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was restricted in accord with the political boundaries of the
ruling officer under the power of Rome. Spiritual authority was exercised over the Jewish world, but direct
control of the Jewish congregation was limited to its civil jurisdiction.

The Great Sanhedrin was the de facto authority for all Jewry. Its opinions were held as binding upon all
teachers of the Law and all judges. It decided the sentence of any who taught opinions contrary to the
traditional interpretation of the Law. Its moral authority over the diaspora is well illustrated by the appeal
of the Elephantine Jews near the close of the fifth century B.C.E.

The debate continues regarding the political and religious character of the members of the Great
Sanhedrin, but during the Roman period, the priestly nobility with Sadducean sympathies and the
Pharisaic doctors seem to have constituted the body. The New Testament implies the council was
composed of the chief priests (high priest, high priests emeriti, and members of the priestly families),
elders, and scribes (legal assessors or professional lawyers). Members belonging to neither professional
group of priests or scribes were simply called "elders" or "councillors."

Although the precise manner by which one became a member of the sanhedrin is unknown, the
aristocratic character of the court suggests appointment and tenure rather than popular election and re-
election. The Greek sources are silent, but the Mishna claims the members were court
appointed. Political rulers possibly interfered occasionally as did Salome in the introduction of the
Pharisee element.

New members were formally admitted by the laying on of hands. The act itself indicated the bestowal of
an office or the transfer of authority.

As to the qualifications, a crisis of dispute between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel brought about the
need for the members of the Beth din to be "men of wisdom and humility and who were esteemed by their
fellow-men as local judges" (T. B. Sanhedrin 88b). Jochanan (3rd century C.E.) enumerated the following
qualities: "men of stature, wisdom, good appearance, mature age, with the knowledge of sorcery, and

17
who are conversant with all the seventy languages of mankind." R. Judah added that one must be "able
to prove the cleanness of a reptile from Biblical texts" (T. B. Sanhedrin 17a; 88b).

The elders of the Great Sanhedrin represented a national eldership that commanded the respect of all
other elders among the Jews. The local elders, however, were responsible for governing the Jews in
their communities. Herein lies the key to the possible relationship between the elders of the church and
the elders of the Jews.

As the Jews settled over the Graeco-Roman world, they were naturally drawn together by their common
religious and social heritage. This banding together for worship and mutual assistance made possible
and encouraged a community organization.

In the diaspora, the Jews organized themselves into independent communities, with the organization's
nature varying according to circumstances. The Alexandrian Jews formed a political corporation, but in
Rome, where social and religious organizations were suspect, the Jews were forced to organize in
separate congregations called synagogues.

The Jewish communities were usually headed by a council of elders. Influenced by political associations
in Greek municipalities, Hellenistic Jews called their council the gerousia. The elders (or at least the
members of the council) were termed archontes (rulers). The chairmen were called the gerousiarches. In
the absence of recorded regulations, it may be assumed that the number of elders on each council varied
with the size and needs of the congregation.

Larger communities had to meet complex communal tasks with appointive or elective officials. Local
diversity and decentralization led to a multiplicity of titles, but some of these officials were probably
archontes.

In Jewish towns, the local sanhedrin was responsible for civil and religious order. Its jurisdiction may
have extended to the subordinate villages as well. Edersheim hints that the actual administration of the
city was by municipal authorities under the presidency of a mayor, the representative of the elders. In
predominantly non-Jewish towns, the synagogue officials simply tended the Jewish populace.

All judicial matters of concern to the community were brought before the local courts. Like the Great
Sanhedrin, the courts of twenty-three were authorized to deal with criminal cases, while three elders
made a tribunal with the authority to penalize by scourging. Local sanhedrins also managed community
property and assessed local taxes. Only when there was a need for interpretation of the Law was a case
referred to the supreme council in Jerusalem.

The sanhedrins consisted of from three or seven to twenty-three members, depending upon the size of
the community and met in the synagogue for purposes of administration. Its members enjoyed seats of
honor when a synagogue service was in progress.

With the breakdown of the family organization, elders were probably those who had acquired wisdom and
been elected to the council. In some cases the archontes were elected for only one year or at least for a
definite period with the possibility of re-election, but such practice apparently grew less frequent with the
passing of time. There is evidence that some may have been elected for life, though perhaps this was an
honorary position.

The duties that fell to the elders demanded a precise knowledge and understanding of the Law and the
traditions. These must in turn be taught to others aspiring to leadership roles. In the event of a death or
moving away, a new elder would be selected and ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands.

There was no attempt to create separate organizations for the local sanhedrin and the synagogue. In
Jewish towns the elders of the community were also the elders of the synagogue. Both civil and religious
matters were their responsibility. They exercised exclusion from the congregation, which may have been

18
analogous to exclusion from community affairs. Attention is now drawn to those matters peculiar to the
synagogue so as to complete the local picture.

Internet Articles

“Sadducees and Pharisees” (JewishHistory.com)

“Jewish Religious Leaders” (TheBibleJourney.org)

The synagogue. History has not revealed how or when the synagogue became a universal Jewish
institution. It evidently originated during the Babylonian exile.

In the broad sense, a synagogue was a local community in its corporate capacity under religious and civil
jurisdiction. In the narrow sense, it was the building with its assemblies and services. It was a house of
prayer and study of the Scriptures.

In the full sense, the elders were not the "elders of the synagogue" but the "elders of the
community." The synagogue functioned under their oversight, but their task was not simply to run the
synagogue. There is no evidence to suggest that, even in the larger towns where there were multiple
synagogues, separate groups of officials were formed to handle religious matters. The ruler, almoner,
and minister were able to discharge the routine functions of the synagogue, leaving a college of elders for
each synagogue unnecessary. From available sources, only the distinct Hellenistic synagogues in
Jerusalem would suggest an exception.

Scholars do not always agree as to the exact relationship between the "ruler" and his fellow elders,
whether he was one of equal rank or whether, as the presiding officer, he exercised authority over the
body. M'Clintock and Strong offer no support for their assertion that "in the provincial synagogues the
respective rulers were supreme, and had the principal voice in the decision and distribution of other
offices" ("Synagogue," in CBTEL, 10:75). On the other hand, the inscriptions at Rome have been cited in
favor of the ruler's supremacy, but perhaps his supremacy fell more toward that of synagogual
"responsibility" than that of "authority." Innumerable epitaphs found there reveal that the ruler or head of
the gerousia was one who represented that body in conducting the congregations' business affairs. The
application of the title archontes to women and children, however, leads one to suspect that the title may
have often been honorary or hereditary.

While the elders had general direction of the affairs of the congregation, others were appointed to special
tasks and the acts of public worship were conducted by members of the congregation. A "ruler" (or
rulers) of the synagogue was appointed to care for the external order of public worship, and to
superintend the functions of the synagogue and its building. He appointed the Scripture reader, the
prayer leader and the preacher. Schürer is convinced that the ruler was generally one of the
congregation's elders.

Besides the ruler of the synagogue, there appeared a class of civil officials known as "the receivers of
alms." A religious service during the days of Christ, almsgiving was supervised by "administrations" who
had under them "collectors of alms" and "distributors of alms."

Another type of synagogue official was a salaried man, known as the minister or attendant
(hup`ret`s). One of his duties was to bring out the Scriptures at public worship and return them to their
proper place afterwards. His was also the care of the synagogue building and furniture. In addition, he
signaled people to cease work on the approach of the Sabbath and gave notice of the close of the holy
day. In smaller communities, he often filled a variety of other offices. As the servant of the congregation,
the minister instructed children in reading and executed punishment by scourging.

19
Internet Article

“Synagogue” (Britannica.com)

“The Synagogue: Background & Overview” (JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

“Judaism: The Oral Law – Talmud & Mishna” (JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

Conclusion. The elders of Israel were those senior citizens who bore the responsibility for the
government and welfare of the people under the rule of God. As went the elders, so went the people.

The value of a study of elders in the Old Testament period is measured by the extent to which it leads to
responsible leadership. Persons living under the New Covenant need to recognize the responsibility God
places upon a child of light to assume a shepherding role. While all may not become elders in the
church, each saint is expected to provide spiritual guidance within the sphere of his influence. Each is his
brother's keeper.

During the Intertestamental and New Testament periods, Jewish elders formed religio-political bodies that
served local and national interests. Their control was firm and beyond question. For the sake of
administration, they knew no separation of religious and civil affairs.

Unit 2. Leadership in the Early New Testament Transition

Christ entered a religious world that was in need of change. However, that change, or time of transition
from the Old Testament models to New Testament ones, resulted in overlaps. As is evident in the New
Testament, the Jewish religious leaders still held power and sway over the people. However, prophets
also lived and spoke through the time of Christ and his Apostles, eventually giving way to apostolic and
then congregational leadership. This unit will address the role of the prophetic ministry, spiritual gifts, and
apostles and prophets during this transition.

a. Prophetic ministries. The prophetic gift enabled men to speak revelations of God. Those so
endowed could hardly be understood to be "office-bearers" confined to single Christian communities; they
simply spoke the message which came to them by special revelation. They seemed to have come and
gone as they pleased, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps most prophets did confine
themselves to one congregation, but, like the apostles, they are more properly conceived as ministering
to the church universal. The local church was responsible to test them when they appeared and could
receive or reject their utterances.

The "prophetic ministry" may be said to have had a threefold division: apostles, prophets, and teachers. A
strict division between the kinds of the "word of God" spoken by each class is not possible, although
some generalizations are in order. Apostles served the needs of missionary endeavor; prophets devoted
themselves to exhortations and admonition; and teachers were occupied with instruction.

The second century Didache reveals added insights into the prophetic ministries in the early church. With
the work in mind, Newton Flew has put the prophetic ministry into focus with these basic conclusions:

(1) The prophetic ministries are for the church as a whole. Even though they were generally itinerants,
their gift enabled them to foster a sense of unity and purpose within the entire church.

(2) They were ministries of the word. The fact that these are the ministries which are most prominent
supports the thesis that the emphasis in New Testament ministry was on the preaching and interpretation
of the divine word, which creates and sustains the church.

20
(3) The ministries (and those of the bishops and deacons, which come into greater prominence as the
first century progressed) are entirely dependent on the divine life which governs the ecclesia (church).
These are all gifts of the Spirit, inasmuch as they were instituted by God rather than by men.

The prophetic ministries as considered above are closely related to a first century phenomenon
commonly referred to as "spiritual gifts." Spiritual gifts are understood to relate to special endowments of
the Holy Spirit for the purpose of establishing and edifying the primitive church. They are furthermore
taken by most to be peculiar to an age when the church had not been fully established in a community.

b. Spiritual gifts. "Spiritual gifts" (charismata) indicate special endowments that enabled select people to
served practical needs of the primitive church. From the discussions given to the subject in the Pauline
Epistles, charismata were concerned primarily with activities and functions within the body of Christ. The
term is not used to designate an official or continuing office. Some gifts were of a higher utility than
others, but this did not indicate the possessors were of higher rank. Paul's greater interest in the prophetic
ministry over that of tongues, for instance, establishes this vital principle: ministry exists for the purpose of
benefiting people. Unless accompanied by a revelation or a gift of knowledge, tongues were useless for
Christian edification.

The speech of one endowed with the gift of tongues was not intelligible to all. One could easily gain the
impression that an unintelligible speaker was out of his senses. No edification was derived by the
congregation from speaking in tongues unless the speech was understood directly or was interpreted (1
Cor. 14:2-23). On Pentecost, individuals within the crowd heard the apostles "speaking in his own
language" (Acts 2:6). Whether this is the same phenomenon or not is sharply debated. But the point is
made that the gift of tongues was not an indication of one's spirituality. Neither did the gift give a person
reason to boast.

Revelation of various kinds may have been less complete than prophecy due to a lack of clear
enunciation. The interpretation of tongues was necessary for understanding the revelation. Discerning of
spirits, given to assure the authenticity of those who spoke prophetically or in tongues, provided the ability
to distinguish or differentiate between good and evil. But the gift of prophecy granted the power to comfort
and enlighten in regard to definite courses of action. Prophecy revealed content; tongues enable
communication where language was a barrier.

It has been suggested that spiritual gifts fall into three categories: intellect, feeling, and skill. Intellectual
gifts were those that revealed the certainty of Christian doctrine and a proper understanding of that
doctrine. Emotion or feeling gifts would have benefited the worshipers and would have enabled a higher
degree of encouragement to the congregation. Gifts pertaining to skill would have given practical benefit
in matters of organization and discipline (see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,I:437). This is
an artificial classification, for Paul never broke them down by category. But the analogy helps see the
variety of the gifts that would have been useful for a struggling group of believers.

Certain gifts did indeed engage the intellectual faculties. The teacher was given the word of wisdom that
he may have the fundamental verities of the faith. He or another may also be given the word of
knowledge that the congregation may understand the significance of the words of wisdom. The gift of
exhortation (paraklēsis) enabled the community to grow toward Christian maturity.

There were also the charismata of power and sympathy. These included: faith (pistis), gifts of
healing (charismata iamatōn), working of miracles (energēmata
dunameōn); helps (antilēmpseis), governments (kubernēseis); giving and showing mercy (Rom. 12:8; 1
Cor. 12:9-10, 28).

The gift of faith is that "faith flowing out in action, not as regards the character or the moral qualities of the
individual, but as regards the work and mission of the Body of Christ" (J. R. Pridie, The Spiritual Gifts, p.
135). "Helps" ("helpful deeds") seem to refer to those engaged in various works of compassion,
particularly the relief of the needy and the ill.

21
Divine assistance empowered Christian leaders. "Governments" (administration) refers to "men who . . .
did for the community what the steersman or pilot does for the ship" (Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church
and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, p. 60).

Another way to analyze spiritual gifts is to consider them in two general classes: those which served for
the ministry of the word, and those which formed the basis for other kinds of ministry. It was from the
second class of "gifts" that the ministry of the local churches proceeded--the "wise counsels" and "helps."
The one enabled men to guide and lead the brethren and the other to render subordinate service.

Whenever spiritual gifts were dispensed, more than one gift was sometimes given to the same person (1
Cor. 14:13). This is no more unusual than the fact that those appointed for physical care in Jerusalem
were found later to be ministering the word. Again, it is noted that there is not always the clear and final
separation between ministries in the New Testament and those who performed them. This is not to say,
however, that the New Testament does not speak of specific ministries. Indeed it does.

The function of the missionary with an established congregation was to advise the church in the selection
of men who could oversee their welfare and to inculcate such principles as would ensure the continuance
of a healthy Christian community. Sprit-filled persons could assist in this task for the duration of the
endowment. But the idea of permanency called for a more enduring form of ministry. Consequently, local
elders were given the task of supervising and building up the churches.

c. Prophets and Apostles. The manifestation of spiritual gifts and the prophetic ministry is seen most
clearly in the prophets and apostles. Both prophets and apostles delivered “a word from the Lord.” It is in
this “declarative” role that one finds the continuity with the Old Testament prophets. Just as Israel,
Ezekiel, and others called for the nation of Israel to “repent and return to the Lord,” so the apostles and
prophets of the early New Testament era called individuals “to repent” and turn to the Lord.

Prophets. The phenomenon of prophesying was not limited to Old Testament times and Judaism. The
prophet Joel is quoted by Peter, himself under the compulsion of the Holy Spirit, foretelling that the events
in the Christian community would be characterized by the Spirit's outpouring upon both men and women
(Acts 2:16-18). The function of prophets and prophetesses, long known in Israel, continues in the New
Israel. Simultaneously God was showing the continuation of covenant-fellowship and revealing himself
through Spirit-led people. The association of the prophets with God's revelatory activities is so close that it
is difficult in some New Testament references to distinguish whether the author has Old or New
Testament prophets in mind.

The word "prophet" is used in a wide and in a narrow sense. In its widest meaning, it applied to all those
who were given revelations of God. In this sense the whole church could be said to be composed of
"saints and prophets" (Rev. 11:18; 16:6). But in the narrow usage of the term, prophets were distinct from
apostles, evangelists, elders, and teachers.

One of the distinguishing features of the prophetic ministry was inspiration. Paul classified prophecy
among the charismatic gifts. To him it was a gift to be sought for its power to build up, to convey an
intelligible message, and to reach the human heart with divine truths (1 Cor. 14:1-5).

The prophet was not necessarily a "church official." Any member, including women, might possess the gift
of prophecy (Acts 21:9; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29).

The prophet was one through whom God communicated truth to the church. His message might be
didactic, predictive, or historical. With other gifts of the Spirit, prophecy tended to make the worship of the
disciples a Spirit-led service. Although the utterances of the prophets were to be tested by the teaching
already given by the apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 4:2, 6), the prophets were living evidence of the
continuance of the prophetic office of the Messiah. Acceptance of apostolic authority and the prophetic

22
ministry meant that the disciples believed a new revelation was being made in addition to, though
including, the teach and work of Jesus.

The mysteries of God were made known through special revelation (1 Cor. 13:2; 14:6, 30; Gal. 1:15-17;
Eph. 1:17; 3:3-7). It was the gift of prophecy which enabled one to receive and declare such a revelation.
In general the prophet revealed the will of God. That will may have been God's purpose in salvation or his
commanding will, either in connection with specific revelations of the future or as independent commands
(Acts 11:28; 13:1-2; 16:7; 21:4; Gal. 2:2).

Prophets provided intelligible inspired preaching and promoted the growth of individual Christians in
holiness and knowledge (1 Cor. 14:22). Their preaching served for edification, consolation, and
exhortation (1 Cor. 14:3). Whether they gave a revelation for teaching or gave a forecast of future events,
the purpose was still for the benefit of the disciples.

The gift of prophecy was divine insight into religious truth. The prophets gave Christians a fresh
understanding of the relationship between God and his earth-bound children. They revealed more fully
the way of God's salvation and his requirements for man.

