Can An Ecclesiology Be Biblical And Not Apostolic?

By Michael J. Svigel

[Michael J. Svigel is chair and professor of theological studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

The fixed but flexible apostolic model of church order found throughout the Christian world at the end of the first and beginning of the second centuries challenges some popular evangelical reconstructions of church order allegedly drawn from “Scripture alone.” The apostles themselves established this church order with a mandate for permanence. The apostolic model consisted of a team of elders (evangelists, pastors, teachers, overseers)—including a presiding elder—and deacons (ministers) assisting the elders in the work of the ministry.

* * * * *

Many, if not most, evangelical attempts at establishing a “New Testament ecclesiology” fail to carefully, critically, and constructively incorporate the valuable insights of late first- and early second-century historical sources that would help sketch a more complete picture of apostolic ecclesiology.[1] This has resulted in evangelical ecclesiologies that are, paradoxically, “biblical” but not apostolic. That is, the resulting picture of the church fits a grammatical—but not always a historical—interpretation of the New Testament texts.

To some, this methodological approach may sound like adding “tradition” to the Bible, that is, proposing a theological method that hastily nods at the doctrine of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture while behaving in ways that betray a distrust of these principles.[2] The literature on church polity reveals two opposing tendencies. On one side are those who believe Scripture is sufficient and clear on the matter of church government; therefore, any appeal to documents outside the Bible is unnecessary and dangerous, as it would add to Scripture. On the other side are those who believe Scripture is insufficient or unclear on the matter of church government; therefore, the Bible must be supplemented by an appeal to tradition, that is, Spirit-led, historically developed models of church government.

The method commended in this article, however, stands between these two and suggests that Scripture, when read in its historical context, is sufficient and clear (or at least sufficiently clear) with regard to apostolic church order. However, in order to establish the historical context of the New Testament, one must rely on a careful, critical, and constructive reading of first- and early second-century writings that are not part of the canon. There is simply no other way to establish the historical context of the apostolic writings. In fact, one cannot affirm a “grammatical-historical” hermeneutic while disallowing testimony from the written sources necessary to establish the historical context. The theologian is therefore just as responsible for rigorous historiography as for rigorous lexical, grammatical, and syntactical analysis of the biblical writings. This approach, then, is neither an ahistorical reading of the text nor a magisterial reading in which Scripture is read in light of an authoritative traditional interpretation.

First Clement: An Apostolic Church Order

Between AD 60 and 100, as the original apostles and first-century prophets passed into memory and the number of local congregations continued to increase, the need arose for established church leadership that would survive the era of the apostles and prophets. Such a church order would have to be in continuity with what had already been established in the middle of the first century during the various missionary and church-planting ventures. It would also need to be reproducible from generation to generation and flexible enough to fit various social and cultural contexts.[3]

Around AD 95,[4] a spokesperson for the church in Rome (historically identified as “Clement”) wrote a brief account of the apostles’ activities during that formative period: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (1 Clem. 44.1–2).[5] In this letter, Clement of Rome indicates that the apostles established a permanent church order intended to endure beyond the death of the apostles. He wrote, “So, preaching both in the country and in the towns, they appointed their first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops [ἐπίσκοποι, “overseers”] and deacons [διάκονοι, “ministers”] for the future believers.”[6]

Very few dispute the first-century origins of this letter from the church of Rome to the church in Corinth. Although scholars of 1 Clement doubt whether the famed Clement of Rome authored the correspondence,[7] all agree that it came from the hand of a single authoritative writer who had the trust and respect of both the Christian community in Rome and of the church in Corinth. This was not, in other words, the work of an ambitious young upstart. Given the date, provenance, and sophistication of the writing, if the author of 1 Clement did not know some of the original apostles, he had to have spent his life and ministry intentionally avoiding them. If the author did not have an accurate memory of the ministry of the apostles, nobody did.

First Clement 42.1–3 establishes a line of order and authority: from God, to Christ, to the apostles. In verse 4 this authority comes from the apostles to the bishops and deacons of the church. This is confirmed in 43.1: “And is it any wonder that those who in Christ were entrusted by God with such a work appointed the leaders just mentioned [τοὺς προειρημένους]?” Those “just mentioned” are the bishops and deacons appointed by the apostles. The apostles knew that there would be strife regarding the office of the overseer (44.1). To ward off potential chaos, they appointed the bishops and deacons mentioned in 42.4 and 43.1. To these offices the apostles gave a standing order that “if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (44.2). The phrase “other approved men” (ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες) now becomes the key to more solidly identifying the referent of “if they should die.”

