I am participating in the group Read the Fathers, so in order to help me maintain this discipline I will be sharing my favorite quotes and reflections every Saturday:
Quotes
Bishop as Representative of Church:
“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians II)
Sabbath Replaced by “Lord’s Day”:
“If therefore those who lived in ancient observances attained unto newness of hope no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living a life ruled by the Lord’s day, whereon our life too had its rising through Him and His death—which some deny, a mystery through which we have received the power to believe, and therefore we endure, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Teacher—how shall we be able to live apart from Him?” Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians II)
Anti-Judaism:
“It is outrageous to utter the name of Jesus Christ and live in Judaism. For Christianity believed not in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which people of every tongue believed and were gathered unto God.”
Unity with the Bishop and Trinitarian Language:
“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God. Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians XII)
Living unto the Bishop as to Jesus Christ:
“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians II)
Christ in History:
“Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians IX)
Not Merely Called a Christian:
“Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans III)
Better to Die:
“It is better for me to die in behalf ofJesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans VI)
Consuming Christ:
“I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans VII)
Schism and the Kingdom:
“If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians III)
Jesus is Better:
“The priestsindeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church. All these have for their object the attaining to the unity of God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him,but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality.All these things are good together, if you believe in love.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians IX)
Confession about Christ:
“For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilledby Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans I)
The Resurrection is Physical:
“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits. For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans II-III)
Lack of Love Described:
“They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans VI-VII)
Follow the Bishop:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institutionof God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans VIII-IX)
Reflections
– Ignatius‘ Epistle the the Magnesians continues to advocate for the office of the Bishop. As early as these writings are dated I have been forced to wrestle with his claims, especially as someone who is part of the “low-church” tradition. It seems to a “Bishop” is something like a Sr. Pastor over the church of a city with “Presbyters” functioning as secondary leaders. So I don’t know that this has me convinced that I need to run to the nearest Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican church tomorrow to become a member, but it does have me thinking.
– This epistle seems to advocate a clean break between the Judaism from which Christianity derives. Judaism is depicted as existing to point toward Christianity, but now incompatible with being a Christian.
– In Epistle to the Trallians Ignatius argues that to live unto the Bishop is to live unto Jesus Christ, and if the Bishop is not present then the congregation should submit to the Presbyters or the Deacons (slightly below the Presbyters it seems). Ignatius warns against heresy and heretical teachers.
– In Epistle to the Romans is Ignatius’ farewell to this church prior to martyrdom. He encourages the church to maintain focus on and dedication to Jesus.
– Jesus as the object through which God the Father is worshipped is interesting. Jesus is like the “idol” or “image” of the Most High God. Ignatius writes,
“Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared; that, being gathered together in love, ye may sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus, that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west. It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise again to Him.” (Epistle to the Romans II)
– In Epistle to the Philadelphians Ignatius exalts the Bishop, the unity of the church, and orthodox doctrine. Chapter VI makes it seem that some where trying to convert Christians (back?) to Judaism. A most interesting statement is made in VIII:
“When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.”
Is this the response given to Ignatius when he proclaims the Gospel? Are some saying that if it is not found in Scripture (Old Testament) that it is meaningless? Is he appealing to a Christocentric reading as superior? This seems to be the case and the context appears to be conflict with Judaism, see IX.
– In Epistle to the Smyrneans warns against heretics, especially those who deny the resurrection, and those who persecute believers. As usual, Ignatius emphasizes loyalty to the local Bishop as a means by which the church can define unity and orthodoxy.
– The Epistle to Polycarp is a letter between Bishops, Ignatius to Polycarp. This letter is one of exhortation. I think it frames Ignatius’ comments about Bishops quite well. In other letters he commands loyalty to the Bishop as to Christ. In this epistle he advocates for Polycarp to love the church like Christ. This is an important exchange to consider. There are some interesting statements about social order in this epistle. Ignatius encourages the care of widows, advocates the respect of slaves but does not encourage slaves to seek freedom, says that marriages should be approved by the Bishop, and so forth.