The prophets were teachers, for much of what they uttered was instruction. But the prophet's peculiar
"gift" was distinct from that of the teacher. The prophet made known new ideas which the gospel
disclosed. He traced the connection of events and explained the rationale of the divine forces at work for
man's salvation. He also showed the bearings of these divine facts and forces upon beliefs and ways of
living.

Prophets had their place within the congregation and were part of the preaching ministry of the early
church. While they seem to have been home-based, they were often used on special assignment. The
Jerusalem church had numerous prophets whom it sent on special missions to Antioch. Their presence
with Paul and Barnabas would reinforce the decision reached by the brethren at Jerusalem with reference
to the Judaizing problem. The context suggests that, while in Antioch, they engaged in the kind of
exhortation which was characteristic of the prophetic ministry. With the fulfillment of their assignment,
Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem whence they had been sent (Acts 11:27; 15:27, 32-33).

There is no record of evangelistic labors of the prophets, except for Silas. It is easy to assume that the
prophet Silas is the same one who accompanied Paul on his second Asian tour. They were closely
associated from the time of the Jerusalem conference until Silas' return to Jerusalem; the context offers
no suggestion that another Silas in intended.

Internet Articles

“What Does Scripture Teach About the Office of Prophet and the Gift of Prophecy?”
(TheGospelCoalition.org)

“Prophets and Prophecy in New Testament Times” by J.H. Bernard. The Biblical World Vol. 25, No. 2
(Feb., 1905), pp. 117-124 (8 pages)

Apostles. "Apostles" is used in the New Testament in reference to numerous figures. These include the
twelve closest disciples of Jesus, the successor of Judas, Epaphroditus, the Lord's brother, Paul,
Barnabas, and Christ himself (2 Cor. 8:23; Gal 1:19; Phil. 2:25; Heb. 3:1; cf. Rom. 16:7).
From apo and stelō, meaning literally to send forth, apostolos can mean an ambassador, delegate,
envoy, messenger or, perhaps, even a missionary.

23
Earlier in classical Greek, ho apostolos was a naval expedition, probably also its commander. According
to the papyri, it came to mean a bill of lading or, less frequently, a passport, dispatch, or letter. In some
cases, an ambassador, delegate, or messenger was so designated by the term.

"Sending one forth" did not necessarily make him an apostle. The prophets Judas and Silas were sent by
the Jerusalem church to Antioch, but they were never referred to as apostles (Acts 15:27, 33). On the
other hand, the word apostle is employed for men who appear to be called apostles because they
functioned as messengers or participated in the ministry of the Word. It may be concluded that there are
three general senses in which the term apostle is used in the New Testament: with reference to (1) the
twelve, represented usually by Peter, the apostles to the Jews; (2) Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles; and
(3) informally of messenger-ministers. Barnabas fits into one of the last two categories; James perhaps
into the third. Formally constituted, the apostolate was not an office created by the Christian community,
but a group of men specially chosen by Jesus himself.

No mention is made of Peter's unique appointment as the apostle to the Jews. He is, nonetheless, set off
somewhat in the course of Jesus' ministry (Matt. 16:16-19; Jn. 21:15-17). His name appears first in all the
lists of disciples, while Judas is always last (Matt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). After
Jesus' ascension, he occupied the position of spokesman (Acts 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 5:1-9). In the early
period, Peter led the church in Jerusalem before James became the recognized voice. In keeping with the
decision in Jerusalem on the circumcision problem, Paul and his associates were to go to the Gentile,
while those from Jerusalem went to the Circumcision.

Paul refers to the original apostles as the super-apostles (hoi huperlian) (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11) or as those
"apostles before me" (tous pro emou apostolos) (Gal. 1:17). Although he claims equality with them, his
own apostleship is special. He received a divine commission and revelation separate from the twelve
(Acts 9:15; 26:16-20; 1 Cor. 15:8-11).

As were Jeremiah, Samson, and John the Baptist, Paul had been appointed to his work while yet in his
mother's womb. In evidence to his apostleship, he offered the approval of the apostles and elders at
Jerusalem, his "signs," and the visible results of his ministry through his converts (Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor.
12:12; Gal. 1:15-17; 2:9; Eph. 3:1-13).

Barnabas' apostleship might be presumed to have derived from the relationship he sustained to Paul,
similar to that which the eleven had with Peter (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor. 9:5-6). But the technical implications
of the word are just not clear outside the twelve plus Matthias and Paul. There is room to speculate,
however, that Barnabas may have been an apostle in the more technical sense. Unlike Paul, he left no
writings where he may have had opportunity to explain the sense of his own apostleship. Perhaps
Barnabas should, with Paul, be considered an apostle to the Gentiles.

Authority. The apostles rank with the Old Testament prophets with respect to authority. They proclaimed
a divine message which called men to God. Consequently, they were accorded a certain pre-eminence in
the leadership of the early Christian community (cf. Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2; 8:14-19).

The authority of the apostolate was that of Christ (Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20; Jn. 13:20; Acts 4:18-20; 5:28-
29). Paul, for example, understood the call to become an apostle to be equated with the reception of
revelation. So, the authority rests in the inspired message rather than in the office (Galatians 1-2; 2 Cor.
11:4-13). The message was confirmed by the resurrection; wonders and signs performed by the apostles
further assured the authenticity of their mission and message (Acts 2:43; 5:12).

The appointment of the seven ministers at Jerusalem grew out of the conviction that the apostles had
been set apart for a ministry of proclamation (Acts 6:2). Ordaining the seven for a special task of
benevolence granted approval of other qualified men to handle the administrative detail of distributing
money from a common fund to those in need.

24
Qualifications. The pre-eminence of the apostles was due to a combination of factors. These include (1)
their companionship with the Christ during his earthy ministry, (2) their witness to the resurrection of
Jesus, (3) a commission to preach, and (4) the authority to perform miracles.

When the eleven were contemplating a replacement for Judas, they outlined what to them would
constitute acceptable candidates. They considered only men who had accompanied with them and Jesus
from the baptism of John until the ascension. It was essential that the replacement be able to bear
witness of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). This set of qualifications could apply only after the resurrection
and then to a temporary ministry.

Neither Paul nor Barnabas was in the company of Jesus. Neither, as far as is known, was even
acquainted with him during his incarnate life. Their apostleship was in this sense different. Furthermore,
the commission given the apostles by Jesus was that they should return to the city of Jerusalem, where
they would receive an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and begin preaching in his name (Lk. 24:47-49; Acts
1:1-8). Those so commissioned excluded Paul and Barnabas. But Paul's claim to apostleship rested upon
a divine call and commission not substantially different from that of the twelve (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1;
Gal. 1:11-17).

Paul reminded his readers that Jesus "appeared" to James and then last of all to him (1 Cor. 15:8). While
he could not give an eye-witness report to the events of the earthly life of Jesus, he could give eye-
witness testimony to the risen Lord whom he encountered on the Damascus road. It may be concluded
that whereas personal accompaniment with Jesus was necessary to be one of the "twelve" apostles, this
was not essential to "apostleship." A personal revelation and commissioning by the Lord was sufficient in
Paul's case. Perhaps an even less formal call and commission was granted other "apostles."

Apostles were sometimes sent by others. Peter and John were sent to Samaria, Paul and Barnabas to
Jerusalem. The fact that others sent them does not necessarily mean they were subject to the authority of
another. In each case these appear as the choice men for a task. The seriousness of each occasion
dictated that the more respected among them go.

When speaking of the pillars of the church Paul includes James, the Lord's brother, alongside Peter and
John. There is no record of how James came to occupy such an important place in the Jerusalem church.
Nor is there any indication of his precise relationship with the twelve. He is already there not long after the
church was established and seemingly the prime figure by the time of the Jerusalem conference. Paul
accords him the honor of an apostle and respects his "ruling" position in the Jerusalem church (Acts
15:13-21; Gal. 1:19; 2:9). Furthermore, he attached as much significance to the recognition of his own
teaching and apostleship by James as he did to its recognition by Peter and John.

Ministry of the apostolate. The primary purpose of the apostolate was proclamation. Apostles were
pioneers whose function was to bear witness to the resurrection of their Lord and extend the bounds of
the kingdom. Their function became most evident at Pentecost (Acts 1:21-22).

The apostolic band was formed by Jesus. The twelve are first known to us as "apostles" from the time
when, during his ministry, Jesus sent them on a limited mission tour. They were commissioned to preach
the kingdom of God and to heal, a mission clearly associated with the work of Jesus (Matt. 10:5-42; Mk.
3:14; Lk. 9:1-6).

Jesus promised the apostles the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He thereby prepared them to be his
authoritative representatives in declaring the word of the kingdom. The visible demonstration of the Spirit
was conclusive evidence that there teaching was his (John 14-16; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 3:1-10).

Insistence upon personal companionship with Jesus as a condition of membership in the apostolate was
in part related to the ability to be a witness to the resurrection. But the requirement of association "from
the baptism of John" suggests that an apostle's testimony was to include the deeds and teachings of

25
Jesus. Only a man equipped with the personal experience of the Master's companionship could carry
forward the initial stages of his work in the manner Christ had intended. Witnessing to the resurrection
was the means by which men were to be persuaded to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. The function of
an apostle embraced both the presentation of the gospel to bring men and women to faith in Christ and
the nurturing that faith to maturity.

The apostles gave themselves first to proclaiming the gospel to the unconverted. Then they labored
among their converts to give them spiritual nourishment. Whenever false teachers threatened the welfare
of the flock, they exercised their authoritative position in insisting upon correct doctrine and moral
development.

Paul, for one, felt his apostleship expected him to compass the world with the gospel, to go to places
where it had not heretofore been proclaimed. He also believed it was his responsibility to continue to
minister to the growing numbers of Christian brethren (Rom. 15:15-25).

The obligation to witness to Christ took precedence over other tasks. The appointment of seven ministers
to handle distributions to widows in Jerusalem was made so the apostles could continue in the "ministry
of the word" (Acts 6:1-4). Even the physical act of baptism was not a resident part of an apostle's ministry;
to "preach the gospel" was (1 Cor. 1:17). Be that as it may, the total ministry of the church was
represented in the apostolate. They relinquished functions to others as necessity required. But with their
death, their work was either complete or assumed by others.

The apostolate was part of the "prophetic ministry" of the early church. A ministry similar to it in terms of
revelation was that of the prophets, who stood next to the apostles and joined them in service to the
church during its formative years.

Both apostles and prophets were endowed with special revelations. The declaration of the gospel made
them evangelists. But there were others in the church who preached the Word who were known as
evangelists, heralds, or preachers. Those who tended to needs of local congregations were known as
elders and deacons. Because their work was ongoing after revelation ceased, they formed the basic
permanent ministry of the church.

Unit 3. Continuing Leadership in the New Testament Era

With the introduction of this unit, we are suggesting that not all ministries found in the New Testament
were intended to continue beyond the 1st century. Apostolic writers seem to point in this direction and
church history tends to confirm it. Modern discussion and practice do not agree as to precisely which
ministries ceased (or should we say fulfilled their purpose) and which ones are continuous. For example,
most agree that the apostles had no successors. Even the Catholic view of apostolic succession comes
short of suggesting the continuation of the apostolic office. But not all issues are settled so easily.

Since the early 1900s, a revival of interest in spiritual gifts has led many to believe that speaking in
tongues, healing, and prophecy are a part of continuing Christian activity. We shall not treat the subject
here but leave it to the preceding section. In the long run, you will need to wrestle with the subject and
bear the responsibility of distinguishing between temporary and permanent ministries.

Certainly, the case cited in Acts 6 was a one-occasion event. But does mentioning the case leave us with
a model? If so, what part of the story is the model and what part is incidental? For example, if the men
mentioned there were "deacons" (the text describes them as such but stops short of designating them
"deacons"), are churches bound to appoint only seven? And if the qualification "to be full of the Spirit and
wisdom" be understood as possessing a temporary spiritual gift, then how can this be a qualification for
modern deacons, if spiritual gifts had a limited manifestation? Perhaps it is better to use Acts 6 as an
illustration of ministry than to use it as a model that is bound on the contemporary church.

26
So, on what grounds are temporary and permanent ministries to be distinguished? The primary way is to
analyze the purpose of each specified ministry. The apostles were "temporary," for they had no
successors, having fulfilled their role during their lifetime. On the other hand, elders belong to the
"permanent" category, for the need for spiritual shepherding is ongoing.

Perhaps a larger question relates to "position." Is a "permanent ministry" a position to which one must be
ordained and which carries status and authority? At what point does "ministry" become a "post"? And by
what means are honorific titles justified?

For purposes of discussion, four distinct ministries have been isolated: (1) evangelists (together with
heralds and preachers), (2) teachers, (3) elders, and (4) deacons. A section on women rounds out the
presentation. The ministerial descriptions that follow pertain to continuous need and activity. Keep the
following questions in mind. How did evangelists, heralds, and preachers function? What was the role of
teachers? Were the elders or bishops given responsibilities that differed from those of elders in the the
Jewish community? Who were the deacons? Did women have a special role in ministry?

The unit has been constructed in three parts. These are (a) Evangelists and teachers, (b) Elders and
deacons, and (c) Women.

Textbook Reading

The Early Church at Work and Worship (Chs. 1-9) by Ferguson

a. Evangelists and teachers. Four terms occur in the New Testament with reference to declaring the
word of the Lord where a special endowment of the Holy Spirit is unnecessary. Three of these terms can
be used interchangeably--evangelist, herald, and preacher. With the exception of "evangelist," the terms
merely describe the act of proclamation. They do not point to a unique position.

Evangelists, heralds, preachers. The evangelist was simply one who declared the good news, a gospel
herald. "Evangelists" occurs only three times in the New Testament, once in reference to a group
alongside apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers and twice in connection with two name ministers of
the Word (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5).

Philip, one of the seven special ministers at Jerusalem, became known as an evangelist after he gave
himself to a ministry of proclamation. The "preaching"(euaggelizō) which he did was of an evangelistic
nature, aimed at drawing men to Christ (Acts 8:4-5, 12, 35, 40). Though the text does not call the names
of others who evangelized as did Philip, all those scattered by the Jerusalem persecution performed the
same activity.

Timothy was charged by Paul to perform the work of an evangelist. His task included
preaching (kēruxon) the Word, reproving, rebuking, exhorting, and teaching (2 Tim. 4:1-5). To be faithful
in this work was to fulfill his ministry (diakonian).

Both Philip and Timothy were evangelists because their work embraced "preaching the Word." Their
preaching was described by two different words--euaggelizō,meaning to bring or announce good news
and kērussō, signifying to announce, make known, or proclaim aloud. The first more fully identifies the act
of proclamation, but both terms are used for the act of preaching (Mark 1:39; Luke 4:43-44; 8:1; 9:2; Acts
20:25; 28:31; Rom. 10:8, 14; 1 Cor. 9:27; Gal. 2:2; 2 Tim. 1:11). They have come to denote those who
preach, whether they be called "evangelists" or "preachers."

A special endowment of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily implied in the work of an evangelist or herald,
yet first century preachers were known to possess such. Philip, for example, was full of the Spirit and had
the power to perform miracles; Paul was an apostle who held divinely imparted revelation; Timothy had a
gift which was granted him by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:3, 5; 8:6-7; Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Tim. 1:6).

27
As for the "herald" (kerux), the term is common, meaning "one who makes proclamation." It is employed
in the New Testament with reference to Noah and Paul (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 2 Peter 2:5).
Interestingly, Paul combines three terms in the 2 Timothy passage; he was appointed "a herald and an
apostle and a teacher."

Evangelists, heralds, preachers were distinguished by their evangelistic and corrective activities. They
announced the good tidings and strove to bring about the proper respect for divine truth. Closely
associated with them was yet another type of ministry, this one noted for "teaching."

Teachers. Teachers follow apostles and prophets in one of Paul's lists; they are closely joined with
pastors in another. This fact suggests the importance attached to the function of teaching in the early
church.

As with other forms of ministry, that of teaching was more properly a function rather than an office.
Teachers performed for the church those duties assumed at first by the apostles (Acts 2:42). They worked
with the Christian community, expounding the inspired revelation which had been proclaimed by the
apostles and prophets. Interpreting the gospel in light of the Hebrew Scriptures, they made application of
the gospel message to the needs of everyday life.

Teachers seem to have followed the apostolic declaration and the prophetic utterances with spiritual
instruction. Laboring to build up the thought and life of local Christian communities, they expounded
points of belief and content. Teachers probably arranged the facts and applied the revelation by reducing
the compendium of truth in an orderly, convenient, and practical form. Their duty likely included
instructing new converts in the way of life and defending the gospel from attack.

The teacher stood next to the prophet because the work of the prophet was in part instructional. But while
the prophet no doubt gave an exposition of his message, his distinguishing characteristic was revelation.
The teacher may have had a divine gift of knowledge, yet the predominant feature in his ministry was
exposition.

The teacher may not have spoken with the outward marks of inspiration that were expected in the
prophet, but his function implied authority. He did not expound his own opinions. He interpreted to his
audience the meaning of God's revelation in Christ.

The apostle proclaimed the news of the saving acts of Jesus and his teaching. To the "oral gospel" he
added explanations of other hidden things revealed to him through the Spirit, passing them on either by
word or by epistle (2 Thess. 2:15). When there was no specific teaching or revelation, he gave an opinion
in light of the tradition or revelation (1 Cor. 7:6, 10, 25). The composite of these truths provided the
content for the gifted teacher to edify the believing community.

Apostolic discourses furnished the teacher with examples of the way in which divine truths could be
applied to the faith, life, and morals of local Christians. They had been given a body of teaching, which
they could present to others. Without doubt the teachers made use of the apostolic messages and earlier
traditions in their public exhortations and in private instructions and admonitions.

Summarily, apostolic Christians believed spiritual education to be an integral part of the mission they
received from Jesus. Although teaching became everyone's responsibility, a distinct group arose in the
church who were designated teachers. In some instances, the teachers appear to have received financial
assistance for their work.