According to 1 Clement 42.4, the apostles “appointed their first fruits, when they had tested them [δοκιμάσαντες]” by the Spirit. Upon their deaths, “other [ἕτεροι] approved men” were to be appointed to succeed them (44.2). The use of “other” (ἕτερος) indicates that these men were appointed in addition to the bishops and deacons of 42.4. This means, then, that the group of men who die, creating the need for succession, are the bishops and deacons. Furthermore, in 42.4, Clement already mentioned that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons for “the future believers” (τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν). This concern for the future suggests that “if they should die” is intended to handle all of the contingencies that would arise in future ministry. This is especially important in Clement’s case with the situation of the late first century in Corinth:

These [leaders], therefore, who were appointed by them [the apostles] or, later on, by other reputable men [the apostolic delegates or bishops/elders] with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well-spoken of by all—these we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry. For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at a mature and fruitful age, for they need no longer fear that someone may remove them from their established place (1 Clem. 44.3–5).

Support From Revelation

The book of Revelation (around AD 95) gives evidence of this kind of individual leader.[8] In the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, Jesus repeatedly addressed the “messenger” (ἄγγελος) of each church. Though some have taken this to refer to an angelic being, the word ἄγγελος simply means “messenger,” either human or heavenly. It is sometimes used of human messengers in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Gen 32:4, 7 [Eng. 3, 6]; Num 20:14; Josh 7:22; 1 Sam 19:11–21) and in the New Testament (Matt 11:10; Luke 7:24, 27; Jas 2:25). In Revelation 2–3, a human messenger is meant by ἄγγελος.[9] Perhaps the conceptual Old Testament background for this usage of ἄγγελος is to be found in the Septuagint of Malachi 2:7, which reads, “Because the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and they will seek out a decision from his mouth, because he is a messenger (ἄγγελος) of the Lord Almighty.”[10]

In the Greek text of the messages in chapters 2–3, Jesus addresses each ἄγγελος in the second person singular. The singular messenger (ἄγγελος) of each church is held responsible for the welfare of the local church body.[11] Angelic heavenly beings could never be condemned for sin and urged to repent as the messengers are in Revelation 2–3, nor does it make sense to address, commend, condemn, and call to repentance the symbolic personification of the “prevailing spirit of the church.”[12] An examination of Revelation 1–3 reveals that the messenger cannot be a personification of the church or of the spiritual temperament of the church. The messengers of the churches are symbolized by the seven stars in Christ’s hand, while the seven churches are symbolized by the seven lampstands (1:20; 2:1). Furthermore, in Revelation 2:5 Christ threatens to remove the lampstand (i.e., the church) from its place if the messenger (still addressed in the second person singular) does not repent. This language makes perfect sense if it refers to a human leader called the “messenger” in each church; it makes little sense if it refers to an angelic being, the whole church personified, or the church’s spiritual condition personified.[13]

So ἄγγελος most likely refers to a human leader in the local church who exercised oversight among the elders (see especially Rev 3:15, 17, 19). This messenger must be responsible for more than correspondence, because Christ is holding this individual responsible for the affairs of the local church. This identification is strengthened by literature composed about the same time as the book of Revelation, evidence that is almost always ignored by commentators. In the Shepherd of Hermas, written in the city of Rome over the course of several decades beginning at about the same time as Revelation and 1 Clement,[14] a leader of the church in Rome occupies a distinct position of responsibility. The author writes: “Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders [πρεσβύτεροι] who preside over the church” (Vis. 2.4). Clement is singled out as the one responsible for representing the church of Rome to other churches, for he sends and receives messages similar to those in Revelation 2–3.

First Clement In Evangelical Ecclesiology

What, then, are evangelical scholars to do with Clement’s unique, firsthand testimony of the establishment of apostolic church order? Its firm dating in the 90s is far too early for it to have been the result of myths and legends that had developed over ages of oral tradition. The historian could not ask for a closer gap between the event and the witness—in fact, as far as Clement is concerned, no gap exists. On the one hand, evangelicals properly claim the Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, including, of course, church polity. On the other hand, evangelicals embrace the “grammatical-historical” exegetical method, striving to interpret the apostolic writings in light of their historical contexts. However, in some allegedly biblical evangelical ecclesiologies, Clement’s historical testimony is ignored or, in some cases, abused. This appears to have led to perspectives on church order that are, oddly, biblical but not apostolic.