– The Epistle to the Tarsians is attributed to Ignatius, but likely spurious. It warns against Christological heresies including the denial that he was crucified, that he died, that he was the “Son of the Creator”, that he was God, that he was more than a man, that he resurrected, that there will be a resurrection, and that Christians should live in holiness. Paul is references as an authority in defense of orthodox positions. There are many quotations from what would be the NT, seemingly aimed to show that the doctrines advocated by the author are based on the teaching of the apostles.
__________
the archives near Emmaus 
The whole ‘authority’ discussion I think is very relevant – in our age of ‘independent’ churches, denominations, loose affiliations and such. There is a place for theological disagreement (though I would say Ignatius says ‘no’ to that), but there also needs to be unity and authority. The comments of ‘do nothing without the Bishop’ seems to indicate that all Christian service should be under the authority of the church – another question for our para-church organizations….
In any case, it has me thinking strongly regarding the authority stance, as someone who has lived in countries that prize ‘freedom’, and attended churches who have minimal or no authority above the senior pastor (though not at the moment)
But it also shows why it is important to be in a church reformed by Scripture. There is clear blue water between the views here and Paul’s views about authority–here the bishop stands in the role of Christ, but it is notable that Paul never requires people to submit to his authority in this way. That way lies the danger of both theological and pastoral abuse of power.
Ian, are you saying you see theological justification for the idea of ‘bishop’ (whether or not we place stock in the label itself) though Paul’s approach suggests there are limitations to this authority?
All earthly authority is ordained in heaven, but I find Brian’s question about ‘What if your Bishop is Bishop John Shelby Spong’ an interesting one. Where/Where are we permitted (if at all) to resist earthly authority? I see his question about answering to the authority of Bishop Spong the same as the question about whether or not Christian soldiers should honour lawful orders to take life in service to (legally established) Armed Forces.
Another more interesting question is whether ‘Church’ itself is a valid theological concept. Most simply presuppose ‘Church’ is a concept found in NT writings. How valid is that presupposition, for if ‘Church’ is not a justified theological concept, questions about authority over Church are vacuous.
Andrew, I am saying that I don’t believe that episcopacy as defined by any denomination is easily defendable from a NT theology of ecclesiology or leadership. Neither do I believe that episcopacy per se is of the esse of the church. So, even though I am an Anglican, I don’t difficulty with full recognition of non-episcopal denominations. It also means I have some questions about the Chicago Quadrilateral. And I think reading the Fathers show how far and how quickly some aspects of theology moved.
“It is outrageous to utter the name of Jesus Christ and live in Judaism. For Christianity believed not in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which people of every tongue believed and were gathered unto God.”
On this quote, while certainly true, it is emblematic of how theology has been tainted by a corrupted view (replacement theology and the like) many church fathers held (about true Israelite belief), which the modern faith has inherited.
Fact is that in the bit about ‘but Judaism in Christianity ..’ Judean and gentilized Israelite Israelites became know as Christian which means the early ‘assemblies’ were pockets of Israelites and Judeans so the ‘church and Israel was one and the same’.
Those who remained ‘Jews’ could have been Judeans with hardened hearts, who under the old covenant would have been ‘cut off’ Israelites, so not Israelites at all; or they could have been Edomite Jews reclaiming a heritage that didn’t belong to them because of unbelief. So this really was a struggle between the sheep and the goats. The faith Jesus brought was the stumbling stone that separated the goats from the sheep.
Whatever though, it would be a mistake to see the faith of the prophets as ‘Judaism’. ‘Judaism’ is the residual religeon that remained after Assyria, after Babylon, after the Edomite integration into Judah, and after Greece and Rome. It was not the faith of the prophets, which was the same faith understood, exercised and proclaimed by Jesus (perfectly). It was not the faith of the sheep that heard their shepherds voice. That faith was ‘the Way’, Christianity.
In Christ, Israel was given a new name [Isa 62:2]
Ian, I agree.