The value of teachers is emphasized throughout the New Testament (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Gal. 6:6;
Eph. 4:11; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:2). Instruction of converts was carried on from the
church's birth (Acts 2:42). It was characteristic of men like Paul (Acts 15:35; 18:11; 20:20; 21:21, 28;

28
28:31; 1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:28). Pastoral teaching was gradually placed in the hands of local elderships
which could, eventually without spiritual gifts, draw upon the wisdom of age and long-time experience with
the Word.

b. Elders and deacons. Two of the most recognizable terms in the study of leadership in the New
Testament church are elders and deacons. There is little that can be ascertained from the terms
themselves out of the contexts of their use. One signifies age (elder) and the other position or role
(servant). Since the New Testament was not written as a manual, we must rely on the biblical narrative to
inform us of function and relationship. We should also look to historical precedent, especially in Judaism,
for assistance. We can hardly look to the future development of episcopacy as definitive in this regard.

Elders, bishops. There are a variety of descriptive designations employed in the New Testament for
fixed overseers of congregational life. Each reflects something of their character and function. The most
common of the Greek terms for a member of the eldership is presbuteros. Carried into the Anglo-Saxon
as "elder" or simply transliterated "presbyter," it bears the meaning of one advanced in age.

A second designation is episkopos (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7). Rendered "bishop" or
"overseer," the term expresses the idea of superintendence, supervision, and guidance. Over the Greek-
speaking world, various national and local officials, supervisors of provisions and coinage, building
superintendents, and business managers of cultic unions were called episkopoi. Inasmuch as the term
related to the work of supervision without allowing itself more precise definition, it became suitable for
new and specific usage in the New Testament.

Poimēn is a third Greek word used with reference to the eldership. Known through Anglo-Saxon
influences as "shepherd" and through the Latin as "pastor," the term signifies the business of tending
sheep. Although occasionally rendered simply "feeding," the full meaning of the word implies all those
duties necessary to directing and ruling a flock. The noun form is found only once in connection with the
Christian eldership, but the characteristic action of tending is associated with the work of elders (Jn.
21:16; Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:2).

A possible fourth designation for the office is a form of hēgeomai, which means to lead with the authority
of a ruler. Two references speak of "rulers" among the saints (Heb. 13:7, 17), while another recognizes
some as being "over" them in the Lord (1 Thess. 5:12). The word "over" (proistamenous) is entirely
different from hēgeomai,but the similarity of the contexts is striking. These are they who labor among the
Christians and "stand before them" in the Lord. While not conclusive, the passages suggest that these
rulers were the immediate overseers of the church, called elders or bishops elsewhere.

The elders appear to have enjoyed equal status and elders and bishops were different designations for
the same men (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). Charged with feeding their flocks and
protecting them against false teachers, they worked as a body within the limits of their respective
churches.

Elders are rulers and stewards simultaneously: rulers in the sense of being responsible for the church;
stewards because they shall give an account unto the Lord for the manner in which they discharge their
duties (1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:7; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24). Their function may be briefly described by two words:
shepherding and overseeing. Both are verb derivatives of New Testament terms for the officials and are
implied in every biblical reference to the office.

The presbyters behaved much like the old Jewish shepherd, who was the guide, provider, and protector
of his sheep. Christ himself assumed the shepherd role and became the example of that intended for the
elders (Jn. 10:11-18; 1 Pet. 5:3-4). Their duty extended to all phases of spiritual care, demanding an
exerted effort toward the flock's growth on the one hand and a constant vigilance and defensive effort on
the other.

29
The overriding concern was for the welfare of the church. Knowing self-seeking destroyers who deceive
by vain and distracting doctrines would lure the saints, the apostles appointed shepherds to help protect
the flock (Acts 20:28-31; Tit. 1:9-16; Heb. 13:17). These bishops shared with apostles, prophets, and
evangelists the commission to promote Christian unity. Their assignment was the provision for the
spiritual maturation or completeness of the church unto the work of service and building up of the church
as a whole (Eph. 4:11-16; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12).

The serious attention given to unity is illustrated by the Jerusalem conference. When dissension
threatened the unity of the entire church over the matter of circumcision, the apostles and Jerusalem
elders took positive action to bring about peace. It was natural for the Jerusalem elders to be involved in
the discussion, since men from Judea, Christian Pharisees, had been insisting upon the necessity of
Gentile circumcision. The final decision rested with the combined group of apostles and elders, with the
whole church concurring in the sentiment. But so conscious were they of being possessed and controlled
by the Holy Spirit, that he was mentioned as chief author of their decision (Acts 15:1-29; 16:4-5).

The Jerusalem "resolution" had the appearance of being authoritative for all the churches, but this action
did not establish the Jerusalem bishops as a supreme senate for the church universal. The truth of the
decree in keeping with the gospel is enough to establish its validity. The weight of the apostles,
agreement of the Spirit, and support of the entire Jerusalem church further accent the reason why the
decree should be received by the churches as an "authoritative" statement.

The maturation of the church and the work of edification necessitated teaching. This responsibility may
have been shared by others, but the fact that some elders received financial aid to support them in their
teaching activity indicates they probably handled the greater share personally (1 Tim. 5:17-18). To be
skilled at teaching was prerequisite to appointment (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:9). It appears certain that formal
instruction was a vital part of an elder's work.

Pastors were fulfilling their duty of leading the church to works of service in the alleviation of
affliction. Everywhere they stood ready to render assistance to the sick by offering prayers and anointing
the ailing person with oil in the interest of his spiritual and physical health (Jas. 5:14-15). During famine
conditions, Christians sent relief to the elders for distribution (Acts 11:30).

The function of the presbyterate was both delicate and serious. Its success would lie with a special breed
of men whose personal strengths would enable them to feed and protect the church. In them were to be
found those marks of spiritual maturity which they were expected to build into others.

Personal qualities suitable for the eldership appear in the context of formal instruction on the type of
persons who should be appointed to the office. Specific attributes are noted in communiqués to young
evangelists commissioned to appoint elders in the churches and differ only in order and the choice of
words. These qualities relate to five general aspects of the candidate's life: person, family, relationships,
reputation, and experience (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9).

When there arose a need to delegate some of the work, specially approved men were
designated. Apostles and early Christian elders were assisted in their tasks by men commonly known as
deacons.

Deacons. "Deacons" and "ministers" are alike servants, with their identifying terms being derived from
the same Greek word. But difference does exist in "types" of ministerial activity. In Acts 6, some were
chosen to help the widows so the apostles could continue to give their attention to a ministry of the
word. It was evident to the apostles that they could not by themselves perform all needed service. Their
primary mission was to declare the message which could lead people to discipleship. It is significant to
note that some of the seven eventually gave themselves to the work of proclaiming the gospel message.

30
Deacons may be defined as individuals who discharged the duties of the diakonia. Diakonos occurs in
twenty-eight passages of the New Testament, eight times in the Gospels, and twenty times in the Pauline
epistles. It is generally rendered "minister" or "servant." Out of eighty-five places in which either the verb
or the noun occurs, it is translated only five times with reference to the diaconate. And these five
instances are all, with the exception of the superscription to the Philippian letter, found in 1 Timothy 3,
where the qualifications of a deacon are set forth.

Deacons were undoubtedly a part of normal ministry in the primitive church. Like elders who continued
beyond the first century, they constituted a part of the "fixed" ministry in post-apostolic times. They
seemed to have been men who served the congregation in capacities dictated by the situation and under
the direction of the eldership. Normally, their function involved them in the superintendence of the more
physical matters, leaving spiritual oversight to the elders and later to the bishop.

No functions of deacons are mentioned in the New Testament unless, of course, the seven chosen in
Jerusalem to minister to the physical needs of widows were deacons. In that instance deacons were
required to be "men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" (Acts 6:3). Paul summed up the
deacon's qualifications as being a man of high personal character, who was proven in the faith (1 Tim.
3:8-13). He was to be one specially fitted for the responsibilities for which he was chosen.

The several ministerial categories thus far discussed have presumed the service of men. However,
women were also active in the early church and participated in ministerial functions. Regretfully, though,
the New Testament record is short of detail in regard to their service.

c. Women. Paul most certainly recognized no distinction between male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
Spiritually they are equal before God, being saved in the same manner, for the remedy for sin is not
conditioned on gender but on faith in the One who brings to humanity the righteous of God. Salvation
notwithstanding, gender does come under consideration with respect to the manner men and women
fulfill their roles. This is an inherent feature from creation. The man is given the lead role and the woman
a supportive role. This does not change with spiritual conversion. The gospel emphasizes the original
intent of the Creator and regulates the relationship between the two, just as it does between parents and
children.

Women are subordinate to men but not inferior. The man-woman, husband-wife relationship is not unlike
that of Christ to God. The divine principle is that the head of the woman is the man; the head of man is
Christ; the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3).

Women were active in the early church, in accord with the principle of spiritual equality. Yet they were
expected to act in keeping with social customs of modesty and respectability. Since they were not to
violate the relationship of subordination, they were not permitted to assume the role of a pastoral teacher.
Such a position of authority belonged to men.

Women had a definite sphere of ministry. Although not permitted to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34),
some prophesied (Acts 21:9), others taught (Priscilla, Acts 18:24-26) or served in unspecified capacities
(Phoebe, Rom. 16:1). Dorcas may be said to have engaged in "ministry" when she sewed garments for
widows (Acts 9:39). The various ministries of women in the first century church are commonly noted
under three categories: prophetesses, deaconesses, and widows.

Prophetesses. Female prophets are known to have existed in the New Testament (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor.
11:5). Just where or how they used their gift is not specified. No objection was voiced to women
prophesying at Corinth, provided they were suitably veiled and did not join into public discussion.

Deaconesses. The presence of deaconesses in the first century church is still debated. A question
surrounds the interpretation of the term which designates Phoebe a diakonon of the early church. The

31
uncertainty revolves around the use of the term, whether it was employed in a technical sense or is
simply an informal reference to a sister in Christ who was full of service to others.

The occurrence of the word "women" in the midst of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 offers a
hint as to the existence of female deacons. But this inconclusive reference has also drawn divergent
opinions from interpreters. An early second century (ca. 112) references is somewhat more conclusive,
however, as it testifies to the presence of female ministrae in Bithynia (Pliny's ad Traijan, 10:96).

Inasmuch as prophetesses are known to have existed in the early church, deaconesses may have served
there as well. Their role would in all probability have been in the performance for women those duties
which their male counterparts could not easily perform.

Widows. Paul seems to refer to a practice of using church widows for ministerial service when he wrote
Timothy about whom the church should enroll as widows. The case is not clearly made, because the
context is not concerned so much with the use of women in the service of the church as it is with personal
responsibility toward one's own flesh and blood (1 Tim. 5:9-15). Later literature indicates widows were
employed in prayer, in tending the sick, in urging younger women to live chastely, and in making converts
of heathen women.

The ministry of women did have some limitations. They were subordinate to men and probably devoted
themselves almost exclusively to serving other women. Nonetheless, their active engagement in the work
of the church should not be overlooked.

Examination
Now that you have come to the end of this module, you should review the material in preparation for a
multiple-choice examination. When you are ready for the exam, you may open it from the Course Menu.

MODULE 2 Leadership within an Historical Context

The basic nature of ministry leadership has never changed; neither has the basic form. However, with the
passing of time, circumstances brought about a new face to the formalized ministries of the church. In the
Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the church tends to be equated with specially designated persons who
carry out the services of the church. The Protestant tradition has attempted to restore the priesthood of all
believers. Yet, in the Protestant churches, nomenclature and organizational structure vary.

The major content of this unit concentrates on the Ante-Nicene period of church history, i.e., post-
apostolic days until 325 C.E. There are several reasons why study of the ministry should be pursued into
the Ante-Nicene period. First, the Ante-Nicene church is joined to that of apostolic days in time, persons,
issues, and tasks. In the second place, the ministry's changing face with underlying reasons is clearly
visible. Thirdly, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the post-apostolic ministry can provide invaluable
assistance to the modern church. The church's struggling effort to solve varied crises arising from within
and without should be carefully observed. Possibly no other stage in history affords quite the opportunity
to view the labor of the church's permanent ministry to secure the faith.

What one is likely to find is that changes occurring in the organizational pattern of the church during the
ante-Nicene period were gradual. They came about without great opposition and with near universal
acceptance. Their perpetuation was ensured by mutable conceptions of the task of the church and the
way both doctrine and the ministry executed this task.

32
First, the church of the early centuries faced an acute need to unify the church against diverse elements
which assaulted and threatened its character or existence. Confronted on one side by damning heresies
such as Gnosticism, on another by the abuse of the prophetic office at the hands of the Montanists, and
on still another by the state through persecution, the church felt forced to define orthodoxy and maintain
the unity of the faith. In response, church leaders chose the path toward episcopacy or bishop rule.

When heresy caused Christians to be divided over verities of the faith, Christianity came to imply a
doctrine to be protected by a creed or through common intellectual beliefs. The succession of bishops
was the guarantee for the correctness of the tradition. The church's efforts combined the tasks of unifying
the teaching and standing off heresy. Those in the mainstream of Christianity accepted this solution; all
others were excluded from the church's fellowship.

Second, the development of episcopal rule was accompanied by a changing conception of the ministry as
it pertained to worship. The principal influence in the modification in the function of ministry lies in the idea
of a special priesthood to represent ordinary Christians before God and to serve as dispensers of God's
grace. Over the years there had been a trend to consider Christian acts as an "offering," but when the
Lord's supper assumed the character of a "sacrifice," it was only natural that the one offering it be a
priest.

As a priest, the bishop needed congregational and divine authorization. The more fully developed theory
of apostolic succession emphasizing succession in the person of the bishop was used to support his
station. The altered conception of the ministry strengthened the authority of the clergy in general and that
of the bishop in particular. It increasingly signified an institutionalization system which was dependent
upon, and subject to, the clergy.

Three aspects of the Ante-Nicene period are reviewed. These are the rise and development of
episcopacy (Unit 1), election, ordination, function, and sacerdotalism (Unit 2), and ecclesiology (Unit 3).

Textbook Reading

The Early Church at Work and Worship (Chs. 10 to end) by Ferguson

Unit 1. The Rise and Development of Episcopacy

Christianity was designed to serve the needs of all men. To ensure its purity and success, early Christians
took a firm stand against threats of Judaistic and philosophical domination. During the 1stcentury, the
defense was led by the apostles with the cooperation of elders and other believers. But with the passing
of the apostles, safeguarding the church became the sole responsibility of the elders. By the 4th century,
all orthodox persons belonged to a presbyterate, which had the support of bishops. These had received
proper ordination and articulated the line of thinking approved by the church generally. This did not rule
out differences between the eastern and the western branches of the church. But it did set into motion a
scheme that would verify orthodox thought and practice.

Initially, the elders appear to have enjoyed equal status. Charged with feeding their flocks and protecting
them against false teachers, they worked as a body within the limits of their respective churches. Outside
the Jerusalem conference, which was convened when apostles were alive and supernatural approval was
given, no Christian synods or councils are known from the 1st century. But a variety of circumstances led
to changed practices in church superintendence. Those changes paved the way for a totally new
structure of church governance.

Settlement of the churches into ongoing communities, the passing of the apostolic ministry, and relaxation
of missionary endeavor signaled a new challenge for the welfare of the church. Heretical movements

33
were persistent. Settled ministries which leaned toward the prophetic office gave difficulty due to the rise
of false prophets. So, episcopacy arose out of the church's effort to maintain unity and the true faith.

Episcopacy infers a polity where a bishop is the highest in rank. For the church, it meant the isolation of
one of the presbyters, who alone was referred to as "bishop." With his separation and consequent
elevation, the permanent ministry of the local church became a three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyters,
and deacons. Eventually, bishops of larger, more influential churches rose to prominent positions and
influence. These, in turn, increasingly looked to the bishop of Rome as the primary bishop. The Roman
bishop ultimately became designated "pope." The head(s) of the Eastern Church(es) occupied a similar
position.

Churches in both the East and West adopted and retained the episcopal arrangement. Episcopal
government became a useful tool for defining and defending the faith against heresy. It was not entirely
dethroned by the Protestant Reformation.

The unit has been divided into three parts. These are (a) Episcopacy in the formative period, (b)
Extension of episcopal rule, and (c) Apostolic succession.

a. Episcopacy in the formative period. Unmarked stages of growth distinguish church organization
between 100 and 325. Most prominent among those associated with its development include Ignatius of
Antioch (d. 115), Irenaeus of Gaul (d. 202), Tertullian (flourished in the late second century), and Cyprian
of North Africa (d. 258). Gradually episcopacy became the standard so that the church of the third
century was unimpressed by the New Testament distinction between bishops and presbyters.

Ignatius is the first to bear witness to a three-fold ministry, early in the second century. Although he
probably did not create the new state of congregational control, he did much to promote its function. He
portrays the churches with a single bishop and a board of elders. There is no suggestion that the bishops
had any voice beyond congregational limits or that the bishop of one church was pre-eminent to that of
another. Congregational unity is realized through obedience to the bishop, elders, and deacons.

The authority of the bishop in each church for Ignatius is final. He asks that the church respond to the
bishop's leadership as Jesus followed the Father. Nothing that had to do with church should be done
without him, including baptisms, religious meals, and marriage. Even divine forgiveness is granted on the
condition that a man "turn to union with God and the council of the bishop." He does not directly equate
the episcopate with the apostolate, but the elders are to be followed as apostles.

The system of church government encouraged by Ignatius was in its infancy during the early second
century and apparently localized in Syria and Asia Minor. The congregation at Rome (ca. 95) seems to
have known only elders and assistants in the church. The second century Didache recognizes the
existence of apostles, prophets, overseers, assistants, and teachers among the saints with no hint of an
episcopal ministry. Hermas speaks of leaders, elders, bishops, and teachers with language that points
away from episcopacy. While addressing the church at Philippi about 116, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
makes no distinction among the elders there as he advocates subjection "to the elders and deacons."

