# Early church single elder?



## jckdymond55 (Mar 27, 2019)

Looking for any examples of the early church that either out of necessity/lack of people or supported the one elder church model?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 27, 2019)

Is it possible? Sure. But even if it were, it would merely be an exception to the rule laid out Scripture born out of necessity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jckdymond55 (Mar 27, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Is it possible? Sure. But even if it were, it would merely be an exception to the rule laid out Scripture born out of necessity.


True and completely agree (literally asking for a friend) he wanted an example and I know of none of the top of my head. my response was the same as yours when he asked me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2019)

By the end of the middle of the 2nd century they would have called the single elder "the bishop" in the East and the "priest" in the West.


----------



## psycheives (Mar 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> By the end of the middle of the 2nd century they would have called the single elder "the bishop" in the East and the "priest" in the West.



Jacob, who are you thinking about? Will you please provide a source?

Immediately, I think of Ignatius, who speaks of bishops AND presbyters rather than "single bishop."

"...being subject to the bishop and the presbytery..." (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2)

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 27, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Jacob, who are you thinking about? Will you please provide a source?
> 
> Immediately, I think of Ignatius, who speaks of bishops AND presbyters rather than "single bishop."
> 
> "...being subject to the bishop and the presbytery..." (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2)



Are you able to tell us more about this extract, Psyche? How, exactly, did the bishop function in relation to the presbytery?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Jacob, who are you thinking about? Will you please provide a source?
> 
> Immediately, I think of Ignatius, who speaks of bishops AND presbyters rather than "single bishop."
> 
> "...being subject to the bishop and the presbytery..." (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2)



Ignatius's language is tricky, since bishop usually means "president of the Eucharist," or presiding elder of the Eucharist. 

By the time of Irenaeus, though, it's common to speak of bishops of a church. Whether they were single elder or double elder is hard to determine. We have to avoid the mindset that there was a "monolithic" early church praxis on ecclesiology.


----------



## psycheives (Mar 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Are you able to tell us more about this extract, Psyche? How, exactly, did the bishop function in relation to the presbytery?



I believe the Protestant understanding is usually that the bishop may have been "first among equals" alongside the presbyters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 27, 2019)

In the book of Revelation the angels of the churches seem to be the pastors of those churches. The 7 angels of the 7 churches might be 7 pastors.


----------



## psycheives (Mar 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ignatius's language is tricky, since bishop usually means "president of the Eucharist," or presiding elder of the Eucharist.



Jacob, would you please help me to understand where the phrase "president of the Eucharist" came from? I've only seen that used in _modern _Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican contexts. Even if it is older, since James/OP is asking about the early church and we are going back to the first couple of centuries, how does a later redefinition from anti-Presbyterian sources help a 1st-2nd century analysis? Am I missing something here?

Considering the Biblical usage/definition equated "presbyter" and "bishop," it seems it would be helpful to use this as our starting point. Clement shares the same usage - bishop and presbyter are interchangeable. So we can see development and change occurs later in Ignatius. Still, he does use both terms and does consider both to be the leaders of the church and above the deacons.



BayouHuguenot said:


> By the time of Irenaeus, though, it's common to speak of bishops of a church. Whether they were single elder or double elder is hard to determine. We have to avoid the mindset that there was a "monolithic" early church praxis on ecclesiology.



I haven't seen anyone argue for a monolithic church ecclesiology and can't imagine anyone who has read the early church fathers doing so, so I think we are all one the same page there. From my reading of the Bible and early church, it has always been common to speak of "bishops" so use of the term didn't change between the Bible and Irenaeus.

The key question is what is meant by "bishop"? The Bible and Clement use the term interchangably with presbyters. Ignatius and Irenaeus (start with Book 3, Ch 2-3+) speak of both bishops and presbyters as leaders, so I haven't seen any evidence of a "single bishop" or "single elder" that early. In fact, I would argue that Irenaeus seems to use the terms interchangably.