For example, when discussing whether elders should have definite or indefinite tenure, Van Dam writes, “Before attempting to form a judgment on the issue, we will need to consider the historical roots of the different practices as well as any biblical evidence upon which these practices may be based.”[15] He then begins not with the insights of disciples of the apostles (like Clement) but with John Calvin and recounts perspectives in the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions. He next notes that “there is no clear prescription in Scripture regarding this issue.”[16] He points out that the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions tend to favor practical considerations instead of biblical considerations.[17] Then, after surveying a few arguments by those who favor indefinite tenure, Van Dam notes, “It remains a fact that there is no clear biblical instruction that the eldership must have an indefinite term.”[18]

This may be accurate as far as it goes, but with methodological permission to step into the broader historical-theological context of the New Testament documents, the blurry image sharpens. The apostles gave overseers-elders a permanent office, and only death or delinquency would end their tenures (1 Clem. 44.1–3). This historical testimony, which Clement expected his readers in Corinth to have accepted, narrows the range of possible interpretations. Not every question is answered, but the options afforded by a grammatical interpretation of the New Testament texts are refined by peering through a historical lens focused on an account of the apostolic intention for the offices. Had Van Dam’s ecclesiological methodology involved placing the apostolic writings in their historical contexts, the balance would be tipped in the opposite direction of his conclusion.[19]

As a second example, Mark Dever commendably defends the antiquity of congregationalism by citing Clement of Rome. He writes, “In Clement of Rome’s first letter to the church at Corinth, written around AD 96, we read of elders being commissioned ‘with the full consent of the church.’ ”[20] While Dever cites 1 Clement 44.3, he does not consider the entire situation of the letter, the context of the passage, and what actually occurred in the appointment of presbyters in the early church. The passage Dever cites speaks about “these [presbyters] . . . who were appointed by them [the apostles] or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church” (τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης). The authority to appoint presbyters does not rest first and finally in the whole gathered church. Rather, it belonged originally with the apostles and then, after the age of the apostles, in the hands of “other reputable men.” The decision of these leaders, then, is approved by the whole congregation. The verb associated with the congregation’s participation is not καθίστημι (“to appoint”)—an authority given only to the apostles and other approved men—but συνευδοκέω, “to agree with” the appointment of those in authority.

In Dever’s defense—and this point should not be minimized—the entire congregation was clearly involved in the ordination of a presbyter to his office. In fact, this is demonstrably the case throughout the early centuries of the church (see note 33). Forms of church order that exclude local congregational approval of appointments have therefore broken from this most ancient tradition. But congregational consent to an ordination is not sufficient grounds to assign congregational polity to the apostolic period. In 1 Clement, the appointment of new leadership is entrusted to previously appointed leadership, starting with those appointed by apostles. Once these appointments are made public, the congregation is given the opportunity to consent to the appointment. It seems reasonable to assume that if an entire congregation were to reject the appointment of a new presbyter, that presbyter would not be appointed.

But Clement is also clear that once this appointment has been properly made, the congregation does not have the right to recall or “fire at will.”

These, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well-spoken of by all—these we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry. For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at a mature and fruitful age, for they need no longer fear that someone may remove them from their established place. For we see that you have removed certain people, their good conduct notwithstanding, from the ministry that had been held in honor by them blamelessly (1 Clem. 44.3–6).

Implied here (and confirmed in both the New Testament and early church) is the possibility that a presbyter who has not been faithful to his office, who has not ministered to the flock responsibly, can be properly removed from office. The process for such discipline is already outlined in Scripture (1 Tim 5:19). It is not true in Clement’s model that a presbyter serves at the pleasure of the congregation, able to be appointed and removed at the will of the congregation.

The Didache: The Role Of The Congregation

The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was written, probably in stages, between about AD 50 and 70 as a basic manual for newly appointed leaders of newly established churches.[21] This early text already reflects a transition from the itinerant leadership of apostles and prophets to a more stable local ministry.[22]

Congregations In Transition

This crucial document says, “Concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel” (Did. 11.3), indicating that when the Didache was written, the churches were still under the leadership of first-century apostles and prophets.[23] However, anticipating that these foundational ministries would soon be passing off the scene, the Didache also says, “Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops [ἐπίσκοποι, “overseers”] and deacons [διάκονοι, “ministers”] worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your honored men, along with the prophets and teachers” (Did. 15.1–2). “Prophets and teachers” most likely indicates the foundational prophets/apostles like Paul, Barnabas, and Silas and early apostolic delegates such as Timothy and Titus.[24]

Originally, only the apostles (or prophets and teachers) involved in the initial church plant were responsible for appointing the leadership of the churches they established (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The question would naturally arise as to how additional leaders were to be chosen. The answer would not be read by a leaderless congregation electing its own leaders by democratic nomination and vote. Rather, it comes from a mother church instructing its daughter churches that after the initial planting of the church, that local church was responsible for appointing (not “electing”) its own overseers and deacons. It does not prove that the congregation of lay members was to initiate the nomination and vote on their own leaders through democratic processes, but that the congregation as an autonomous entity was responsible for training and ordaining its own leaders without further instruction from a mother church. Thus, Didache 15 seems to lend support for local autonomy of daughter and sister churches, not a process of congregational governance.[25]