The witness of First Clement, The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Letter of Polycarp to the
Philippians tends to confirm that episcopacy appeared first in the area of Syria and Asia Minor. Drawing
conclusions from silence may be inconclusive, especially when dealing with materials that introduce ta
topic informally. But these works recognize the rule of presbyters, whereas Ignatius' writings seem to
reflect a new trend.

Ignatius knew that bishops are themselves elders, but he emphasized local episcopacy for the sake of
unity. His mention of bishops having been appointed all over the world may be understood to refer to the
world he knew or to the single office of the bishop-presbyter. Only gradually did episcopacy develop on a
universal scale. This becomes more apparent when materials bearing on the subject are isolated by
geographical sectioning.

34
Antioch and Syria. The New Testament makes no mention of elders and deacons at Antioch. It testifies
only to the ministry of apostles, prophets, and teachers (Acts 13:1-3). The first evidence of episcopacy
comes early in the opening years of the second century from Ignatius.

It may be safely assumed that the three-fold organizational structure Ignatius recognized and promoted in
Asia Minor was existent in his home congregation. He is reputed to be the second to occupy a position
superior to the board of elders. Tradition maintains that Euodius was the first bishop at Antioch, having
been ordained by Peter. He was followed by Ignatius, Heros, Cornelius, Eros, Theophilus, Maximinus,
Serapion, and Asclepiades.

It is sometimes argued that Ignatius made claim to the bishopric of Antioch by combining it with the
prophetic ministry. B. H. Streeter contended for this theory by supposing that The Didache was
composed "with the object of bringing the organization of the smaller churches in Syria up to a standard
already reached at Antioch, and of protecting them from exploitation by bogus 'prophets'" (The Primitive
Church, pp. 143-44). He insists that the prophet became recognized as the singular leader of the local
church and was "de facto something very like a monarchical bishop." Ignatius was, supposedly, such a
prophet-bishop. There is no evidence, however, to support the take-over of the Antiochean church by the
prophets.

The Didache bears the marks of an early post-apostolic production, having a general character and
concept of the ministry that fits the early years of the second century. The document has the appearance
of a work "composed by a Jewish Christian for a Christian community also Jewish in tone" (Charles
Gore, Church and Ministry, p. 247). Its author recognizes the presence of both prophets and bishops:
prophets are associated with apostles and overseers with assistants. And even though overseers and
assistants are said to render the service of prophets and teachers, the offices were distinct. The Didache
shows no knowledge of a monarchical bishop as episcopos is used exclusively for the office of bishop-
presbyter. But whatever the case may have been, Ignatius arrives on the scene of recorded history as
bishop of Antioch.

A measure of acceptance and respect for the position of "bishop" had already been won by Ignatius'
time. This was true for the region about Antioch, across Asia Minor, and perhaps in Armenosyria. But
episcopacy never had a stronger ally or promoter than Ignatius. The influence of the last words of this
brave Christian bishop on his way to martyrdom should not be under-evaluated.

Asia Minor. Addressing churches across Asia Minor, Ignatius recognized a local episcopal system in
the early years of the second century. Even though he looked upon bishops as being elders themselves,
he indicates the standing arrangement in church organization in Asia was bishop, elders, and
deacons. Believing that the bishop and elders were appointed by the Holy Spirit with the approval of
Christ, Ignatius testifies to the existence of episcopacy among the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians,
Philadelphians, and Smyrnaeans. The following bishops are named: Damas of the Magnesians, Polybius
of the Trallians, and Polycarp of the Smyrnaeans.

The witness of Ignatius to affairs in Asia Minor is reinforced by numerous others. Polycarp's letter to the
Philippians tends to confirm his own position as bishop of Smyrna. Further attestation to his title is given
by his own congregation; a contemporary, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus; Irenaeus; Tertullian; Eusebius,
who relies upon Irenaeus; the author of The Martyrdom of Ignatius; and the apocryphal Acts of the Holy
Apostles and Evangelist John the Theologian, which asserts he was appointed by John in his old age.

Tradition tries hard to associate initial bishoprics with apostolic figures. The Acts of Barnabas claims that
Heracleides was ordained bishop over Cyprus by Barnabas; that Aristoclianus had been made a bishop
by Paul and Barnabas and sent to his village in Cyprus. Timothy is given the distinction at Ephesus;
Eusebius interprets Ignatius as intimating that Onesimus held the office in the early second century. The
first reliable evidence of a bishop at Ephesus, however, is found in Polycrates sometime past the middle
of the second century.

35
Early use of the title "bishop" and tradition suggests an early development and acceptance of episcopal
rule in Asia Minor. References to local episcopacy become more plenteous with the advance of the latter
half of the second century. Some bishops, like Papias and Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis,
are well known. Some works remain of Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis (160-180). And
episcopal synods were common toward the close of the century.

Jerusalem and Palestine. The New Testament simply accords James, the Lord's brother, a prominent
place in the Jerusalem church alongside the apostles. Nonetheless, tradition has honored him as the first
Jerusalem bishop. The bishopric of that city was reportedly filled with Jewish Christians until the Bar-
Cochba Rebellion (132-135) and thereafter by Gentiles. The Jewish succession list is a long one,
supposedly due to short terms of service. Down to the war it reads: James, Simeon, Justus, Zaccheus,
Tobias, Benjamin, John, Matthew, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, and Judas. A work
attributed to Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem from 185 to 196, is extant.

The Clementine Homiles preserve the tradition that Peter appointed bishops in every city he visited,
including Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Beyrout, Tripolis, and Laodicea. Reliance upon the Clementine writings
may not be entirely justified, but they reflect the existence of mono-episcopal oversight in Palestine. In
their present form, these works may date from the beginning of the 3rd century, but their roots extend
back to the early second. Whatever use these writings may be, it can hardly be disputed that there were
bishops at Caesarea, Tyre, and Ptolemais by about 190.

There is no biblical evidence to support the appointment of a single bishop over a congregation in
Palestine. The function of James at Jerusalem comes closest to the idea, but it is doubtful if he
possessed or exercised the authority of a territorial bishop. It remains though, that Palestine was full
possessor of an episcopal system before the second century expired. In all probability, it came without
much ado.

Alexandria and North Africa. While the history of the rise of the bishopric at Alexandria is unknown,
tradition recalls the names of those who held the office. Eusebius affirms that Annianus, the first bishop
of Alexandria, died in the fourth year of Domitian, after twenty-two years in that position. A succession list
of bishops of Alexandria, assembled from the historian with their approximate dates, claims the following
successors of Annianus: Avilius (85-98), Cerdon (98-109), Primus (109-121), Justus (121-ca. 133),
Eumenes (ca. 135-ca. 138), Marcus (ca. 139-ca. 150), Celadin (ca. 150-ca. 165), Agrippinus (ca. 165-
180), Julian (180-190), Demetrius (190-233), and Heraclas (233-246).

Streeter conjectures that the strong bishop Demetrius may have been responsible for the appointment of
the first bishops in other Egyptian cities and that his successor, Heraclas, continued the policy of
supremacy while largely increasing the number of bishops in that area. A canon of Nicaea does recall the
ancient and prevailing custom which saw the bishop of Alexandria hold authority over Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis. And one of Alexandria's earlier bishops, Clement, differentiates between the bishops and
presbyters around 190-200.

Macedonia, Greece, Crete, and Trace. Episcopacy has all appearance of a slower development in the
West. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, makes reference only to elders and deacons in his epistle to the
Philippian church sometime during the first half of the second century. His letter makes no use of the
term episcopos and leads one to suspect that as yet no one elder was distinguished above his peers. No
names of bishops in Macedonia from the second century have survived.

The correspondence from the Roman to the Corinthian church about 95 equates overseers and elders
and refers to the office as one shared by a plurality of men. It recalled that in former days elders and
deacons were appointed by apostles and tested by the Spirit as superintendents and assistants of
believers. At Corinth, elders or bishops have been appointed with congregational consent. For a long
time they had been approved, only to be more recently deposed unjustly as the proper ministers of the
church.

36
It was Hegesippus who first called attention to the existence of a single bishop at Corinth. In recounting a
visit with Primus, bishop of Corinth after the middle of the second century, he leaves the impression that
episcopacy was a standing order for the preservation of the true faith. Another bishop, Dionysius (not the
Areopagite) is known to have headed the Corinthian church about 160-180. Apparently, episcopacy
came to Corinth by or before the middle of the second century.

Dionysius the Areopagite is accorded the honor of being the first bishop of Athens from a tradition passed
on by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. Publius and Quadratus, who belong to the middle years of the
second century, are known bishops there.

Elsewhere, tradition links Titus with the apostle Paul in the bishopric on Crete. Pinytus and Philip
occupied the office during the latter half of the second century. Elius Piblius Julius was bishop of
Debeltum, a colony of Trace, about 200.

Rome. Prior to the second century, the Roman church apparently enjoyed the collective oversight of
apostles and elders. Toward the middle of the second century, it followed the lead of Eastern Christianity
and recognized an episcopal form of local church governance. As in other Western churches, bishops
were still called presbyters for yet some time, but correspondence between Cyprian and the Roman
church reflects definite growth toward a highly respected episcopacy at Rome.

When the church felt obligated to prove its orthodoxy, it offered its association with two apostolic figures--
Peter and Paul. Some traditions claim that Clement was ordained bishop by Peter and Linus by Paul. As
its claim for Petrine association grew, Peter became recognized as Rome's first bishop and Paul was
dropped as his associate.

The first effort to assemble a register of Roman bishops was undertaken by Hegesippus about 155-
165. Later lists by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, which begin with Peter and Paul, probably rely on his
work. But the records of Tertullian, Rufinus, and others indicate confusion over ascertaining the exact
order of the first Roman bishops. It was perhaps in an effort to settle the matter that bishop Liberius of
Rome (354) drew up the Liberian Catalogue. It enumerates the disputed section thusly: Peter, Linus,
Clement, Cletus, Anacletus. For the record, the earliest lists, complete to the third century, record the
following succession from the apostles: Linus (?-80), Anencletus (80-92), Clement (92-101), Euarestus
(101-109), Alexander (109-119), Xystus (119-129), Telesphorus (129-138), Hyginus (138-142), Pius (142-
157), Anicetus (157-168), Soter (168-177), Eleutherus (177-190), and Victor (190-199).

Gaul. Crescens, by tradition, was the first bishop of Gaul, although the place name is disputed in the 2
Tim. 4:10 proof-text. Irenaeus is known to have been bishop of Lyons from about 178. Other references
to the history of episcopacy in Gaul are unknown.

Several conclusions may now be drawn relative to the rise of episcopacy. Beginning with the New
Testament, there is every indication that the permanent ministry of the local church was composed of a
plural number of elders who were also known as bishops. But according to the letters of Ignatius of
Antioch, episcopacy within the local church had already come into existence in Antioch of Syria and
across Asia Minor by the early years of the second century. In each case, one of the congregation's
elders "chaired" the board of elders and was referred to as "bishop."

Ignatius' allusions to an episcopacy in Asia are substantiated by contemporary testimony and by later
traditions, but episcopal oversight was not yet universal. Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians and
Ignatius' letter to the church at Rome use alternate terms of address for bishops and presbyters with no
reference to episcopacy in non-Asian settings. Furthermore, the type of church organization recognized
and promoted in the letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth (1 Clement) suggests that the
rule of a corporate presbyterate was still unknown in the West.

The practice of exalting an elder as bishop over his congregation is judged to have spread to the West
and become universal by the middle of the second century. But church polity was not to be confined to

37
local episcopacy. The rise of the monarchical bishop was but a first step toward centralization of power
and institutionalization of the church.

b. Extension of episcopal rule. Caring for the large churches had, by the middle of the 3rd century,
become cumbersome. The Roman church, for example, is depicted by its bishop, Cornelius (ca. 251-
253), as having one bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acoluthi
(clerks), fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors, and over fifteen hundred widowed, afflicted, and needy
persons and a membership variously estimated at thirty to fifty thousand. For administrative purposes, the
city had been divided into seven districts, each of which was placed under the direction of a deacon.
Supervision of the liturgical service was probably distributed among the presbyters. But despite the
district divisions, Rome had one church under one bishop.

More and more responsibility was assumed by the bishops until they clearly exercised the lead in worship
and administration. They administered the sacraments, fed the flock, supervised the collection and
distribution of alms, preserved the unity of the church, and executed church discipline. The bishop's
unique position probably strengthened the notion that the presbyters in the several city churches were but
the bishop's delegates. The concept eventually extended to make the bishop's oversight include
surrounding rural areas.

Country churches starting from a parent city church were overseen by a presbyter from the sponsoring
church and responsible to its bishop. But rural churches which sprang up independently appointed their
own bishops. By the early fourth century, however, the bishops of the rural churches had become
subordinate to the bishops of the neighboring and more powerful city churches. They were denied their
autonomy and relieved of their power to ordain presbyters and deacons independently. These rural
bishops came to occupy a position between the presbyters and the city bishop, having vested in them
authority to teach and perform episcopal functions. They were represented to the city bishop through his
specially appointed presbyters or visitalores.

Theoretically, all bishops of the church were equal since each was appointed to the same office with
identical powers. But it was evident that certain bishops had already begun to rise above others. Growth
in power and prestige and success in extending the parish into a diocese eventually led the larger
metropolitan churches to assert "metropolitan" rights and add yet another layer to pastoral oversight.

Just as Ephesus had been the base of operation from which the gospel passed into all Asia (Acts 19:10),
it was quite natural for other leading cities to become radiating centers for Christianity. Churches in these
more populous centers became strong and active. Their numerical strength, evangelistic zeal, and
leading role in the fight against heresy won for them such respect that they simply overshadowed and
out-influenced the smaller and less distinguished ones. Thereafter developed an arrangement fashioned
after the civil structure of the Empire. Egypt, for example, was by 325 divided into four civil and
ecclesiastical provinces--Egypt, Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis (Lower Libya)--with a metropolitan over
each.

The esteem which at first was given the metropolitan church came to reside in the person of its bishop.
Although they did not gain absolute power over their domain during the ante-Nicean period, metropolitans
continued to increase their authority until they controlled the election and ordination of provincial bishops.
They also called provincial councils. The urging for local congregations to do nothing without the bishop,
had become, "Let not the bishop do anything without his metropolitan."

Church synods and councils themselves served to bolster the bishops' position. Conceivably originating in
Asia Minor as informal gatherings of Christians in the face of controversy, these meetings gradually came
to be more formal sessions of the clergy until only the bishops had a voice in the decisions. Councils
which were frequently presided over by the oldest bishop gradually yielded the leadership to the hosting
metropolitan bishop.

Strong bishops like Cyprian could forge the provincial council into a formidable weapon for dealing with
innovation. But when disciplinary or doctrinal problems proved to be beyond the capacity of local or

38
provincial assemblies to solve, more general councils were approved and convened. Step by step, these
councils grew in representation until they attempted to speak for the whole church. And as the councils
increased in magnitude and respect, so did the more prominent bishops.

Many metropolitan bishops protracted their circle of influence and power, but those of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Rome were destined to become preeminent. Their churches enjoyed added numerical
strength and prestige plus the extra political and cultural advantage of their cities. Even provincial capitals
like Ephesus and Caesarea could not command equal respect. Jerusalem lost its competitive posture
after the rebellion of 135 and could only manage honor below its metropolitan.

The outstanding metropolitan bishops became known as primates or patriarchs. They functioned as
"archbishops" without a superior authority until Rome's primacy was recognized. Respect for the Roman
see came early from influential leaders like Irenaeus and Cyprian, who looked to her as first among
equals, but this esteem did not include recognition of authority over other bishops.

Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage (248-258), left no doubt about the bishop's independence. In and out of
council, bishops and their voices were considered equal. With the episcopate regarded as a close
corporation, the church became identified with a body of administrative officers in whom the Holy Spirit
resided as their exclusive possession. Hence, common decisions in council were thought to carry the
weight of divine revelation. But even then, Cyprian considered the bishop not bound to accept the
conciliar decrees.

So the bishops grew in power and independence. They pressed their control beyond congregational limits
until they rivaled one another for authority. After rural churches came under the control of the neighboring
city bishops, greater metropolitan churches began to insist upon peculiar rights of their own. Gradually
emerging in the ante-Nicean church were a few patriarchal bishops who dominated the church scene.

Successive generations glorified the episcopate until it passed from a simple to a rather complex center
of unity and dispensary of spiritual grace. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (early 2nd century), promoted
episcopal oversight in its simplest form. Then Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (latter quarter of the 2nd
century), supported the notion that it was the depository of apostolic tradition. Later Cyprian, bishop of
Carthage (248-258), added the idea that the bishop is a divinely appointed ruler and guide who distributes
grace to the faithful.

The developing theology of ministry also saw a changed church. It was no longer a simple fellowship of
Christians, but a community over whom a bishop presided. Now, teachers imparted, and students
received; priests interceded and sinners were pardoned; rulers commanded and subjects were obligated
to obey. The church had become a federation of local congregations bound to orthodoxy through
legitimate bishops who were successors of the apostles.

Apostolic succession and proper ordination are foundation stones in the sacerdotal ministry. No matter
how influential the church, if its ministry could not be authenticated, the church and its ministry would
stand invalid. Since both succession and ordination play such an important role, it is fitting to consider
their relation to the ante-Nicene ministry.

Reading the New Testament, no one could anticipate the evolution of a hierarchal administered church.
There are plenty threats coming from false teachers that could destroy the Christian community, but who
would have dreamed that these threats would evoke such response? And what is most surprising is that if
there were opposing voices, they have been silenced.

c. Apostolic succession. The 2nd century church found itself in the throes of powerful heretical
movements. Without strong definitive action, it could not have survived their sustained attacks on its
distinctive Christian message. Montanism was claiming a charismatic succession of
prophets. Gnosticism rose to claim heir to the secret traditions and true teachings of Jesus and the
apostles. It seemed reasonable to think that if the catholic church possessed and taught the true

39
doctrines of Christ rather than those whose views were out of accord with the traditions, there ought to be
some way of validating that truth.