Perhaps James could clarify what he means by "single elder."
1) "one pastor/elder" like modern baptist/non-denom churches today?
2) some form of "single elder" or "head bishop" as head of an individual church with presbyters/elders under him *where the bishop's power is "first among equals" rather than ruling over the presbyters.*
3) some form of "single elder" or "head bishop" as head of an individual church with presbyters/elders under him *where the bishop's power is clearly above the presbyters.*
4) some form of "single elder" or "head bishop" where the bishop is above a various local churches and the local church itself is led by elders.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Jacob, would you please help me to understand where the phrase "president of the Eucharist" came from? I've only seen that used in _modern _Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican contexts. Even if it is older, since James/OP is asking about the early church and we are going back to the first couple of centuries, how does a later redefinition from anti-Presbyterian sources help a 1st-2nd century analysis? Am I missing something here?



The term is modern, the concept is not. The Eucharist was celebrated in Asia Minor/Palestine every Lord's Day. One person "presided" over it. Nothing anti-Presbyterian about that.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 28, 2019)

psycheives said:


> I believe the Protestant understanding is usually that the bishop may have been "first among equals" alongside the presbyters.



Interesting, as that was Robert Leighton's view of bishops as well.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2019)

Re: the "President" terminology:

I don't have it handy, but if memory serves, in his Systematic Theology, Robert Duncan Culver makes reference to a "president" in the early churches that functioned as a presiding elder or basically what would be termed a pastor today. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 28, 2019)

Tertullian spoke of the "President" in sort of a "Pastor" role as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Tertullian spoke of the "President" in sort of a "Pastor" role as well.



Correct. The term can be verified in use from Asia Minor to North Africa.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jckdymond55 (Mar 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> In the book of Revelation the angels of the churches seem to be the pastors of those churches. The 7 angels of the 7 churches might be 7 pastors.


That makes me wonder if Paul had Timothy as the head of the Ephesus Church?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 28, 2019)

jckdymond55 said:


> That makes me wonder if Paul had Timothy as the head of the Ephesus Church?



I don't think Paul ever pastored a church. I think he ordained elders in every city. Some had multiple elders. But not all. 

"I Timothy 3:1 speaks of the office of "the bishop," singular, and verse eight speaks of "deacons," plural. John calls himself" the elder" in II John 1 and III John I. Also, the churches of Revelation 2 and 3 have one messenger."

I think it depended on the size and nature of each church. 

I know this doctrine of multiple elders is pushed for by many, but in many smalll churches I am not sure it is that important or biblical to try to push for mutliple elders when the congregation is small or the men are not mature. I think we see single pastors in some spots in the NT.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbtj/01-2_001.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 28, 2019)

I could be misreading him, but Clement of Rome seems to use "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 28, 2019)

That's the way I read Clement as well.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## DTK (Mar 28, 2019)

jckdymond55 said:


> Looking for any examples of the early church that either out of necessity/lack of people or supported the one elder church model?


You are going to be hard pressed to find a single example of this in the early church. To be sure, the early church writer Jerome speaks of the rise for the necessity of a monarchical bishop (in contrast to a plurality of elders), but that is for a different reason than the one you've proposed. In spite of Jerome's testimony to this end, he maintained that (biblically speaking) the office of bishop and elder were essentially the same. I'm thinking about posting a separate thread that addresses this question to some extent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jckdymond55 (Mar 28, 2019)

DTK said:


> You are going to be hard pressed to find a single example of this in the early church. To be sure, the early church writer Jerome speaks of the rise for the necessity of a monarchical bishop (in contrast to a plurality of elders), but that is for a different reason than the one you're proposed. In spite of Jerome's testimony to this end, he maintained that (biblically speaking) the office of bishop and elder were essentially the same. I'm thinking about posting a separate thread that addresses this question to some extent.


would like to read it


----------



## psycheives (Mar 30, 2019)

jckdymond55 said:


> would like to read it



"The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord" (Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:7)

Reactions: Informative 2 | Sad 1


----------