The Didache elsewhere shows evidence of an untitled individual responsible for proclaiming God’s Word in the congregation: “My child, remember night and day the one speaking the word of God to you [τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ], and show honor to him as you honor the Lord; because where the Lord’s nature is proclaimed, there the Lord is present” (Did. 4.1, my translation). This at least refers to the office of “teacher” in the church (see similar language for the apostles, prophets, and teachers in Did. 11.1–2; 12.4; 13.1–2; 15.1–2). Didache 4.1, however, places special responsibility on the catechumen to show honor “as though he were the Lord” to a particular person, apparently identifiable by the reader, who in his proclamation mediates Christ’s presence. The reader is instructed to constantly (“night and day”) remember this person. This instruction would not make sense if preachers served in rotation. It is more likely that the passage refers to a single person who regularly proclaims God’s Word.

The Didache In Evangelical Ecclesiology

Like the testimony of 1 Clement, the Didache’s voice is often ignored or misunderstood, leading to perspectives on church order that seem to be biblical but not apostolic. Daniel Akin represents a common evangelical consensus that “the New Testament does not provide a precise manual on how the structure of church government should be organized.”[26] However, he asserts that “while there is no precise manual on church government and polity, a survey and analysis of the biblical material reveals definite patterns and discernible guidelines on how the churches in the New Testament functioned.”[27] From this point, he draws together data from the New Testament to argue for a flexible congregational model.[28]

Akin then suggests that “the Didache upholds Congregational church government, instructing the local churches to appoint their own bishops and deacons (15:1).”[29] In a later section devoting two paragraphs to evidence from the Didache, Akin appeals to the same passage, claiming, “It is the responsibility of the congregation to elect their officers. Bishops do not elect bishops, and deacons do not elect deacons.”[30] However, in light of its first-century, apostolic Sitz im Leben, it seems more likely that the Didache, as a manual for newly founded churches, is to be read in light of the transitional governance expected to occur shortly after the church’s founding.

Allison’s reading of the historical evidence in his defense of congregationalism also contains inaccuracies. He cites Clement of Rome’s statement concerning the appointment of elders “with the consent of the whole church” and the instruction in Didache 15, which charges the local church with the task of appointing for themselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.[31] He alleges that congregational polity had advocates and practitioners in the early church just as episcopal polity had some adherents at the same time.[32] He then suggests that congregational polity did not survive the advance of the episcopal model under church leaders like Ignatius (ca. AD 110) and Cyprian (ca. AD 250). However, besides relying on a reading of 1 Clement and the Didache that is a bit over-generous toward congregational polity (see above), this interpretation undervalues the continued role of the congregation even within increasingly hierarchical presbyteral and episcopal models beyond the first century. The practice of the local congregation providing consent for the appointment of clergy is well attested throughout the patristic period.[33] So demonstrating that the consent of the congregation was necessary for the appointment of elders or bishops in 1 Clement and Didache in no way argues for congregational as opposed to presbyteral or episcopal forms of governance. All it demonstrates is that in the appointment of presbyters, congregational consent or approval was necessary. This is consistent with both the original presbyteral and episcopal polities.

It is interesting that, read together critically, carefully, and constructively, these historical sources lend strong, even decisive, support for the model of church governance Allison advocates—with the single addition of emphasizing the apostolic origin of a presiding elder. In the biblical-historical model of church order, each local church is to regard itself as a “nuclear family” that is autonomous with regard to its internal governance and affairs, but confraternal in its relationship of mutual love, concern, and even accountability with other local churches. Its leadership, under the headship of Christ, who is the Chief Shepherd of the church throughout the world, consists of a plurality of elders in every local church, which body is organized under the leadership of a presiding elder or “senior” elder. This presiding elder is primarily responsible for setting the agenda, presiding over church meetings, and maintaining the visible continuity of leadership among the community. He is usually the most seasoned member of the elder leadership team. These elders are appointed by previous elders but with the consent of the whole congregation—which represents one function of the entire body as a whole. The elders are also responsible to appoint deacons who assist the elders in the ministry, which deacons are appointed with the consent of the congregation as a whole. The congregation, too, is responsible for finally approving the admission to membership of new believers, on the recommendation of the elders; as such, they are also responsible for finally approving the removal from membership of wayward or errant members—whether for doctrinal or practical errors, whether lay members or elders.