Choosing what seemed expedient for the occasion, the church moved to ensure the continuance of the
true faith. Creedal statements of faith were produced and a close examination of the Christian
documents was undertaken. Whereas creeds contained the essence of true Christian dogma and the
canonical scriptures witnessed to their correctness, the theory of an apostolic succession gave continual
assurance of authenticity of teaching and safeguard against heretics.

Apostolic succession presupposed that Christ established a ministry in the apostles which became
permanent in their successors, the bishops of the churches. In its height of development in the ante-
Nicene church, succession performed two primary functions: (1) it provided historical continuity for the
preservation of true doctrine and (2) it made possible the transfer of grace and truth from Christ as it
impressed Christians with the ripening theology of the sacraments.

The ante-Nicene church witnessed the use of apostolic succession in several different
significations. Initially, it was the collegiate guarantee that the doctrine of the church was true to that of
the apostles. In this instance, apostolic succession implied merely a sequence of teachers in a school
and not a chain by ordination. By Hippolytus' time and the end of the 2nd century, however, bishops
began to be referred to as the successors of the apostles in a more personal manner. Finally, Cyprian, in
the middle of the 3rd century, considered apostolic succession and transmission by ordination necessary
for a valid ministry and the performance of the sacraments. The primary issue of maintaining the tradition
was thus replaced by the bishop's preoccupation with sacerdotal or priestly functions. Accompanying this
change of emphasis was also a new concept of succession where bishops were no longer regarded
simply in succession from the apostle but their successors.

The Gnostic threat. One of the chief causes of change in church governance was the problem of
heresy, principally Gnosticism. The late apostolic church encountered it, but it was toward the middle of
the 2nd century before the larger systems of Gnosticism began to rival the church. The movement
reached its peak influence, however, soon thereafter. Its menacing would have been enough, but this
philosophicoreligious movement with its gospel of emancipation from matter through higher knowledge
claimed apostolic authority for its teaching and emphasized that its doctrines were traceable to the
apostles.

Responding to heretical challenges and assertions, the church countered with an affirmation that it had
derived its teachings from the apostles through the bishops. This did not mean that only orthodox
bishops could trace their descent back to the apostles, for even some Gnostics could conceivably make
an equally authentic affirmation. Rather, the intent was that each regularly appointed bishop "contributed
the separate witness of his church to the tradition of the 'apostles' doctrine' and 'fellowship,' and that
these separate strands of witness when brought together and compared and found to be of the same type
with one another constituted in their union an indestructible guarantee of community and stability"
(Gore, Church and Ministry, p. 60).

When Gnostic teachers like Marcion attracted wide attention, congregational security
tightened. Christianity began to imply a doctrine to be protected by a creed or a statement of cardinal
beliefs. And succession of bishops guaranteed communication of the apostolic tradition. Those outside
the mainstream of Christianity were excluded from the church's fellowship.

Early concepts. The idea of apostolic succession is quite early. The principle as the basis of authority
is affirmed in 1 Clement, although the succession is a collegiate one. Ignatius saw a monarchical
episcopate, which inherited functions formally belonging to the apostles. But in its early stages,
succession was understood as a line of occupants of a teaching chair rather than of ordained
men. These were teachers in the tradition of the apostles by virtue of their message. Their word was to
be received as the proper word, as the standard. The consensus of doctrine among individual bishops
represented the truth. In this sense, truth is measured by apostolic proclamation, not by interpretation
vested in a bishop.

40
Initial use of the terms "apostolic tradition" and "apostolic succession" evidently appeared in the Epistle of
Ptolemy to Flora (ca. 165), a Gnostic document (Epiphanius, Heresies 33:7). But the first extant
application of succession in a technical sense with reference to one bishop succeeding another is by
Hegesippus (ca. 175). He simply made a "succession" and announced that in every city the doctrine
prevailed according to that declared by the law, the prophets, and the Lord (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History IV.22). As far as is known Hegesippus did not refer to these successions as being "apostolic."
The guarantee of continuing apostolic teaching still has to be measured by consistency with apostolic
proclamation as recorded in scripture rather than by mere claim to the fact.

Properly speaking, there was not one line of succession but successions, plural. It was really apostolic
successions which offered the ultimate guarantee of truth. Should presumably apostolic tradition of an
individual church be questioned, the church could claim agreement with the other churches. Hence, the
church was universal as well as apostolic. This multiple line of descent linked the post-apostolic church
with the apostolic.

There were at least four complete succession lists by the close of the 2nd century--at Jerusalem, Antioch,
Alexandria, and Rome. The Roman and abbreviated Jerusalem lists of Hegesippus are the earliest
succession registers known. If other areas were slower in espousing the theory of apostolic succession,
it was almost universal among the churches by Irenaeus' time (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3:1).

Hegesippus' comment that James was the true successor of the high priest led Ehrhardt to conclude that
the source of the doctrine of apostolic succession is to be found in the circle around James and his
successor bishops at Jerusalem. Ehrhardt's purpose is calculated to arouse sympathy for his theory that
the concept arose in Jewish Christianity out of necessity to continue the sacerdotal ministry of Judaism
within the church. But this notion is not as well attested as the traditional view that succession first
appeared among Gentile churches. In either case, a process was developing that placed more emphasis
on human judgment than on the biblical text.

Progressive development. The theory of apostolic succession supported and was in turn upheld by the
increase of authority within the ministry. As emphasis continued to be placed upon the purity of apostolic
doctrine transmitted through proper channels, a pattern of change emerged. Would-be bishop Hippolytus
tended to think of succession in the sense that bishops are apostles, being added beyond the
twelve. Clement of Alexandria and Origen subscribed only to truth passed from apostles to succeeding
generations in unwritten traditions. Irenaeus, going beyond the simple understanding that the bishop is
the "authorized" teacher, set the stage for his acceptance as the "ordained" teacher. The thought of a
sacramental charisma received in ordination as a supernatural guarantee of the authentic apostolic
teaching brought together two important elements: sacerdotal ministry and sacerdotal
succession. Because of his early advocacy of apostolic succession, Irenaeus laid the foundation of
constitutional unity within the Western church, but it was Cyprian who later pressed his thesis to its logical
ends.

Cyprian, with legal precision, amends the earlier notion that the apostles passed the teachings of Christ to
their successors and introduced the thought of the perpetuation of a priesthood which qualified bishops to
sacrifice. The church is founded on the bishops and its every act is directed by them. Through
succession and ordination, they are bearers of the Holy Spirit, which grants them the right to perform
religious rites and to forgive sins. This line of thinking advanced the position of the bishop beyond
anything found in the New Testament. Yet, the test of orthodoxy against heresy implied the ability to
produce the church's pedigree of an unbroken succession from one of the apostles or his associate. Men
in this line were free from heretical absurdities. Teachers without proper appointment were considered
either perverse-minded heretics, schismatics, or hypocrites.

Tertullian, younger contemporary of Irenaeus, put the subject into focus. He looked upon the churches as
being one primitive church, issuing from the apostles. Their peace, their title of brotherhood, and their
contract of hospitality proved their unity inasmuch as these privileges were presumed due to the one
tradition of the same revelation. Since the Son revealed himself solely to the apostles, only those

41
appointed by Christ are to be accepted as preachers. Their message is established through those
churches which the apostles founded, making true all doctrine which accords with those apostolic
churches.

Arising out of a felt need to secure the church against heresy, doctrine of apostolic succession quickly
caught the imagination of leading churchmen and gained universal stature by the middle of the 2nd
century. At first, the idea was collegiate and suggested a type of comfortable assurance to the church
that its teachings had been derived from Christ without contamination from heretical germs.

Apostolic succession, which was initially offered to protect the church's deposit of truth, evolved before
Nicea into a guarantee for true worship and grace as well. As the legitimacy of a succession became a
fixed part of the church's practice, it took on a theological character in terms of the ministry
itself. Traditional beliefs in the leadership role of the bishop in his community and apostolic succession
were ultimately inter-woven with the concept of a sacerdotal ministry.

A valid ministry was considered one that is dully commissioned; an invalid one was one that is
assumed. To break this principle of tradition by self-assertion was heresy. But two conditions needed to
be fulfilled for a bishop to be recognized as being in the succession from the apostles--proper election
and consecration. In this manner, the church came to control doctrine and practice.

Unit 2. Election, Ordination, Function, and Sacerdotalism

Textbook Reading
Fair, Ian. Leadership in the Kingdom: Sensitive Strategies for Churches in a Changing World.

Even from the beginning, official ministerial functions required proper appointment. Every believer had the
right and responsibility to serve others. But not everyone was equipped to perform sensitive tasks.
Whether the task pertained to the care of money or to counseling, not everyone qualified for appointment.
Certainly, one could not appoint himself.

At the heart of election and ordination lies the question of authority. Who has the right to speak and act?
Will the person reflect the mind and heart of Christ? Does the person have the faith and skill to discharge
the assigned duty? The apostles were especially chosen; even Judas' replacement received due
attention. The seven selected in Acts 6 for special service had to possess certain qualities. Paul recounts
his own appointment as an apostle born out of season. And the selection of elders in the Asian churches
went through a deliberate process. The process of selection was confirmed by ordination.

Something as important as counseling other people with respect to their spiritual health must be taken
seriously. This is not a role for the arrogant, ignorant, secular minded, self-seeker, or unskilled. That
point, so well articulated by Paul in the Pastorals and by Peter in his first epistle, was understood clearly
throughout the post-apostolic age and beyond.

Selection and ordination of elders related directly to tasks belonging to the "office." But as the concept of
an official hierarchal ministry developed, new elements entered the equation: a change in ministerial
function and political expediency. This made proper election and ordination more important.

It is easy to see that if the perceived task of a particular ministry changes, so do the qualifications. If an
elder/pastor/bishop is understood to be one who shepherds people spiritually, his role is more of a father
figure. But if he is perceived as a "priest," his role changes to one who represents the flock before God.
The New Testament portrays each Christian as a priest, who is represented before God by the high
priest, Jesus Christ. Thrusting the role of priest upon the elders raises questions about the propriety of the
action and certainly changes the form of ministry that the New Testament assigns to the elders.

42
As we proceed with an analysis of the post-apostolic church, the nature of the interlocking features should
become apparent. Our endeavor begins with (a) Election and ordination. We shall then proceed to (b)
Function and (c) Sacerdotalism.

a. Election and ordination. Election and ordination formalities are rather ancient. Among the Romans,
the appointment of civil officials involved election, invocation of the gods, installation, and oath-
taking. The priesthood practiced a type of ordination as newly elected priests were "called to sacred
things." Greek magistrates were commissioned with less detail, but their election was followed by
sacrificial entreaty of the gods and the taking of an oath.

Ordinations in Judaism are vague. While solemn appointments of priests, judges, and kings are known
from Old Testament times, there is a lack of solid evidence for rabbinic ordination before 70 C.E. Too
little is preserved of the procedure used to select and seat members of the sanhedrin to make any
generalizations. Installation ceremonies for officials within Jewish communities are unknown.

Election and ordination in the New Testament. Early within the Christian movement the people
nominated those being offered for divine service and closely associated God with their
election. Following the advancement of two names and an invocation, the choice of a replacement for
Judas was made by God. The selection of candidates assumes a type of nomination and general
agreement by those present that the two men had the qualifications for apostleship. Through the casting
of lots, the disciples recognized and accepted the divine pleasure.

Acts 6 provides an account of the selection of special servants to handle physical matters in the
church. The method is similar to that of Greek and Roman civil elections. Qualified men are chosen by
the assembly and appointed with attending prayer and the laying on of hands. The seven were to be men
full of the Holy Spirit before their selection, which makes it hardly possible that in this instance the laying
on of hands was connected with the giving of the Spirit at ordination.

Imposition of hands is associated in the New Testament with healing, benediction, consecration to a
special function, and imparting of the Holy Spirit after baptism. But a common principle seems to have
under girded the diverse situations, as laying on of hands appears to have been a symbolic expression of
a blessing.

When elders were appointed (cheirotonesavtes) in Asia Minor, their consecration was accompanied by
prayer. The activity may be taken in either of two ways: to include the prayer as part of the act or as
separate from it. Classically cheirotonein meant "elect" or "appoint" without reference to manner. The
post-apostolic church, however, chose to interpret the prayer as part of ordination with specific
association with the communication of the Holy Spirit.

The church struggled with ordination throughout the ante-Nicene period. The developing theology of the
church and its ministry caused the concept of ordination to become increasingly significant. Identification
of the divine role with the action of ordained bishops gave ordination a special place in the church's
tradition.

Ordination in the post-apostolic period. Testimony from the Apostolic Fathers adds little to custom
and procedures reported in the New Testament. Apostles or other reputable men
appointed (kathistanai) superintendents and assistants from among the first converts with the consent of
the whole church. Instruction was given brethren to elect for themselves (cheirotonesate) overseers and
assistants for the task of ministering as prophets and teachers (Didache 15:1). Soon thereafter the
conception of ordination came to rest in the assertion of apostolic tradition and in the episcopate as the
sole authority to continue the tradition.

One of the earliest witnesses to formal ordinations which set the bishop apart from the presbyters is
Hippolytus. Hippolytus (ca. 200 C.E.) recognized the bishop as one chosen by all the people, generally
approved, and ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands. Visiting bishops lay their hands on the one

43
being ordained, while resident presbyters stand by in silence. Silent prayer by all is ordered for the
descent of the Holy Spirit.

The prayer of ordination came to assert the divine choice of the bishop as a high priest who can offer the
gifts of the church and who can forgive sins according to authority given to the apostles. The apocryphal
Gospel of Philip (122:12-18) clearly states the apostolic divine connection by tracing the bishop's
appointment to the apostles, who in turn were appointed by Christ and he by the Father.

A presbyter is ordained by the bishop who lays his hand on his head with other presbyters touching
him. The prayer asks for him a Spirit of grace and counsel that he may sustain and govern the people
with a pure heart (Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus).

While bishops and presbyters are ordained to priestly functions, deacons are appointed only to care for
property and serve the needs of the bishop. For this reason, the bishop alone lays his hands on the
deacons at their ordination (Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus).

Election is by the people, as suggested by Hippolytus. Yet there was still active belief in divine choice
and appointment. The tradition preserved in Eusebius of Fabian's divine designation through a
descending dove shows how the people recognized signs of divine guidance in their elections
(Ecclesiastical History VI.29). Cyprian treats seriously the notion of divine appointment of bishops in his
fight against schism [Epistles 51 (55):8-9; 54 (59): 5-6; 66 (68):2]. The office is filled according to God's
will, knowledge, and assistance. His work through the laity in choosing and installing a bishop unites the
whole church.

It is hard to determine the exact relationship of the clergy to the nominations. One may suspect that in
some cases nominations were placed by the clergy and in others by the laity. The bishop filled positions
below his own rank but usually gained approval from other clerics and the congregation more out of
expediency than of necessity [Cyprian, Epistles 64 (3):3; 23 (29); 32 (38); 33 (39)]. Early in the post-
Nicene period, bishops were condemned for appointing their own successors, for such had to be
appointed by a synod and with the judgment of bishops (The Canons of the Blessed and Holy Fathers
Assembled at Antioch in Syria, 314 C.E.).

The church in the East reflects Grecian customs in ordinations. A belated account of the life of 3rd
century bishop Gregory Thaumaturgus gives this description of a bishop's election. Before the visiting
bishop the church placed in nomination a number of seemingly worthy men. When the populace was
unable to decide on one, Gregory suggested they look further among themselves for a candidate who
might have been overlooked. A new nominee quickly came to mind and the thought was interpreted as a
divine sign. He was promptly presented to God by consecration (Life of Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus).

Ordination of a bishop in Alexandria remained in local hands until the middle of the 3rd century. Jerome
affirms that from apostolic times to the mid-3rd century, presbyters were accustomed to electing the
bishop from among themselves. Power of ordination had been the bishop's only distinction from his
fellow presbyters (The Letters of St. Jerome). The former practice was evidently common knowledge for
Severus, who was exiled to Alexandria in the 6th century, recounts the ancient custom, which was
replaced in accord with the universal canon calling for ordination by other bishops (The Sixth Book of the
Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch).

Approval by neighboring bishops symbolized an act of the entire church. So the authority to appoint
bishops gradually passed from the hands of the congregation to the hands of the bishops. From the
middle of the 3rd century, ordination becomes the exclusive right of the bishop, as all lesser officers
derive their power from him and he, in turn, from other bishops (The Canons of the Council of Ancyra
(314 C.E.), canon 13; The Canons of Arles (314 C.E.), canon 20; The Canons of Nicea (325 C.E.), canon
4).

44
Once a bishop, presbyter, or deacon was ordained, he was not free to transfer to another church (The
Canons of Arles, canons 2, 21; The Canons of Nicea, canons 15, 16). He could function at another
congregation as a visitor with permission of that church's bishop since he was a minister of the church
universal. Specifically, though, a man was ordained in and for a particular church.

The apostolic canons provided for the examination of a prospective bishop by select men from a
neighboring church in the event there were less than twelve men competent to vote in his election. The
Council of Nicea makes allowance for the appointment of a bishop in the absence of some of the bishops
of a province, but the metropolitan must confirm the act. Any other ordination made without the consent
of the metropolitan is invalid (canons 4, 6).

Qualifications. Since qualities which made one suitable for the 1st century eldership have been
discussed at length, only later traditions need be noticed here. Basic demands for moral and spiritual
character were universally and continuously recognized (1 Clement 44:3; Didache 15:1-2; The Apostolic
Canons, canon 1), and neophyte appointments to either the episcopate or presbyterate, though not
always observed, remained taboo (The Canons of Nicea, canon 2). Understandably education was
desirable for the bishop so he could expound the Scriptures, and presbyters were required to support the
bishop in his work (The Apostolic Canons, canons 1, 2). Due to the non-secular nature of the priesthood,
the clergy was denied the right of secular employment to avoid worldly entanglements and concerns
(Cyprian, Epistles, 65). But the most momentous change of all was related to marriage.