Drewe
It is important for us to ask ourselves about the nature of authority in the church today, but it is equally important for us to ask about our own context. Paul’s relationship to the apostles in Jerusalem is curious. He went to them to make sure he was preaching what they were preaching, but he indicates that even if he was not he felt his message was from God….so go figure!
Ian
That is true. Paul does differentiate himself from Christ. At times he seems to be basing his teaching on Christ, and therefore his apostolic role is authoritative in that he relays what Christ taught, but other times he has nothing from the Christ tradition, so he speaks his opinion. I think it is complicated b/c as a sent one of Christ there does seem to be times when he sees his authority as an apostle as being one who represents Jesus (though his disciples should follow him only as he remains in line with Christ).
For sure, but as I read Paul I find that he never differentiates the body of Christ along lines of authority, either male/female, or lay/leader. The Fathers went wrong on this quite quickly, since it is a pervasive desire of human nature to long for hierarchy, and it is a work of the Spirit to undo this.
While I agree that the early church went in a trajectory that was different from Paul I am cautious about using language that makes it sound like a pure power grab as much as “war time considerations” if you will (I watched Lincoln this weekend!) due to the rise of heresies. Thoughts?
No, I would not describe it as a power grab. But alongside the radical, grass roots sharing of faith (see Alan Hirsch ‘The Forgotten Ways’), I think that under pressure of opposition it was hard for the Fathers to retain the radical democratisation arising from the activity of the Spirit in congregations. Interesting in Paul that, alongside the gifting of many, Paul sets his apostolic teaching as a control. In the Fathers, I think we see the disappearance of the work of the Spirit (hence the marginalisation of the Montanists–who believed in women bishops and presbyters incidentally!) as well as the development of a hierarchical church order with (unPauline) monarchical episcopacy.
Wow, I just realised how stunned I am to discover that the Montanists had women leaders…!
Ian
I didn’t know the Montanist had women leaders either. What’s the source?
How do the Pastoral Epistles play into this discussion? If authentic they might show a shift in Paul’s own thinking away from the more charismatic, democratic ecclesiology of his early days to something more akin to what we see in the Fathers (also, if authentic, I say we blame the Corinthians). If inauthentic, then it would show a fairly strong departure from Paul’s teaching early on. Early enough for people to write in his name and have the documents being received as authentic.
Either Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 49.2.5 or Christine Trevett ‘Montanism: Gender, authority and the New Prophecy’. Just about to march to our library to get it out!
I think that 1 Tim 2 is misread badly, and actually sits fine with 1 Cor 11 and 12. See my blog entry at http://www.psephizo.com/?p=777 and the following two, or my Grove booklet at http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17472&substring=
I see this is mostly a discussion among friends. But I will comment also, as I want to thank you, Brian, for the post. I keep “meaning” to read more of the Fathers works directly rather than just reference TO them or brief quotes. So your summaries (assuming more are coming) are a good compromise (as more realistic for me).
As to Ignatius specifically, from what you’ve distilled and I’ve heard elsewhere about all his extant works, he apparently never refers to just HOW he himself, or other bishops, were “authorized”, correct? Similarly, he does not, does he, invoke any supposed “apostolic succession” concept? I believe, according to all available sources, that didn’t start being described until at least a few decades later, maybe more? And with that, it hadn’t perhaps become significant until the beginnings of moves to form and finalize a NT canon, quite likely after 145 or so, as a counter to the first “canon” of Marcion.
Frankly it does strike me as presumptuous, at the least (and self-serving?), of Ignatius to claim the kind of authority he did for himself and other bishops, as tying him/them directly to Christ when my understanding is that whatever unified authority there does seem to have been for early Jesus followers under James up to 62 or so certainly vanished during or after the 66-70 war and destruction of Jerusalem.