Ignatius Of Antioch: The Overseer Among Elders

By the end of the apostolic period the stable and consistent local church order consisting of a plurality of ἐπίσκοποι/πρεσβύτεροι with a presiding ἐπίσκοπος/πρεσβύτερος and assisting διάκονοι was widespread throughout the entire Christian world, a situation to be expected if the apostles did, in fact, establish this order in their own generation.[34]Whereas the book of Revelation called the presiding elder the “messenger,” and the Didache simply called him “the one who speaks the word of God to you,” by the early second century the offices of presbyters and presiding presbyter began to develop distinctive titles in some places.[35]

The Role Of Overseer

Around AD 110, Ignatius of Antioch had been arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by the Roman governor. While being transported by Roman soldiers from Antioch in Syria to Rome to be fed to the wild animals for his faith in Christ, he was able to stop in several cities in Asia Minor and receive visitors from nearby villages. From the letters of Ignatius it becomes clear that the order of presiding elder—now called “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος)—fellow elders, and deacons, was widespread throughout Asia Minor. For example, a certain Onesimus was overseer of the church in Ephesus.[36] Ignatius had been visited in Smyrna by leadership from the church in Magnesia.[37] Also, the famous Polycarp, who had himself been a disciple of the apostle John,[38] spent considerable time with Ignatius while the latter was in Smyrna.[39] The title “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος), which had previously been used interchangeably with “elder” (πρεσβύτερος), had come to be used exclusively to describe this individual leader among the elders. This “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) in each local church served among the company of elders (πρεσβύτεροι) with the assistance of the deacons (διάκονοι), and the overseer was himself one of the elders.[40]

Thus, the historical evidence suggests that this simple order of elders (with a presiding elder) and deacons was already firmly in place by the time Ignatius wrote his seven letters. Absent details about how these offices functioned from day to day, specific tasks presumably differed from church to church. Again, diversity within a basic structure seems to be the rule in the early church. With the exception of the emergence of a unique title of ἐπίσκοπος for the presiding elder in some places, this second-century order appears to be consistent with the order already established by the apostles in the New Testament, Didache, and 1 Clement.[41]

Ignatius In Evangelical Ecclesiology

As was the case with the earlier accounts of Didache and 1 Clement, it appears Ignatius of Antioch has been assigned an unfair place in the negative narrative of deteriorating church polity. His testimony appears to be consistent with earlier writings and the leadership structures established by the apostles. More careful, critical, and constructive attention to Ignatius’s writings might help heal the “biblical” vs. “apostolic” ecclesiological breach.

Allison represents a common misreading of Ignatius as the inventor of “a new form of church government” that “made a distinction between the offices of bishop and presbyter/elder,” elevating “the office of bishop over that of elder.”[42] A careful, critical, and constructive reading of Ignatius’s letters with other late first- and early second-century literature reveals a different picture. Ignatius’s structure was not strictly three-tiered, nor did the overseer have monarchical authority over the presbyters. The ἐπίσκοπος in Ignatius’s mind was one of the elders, though he was the presiding elder; he shared responsibility for the flock with his fellow elders. Presbyters are never instructed to submit to the overseer or obey the overseer, though the members of the congregation are told to submit to and obey the presbyters (including the overseer).[43] In short, a right reading of Ignatius is not contrary to the twofold offices of elders and deacons, with the single modification of an apostolically established presiding elder as overseer.

Ignatius’s structure fits with contemporary models of elder-led congregational polity. With regard to the leaders of the church, Dever affirms, “The Bible clearly models a plurality of elders in each local church.”[44] This is consistent with the reconstruction in this article of the apostolic model evident in the first century and even in Ignatius’s day. Dever also correctly affirms that the terms “elder,” “shepherd” or “pastor,” and “bishop” or “overseer” refer to the plurality of leaders in each congregation.[45] Furthermore, after a thorough and fair survey of the office of “elder” in the New Testament, Dever rightly concludes, “The direct evidence in the New Testament indicates that the common and even expected practice was to have a plurality of elders in each local congregation.”[46] Thus far Dever and Ignatius seem to agree.

Then Dever offers biblical support even for Ignatius’s model of a presiding elder. He points out that “in the New Testament, we find hints of the main preacher being distinct from the rest of the elders,”[47] and that “the preacher (or pastor) is also fundamentally one of the elders of his congregation.”[48] Thus, Dever’s notion of a plurality of elders with a presiding elder could be confirmed and strengthened by the New Testament read in its original historical apostolic context.

