The Literature and History of New Testament Times

by J. Gresham Machen

The similarity of such an arrangement to our own Presbyterian form of government is plain. Our churches also are governed not by an individual, but by a body of "elders" who are equal to one another in authority. Changing conditions have of course introduced elaboration of the simple apostolic model. Thus the teaching function, for example, which in apostolic times was perhaps exercised more or less informally by those of the elders who possessed the gifts for it, is now naturally assigned for the most part to men who have received a special training. These "teaching elders" in our church are the ministers. Conditions have become so complex that men of special training, who devote their whole time to the work of the Church, are imperatively required. The pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:11, even in the apostolic Church, seem to have formed a fairly definite group. This class of gifts is exercised to-day especially by the ministers, though similar functions should also be exercised by other members of the Church.

3. HOW WERE ELDERS TO BE CHOSEN?

With regard to the government of the apostolic Church a number of interesting questions can never be definitely answered. For example, how were the elders to be chosen?

(1) Sometimes Appointed by the Apostles.—Such passages as Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5, do not settle the question. According to the former passage, elders were appointed in the churches of southern Galatia by Paul and Barnabas. But it must be remembered that the authority of the apostles was peculiar and temporary. Because the apostles had power to appoint elders it does not follow that any individuals at a later time would possess a similar power. The situation, at the time of the first Christian mission, was peculiar; small bodies of Christians had just been rescued from heathenism; at first they would need a kind of guidance which could afterwards safely be withdrawn. According to Titus 1:5, Titus was to appoint elders in the churches of Crete. But clearly Titus, like Timothy, was merely a special and temporary representative of the apostle Paul; for Titus to appoint elders, under the definite direction of Paul, was no more significant than for Paul to appoint them himself.

(2) The Right of Congregational Election.—On the whole, it may be confidently maintained that the Presbyterian method of choosing elders—namely the method of election by the whole congregation—is more in accordance with the spirit of apostolic precedent than any other method that has been proposed. Throughout the apostolic Church, the congregation was evidently given a very large place in all departments of the Christian life. The Jerusalem congregation, for example, had a decisive voice in choosing the very first Church officers who are known to have been added to the apostles. Acts 6:2-6. In Thessalonica and in Corinth the whole congregation was active in the matter of church discipline. II Thess. 3:14,15; I Cor. 5:3-5; II Cor. 2:6. The whole congregation was also invited to choose delegates for carrying the gifts of the Corinthian church to Jerusalem. I Cor. 16:3. These are merely examples. It must be remembered, moreover, that the authority of the congregation in the apostolic age was limited by the authority of the apostles, which was special and temporary; when the apostles should be removed, the congregational functions would be increased. Yet even the apostles were exceedingly careful not to destroy the liberties of the rank and file. Nowhere in the apostolic Church were the ordinary church members treated as though they were without rights and without responsibilities. Indeed, even when the apostles appointed elders, they may have previously ascertained the preferences of the people.

4. THE APOSTOLIC PRECEDENT AND DEPARTURES FROM IT

The presbyterial form of church government—that is, government by a body of elders—which is found in the apostolic age, differs strikingly from certain later developments. In several particulars, at least, principles have become prevalent which are at variance with the apostolic model.

(1) The Monarchical Episcopate.—The first particular concerns the relation of the church officers to one another. In the apostolic Church, as we have observed, there was a parity among the elders; the local congregation was governed, not by an individual, but by a body. As early, however, as the first part of the second century, a change had taken place, at least in many of the churches. The supreme authority had come to be held by an individual, called "bishop"; all other officers were clearly subordinate to him; the government of the local congregation was no longer presbyterial, but monarchical; the so-called "monarchical episcopate" had been formed.

This state of affairs appears clearly in the epistles of Ignatius, which were written a short time before A. D. 117. But all attempts to find traces of the monarchical episcopate in the apostolic age have resulted in failure. The Greek word episcopos, which is translated in the English Bible—rather misleadingly, perhaps—by "bishop," is applied, not to a special officer standing above the elders, but simply to the elders themselves. "Elder" designates the office; episcopos designates one function of the office. The latter word could hardly have been used in this general way if it had already acquired its technical significance.

The efforts which have been made to discover references to the office of bishop in the apostolic age are unconvincing. It is exceedingly doubtful whether the "angels" of the seven churches to which messages are sent in the Apocalypse are to be regarded as church officers; and even if they were church officers it is by no means clear that they exercised the functions of bishops. Undoubtedly Timothy and Titus appear in the Pastoral Epistles with functions similar in many respects to those of bishops, but it is also clear that they exercised those functions, not as officers of the Church who might have successors, but merely as temporary representatives of the apostle Paul.