Celibacy became the desired state among clerics after it passed from society to Christian laymen and
then to the clergy (The Apostolic Canons, canons 1, 2). The Council of Ancyra (ca. 314-319 C.E.)
permitted deacons, who declared their need to marry at ordination, to do so (canon 10). From the
Council of Neo-caesarea (ca. 315 C.E.) came a decree against presbyters who married after
ordination. These were to be excluded from the clergy, excommunicated, and brought to repentance
(canon 1). Celibacy was decreed even for married bishops, presbyters, and deacons by the Council of
Elvira in Spain (ca. 305 C.E.) under threat of deposition (canon 33). Thereafter, clergymen of all grades
in the Wet were prohibited from enjoying the marital state.

A clergyman could be convicted of a natural fault by two or three witnesses and deposed (The Council of
Nicea, canon 2). Any excommunication by a bishop was to be honored by bishops of other
provinces. Twice-yearly provincial synods were authorized to serve as a check against unhealthy motives
in excommunications (canon 5).

Protecting itself from heresy and schism, the ante-Nicene church developed a tradition of successions
which emanated from the apostles. To ensure these successions, bishops needed to be properly elected
and ordained. Ordinations thus assumed a technical meaning for the ceremony of installation marking a
clergyman's entrance into divine service.

Apostolic succession and ordination were unwittingly providing a theological base for a priestly
ministry. With their practice firmly established in the churches, sacerdotalism was offered fertile ground
for development.

Here is where the study of history can prove beneficial. It allows for a long look backward. What were
once unknown forces and effects are now revealed. There is no need to guess about what might
happen. We now know what did happen. Early Christians could not have anticipated the long-term effect
of a few well-meaning actions. By learning from history, we may even bear greater responsibility for our
actions than our Christian ancestors. We have a greater sense of where deviation may lead. The
alternative, of course, is to accept all changes and credit them to progressive revelation. But this raises
more serious problems relative to authority and the role of scripture in the modern church.

b. Function. Spiritual leaders of the church have historically performed those tasks which they conceive
to be proper. When, in the post-apostolic period, many situations arose which required handling without
the experience of precedent or specific apostolic instruction, a great deal of finesse and common

45
judgment were required. Men had to serve congregational needs in the light of their understanding of
Scripture and tradition. They became increasingly convinced that their call to provide protection from foes
and give assurance of apostolic truths implied strong administration. Added responsibilities were eagerly
assumed by the church heads until they possessed the exclusive right of superintending religious
services. As the exercise of this prerogative was appropriated to the bishop, he came to occupy a unique
position in relation to the church.

The bishop enters the 2nd century scene as one who symbolized the unity of his congregation. His basic
duties were those of shepherding--bringing back those who had gone astray, visiting the sick, and caring
for widows, orphans, and the poor. But his role of shepherding was being extended to include approving
marriages, conducting meetings, and instructing members in keeping with the virtues of the gospel.
Baptisms and religious meals were not permissible, except under his direction.

As time progressed, a variety of threatening crises strengthened the bishop's position and developing
theology confirmed his position as the proper administrator of spiritual activities. By the end of the Ante-
Nicene period, the bishop was the chief executive officer of the church, functioning as the officiator in
worship, priest, teacher, consecrator of other clerics, steward of the mysteries of God, controller of
ecclesiastical discipline, deciding figure in theological questions through councils or diocesan synods,
minister of confirmation, and "exorciser" of catechumens who were nearing baptism.

The most outspoken Ante-Nicean writer on the bishop's province was Cyprian. The highly influential 3rd
century bishop from Carthage in North Africa insisted upon episcopal control and union with the collective
episcopate. Taking advantage of the lapsed problem, he sketched a polity which gave a fixable and
tangible shape to the thought on one universal church.

Cyprian believed the bishop should have full responsibility for church administration. As a bishop, he
decided proper church policy, administered church discipline, oversaw distributions to the poor, and
allocated salaries to the subordinate clergy. In fulfilling his duty to see that the people were taught and
that they observed the teachings of the church, Cyprian conjectured that God might even condescend to
communicate to the bishop through visions. And since he is the source of unity, only he possessed the
authority to baptize and give remission of sins. Restoration to sinners and bestowal of the right to
communion was conferred by the bishop, who placed his hand on the penitent in association with the
other ministers.

As the bishop began to emerge as the chief presbyter, his colleagues took the form of a "council of God"
under his control. Although the bishop gradually became the center of teaching and liturgical activity,
elders still participated in these services. In administration, they formed a college with the bishop to assist
him in governance. With the extension of the church and development of a parochial system, presbyters
were often assigned to satellite congregations. In the performance of religious service, they participated
with the bishop in sacerdotal functions and assisted in baptisms, absolutions, and ordinations of other
presbyters. Disputants were reconciled before elders, who in turn reported to the bishop.

Deacons were not ordained to the priesthood but assisted both bishops and elders. They neither received
that Spirit which the presbyters share nor took part in the council of the clergy. Preaching pursuits which
deacons enjoyed in apostolic and early post-apostolic days had been suspended by the 3rd century.
Becoming the eyes of the bishop, deacons looked after the bodies and souls of the brethren and reported
to him their welfare. Beginning with the catechumens, they instructed them until they were ready to be
baptized. They inquired into the activities of each member to help each not to sin, checked the disorderly,
and brought the names of the sick to the attention of the church.

The bishop continued to increase his authority over all ministries of the church until his superintendence
was unquestioned. But more importantly, his ministry was reshaped into a priestly form. Because of its
momentous consequences, this particular function should be analyzed closely. But perhaps there are two
issues of significance here. One pertains to the bishop's elevation and the other to his function. Regarding

46
elevation, we should ask if the New Testament either authorizes the supremacy of one bishop over elders
and if the position does not open itself to Jesus' warning about becoming as Gentile lords (Mark 10:42)
and Peter's injunction for elders not to lord it over the flock (1 Pet. 5:2-3). The second instance has to do
with the nature of ministry itself. We may ask, Does the New Testament sanction the development of a
priesthood of select persons who represent Christians before God and who become the dispensers of
God's grace to the flock?

c. Sacerdotalism. "Sacerdotalism" derives from the Latin sacrerdos, a term used to designate a "priest."
The word in this form is known only from the mid-19th century but is applied to a long-standing idea that
intercession between man and God requires the services of a duly recognized person.

Priests are known from ancient times and in many cultures. Sometimes the king was also the highest
priest in the land. Israel too had its priests. Unlike other nations, the nature of Yahweh's covenant with
Israel meant that the whole community of Israel became a "kingdom of priests" (Exod. 20:6). Yet, their
formal intersession with Yahweh was through a specially set apart group of priests drawn from the tribe of
Levi. Only one high priest served at a time, along with a larger company of priests. The high priest wore
special vestments and went into the tabernacle or temple once annually to offer atonement for himself
and for the whole of Israel.

Following the precedent at Sinai, according to the New Testament, every believer is likewise constituted a
"royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), with only Jesus Christ as the high priest (Heb. 4:14). Jesus is priest after
a different order than was Aaron and those who followed him. Jesus is a priest after the order of
Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20), thus combining priesthood with kingship. But more than that, Jesus is also the
sacrificial lamb that was offered for sin once and for all. Jesus is not succeeded. Under the new covenant,
the believer can go directly to their high priest without a failed human as intercessor.

A company of priests to assist the high priest was no longer needed, for all animal sacrifices ceased.
Those redeemed by the blood of Christ now offer their bodies as spiritual sacrifices. It was only in the
post-apostolic church that this began to change. Collections for the poor, the bringing of food for the
agape, and acts of public worship began to be considered "offerings."

Priesthood in the post-apostolic church centered upon the notion of sacrifice within the Lord's supper. The
supper fitted the description of an offering well; connection with Christ fostered a sacrificial connotation.
Through ordination, men obtained special powers and rights essential to the exercise of the priestly role.
The priest came to represent the church before God in offering the sacrifice of Christ's body and, in turn,
make grace available to the congregation through the eucharist.

The lead in sacerdotalism was taken by the West but developed in the East shortly thereafter.
Although The Didache refers to prophets as high priests, it does not infer that they served in a sacerdotal
manner. The idea of a priesthood seems to have become common, though not universal, by the middle of
the second century.

The first to speak of the bishop as an ecclesiastical priest is Tertullian. He portrays the bishop as "high
priest" and the presbyters as common priests. Laymen were not permitted to be involved in priestly
functions due to their lack of authority and ordination.

Cyprian is much freer with the use of sacerdotal terminology than any before him. Like Tertullian and
Origen, he thinks of a priestly ministry after the Mosaic analogy with respect to status and duties.
Departing from earlier usage, Cyrpian uses sacerdos with reference to the bishop alone. With him, the
office of bishop is primarily a sacrificial and intercessory office. Mention of the Lord's passion is made in
the supper for this is the sacrifice offered. The priest discharges the office of Christ by initiating what
Christ did and offers a "true and full sacrifice" in the church of God. And so in this way the sum of divine
grace for individual Christians became attached to the episcopate.

47
The eucharist was a delegated privilege, since it was carried out under the bishop's authority. Presbyters
stood with the bishop in the supper, laying their hands on the oblation as the bishop uttered the prayer.
Deacons assisted in administering the supper. Presbyters or deacons could serve in the absence of the
bishop, but a layman could not so much as bless the bread.

The bishop's role was created for the welfare of the Christian community. Subsequent developments
which elevated one presbyter over others and which further segregated the clergy from the membership
were not without serious or honorable purposes. But growth in influence and power and the inclusion of
the priestly element markedly altered the pastoral role known to have existed in the first-century church.

Internet Source

"Priest or Prophet" by W. H. Griffith, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 9, no. 16 (Spring 1996)

Unit 3. Ecclesiology
Leadership changes did not occur in isolation. Just as heresies motivated the church to develop stronger,
hierarchal models of leadership, theological disagreements and discussions created different views of the
church itself. Ecclesiology concerns itself with these views of the church. In particular, ecclesiology is
focused on the manifestation of the church as a spiritual entity in the very physical world. How does one
understand the “body of Christ” with “Christ as the head” in practical terms that would allow Christians to
build the church rightly? Of particular interest in this unit and course, how is leadership in the church—
which includes a discussion of local, regional, and universal manifestations—to be compared with the
headship of Christ? The answer to these questions often depends on a particular group’s view of the
church itself, or its ecclesiology. For this reason, this unit will spend time describing the various traditional
interpretations of the church that lead to various leadership models.

Before proceeding, it might be helpful to define three terms often used interchangeably that, perhaps,
should not be.

Ecclesiological: “of or relating to the understanding, doctrine, or concept of the church”

(e.g. “Church architecture has enormous ecclesiological significance.”)

Ecclesiastical: “of or relating to the church as an established institution”

(e.g., “Our church follows an ecclesiastical calendar.”)

Ecclesial: “of or relating to the church or to the church's nature”

(e.g., “Christian existence is ecclesial existence.”)

In this unit, we will be looking at the understanding of the church (ecclesiology) and its impact on the
organization of the church as an established (ecclesiastical) institution. This unit is divided into three
sections, (1) Traditional Ecclesiologies, (2) Reformed Ecclesiologies, and (3) Modern Ecclessiologies.

Textbook Reading
Goncharenko, Simon V. Church Government According to the Bible.

a. Traditional Ecclesiologies.

Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox theology possesses several characteristics that, combined,
make its view of the church rather unique. First, Eastern orthodoxy centers the work of God in the work of
the Spirit. Theologians outside this tradition find it difficult to harmonize a decidedly Christocentric view of
the church with this “pneumatocentric” view. However, Eastern Orthodoxy’s strong Trinitarianism answers
criticisms along this line with the reminder of Athanasius’ words, “The Father does all things by the Word

48
in the Holy Spirit.” Though the church is the body of Christ, it is the Spirit that works within its parts
according to God’s will (1 Cor. 12).

When considering the church, Eastern Orthodoxy’s ecclesiology is distinctly Trinitarian. Just as the
Apostle Paul describes the working of the Trinity in the building of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, so
Eastern Orthodoxy relies on the mystical work and union of the Holy Spirit among all Christians to create
a universal church. However, it is not just the Spirit, but the work of Christ and the Spirit together, under
the direction of God, that builds the church. To quote Irenaeus, God works with “both of his hands.”

Another aspect of Eastern ecclesiology, also related to its strong pneumatology, is the idea that church is
a “lived” experience. While Western ecclesiology has drifted further and further into a sociological,
institutional paradigm, the Eastern ecclesiology has remained firmly planted in the personal,
pneumatological “Christian life” experience. Even though the churches are organized with specific levels
and specific leadership, the church is still considered a community of equals sharing together in a spiritual
journey. In fact, Eastern orthodoxy places a strong emphasis on the ecclesial nature of Christianity;
Christians are saved as a part of the body of Christ, no one is saved alone. Nowhere is this emphasis
greater than in the practice of the Eucharist as central to the Eastern ecclesiology.

How do these theological views impact the leadership of the church? The Eastern Orthodox churches still
have bishops who serve as spiritual guides and representatives of God’s will in the church. However,
ideally, they do not “lord over” their congregations (1 Pet. 5:3). Instead, following the long Orthodox
tradition of Sobornost, the Eastern Orthodox church seeks to empower and employ its members in the
work and leadership of the church. Sobornost represents this idea of a conciliar church, but it also
idealizes the catholic nature, or universal unity, of the church. All members working together on equal
status to be the one, true, visible church.

Within the Eastern tradition, there has risen a divide between the Russian Orthodox and Eastern
Orthodox churches regarding leadership, especially the Primate. While such debate is outside the scope
of this course, it would be beneficial to read on the stance of the Russian Orthodox church and the
response by the Greek Orthodox church (representing the general Eastern tradition.)

Roman Catholic Ecclesiology. A discussion of Roman Catholic ecclesiology must begin with the
recognition that much has changed over 1,000 years or more of existence. The influence of multiple
church councils, which operate with the latitude to redefine the church at each meeting, prevents the
presentation of a brief synopsis of the church’s ecclesiology. While its leadership structure has remained
much the same throughout its history, the theology of the church, and the implications for the roles and
powers of these leaders, has continued to change. Since the history of ecclesial thought varies from
generation to generation, we will focus on the last 200 years of Roman Catholic ecclesiology as it has the
greatest bearing on our current discussion.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, J. Adam Möhler produced a work on Roman Catholic ecclesiology
that clearly favored the pneumatological view shared with the Eastern tradition. However, over the next
50 years, culminating in Vatican I (1871), the view of the church as the continuation of the Incarnation
prevailed. As such, the view of the church took on a decidedly “institutional” flavor. The church was to be
the “incarnation,” or physical structure, of Christ, while the Spirit was to be its “heart” or “soul.” Though
this language did not find support in Scripture, the premise that the church represented a physically
present institution on Earth, guided much of the discussion at Vatican I.

From this incarnational view rose the idea of the societas perfecta, or perfect community. If the church
was the perfect physical representation of the perfectly incarnated Christ, then the church was a perfect
community—and the only perfect community. Such ideology pressed the church into an even greater
institutional view with the need both to sanctify the institution and to protect it. The result was rigid
doctrines and rigid leadership. The culmination of this latter rigidity was the doctrine of papal infallibility
supported by Vatican I.

49
Vatican II (1962-1965) offered a very different ecclesiological view. Lumen Gentium, or “light of the
nations,” saw the church as a representative of the light of Christ in a dark world. The church was not a
societas perfecta, but a community of believers, even imperfect ones, holding up Christ to the world. This
change in the understanding of the church was reinforced in the document by acknowledging the church
as the “people of God.” Drawing from language as far back as Augustine’s “Di civitae Dei” (City of God),
the church returned to a view of the church as the composition of people called by God.

The result of this change was threefold. The first, perhaps unplanned, was a view that fit with the Eastern
Orthodox sobornost. The church was returning to its conciliar roots. The second aspect of the change
reenergized the faith and commitment of the laity. Throughout America, we have seen a revival of
evangelistic activity within the Catholic churches, as well as a movement to reclaim Catholics lost during
the more impersonal, institutional time.

A third result was the change in who constitutes the “people of God.” The societas perfecta view only
acknowledged people who were part of the perfect community as members of the perfect body. Now, the
people of God are all who serve as Lumen Gentium. Any Christian faith that holds up Christ as the savior
and calls its followers to emulate the life and light of Christ can be considered “lights to the nations.” The
new definition embraces the ecumenical spirit growing throughout Christendom.

Central to this change is the work of the Holy Spirit. Karl Rahner, prior to Vatican II, called the church to
recognize the power of the Holy Spirit in bringing about the unity of the church. Rahner challenges the
idea that concrete unity can be established through strict doctrine and rigid polity, including an all-
powerful pope. Instead, he posits that only when the Spirit is allowed to work in the church, both
individually and corporately, can true unity occur. The powers of the world are two strong for mere men to
overcome, but with the power of God working mightily, the church, including the extended “people of
God,” could be one in unity and in power. It is clear that such a stance, which has taken on greater
support and meaning since Vatican II, would result in more emphasis given to the primacy of the Spirit
than the primacy of the pope.

Internet Resources

What Does Lumen Gentium Teach? https://www.simplycatholic.com/what-does-lumen-gentium-teach/

b. Reformed Ecclesiologies. As the Reformation took shape, a new view of the church did as well.
Some might say that it was not a new view but a return to a more the biblical view. Certainly, the
ecclesiology of the Reformation was markedly different from it Catholic and Orthodox predecessors.

Lutheran Ecclesiology. Martin Luther had an unwavering commitment to the gospel message and the
Bible as a whole. For Luther, only two factors defined the church, and neither had much to do with the
adherents. Luther defined the church as a gathering of believers where the gospel is preached and
sacraments are administered. The church had little to do with the condition of the attendees but with the
presence of the Spirit of God as contained in God’s Word and sacraments. Structure, leadership,
ministries, etc. did not define the church and could vary as much as needed for the effective preaching of
God’s Word.