Apostolic Fixed But Flexible Ecclesiology Versus Evangelical Fluid And Formless Ecclesiologies

A fixed but flexible model of church order is found throughout the Christian world at the end of the first and beginning of the second centuries. The early, widespread, and foundational nature of this order is due to the fact, recounted by Clement himself, that it was established by the apostles and intended for permanence. The order that emerges, with some room for flexibility in various local contexts and situations, is that of a team of elders (evangelists, pastors, teachers, overseers)—among whom is a presiding elder—and deacons assisting the elders in the work of the ministry.[49]

This model challenges some popular evangelical reconstructions (or deconstructions) of church order allegedly drawn from “Scripture alone.”[50] These biblical models, however, too often neglect historical evidence that would shed light on the details of the situation in the first century and beyond. If these historical texts play a role in interpreting the New Testament documents, the picture reveals a more stable apostolic ecclesiology than is often supposed. It would, however, prevent evangelicals from making such assertions as “church polity must always be seen as contextual and provisional.”[51] This assertion could only be maintained if the interpretation of the apostolic writings fit the actual historical context of the apostolic era, which, I suggest, it does not. These ahistorical readings of the New Testament have led to evangelical ecclesiologies that are, as strange as it may sound, “biblical” but not apostolic.

Notes

1. This is also true in discussions of church membership, sacraments, worship, and discipline, not to mention crucial issues such as Christology, pneumatology, and theology proper.
2. See the discussion in Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 255–56.
3. This is as much a theological as historical presupposition. The early literature examined here testifies to this concern. Moreover, the Lord Jesus promised not to leave the church as “orphans” (John 14:15–18). He would shepherd the church through his Spirit-empowered shepherds (1 Pet 5:1–4).
4. General consensus gravitates toward dating 1 Clement around AD 95. Leslie W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 9, 12; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 97; Franz Xaver Funk et al., eds. Die Apostolischen Väter: Griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 77; Adolf von Harnack, Einführung in die alte Kirchengeschichte: Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche an die Korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians [1. Clemensbrief] (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929), 52; J. B. Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Part 1, 2nd ed., vol. 1, S. Clement of Rome (New York: Olms, 1973), 346–58. However, some have argued for a later date, others for an earlier date. See C. Eggenberger, Die Quellen der politischen Ethik des 1. Klemensbriefes (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1951), 182–87; Thomas J. Herron, “The Most Probable Date of the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” Studia patristica 21 (1989): 106–21; Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 18–19; L. L. Welborn, “On the Date of First Clement,” Biblical Research 29 (1984): 37. Erlemann argues for the earliest date, between 70 and 80. Kurt Erlemann, “Die Datierung des ersten Klemensbriefes—Anfragen an eine communis opinio,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 591–607.
5. This passage has been cited as support for (1) a doctrine of “apostolic succession,” (2) a doctrine of “episcopal succession,” or (3) a doctrine of “presbyteral succession.” For the first option, some take the phrase “if they should die” as referring to the apostles, so those who succeeded to their ministry would carry on the apostolic authority. The second and third options both see “if they should die” as referring not to the apostles, but to those whose offices received a permanent character, the “leaders mentioned earlier” (i.e., “bishops and deacons” mentioned in chapter 42), who had been appointed by the apostles. In this case, the offices of bishop and deacon would have a permanent character, while the apostolic office would cease. Within this view, some take “bishops” as a reference to the monarchial episcopal governance that gradually develops in prominence in the third and fourth centuries; others take “bishops” as interchangeable with “elders,” so the succession of legitimate ministry in a local church is either the single bishop or a plurality of elders. The latter option seems to fit best not only the historical context of the early Christian writings (Herm. Vis. 3.5.1; Did. 15.1), but also the entire context of 1 Clement 42–44.
6. Unless otherwise noted, English translations of Apostolic Fathers come from Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
7. That a leader named Clement wrote 1 Clement on behalf of the church of Rome is testified to by Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3, and in Eusebius, Church History 3.16. Whether it was a man named Clement or some other man with some other name, it is clear that the letter was written by a single person, well-educated, who was vested with authority to speak on behalf of the entire church in Rome.
8. Burtchaell writes, “The Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation 2–3 . . . each addressed to ‘the angel of the church’ there, seem to be messages to a single person responsible for each community. The existence of a presiding office is one strongly plausible implication, but not yet the existence of a commonly accepted title for that office. That would fit well with Clement, written about the same time, which also gives evidence of such an untitled position.” James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 307.
9. Cf. John F. Walvoord, “Revelation,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament Edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 933.
10. Translation is from Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2012).
11. It is entirely possible that the general term ἄγγελος has been misinterpreted and mistranslated several times in the New Testament. Didache 4.1 exhorts, “My child, remember night and day the one speaking the word of God to you [τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ]” (Did. 4.1, my translation). Other passages might make better sense if the ἄγγελος is a human messenger who proclaims the word of God to a congregation (Gal 4:14; 1 Cor 11:10; 1 Tim 3:16).