Even soon after it in the Gospels (on my view of Gospel dating) the jockeying for favored position (and/or authority?) for one Apostle or another among local factions (or sects?) of the authors is hardly veiled. And among them James (not one of The Twelve, of course) is not even in contention, although his minimal mention in Acts and in Josephus, plus Paul (clearly) places him as apparently the immediate and only “bishop” of the Jerusalem gathering until his death about 62. (However, I was just noticing today that James Tabor, in his Jesus and Paul book of this year… don’t know when released…, suggests James as “the beloved disciple” of John’s Gospel (if I got it right). It isn’t surprising under my reading of Paul and other indicators of a far-from-unified “Church” of the first 2-3 decades, which only got more diverse by the end of the century and into the second. But it is a difficulty for the view of an Apostolic and revealed concept of authority and Church unity.
Howard
I avoid language that makes it seem like a pure power grab for the simple reason like folk like Polycarp and Ignatius were willing to die for their people. While I might argue that they lost trust in Paul’s charismatic vision of the church, or that they allowed leadership structures of their culture to influence them (as if no one does this), language that make it seem like the apostles or the fathers are modern politicians or CEOs bothers me. It isn’t fair to history in my opinion and it blends theological disagreement with attacks on their person.
That said, yes, there was much passion and a risk of division in the early church. Paul doesn’t hide this in letters to the Corinthians and Galatians. There was tension with Paul and Apollos, Peter, James and the Jerusalem crowd. As an American here is how I have thought of it: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others could fight and disagree strongly over how the nation was to be formed. By the time of Lincoln we slaughtered each other over our disagreements. Some people had better ideas than others on how to govern a nation. Maybe in some ways we went to wrong direction. But I don’t doubt that these people wanted the experiment to succeed. Even more so the apostles and fathers, many who were willing to themselves die for their belief in Christ’s message.
Ian said “In the Fathers, I think we see the disappearance of the work of the Spirit (hence the marginalisation of the Montanists–who believed in women bishops and presbyters incidentally!) as well as the development of a hierarchical church order with (unPauline) monarchical episcopacy.”
Notwithstanding political interpretations about the role of gender in the church – I agree with Ian’s observation. Paul was a free Roman citizen, who though was persecuted for his faith, had rights being Roman. The citizenship of the church fathers as Roman citizenship is doubtful for many and persecution spread as the faith did..
Accordingly, there was this divergence that happened between Pauline thinking and early Church thinking. I certainly agree that the formalization, codification and canonization of scripture was inversely related to the apparent work of the Spirit, but I’d add the relationship early Christians had (and their relative degree of freedom) with respect to the Roman Empire also factored in.
With respect to the codification of the bible, I’m thankful it happened (obviously) but also believe it plays a role deadening our relationship to the Spirit. (Why bide the spirit when we can interpret a book?) Accordingly, as codification and canonization progressed, so did interpretation and eisegesis (most of which was foundational – much in a good way, some not so good).
Brian,
Thanks for the additional thoughts. I don’t think there is much room to question the sincerity or courage of Ignatius or other martyrs. However, as to the matter of the basis of divine authority (via the traditional view), do you see clear evidence of such for whatever group may have actually comprised The Twelve or linkage between them and the next generation or two of leaders (prior to Ignatius et al) that I am unaware of?
This is turning into a fascinating discussion. (Is there already a book on these kinds of questions?) Just a couple of further reflections:
1. I wonder whether the rather strange disappearance of the Twelve in early Christian history has a bearing on this. A Pauline, pneumatological community might not put that much store on the important of the Twelve, other than (as Bauckham says) eyewitnesses. Did that leave a sense of leadership lacuna filled by the early Fathers?
2. Looking back, I see a fascinating paradox for evangelicals. The formalisation which took Christianity in a more sacramental and hierarchical direction is disliked by many conservatives. But it is a formalisation which, culturally, they in fact like. The argument ‘The scriptures are codified, what need have we of the Spirit?’ is precisely the cessationist argument which makes conservatives suspicious of charismatics. And it is evangelicals who very strikingly live with the priesthood of the commentator/interpreter/preacher.