Luther also moved away from the societa perfecta model of the church. Part of Luther’s soteriology was
that Christians were simultaneously just and sinful. In other words, Christians are not perfect, just
forgiven. This view had a significant impact on his view of the church. The ecclesiological purity is not tied
to the people but to the working of the Spirit through the Word and sacrament. It seems foreign in many
Christian religions to separate the church from the people because many have grown up being reminded
that the church is the people, not a building. That is not exactly what Luther was saying. Luther’s point
was that the church, even though comprised of imperfect people, is made perfect by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, regardless of who was preaching the Word or who was administering the sacrament, the

50
church represented the holy body of Christ because the Word was preached and the sacraments
administered.

Clearly, this view departed from the Catholic church’s view which looked to ecclesiastical order (priests,
bishops, cardinals, pontiffs) to maintain ecclesiological purity. However, one might notice that this view is
very similar to the “spiritual” view of the church posited by Möhler prior to Vatican I and Karl Rahner prior
to Vatican II. One might also notice in this view a hint of the corollary doctrine of the priesthood of the
believers.

Luther’s theology that the church is comprised of those who are just and sinful simultaneously and his
view that the legitimacy and purity of the church are not based on the one preaching or administering the
sacraments, was reinforced by and contributed to the development of one of his greatest theological
insights, the priesthood of all believers. Luther placed the impetus of control of the local congregation in
the people who were assembling there to worship. With sufficient training in the Word, they were to be the
teachers and administrators of sacrament.

Luther saw little reason for a hierarchal model, and the Lutheran church in America, until recently, did not
have bishops. In fact, the only reason Luther supported an ecclesiastical office was to conduct the public
ministry of the church. Even so, the ecclesiastical office did not outrank the priesthood of all believers. In
short, the office was designed to promote efficiency and excellence, not to recognize a spiritual superior
as was the nature of the priesthood in the Catholic church.

Reformed Ecclesiology. As the Reformation became more separatist, an ecclesiology that supported
the Reformers’ views of salvation, faith, and sacraments was needed. The fact that there are so many
denominations that splintered off of the Reformation is a good indication of the amount of disagreement
among the Reformers on this topic. While almost all Reformers placed a strong emphasis on the role of
faith in salvation, they struggled to find common ground on questions surrounding the roles of faith,
sacrament, piety, and polity in defining the church.

John Calvin, in addition to his many other contributions to the Reformation, worked out an ecclesiology
that worked with his soteriology (theology of salvation) and his eschatology (theology of end times). In his
view, the church had a visible facet and an invisible one but must always be considered one church. In
this view, the invisible church could only be seen by God. In other words, only God knew who was
included in the invisible, universal, spiritual church. For Calvin, this universal church is the elect of God so
chosen before the beginning of time. There was, however, a visible side of this same church; it was the
local congregation. The local congregation, a term preferred by most reformers over the idea of a “local
church,” represented the invisible church in a specific location. That local congregation was continuous
with the invisible church and was connected to it through the administration of sacraments and the
preaching of the Word. Again, for Calvin, the local congregation was comprised of the elect who existed
in that particular space and time on this earth. (We cannot get into the tenets of Calvinism in this course.)
Evidence of their election was their confession of faith, their piety, and their participation in sacraments.

Calvin’s view has become prevalent in many denominations today, especially in shaping eschatology. For
Calvin, the visible church and invisible church would one day be united when Christ returns. Whether that
merger produces a physical church on earth on an eternal place in heaven is subject to debate.

Consistent with Luther’s emphasis on the priesthood of the believers, Calvin emphasized the equality of
those serving in church leadership. While he makes a distinction between bishop and presbyters that
cannot be supported by Scripture, he does assert that bishops are not to have authority nor rank beyond
that of the any other presbyter and should follow the decisions made by common consensus.

In the 20th century, Karl Barth recast Reformed ecclesiology. While creating a new ecclesiology was not
his intention, it was necessary in keeping with his other principles. Of particular interest to this discussion
are three emphases made by Barth. First, Barth dismissed the idea of an invisible church as Docetism.
The local congregation represented the full measure of the Lord’s church who were elected to it by Christ.
Second, Barth insisted that all members of the church, not just elders, deacons, pastors, etc., were gifted

51
for service in the church. For Barth, 1 Cor. 12 could have no other meaning. It also meant that all
Christians were called to and must commit to serve, not just to “be Christians.”

Finally, and in some ways related to the previous idea, Barth dismissed infant baptism and promoted
believer’s baptism. If being a Christian means making a commitment to serve as a part of one’s response
in faith, then infants, who cannot make such a commitment, cannot participate in baptism. For Barth,
baptism was a believer’s response in faith to commit himself or herself fully to the Christ as Savior and as
Lord. It should be noted that many disagree with Barth’s view of “Lordship Salvation,” but it finds support
among many, conservative churches and denominations.

Free Church (Radical Reformed) Ecclesiology. One could say that Barth’s thoughts on Believer’s
Baptism were not his own, and one would be correct. Long before Barth attempted to reframe Reformed
theology, Radical Reformers, as they are often called, were already making similar statements. With the
exception of mainstream Baptist, who often seek to separate themselves from these roots, most
denominations following in the footsteps of the Radical Reformers have been relegated to second class
institutions. However, that is changing.

The key concept behind the Free Church ecclesiology is active participation of all members. Radical
Reformers explicitly rejected the Catholic view of a “religious” clergy. They also claimed that too many
Reformers were not going far enough in advocating for the dissolution of any clergy-laity delineation. For
the Radical Reformers, the priesthood of the believers was the hallmark of New Testament Christianity
and the only means of defining the church. All who confessed Jesus as Lord, were reborn from above,
were regenerated by work of the Spirit, were the true children of God—and the true church. For Radical
Reformers, the church is for the saved, not for the unsaved to be converted.

Following Calvin’s views on the perseverance of the Saints, Radical Reformers viewed obedience to
Scripture as a defining mark of the church. While critics minimize these Reformers view of Scripture,
Scripture remains the absolute authority for the Christian life, and all Christians are expected to give
uncompromising commitment to the Word of God. What makes their view unique, to some degree, is the
view that the Holy Spirit, who equally indwells and empowers and gifts every believer, guides every
Christian, as a priest, to read and understand Scripture. The ability to read and comprehend Scripture
immediately diminishes the role of clergy and, in fact, makes it almost unnecessary. Likewise, it creates
an environment in which all Christians who gather can equally participate in church service and
leadership. As a result, many Free Churches today can be identified by their autonomous,
congregationalist polity.

Internet Sources

“Anabaptists: ‘Forgotten Voices of the Reformation.’” (DTS Voice)

“The Condition of the Ancient Church, and the Kind of Government in Use Before the Papacy” (John
Calvin for Everyone)

c. Modern Ecclesiologies. A cursory survey of the religious landscape across the globe should quickly
alert the student of religious studies that the Free Church paradigm is gaining momentum. This
momentum can be seen in every religion and in almost every country. In Africa, for instance, the African
Indigenous Church Movement is growing exponentially. African Christians, tired of the traditions,
expectations, and teachings of the colonialized, Westernized church systems, have begun to call for a
Christianity that works in Africa. Such a call for change within a hierarchal system often goes unheard.
However, the Free Church model offers them hope for a church that makes sense in their cultural context.

Part of what one sees in this pursuit of a more bottom-up, or grassroots, Christianity, and again consistent
with the Radical Reformers, is a more charismatic and more ecumenical ecclesiology. As one considers

52
what one sees in the cursory survey, one will find more churches working together and worshipping
together. For these Christians, the work of the Spirit in the lives of Christians, as defined by the Apostle
Paul in his letter to the Corinthian church, is sufficient grounds for defining the church and for fellowship.

Pentecostal Ecclesiology. The Charismatic and Pentecostal movements are well over 100 years old in
America. If we were to include Shakers, Quakers, and others, we could say they are about 300 years old.
If one includes Montanists from the 2nd century, then clearly, there is a long history of charismatic
movements. All of these movements share a common belief in the current, effectual action of the Holy
Spirit in the life of Christians, including the gifts of prophecy, healing, and revelation.

As one would imagine, in the Pentecostal movement, ecclesiology, as a theology of the church, is not an
important topic. Put quite simply, the church is defined as a fellowship of Spirit-empowered believers.
With the focus on “fellowship,” or koinonia in Greek, structure has little to do with the church, and
hierarchy even less. Charismatic churches join together for mutual fellowship with the expectation that the
Spirit will take over and guide the fellowship. Why bother trying to structure a service when the hope and
expectation is that God will take over? And of course, since the Charismatic churches encourage
individual interaction with the Spirit, why would there be a need for any hierarchal model that places
another person between the Spirit and the Christian on whom he is working? Likewise, if the Spirit works
equally among all, then all can contribute to the fellowship. It would be wrong to say that the Pentecostal
churches hold “organized religion” in contempt. It would be close to the truth to say that they do not let
organization interfere with their Christianity.

Charismatic Ecclesiology. In this last way, the Charismatic churches differ from Pentecostal churches.
Charismatic churches and Christians tend to hold tradition and “organized religion” in greater esteem.
Charismatic churches can be found in many denominations, from Catholic to Baptist. Charismatic
Christians have a different view of fellowship than their Pentecostal counterparts. In the former, the
church community is very important and is meant to be nourished and cherished. In the latter, fellowship
is more of a shared individual activity. Because Charismatic Christians and churches value their
community, their ecclesiology is much more important to them. However they define the church, it must
not radically alter the nature of the church within their respective religious tradition. As such, there is not a
single Charismatic, or Pentecostal, ecclesiology. What is consistent across all churches is a high regard
for and expectation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church manifested in individual Christians. Similarly,
the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches promote Spirit-filled participation in their services, which
appeals to many who are seeking to connect with God and his community/fellowship of believers.

Ecumenical Ecclesiology. In most of the ecclesiologies we have considered, if not all, the view of the
church had a relationship, either direct or indirect, to the ecclesiastical model adopted. The Roman
Catholic church, to support its hierarchal model, views the church as an institution. Pentecostals view the
church as a fellowship and, therefore, downplay hierarchal models. The ecumenical movement has very
little impact on ecclesiastical models. The ecumenical movement, instead, views unity as the God-
ordained and God-commanded nature of the church. How religions organize their congregations and local
assemblies is of little importance. What is important is their acceptance, or at least tolerance, of all other
Christ-professing religions for the sake of unity.

The ecumenical movement has made progress in its goal. Many denominations have adopted a three-
tiered approach to unity. The bottom tier is all Christ-professing religions. This level is perhaps best
identified as tolerance for the sake of unity. The middle tier includes other Christian religions that have
similar practices and beliefs but who may disagree on underlying theological matters. A good example
might be a Lutheran church’s acceptance of an Anglican church. This tier rises to the level of acceptance
with minimal judgment on theology. The top tier is full fellowship. At this level, two churches or
denominations share in a common confession, a common theological system, and common practices.
There may be variations in understanding or practice, but the hearts of their churches are identical. This
level of acceptance is much harder to find. Perhaps the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and
Eastern Orthodox churches rise to this level. Perhaps the United Methodists and Disciples of Christ do as
well.

53
Clearly, the more entrenched a church’s ecclesiology, the more difficult it will be to accept an ecclesiology
that says ecclesiology does not matter. This problem is especially pronounced when the church’s
ecclesiastical model is bound tightly to that ecclesiology. Likewise, a church that has comingled its
soteriology with its ecclesiology will have a difficult time embracing ecumenical ecclesiology. However,
with the growth of the Free Church model, the expansion of the Charismatic and Pentecostal
ecclesiologies, and the acceptance of ecumenicism, it will be difficult to resist such a wave of change.

Examination
Now that you have come to the end of this module, you should review the material in preparation for a
multiple-choice examination. When you are ready for the exam, you may open it from the Course Menu.

Book Review: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter.

Richard Baxter’s book on the pastorate has become a foundational work on the role and theology of
church leadership, and especially the pastor. In some ways, it bridges the gap between the Reformation
and more contemporary leadership. It is your task to write a 1,000-word book review of Baxter’s book.
You will find a digital copy at the link below.

http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digital%20Puritan%20Resources/Baxter,%20Richard/The%20Reformed%20
Pastor%20(4th%20ed.).pdf

Be aware that there are many blank pages in the book. Do not think that this copy is faulty. It is a
complete work.

If you are not familiar with writing a book review, The Writing Center at the University of North Chapel Hill
has an excellent guide which you may find by following this link: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-
tools/book-reviews/. A link to the guide is also located in the Course Menu.

When you have finished the book review, upload it on the Course Menu under Module 2.

MODULE 3 Church Polity

In the previous discussion of ecclesiology, we have alluded to church polity, or ecclesiastical model.
Church polity is simply organization, particularly of the leadership. Inherent in the discussion of
organization is the issue of authority. Hierarchal models place more authority at the higher levels. Populist
models attempt to create equality in authority, responsibility, and function across all members of a
congregation. In this module you will explore some of the more prevalent models of church polity.

As you begin this module, be thinking about what you learned in Module 1 as you will be expected to offer
an analysis of the ecclesiastical model used by your church or a church with which you may be familiar. If
you are not involved in a church, you may select any of the models to analyze.

Questions of church polity have littered the history of the church. From the start of the early church
through to the present-day various positions have been espoused. This variation raises the question:
what exactly is church polity? In his Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Donald McKim defines

54
polity as, “a form of church government adopted by an ecclesiastical body.” Millard Erickson in Dictionary
of Christian Theology gives a similar yet different definition when he defines church polity as, “the
organization of governmental structure of a local church or fellowship of churches.” This unit will approach
the question from three areas. First, a functional definition of polity will be developed. Second, a survey of
the main views of church polity will be offered, allowing each to speak to its own perspective. Finally, a
summary and evaluation will be offered. Working from Erickson’s definition above, two things about
church polity can be expounded to enhance our understanding of polity. First, polity is organization.
Second, polity is government.

Polity is Organization. First, polity is organization. If one simply surveys the early church in the book of
Acts, it will not be long until notes of church organization flood the mind of the reader. For example,
consider how the disciples kept a numerical record of the church that defined the parameters of
membership (2:41; 4:4). Luke permeates the book of Acts with his summary statements that track the
growth of church membership. Next, consider the regular gatherings of the assembly. Not only is there
scriptural evidence of the church assembling, but also the evidence informs the reader that they were
commanded to do so (Heb. 10:25; 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:2).
Church organization can also be clearly seen in the strong concern for orderliness in the life of
the church. Paul wrote to the Corinthians commanding them that all things should be done “decently and
in order” (1 Cor. 14:40 Holman Christian Standard Bible). According to Saucy (The Church, pp. 99-100),
later in the New Testament Paul will actually demand orderliness (Col. 2:5) and rebuke the lack of it (1
Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6-7).
Organization manifests itself in a number of other New Testament practices. The early church
practiced letters of recommendation (Acts 18:24-28; 2 Cor. 3:1; Philem. 9-12). “Letters of
recommendation were often sent from one church to another in which the letter bearer was commended
to the church of destination.” (Akin, “Single-Elder-Led”) In addition to letters of recommendation,
solicitations of collections were sent from one local church to another. These solicitations would bear the
name of the giving church (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:6-9:5). Lastly, it should be mentioned that the early
church kept official records of those that needed assistance (1 Tim. 5:9).

Polity is Government. Second, polity is government, that is, an extension of Christ’s authority. As the
reader comes to the New Testament, he will naturally see the concept of church government emerge
from the text, especially in the epistles. The New Testament is not silent on the issue. The issue then
becomes: How should church government look? Although wide disagreement exists, “all major forms of
church polity posit in some form the notion that the rule of Christ should be manifested through the
organizational structure of a church.” (Akin) But again the question arises, what does this look like?
Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 904-905) offers a helpful disclaimer when he writes,

At the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the
Trinity, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture…Moreover,
while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament,
other matter (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear…It
seems to me, then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over
this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained.

Reading the New Testament provides a glimpse into the way the early ekklesia did church. However, one
will soon come to realize that the Bible does not offer a concrete manual for church polity. Daniel L. Akin
(Perspectives, p. 3) agrees when he writes, “there is no precise manual on church government and polity,
a survey and analysis of the biblical material reveals definite patterns and discernable guidelines on how
the churches in the New Testament functioned.”

Textbook Reading

The Megachurch and the Mainline by Ellingson.

Unit 1. Hierarchal Models

55
Several models of church governance recognize multiple levels of offices. In these models, the amount of
local autonomy in decision-making varies. In most cases, local congregations have some latitude in how
they execute ministries but very little on what is taught. Doctrinal decisions are reserved to higher ranking
offices which often oversee multiple congregations and even regional bodies of multiple congregations.

a. Presbyterian Polity. Robert Reymond (“Presbytery-Led Church,” p. 93) in his defense of Presbyterian
polity defines Presbyterianism as, “governance of the church by elders/overseers in graded courts, with
these officers executing the responsibilities of their office in unison and on a parity with each other, and
with the material care and service of the church being looked after by deacons (known corporately as the
‘diaconate’) under the supervision of the elders/overseers.

In his systematic theology, John Frame (Systematic Theology, p. 1027) provides color to Reymonds
quote above when he writes,

In the Presbyterian system, common in churches called Reformed as well as Presbyterian, there
is a plurality of elders in every church. These are elected by the people. The elders meet as the
ruling body of each particular church, and the elders of a region meet together as a broader court,
dealing with the ministry of the whole area. Usually once a year, all the elders of the
denomination, or a representative group of them, meet as a General Assembly, or Synod, to
resolve questions of importance to the whole church, as did the apostles and other leaders in
Acts 15.