12. As in Robert L. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 63.
13. In light of these considerations, Allison’s interpretation of the messages to the seven churches is mistaken in assuming that each message is addressing the whole church. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 280.
14. Carolyn Osiek writes, “The best assignment of date is an expanded duration of time beginning perhaps from the very last years of the first century, but stretching through most of the first half of the second century.” Carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary, Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 20.
15. Cornelis Van Dam, The Elder: Today’s Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture, Explorations in Biblical Theology, ed. Robert A. Peterson (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009), 218.
16. Ibid., 222.
17. Ibid., 221–22, 225.
18. Ibid., 224.
19. Similarly, Newton, in his fine book urging Baptist churches to transition to plural elder governance, introduces the question of elders’ terms of service with a common assertion: “The polity framework sketched in the New Testament does not give every detail; rather, it leaves some things to the wisdom of the local churches.” Phil A. Newton, Elders in Congregational Life: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 151. Given the alleged openness of the Scriptures to this question, he proposes some advantages and disadvantages of elder rotation, review, and tenure.
20. Mark E. Dever, A Display of God’s Glory: Basics of Church Structure: Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism, and Membership (Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 32.
21. See Michael J. Svigel, “Didache as a Practical Enchiridion for Early Church Plants,” Bibliotheca Sacra 174 (2017): 77–94. For much of the twentieth century scholars dated the current redacted form of the Didache in the early part of the second century. See Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background, 99; Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 1 Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Loeb Classical Library 24, ed. Jeffrey Henderson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 411; Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell, vol. 1, From Paul to the Age of Constantine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 128; Willy Rordorf and André Tuilier, eds., La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè): introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes, 2nd ed., Sources chrétiennes 248 (Paris: Cerf, 1998). For a survey of scholarly views of the date and provenance of the Didache, see Clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 3–17. However, the general trend among Didache scholars has been to date the work in its present form in the first century, perhaps as early as 50 to 70. In 2010 O’Loughlin accurately noted that “the broad consensus today is for a first-century date. This could be as early as 50 . . . or as late as 80 or 90.” Thomas O’Loughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 26. See Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 C.E. (New York: Newman, 2003).
22. Though the concept of a “church planting handbook” may seem anachronistic, it incorporates all of the various perspectives on how the Didache functioned. Thus, around AD 50, Antioch’s mission to neighboring Gentile towns and villages expanded beyond Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey (ca. 48–49) (Acts 13:1). As the apostles and prophets were considered to be a fixed number in the early church, the multiplication of small local churches quickly began to outpace the itinerancy of the apostles, prophets, and their trusted delegates. In response to this lack of fully qualified immediate apostolic/prophetic oversight, the “prophets and teachers” of Antioch took it upon themselves to provide an easily reproducible document that could serve the infant congregations as a basic constitution. The appointed elders (pastors, overseers, teachers) would use this manual for basic catechesis, baptismal and eucharistic services, and practical instruction of believers. It was intended to be used in tandem with a written summary of Jesus’s words and works (Did. 15.3–4).
23. In fact, the Didache explains how these local churches and Christians can tell true apostles or prophets from false apostles and prophets.
24. The coupling of “prophets and teachers” is rare in early Christian writings. It appears only here and in Acts 13:1 to describe foundational offices in the church at Antioch: “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” It is likely that the Didache arose in Antioch for use in its missionary efforts, so the appearance of the titles “prophets and teachers” in Did. 15.1 should not surprise anyone.
25. Interestingly, the model of the Didache seems to exclude a main campus/branch campus ecclesiological model in which the elders of a main church govern the affairs of extension or multi-site campuses. Rather, after their initial establishment, daughter congregations are exhorted to appoint their own leaders. This matches precisely the polity and process described in 1 Clement 44.1–3.
26. Daniel L. Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/Single-Elder-Led Polity,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Own Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: B&H, 2004), 25.
27. Ibid., 26.
28. Ibid. Akin’s ecclesiological methodology involves a survey of what has become more or less the standard list of passages mustered to support the Congregationalist version of biblical ecclesiology: Matthew 18:15–17; Acts 6:1–7; 11:22; 14:27; 15; 1 Corinthians 5; 6; 7–12; 16; and 2 Corinthians 2 (28–33). This same lineup of passages, with minor variations, can be found in other literature arguing for Congregational governance. See James Leo Garrett Jr., “The Congregation-Led Church: Congregational Polity,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 158–72.
29. Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church,” 35.
30. Ibid., 39.
31. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 282.
32. Ibid.