Howard
I don’t know that I see clear evidence either for the development of hierarchy or a more democratized, pneumatological approach. As far as leadership structures are concerned it seems like we have hints of support for various figures in the Gospels (Peter, the Beloved Disciple). Paul defends his role as an apostle and he seems to exalt other apostles, though more as messengers from Christ than governing officials. Paul does send people places as seen in his greetings. The pastorals seem to hint at the development of some hierarchy, though I don’t know that it is strong evidence that the fathers headed in the right direction. Acts provides us with a council, supports Paul’s own ideas about Peter and James, and in places like 19:1-6 does seem to be working toward an early catholicity (though one based on baptism unto Christ as the Apostles baptized, not necessarily unto particular people).
Between the Apostles and the Fathers there doesn’t seem to be any written evidence that they took the right trajectory. Obviously some like Polycarp and Ignatius are remembered as knowing the elder (Apostle?) John, so do we give them the benefit of the doubt regarding oral tradition? Even if (in a hypothetical scenario) the Apostle John taught and ordained Polycarp and Ignatius and told them that they would carry the torch for the Apostles does that mean it is a universal, timeless institution now? Not sure.
Ian
The Twelve do seem to disappear, quite quickly. Only Peter and John seem to retain much authority in the early church. Maybe Thomas eastward? People who were not part of the Twelve like Paul and James rise to prominence, but it may be that this seem to be so merely because literature written on their behave has survived from the first century?
You are absolutely correct that evangelicals are caught in the middle here. I think most evangelicals want the authority of the hierarchy, but embodied in the canon, so that the order goes something like Apostles/Prophets –> Bishops –> Stabilized Canon –> Post-Reformation leadership invested in exegetes and expositors (with the Spirit there, working through the text, and cautiously outside the text).
What if apostles still exist and we’ve simply misunderstood the function of this ministry?
I know, I am silly to even suggest such. But I’m convinced certain passages have been wrongly crafted to suggest apostles don’t exist, plus I’ve seen the fruit of apostolic ministry today. Not that these people have written Scripture or have physically seen & been hand-picked by the risen Christ (since we aren’t even sure someone like Barnabas falls into these 2 categories). But that their practical function is like that of Paul, or better yet, the great apostle, Jesus Christ.
Anyways… 🙂
Not silly at all. In the UK this is strongly advocated by the (so-called) New Churches and by the ‘fresh expression’ movement. Articulated in this Grove booklet as a parallel, pioneering, church planting movement alongside the ‘eldership’ of established churches. http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17174&substring=
Ian –
Our network of churches is based in the UK, in Rugby in the midlands. Kind of like New Frontiers, but smaller. It’s called Global Horizons with an apostolic team at its core. Actually, one of the team members. Funnily enough, one of our team members published a booklet through Grove. http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17565&substring=
It’s a good exegetical study of Paul on leadership! (I am Director of Publishing at Grove and do a final edit on most titles…!)
It seems like there is a duplicity of meanings regarding “apostle” in the early church. There are those who were authorized and sent by Jesus himself. Paul presents himself as one born late into this family. Then there may be others. Others sent by the Apostles?
I think we have to ask why the word “Apostle” seemed to quickly become a designation of the Apostles like Paul, Peter, and John. Why did the Bishops seem to see themselves as receiving the authority to safeguard the church from the Apostles, but they do not describe themselves as Apostles?
I think there is consensus that ‘apostle’ is used in two senses in the NT. The first is specialised and limited and primarily refers to the 12. The second is more general and is the sense in which Junia is ‘an apostle.’
In the formation of the canon, for texts to be ‘apostolic’ refers to the first, more narrow meaning, which includes both being an eyewitness and holding onto the true message.
Brian said: “Apostles/Prophets –> Bishops –> Stabilized Canon –> Post-Reformation leadership invested in exegetes and expositors (with the Spirit there, working through the text, and cautiously outside the text)”
This curious observation is insightful.
With respect to your comments about the use of the word ‘apostle’ (ἀπόστολος) – I agree, but then you’re asking a question about word meaning (which, as you know, interests me).