In order to represent the Presbyterian position well, several points need to be mentioned. First,
Presbyterianism recognizes that governing is done by elders/overseers. Presbyterians point out that this
governing by elders has always been the case. (See Exod 3:26, 18; 4:29; 17:5-6; 18:13-27; 19:7; 24:1, 9-
11; Lev 4:15; 9:1-2 Num 11:14-25; Deut 5:23; 22:15-17; 27:1; Josh 7:6; 8:33; Judg 21:16; 1 Kings 8:1-3; 1
Chron 21:16; Ps 107:32; Ezek 8:1, etc.) The New Testament structure is simply a continuation of what
God designed in the past. Ladd (Theology, p. 389) agrees when he writes,

Both Jewish communities and synagogues were ruled by a group of elders; and since the
primitive church externally was little different from a Jewish synagogue, we may assume that
when the apostles began to engage in preaching outside of Jerusalem, elders were chosen to
take their place and to rule over the Jerusalem church.

A second point to mention is that of connectionalism. Reymond (“Presbytery-Led”) writes,

Presbyterians…urge that the New Testament teaches in broad outline that churches of the
apostolic age were bound together by a connectional government of graded courts (local
‘session,’ regional ‘presbytery,’ ‘general assembly’) reflecting mutual accountability, dependency,
and submission among them.

Reymond offers four reasons this connectionalism is argued by Presbyterians. First, the biblical evidence
shows that elders/overseers in a specific region maintained connection with one another much like
Presbyterian churches do today.

Second, Presbyterians argue for connectionalism from Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Prior to his death, Jesus
prayed for his church to manifest a visible unity to the world. New Testament writers would later
emphasize this theme of unity greatly.

Third, Presbyterians argue connectionalism on the basis of spiritual giftedness. It is clear from the
scripture that every member of Christ’s body has a gift that is to be used in the edification of the body.
(See Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 1:1-2; 12:4-7, 12, 14-26.) Presbyterians, as Reynolds writes,

56
 believe that only a visible form of connectionalism between local church bodies through graded
courts such as their own does justice to the unity of the body of Christ and reflects the appropriate
awareness of Christians’ mutual need for and dependence upon each other.

Lastly, Presbyterians argue that connectionalism is implicit in the New Testament. Evidence for this
includes the usage of singular terms to refer to the whole church. For the sake of space only three other
passages will be considered for the implicit connectionalism that Presbyterians claim is taught in
scripture. First, in Acts 8:14 Peter and John were sent out by the Jerusalem church to view Philips work in
Samaria. Second, oneness or connectionalism is reflected in the giving of the churches. In Acts 11:27-30
the church at Antioch sent money as a gift through Paul and Barnabas to the elders at Jerusalem during a
time of famine. Lastly, James 1:1 addresses his letter to scattered Jews. This is a clear expectation that
his letter was to be circulated among these scattered people and obeyed uniformly.

To conclude, Reynolds (“Church Polity”) writes,

On the basis of the New Testament evidence the Presbyterian form of church government—one
that was both conciliar (with local counsels comprised of elders/overseers governing local
churches) and connectional (with elders/overseers from local churches comprising city or regional
presbyteries)—was the earliest form of church government.

b. Episcopal or Anglican Polity. Interestingly, Paul Zahl (“The Bishop-Led Church”, p. 212) in his
defense of Episcopal polity prefaces by stating that his defense will, “not be authoritative—it cannot be—
because the bible makes it impossible for anyone to be authoritative on this point.” Nevertheless, he
attempts to defend it anyway. He is helpful when he provides a glimpse into the nature of the episcopal
tradition. He describes it as three schools of thought under one roof: Catholic, Protestant, and Liberal.
The “connecting wire,” as he calls it, is the institution of Episcopacy, which he defines as, “the institution
by which bishops (or episkopois) govern the visible church.” Inherent in this institution of episcopacy is
the concept of differing degrees of ordination, that is to say, “setting apart” or the ordering of individuals
for leadership within the church. Two main degrees of ordination exist within this polity.

First, the priest (also recognized as elder or presbyter) is given the oversight to both preach and to pray
as well as conduct worship and administer the two sacraments. Zahl writes, “In Anglicanism only
presbyters can officiate at the Holy Communion and pronounce an absolution and blessing in the name of
Christ.”

Beyond the level of the priest stands the bishop, or the (episkopos). Erickson (Christian Theology, p.
1082) summarizes well when he writes of bishops,

Viewed as the primary channel by which God expresses his authority upon earth, bishops have in
times past exercised wide responsibilities in temporal affairs. In some forms of episcopacy, they
are considered the princes of the church or even…the church itself. Certain communions regard
the bishops as the successors to the apostles.

The most highly developed episcopal form of government is that found within the Roman Catholic
Church. Here the bishop of Rome emerged as the supreme bishop and came to be referred to as
the pope or the father of the entire church. He governs through archbishops, who superintend
large areas. Beneath them are the bishops, to whom the priests are responsible.

This theory of apostolic succession leads Episcopalians to believe that modern bishops have the very
authority that the apostles had, and which they had received from the Lord Jesus.

c. Conclusion. Three main arguments can be put forth for the episcopal position. First, Episcopalians
argue that power has delegated down through the ages to present bishops. After stating he has all
authority in heaven and on earth, Jesus then commissions eleven men to go forth in that power. Later
evidence suggests that the apostles then delegated that authority to others, notably Timothy and Titus.

57
A second argument could be the position held by James at the church of Jerusalem. His position seems
to be similar to that held by modern bishops.

Lastly, Episcopalians embrace a historical argument. Erickson summarizes well when he writes, “It is
maintained that through the ordination process the authority of the apostles has been passed down to
modern-day bishops.”

Unit 2. Congregational Models

Some religions reject hierarchal models on the grounds that such an organization did not exist in the New
Testament. As such, the “highest” level of authority, or only authority, rests in the local congregation. Yet,
not all adherents of congregational polity agree on where that authority is to vested in the local body.
This unit will look at general congregational polity and then consider single-leader models and multiple-
leader models.

a. Congregational Polity. James Leo Garrett (“Congregational-Led Church”, 472) defines congregational
polity as, “that form of church governance in which final human authority rests with the local or particular
congregation when it gathers for decision-making.” Garrett defines the goal in congregational polity when
he writes,

It is the intention under congregational polity that the congregation govern itself under the lordship
of Jesus Christ (Christocracy) and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit (pneumatophoria) with no
superior or governing ecclesial bodies (autonomy) and with every member having a voice in its
affairs and its decisions (democracy).

In support of congregational polity, six passages are frequently mentioned. They are: Matt. 18:15-20; Acts
6:3; 13:2-3; 15:22; 1 Cor. 5:2; and 2 Cor. 2:6. Due to space limitations a brief understanding will be given
of two of the passages. First, Matt. 18:15-20 affirms congregationalism. The focus in this passage is the
meaning of the word ekklesia found in verse 17. After the first two steps of confrontation in the passage
found in verses 15-16, if the matter is still unresolved it is to be told to the church (ekklesia). What is this
church? Garrett writes, “the vast body of commentators have identified this text with a local church.” The
implication of this understanding of ekklesia is that it grants the authority of Jesus to the congregation in
order to make a final decision.

Second, 1 Cor. 5:2 is often cited in support of congregational polity. The situation in this passage is quite
messy. A man in Corinth was cohabiting with his father’s wife (vs.1). To this Paul writes, “And you are
inflated with pride, and should you not rather have mourned, so that the one who has done this deed
would be removed from your midst?” (1 Cor. 5:2 Lexham English Bible). Of this passage Charles Hodge
(An Exposition, p. 83) wrote that excommunication,

is…clearly recognized as belonging to the church. It is also clear…that this right belongs to each
particular church or congregation. The power was vested in the church of Corinth, and not in
some officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of
discipline; but the church itself, in its organized capacity.

To conclude the congregational view Mark Dever (The Church, p. 47) offers a helpful summary when he
writes,

The fundamental responsibility under God for the maintenance of all aspects of public worship of
God belongs to the congregation. Whether in settling disputes between Christians (Matt. 18:15-
17; Acts 6:1-5), establishing correct doctrine (Gal. 1:8; 2 Tim. 4:3), or admitting and excluding
members (2 Cor. 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 5:1-13), the local congregation has the duty and obligation to
promote the continuance of a faithful gospel witness.

58
b. Single Elder/Senior Pastor Led Polity. The single elder led position of church polity affirms that
scripture teaches the governing authority is in the hands of a single elder. Many of this persuasion prefer
the term “senior pastor” rather than single elder. The single elder led polity will be presented in two lines
of argument: 1) biblically and 2) practically. Before moving forward, it would be helpful to define terms.
What exactly is an elder? To this question George Ladd (Theology, p. 389) answers, “The word “elder” is
the translation of presbyteros, from which we also derive the word “presbyter.” These leaders were called
not only elders but bishops (episkopoi), a term designating their function of overseeing the church.”

Beginning with the biblical data several factors can direct us to the single elder led church position. First,
scripture never mandates a precise number of elders for a local congregation. While many references are
made to a multiplicity of elders the scripture never states that this should be the norm. J. L. Reynolds
agrees with this in his 1849 article, Church Polity or The Kingdom of Christ in its Internal and External
Development. Reynolds writes that, “the number of officers, whether elders or deacons, necessary to the
completeness of a church, is not determined in Scripture. This must be decided by the circumstances of
each case, of which the party interested is the most competent judge.” But one might ask, how do you get
around the many verses that refer to multiplicity of elders? To this Carson (“Church Authority”, p. 250)
offers an explanation when he writes,

Plurality of elders, if not mandated, appears to have been common, and perhaps the norm. On
the other hand, only ‘church’ (ekklesia in the singular) is used for the congregation of all believers
in one city, never ‘churches’; one reads of churches in Galatia, but of the church in Antioch or
Jerusalem or Ephesus. Thus it is possible, though not certain, that a single elder may have
exercised authority in relation to one house group—a house group that in some cases constituted
part of the citywide church—so that the individual elder would nevertheless be one of many in the
city wide ‘church’ taken as a whole.

Carson’s treatment allows for a single elder interpretation while adequately treating the multiple elder
passages.

A second line of biblical evidence is that the single/senior elder pattern is rooted in the Old Testament.
Observing this Akin remarks of this pattern, “That pattern is a plurality of leaders with a senior leader over
them.” He provides the example of Jethro advising Moses to appoint leaders under him to help judge the
people (Exodus 18:13-22). Akin makes three observations form this passage: 1) Moses continued to be
the primary teacher of Israel, 2) those who joined him had specific spiritual qualifications to meet, and 3)
the men who joined Moses worked both with and under him. This pattern of a leader of leaders continues
throughout the entirety of scripture.

The second argument for the single/senior elder is a practical one. Put simply, the leadership of the
church is spiritually focused, not simply numerically focused. Numerous times in the New Testament this
emphasis is made clear (Acts 20:28-38; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-4). Richard Baxter, the 1600’s
pastor agreed with this so many years ago when he wrote in The Reformed Pastor of the qualifications of
an elder, “He must not be himself a babe in knowledge, that will teach men all those mysterious things
which must be known in order to salvation. O what qualifications are necessary for a man who hath such
a charge upon him as we have!” Akin makes the practical argument that there simply may not be more
than one such qualified man available for a local congregation.

c. Plurality of Elders. Several factors lead to the conclusion that the church should be ruled by a plurality
of elders. First, plurality was the pattern of the Old Testament. Dever (The Church, p. 57) writes, “Before
Jesus established the church, the Jewish towns of Palestine were accustomed to being governed by
multiple elders.” He continues,

Jewish synagogues similarly followed a pattern of plural leadership. Arising in Babylonian exile,
synagogues functioned as the religious and civil gathering for teaching God’s law and,
consequently, leading the community. Ten adult males were required to establish a synagogue
for public worship. Various offices facilitated the work of synagogues, including the office of ruler.

59
 A plurality also becomes clear in the writings of the New Testament. James, Peter, Paul, and
Luke refer to the office of elder and each of them assumes that there is a plurality. (See, Jas 5:14; 1 Pet
5:1-5; Phil 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 4:14; Tit 1:5.) One such example is Paul’s reminding Timothy of the
body of elders who laid hands on him (1 Tim 4:14). Another in the same letter to Timothy, Paul refers to
elders (plural) who were in charge of the church (singular). Many other passages confirm a plurality but
for the sake of space these few above will suffice. Two questions are raised at this point, however. Are all
elders equal? How does elder leadership fit with congregational rule?

First, are all elders equal? Or can there be a senior pastor? The New Testament offers no direct answer
to this question, but Mark Dever (The Church, p. 58) sees several glimpses in Scripture that shed light on
this question. First, while most elders remained in one location, others like Timothy and Titus moved from
place to place yet serving as elders. Second, Dever writes, “some men were financially supported for
fulltime work with the flock, while other men simultaneously remained in their vocations and performed
their work as elders.” Third, Paul’s letter to Timothy was to him alone with instructions for the church at
Ephesus. Paul wrote to Timothy alone even though Acts clearly states that other elders were present at
the Ephesian ekklesia.

Elder Rule. But again, how does a multiplicity of elders fit with congregational rule? Some would suggest
that it is elders who are called to rule and the congregation’s responsibility is to always submit. This
position is referred to as elder rule. Proponents of elder rule are not naïve to think that leadership will be
correct every time, but that they will answer to God for their mishandlings.

Elder Led. A better position is that of elder led. Dever (p. 60) summarizes well when he writes, “The final
responsibility of the congregation does not contradict or undermine the elders’ general leadership, but it
provides an opportunity to confirm it when it is right and to constrain it when it is in error.”

Internet Video

Dever, Mark. Six Reasons a Right Ecclesiology is Important for the Church Today. DTS, 2014.

Keller, Tim. What Should a Local Church Look Like? The Gospel Coalition, 2011. (1 hour)

Unit 3. Characteristics of the Local Church and its Leadership

What can be derived from this study about the local church’s organization and leadership? From all of the
discussion and debate, are there specific biblical characteristics that help one define church polity? While
the discussion may not seem especially important, the answers are part of the definition of the church and
its characteristics that make it unique and well suited to be and serve the Kingdom of God.

a. Autonomous. First, the autonomy of the local church is a clear teaching in scripture. By autonomy it is
meant that it is independent, self-governing, and free from external authorities. Several passages support
this notion. First, consider once again, Matthew 18. Within this important text for church discipline three
discernable steps can be observed. After all three have been taken, the church makes a final ruling of
labeling the unrepentant brother or sister as a “Gentile and tax collector.” On this James White writes,
“This power of the church is ultimately based upon the fact that the gathered church is the body of Christ,
and he meets with his people (v. 20)” (“Plural-Elder-Led”, p. 263). White continues, “these verses are not
investing nigh unto divine power in the church but are instead promising complete harmony between the
actions of Christ-indwelt church and the divine will.”

A second passage used in support of autonomy is Revelation chapters 1-3. In these three chapters the
Lord will address seven churches that appear to be independent, local congregations. White (p. 264) is
helpful when he writes of these churches,

Each church is spoken to as a unit, a whole. And when the Lord indicates he is going to come in
judgment against a church, he does not indicate that this judgment will come through the actions

60
 of other churches in some form of hierarchy or even council. Each church is addressed on its own
merits, on its own grounds, as a body.

It is also important to note that John’s apocalypse was written at the close of the apostolic age. Thus, with
the close of the apostolic era, churches seem to have been autonomous.

b. Congregational. A second element of the New Testament is that it is a congregational church. Rolland
McCune (Systematic Theology, p. 233-236) offers a helpful list of biblical evidence that supports
congregational rule. First, he notes that the local church is responsible for maintaining pure doctrine and
practice. Second, it is the congregation that has the responsibility to observe and guard the ordinances.
McCune writes, “Paul, for example, did not commit the Lord’s Table to ecclesiastical officials or
clergymen, but to the membership (1 Cor 11:2, 23-24).” Third, the local church has authority to elect its
own elders. Fourth, the local church has power to exercise discipline on its members. Fifth, the
congregation has the responsibility to settle its own internal affairs. Lastly, the congregation determines
what its relation is with other churches is.

c. Conclusion. Thus, the New Testament church is shown to be three things. First, the local church is
autonomous and answers to no higher governing body. Second, the local church is congregational. The
congregation is ultimately responsible for its membership, doctrine, purity, and appointing its own leaders.
Lastly, the New Testament church is not shown to be ruled by a multiplicity of elders but rather led by
them.

Examination
Now that you have come to the end of this module, you should review the material in preparation for a
multiple-choice examination. When you are ready for the exam, you may open it from the Course Menu.

Essay: Analysis of Church Polity

You have been provided an overview of church polity and ecclesiology. In this essay you are to conduct
an analysis of the church polity of your own church. (If you do not belong to a church which adheres to
Judeo-Christian principles, select a church in your area to evaluate.) In this assignment, you should focus
on three key points:

1. Historical developments that led to the particular church polity of your congregation. Consider both
denominational history and local history that may have influenced this choice of polity.

2. A comparison and contrast of this polity with biblical teachings on church governance. How well does
your church’s polity match biblical teaching? Where it differs, what is the rationale and defense for those
differences?

3. The impact of your church polity on assimilation and involvement of church members.

You may, if you wish, talk with church leaders to gain a better understanding of how your congregation is
organized and led.

These questions should be addressed in a single, 2,000-word essay written in a Word document and
formatted according to APA style. Guidance for this style can be found in the Orientation to
NationsUniversity Online Studies course. When the paper is complete, you may upload it using the
submission portal located in Module 3 of the Course Menu.

Course Evaluation

61
Once you have completed all exams and written assignments, please take a few moments to complete
the course evaluation.

Syllabus Developers

David Srygley, D.Ed.Min., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mac Lynn, STD San Francisco Theological Seminary,
D.Admin. (honorary), The International University

with contributions by

Jerry Bowling, Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ross Cochran, Ph.D., Boston College
Michael Matheny, D.Min., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Anthony DeRosse, M.Div., Shepherds Theological Seminary

NationsUniversity®
West Monroe, Louisiana, U.S.A.
©Sept 2020

62