33. In the third century, Cyprian wrote that “a bishop is . . . made and approved by the testimony and judgment of his colleagues and the people.” Cyprian, Letter 40, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix (Edinburgh: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885). See also the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions 8.4: “A bishop to be ordained is to be, as we have already, all of us, appointed, unblameable in all things, a select person, chosen by the whole people, who, when he is named and approved, let the people assemble, with the presbytery and bishops that are present, on the Lord’s day, and let them give their consent.” Also, the early Canons of the Church in Alexandria says regarding the appointment of bishops, “A bishop should be elected by all the people, and he should be unimpeachable, as it is written of him in the apostle; in the week in which he is ordained, the whole people should also say, We desire him” (Canon 2).
34. Early church historian Paul Rorem writes, “For the first two hundred years after Christ, a bishop supervised only one congregation. It was analogous to the modern office of senior pastor of a large church with a staff of clergy.” Paul Rorem, “Mission and Ministry in the Early Church: Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, but . . . ,” Currents in Theology and Missions 17 (1990): 18.
35. Burtchaell writes, “The tasks and the political style of each office appear to have been in flux within both [Jewish and Christian] communities. There also seems to have been a fluidity of titles, which eventually yielded to distinct nomenclatures.” From Synagogue to Church, xv.
36. Ignatius, Ephesians 1.3.
37. He wrote, “I was found worthy to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop [ἐπίσκοπος], and your worthy presbyters [πρεσβύτεροι] Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow servant, the deacon [διάκονος] Zotion” (Ign. Magn. 2.1).
38. See, for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4 (ANF 1:416): “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time.”
39. At one point Ignatius referred to the need for unity and submission to the established leadership in the church in Smyrna: “Pay attention to the bishop [ἐπίσκοπος], in order that God may pay attention to you. I am a ransom on behalf of those who are obedient to the bishop [ἐπίσκοπος], presbyters [πρεσβύτεροι], and deacons [διάκονοι]; may it be granted to me to have a place among them in the presence of God! Train together with one another: compete together, run together, suffer together, rest together, get up together, as God’s managers, assistants, and servants” (Ign., Pol. 6.1).
40. The early overseer’s office was still closely associated with the office of elder. In fact, he should be thought of as a presiding elder within a council of elders, a supervisor of the overseers, or a senior pastor among a staff of shepherds. It is therefore to be expected that Polycarp himself would address only elders and deacons in his letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 5–6). The presiding elder was himself an elder, so he would have been included in Polycarp’s admonition. Along with his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp also attached copies of Ignatius’s letters, which clearly spell out the threefold offices of overseer, elders, and deacons. Polycarp endorsed the content of Ignatius’s letters when he wrote, “You will be able to receive great benefit from them, for they deal with faith and patient endurance and every kind of spiritual growth that has to do with our Lord” (Pol. Phil. 13.2).
41. Burtchaell writes, “The so-called monarchical episcopate . . . cannot be considered as merely a clerical take-over of a church that had throughout the first century been spirited and spontaneous. It was a reassertion of a community organization that was in formal continuity with the Jewish past. Whatever you wish to make of it, there were the same offices in the church of the first century that we can see there in the second century. Their incumbents, however, were behaving quite differently in those two periods.” Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, xiii.
42. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 257.
43. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 308–9.
44. He cites Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Titus 1:5; and James 5:14. Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 241. Cf. Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 48.
45. Dever, The Church, 54, 56–57.
46. Ibid., 58.
47. Dever, Nine Marks, 242.
48. Ibid.
49. Although the office of presiding elder was not established when most of the New Testament was written, it was established by the end of the apostolic period. Therefore, present-day scholars are wrong to insist that a truly “biblical” or “apostolic” church order must include only a plurality of elders and deacons with no single pastoral head. That order functioned only under the temporary offices of the apostles and prophets until about AD 100; it was not the standard after the apostles and prophets passed off the scene.
50. Robert Reymond accurately summarizes the situation: “It has become a commonplace in many church circles to say that Scripture requires no particular form of church government. The form a given church employs, it is said, may be determined on an ad hoc or pragmatic basis.” Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 896. For example, Barna states, “Careful reading of the Bible provides us with plentiful direction related to theology and character development, yet almost no restrictions on structures and methods.” George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church (Nashville: Word, 1998), 175. Horrell urges, “Though structures of church governance are occasionally evident [in the New Testament], little is actually prescribed beyond the requirements of qualified leaders, order, and good testimony. . . . The New Testament appears to allow individual churches considerable diversity and freedom in organizing and carrying out their function.” J. Scott Horrell, From the Ground Up: New Testament Foundations for the 21st-Century Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 54. And Van Gelder asserts that “the church in the New Testament was dynamic and diverse in relation to its organizational forms.” Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 160. This leads Van Gelder to maintain that the Bible “describes a rich variety of organizational expressions” (163). In fact, he claims that “no one model of a New Testament local congregation can be found” (166). See also Gene Getz, Elders and Leaders (Chicago: Moody, 2003); Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995); Frank Viola, Reimagining Church (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2008); Erwin Raphael McManus, An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind (Loveland, CO: Group, 2001), 14.
51. Van Gelder, Essence of the Church, 161.