The Greek word was ‘ἀπόστολος’. Recognizing that under-lying NT text, and the use of the word ‘ἀπόστολος’ are Hebrew/Aramaic thought patterns, my question would be “Is ἀπόστολος used in Hebrew idioms, so, do we find it in the LXX, perhaps as a Greek substitute for some Hebrew expression such as מלאך (mal’ak H4397) (as used for a person in [Job 1:14],[Isa 42:19],[Mal 3:1; 2:7] etc).
I’ve not mulled over the Hebrew thought behind ἀπόστολος, but a good place to start would be the LXX or ancient usage outside of biblical translation ( ancient Greek papyri collections such as – Oxyrhynchus Online, or Tebtunis Papyri )
Ian –
So you’re the guy I need to submit stuff to…? 😉
I understand the normal ‘packages’ of the word apostle and how they are used. I just think the arguments have holes in them. Paul wasn’t actually part of the ’12 apostles of the Lamb’, but maybe had a more significant ministry than the 12. Barnabas probably had a major role in Paul’s life, but he isn’t considered part of the ‘first group’. In the early chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul identifies Apollos’ ministry as of the same nature as his.
In a sense, I really am fine with doctrinal development – moving from elders/overseers being identical roles in the NT text to being distinct roles. The church, in its infancy stage, was still working out some practicalities (like how the resurrection of Jesus redefined social barriers in ministry, including women). But I would say that the essential characteristics of apostolic ministry that we see in Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, Apollos, even Jesus, are essential to all apostolic ministry through the centuries. I’m just not sure that 2 of the essential roles of apostolic ministry has to be: a) Scripture-writer or b) physical encounter/choosing by the resurrected Christ.
Yes, I am. Details on the Grove website.
Wrt apostleship and Scripture, it is the other way around. For something to be accepted into the new canon of Scripture, it had to be apostolic in those two senses. That does not mean that apostles have to write scripture.
The question then comes of the relation between the two uses of ‘apostle’ in the NT–the more specialised and the more generic. I remember not *quite* being convinced by Martin G’s argument…
Ian –
Actually, for something to be accepted into the canon, it wasn’t of a precise nature that they had to have seen the risen Christ. What to do of Luke, Mark, and possible Hebrews? I know we give them a free pass because they got their stuff from the ‘horse’s mouth’. But, really, did Luke in all he knew? It was centred in apostolic tradition, but not always the ‘horse’s mouth’.
1) Not all apostles wrote Scripture
2) Not all Scripture was written by apostles (and not all OT was written by prophets, especially if you note the cumulative gathering over multiple centuries into what is now the Hebrew Scripture/Christian OT).
Not sure who Martin G is?
The gospels had to be understood to be dependent on apostolic witness.
Martin Garner wrote the Grove booklet I mentioned on apostolic ministry.
Yes, dependent on apostolic witness/tradition. I am fine with that as an overall statement. But it isn’t objective and there are holes. And I’m not too bothered with establishing objectivity. Reasonableness, yes. Objectivity is silly amongst finite and fallen human beings. 🙂
What do you do when you encounter actual people who function similarly to that of the apostles that we read about in Scripture? Not that they have written Scripture or had to “physically” encounter the risen Christ, but that they walk out all the other essential aspects of apostolic ministry. 😀
Don’t know Martin Garner. I’m sure you’ve read Devenish’s book. But I have been convinced most of my Christian life. It wasn’t tick for tack Scripture proofs. It was encountering the risen Christ in particular people’s ministry. Quite like me coming to believe in miracles, healings, prophecy today. I think the trajectory of Scripture allows for all of these to continue. But when you encounter the living God in these ways, it draws one in. Dang experience!
Scott, in saying “Objectivity is silly amongst finite and fallen human beings” you are so showing you’ve swallowed the whole Post Modernist pill completely.
I’d modify that to read:
“Complete objectivity is silly amongst finite and fallen human beings, however limited objectivity is not”
I’d prove this by pointing out if you ever had a doctor write you a prescription that said “Take 1 per day with food, until empty” and complied – you’ve proven objectivity is not absent in the world.
That we can’t know the elephant perfectly doesn’t mean we can’t know him at all, or even well.
But I otherwise agree with your conclusion – and I 100% believe in the truth of biblical prophecy, and its fulfilment, as I do in miracles (though I’m not opposed to understanding miracles naturalistically, which is to say miracles aren’t of necessity supernatural, though could be).
Andrew T –
Yes, I agree with you, in a sense. I haven’t swallowed the full pill of postmodern anti-realism. But I also don’t accept the framework of modernist rationality, which much of Christian apologetics and theology is based within. I find a more practical postmodern approach better, one where truth can be reasonably and practically assessed, but never fully objectively. Objectivity can be rarely attained, since the personality of humans always gets involved. But we have many good tools from God to assess truth, his revelation – the Holy Spirit, the Scripture, the church historic, the church now, creation, good natural/general revelation, etc.
Anyways, I still find the normal points for what an apostle is or the nature of Scripture being solely apostolic witness somewhat wanting. If our view of apostolic ministry and Scripture were much more organic, I think we would much more allow for the continuance of things like apostles, prophets, gifts of the Spirit, etc. The trajectory of Scripture seems to more clearly point this way. But I am also fine with the concept of bishops, being distinct from local elders and apostles & prophets.
Do any of this commenting group read Christian origins scholars such as these (an only general grouping and far from complete, in very rough date-of-writing order, most but not all of whom I’ve read): SGF Brandon, Joseph Klausner, Paul Winter, H.J. Schoeps, Robert Eisler, Hyam Maccoby, Joel Carmichael, Robert Eisenman, James Charlesworth, L. Michael White, Richard Horsley, Burton Mack (with Jonathan Z. Smith, innovative broader historian, interdisciplinary proponent), Geza Vermes, John Dominic Crossan, Donald H. Akenson, Barrie Wilson?
If so, what influence have any of them been?
Of that group I’ve read Charlesworth, Horsley, Vermes, and Crossan. I may have come across the others, but nothing extensive.
Thanks, Brian… anyone else?
Many of the published works of these and many others coming to the same basic understandings of Christian origins are very important. They overlap only some with the work of the “historical Jesus” people (Crossan is one exception, perhaps) and their diverse conclusions. But my suspicion is that many or most seriously studious lay people, church leaders and academics have read few if any of the works of these people (again, Crossan being a likely exception, and perhaps Horsley, as current and effectively “popularizing” authors). I’d like to better understand the “power and influence channels” operating in both “liberal” and “conservative” grad schools and seminaries and how that may be filtering down to the pew and the general public.
In a nutshell: Reading many works from among this group, and some I’ve not mentioned, plus direct biblical comparisons, has shown me and a small percentage of other interested students, that the traditional view is basically a distortion and “rewriting” of history. This Christian origins work has re-constructed the basic outlines of a much more accurate picture over against a false picture in most of our minds of a unified very early “Church” with divinely-bestowed authority that is traceable.
The latter picture was first painted by Luke, supplemented and almost “cemented in” by Eusebius. During his time and after, with Constantine and the eventual full merging of ecclesiastical and political power, there was less and less opportunity, for over a millennium, for re-examination of the Church’s “official” account of its beginnings.
Hmmm…I think you are asking for a summary of a module on The Historical Jesus!
I’m not sure what you mean, Ian. Maybe you are tracking with me…. I’m making a distinction, though not a thorough one, between the study of the “historical Jesus” and the study of Christian origins, or history of the first several decades of the church during which we have only about a 10-year period of 7 letters by Paul. So if you mean a lot of parallels between the two projects, I guess that is so. But of the two, I think we have more data and some “real time” (Paul’s) and the comparison points are thus more clear and helpful…. also Josephus helps a bit more than he does with the historical Jesus, as do some of the non-canonical early Christian or gnostic/christian writings.
Oops, going too fast: that is, more data, etc. for Christian origins than the historical Jesus.
What I meant was, I think your questions goes beyond the limits of what a blog discussion can deal with.