Jerusalem: Independent or Presbyterial?

[blhowes]

Until I read the [u:c988087996]The Form of Presbyterian Church-Government[/u:c988087996], I had never given much thought to how the church at Jerusalem was organized. The church of Jerusalem in the scriptures is mentioned as one church, so I always just assumed that there was just one big "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem".

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the [b:c988087996]church which was at Jerusalem[/b:c988087996]; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Act 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the [b:c988087996]church which was in Jerusalem[/b:c988087996]: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

But there were thousands saved on Pentecost in Jerusalem and there were 12 apostles at Jerusalem, so I wonder how (if) the church was divided up? Does anybody know if any of the early church writings talk about the structure of the early Jerusalem church? If there were many congregations meeting for worship in different places, were they independent churches or was there some kind of a presbyterial authority structure - if you're Presbyterian why do you support the presbyterial structure and if you're Baptist, why do you support the idea of independent churches?

Bob

 

[fredtgreco]

One excellent point that is often never discussed is that if the Jerusalem Church was congregational (rather than a Presbytery of particular churches) is that it becomes kind of silly to think about the 12 apostles needing deacons because they are all given to preaching. That doesn't exactly make for a big load - preaching once every 3 months!

 

[blhowes]

Fred,
I don't recall ever hearing this discussed, so I'm not sure if there's a "standard" way that baptists view how the Jerusalem church was organized. Since there were at least 8000 men saved (Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4), not to mention the women and children, any way you cut it, they had there hands full.

I suppose there could have been just one church where everybody met, but in really makes more sense to me to have divided them up into smaller units, perhaps each apostle getting his share of the massive crowd. If they were divided up, I still wonder what the relationship was between the different church units. Were they independent, like the Baptist or Congregational form of government, or did they have an interdependent authority structure like the Presbyterian church of today? I wonder if there's any way to determine that from the scriptures or from the early writings of the church?

Regarding what you said about the deacons, it seems like no matter how all these people were divided up there would still be a need for the deacons. Even if no preaching was required, caring for the needs of 8000 men, plus the women and children alone, seems like it would be too much of a load for just 12 people.

Thanks for your input,
Bob

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by blhowes]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Could you see the rabbinical leaders in Jerusalem, and Pontius Pilate putting up with a gathering of 8000 people in one location at one time, at that time, right after the death of Christ??

Rather:

Acts 2:46-47 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from [b:62218501e8]house to house[/b:62218501e8], they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

 

[blhowes]

[b:352289f5c5]Matthew wrote:[/b:352289f5c5]
Could you see the rabbinical leaders in Jerusalem, and Pontius Pilate putting up with a gathering of 8000 people in one location at one time, at that time, right after the death of Christ??

No, it would seem unlikely. Just wondering, is it very commonly held that there was one church that gathered in one location?

[b:352289f5c5]Matthew wrote:[/b:352289f5c5]
Acts 2:46-47 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from [b:352289f5c5]house to house[/b:352289f5c5], they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

So does that mean that they maintained their Jewish connections, with the sacrifices, etc., in the temple on the Sabbath (Saturday) and then also met just as a group of believers in the houses on another day, presumably on Sunday?

Also, since they met it different houses, is there any way to determine how independent or interdependent the churches were with respect to church government?
Bob

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by blhowes]

 

[JohnV]

Bob:

I have been reading [u:a0bcef45d5]The Apostolic Church[/u:a0bcef45d5], by Thomas Witherow. In that book he shows how the Presbyterian system is built upon the early church, including Jerusalem, as it is found in Scripture.

In basic, what he examines is the actions of the church, how they went about things. For example, it was the membership that chose the twelfth apostle, not the Apostles; it was the group of elders meeting with the Apostles that decided the Antioch controversy, meeting before the membership who approved it. The Apostles, including Paul, did not think that their very special office endowed them with dictatorial powers, even though they were entrusted with the very gospel itself.

Witherow was initially, I think, an Anglican who was set on showing that the hierarchy of offices was biblical. In the end he found that the presbyterial system he had sought to debunk was in fact the Biblical system.

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by JohnV]

 

[blhowes]

John,
Is the Anglican church structure similar to the catholic structure, in that they govern from the "top down". I've heard it said that the Presbyterian church is different in that it governs from the "bottom up". Is that correct? If so, how so? (as an outsider looking in, its difficult to differentiate)

That sounds like an interesting book you're reading. I know you're a Presbyterian, but in your unbiased opinion, are the arguments he makes from the scriptures pretty convincing? Even if you were a baptist, do you think you'd have to agree with most of his points?

If I'm not mistaken, you've read a bunch of the writings of the early church. Do they talk much about the structure of the early church?

Bob

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by blhowes]

 

[jfschultz]

All I read concerning Calvin's Geneva refers to [b:b6d6d70e13]a Consistory[/b:b6d6d70e13]. It leaves me with the impression that we are too congregational. That there true model would have a session governing several congregations in a limited (city or sub-presbytery) area.

Extend this to the church of Jerusalem and you have the session (Apostles and perhaps other elders) governing several congregations that can handle the thousands of Christians.

 

[cupotea]

Off the question but on the subject:

Episcopal church apologists (and to some degree Romanists and Greek Orthodox) see their own polity in the structure of the Jerusalem church.

In this view James is the presiding elder or Bishop of the church there, then they make something of a distinction between the Apostolic office as mainly evangelistic and missionary and the inhering office of presbyter.

So, in this view, James was the Bishop, the other Apostles, Peter, Andrew et al, were elders and held some collegial advisory authority but were not normally in Jerusalem since they were supposed to be out 'making disciples of every nation'.

I don't particularly buy it...but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

 

[blhowes]

John,
Do you know offhand where Calvin wrote about the consistory? I'd like to read what he has to say about it.
Bob

 

[blhowes]

Michael.
Interesting.

It seems like all churches, though different, see their particular form of church government demonstrated in the early church. I wonder if God gives enough flexibility in the scriptures for more than one model to be "the" correct model? Or, do the arguments in favor of one model decisively eliminate the other possibilities?

...for answers to these and many other questions, stay tuned to this thread for further updates.

Bob

 

[Scott]

[quote:d3ef3305d1]
Could you see the rabbinical leaders in Jerusalem, and Pontius Pilate putting up with a gathering of 8000 people in one location at one time, at that time, right after the death of Christ??
[/quote:d3ef3305d1]

That is an interesting observation. I have seen Anglicans and others argue against the need for a plurality of elders based on this kind of observation. Presbyterians typically maintain that a plurality of elders is required by precedent, which consists largely of salutations in epistles to "elders" - plural. By recognizing that a a church ata city consisted of several congregations, there is no necessary inference that a plurality of elders was in any particular congregation.

 

[cupotea]

That's a great question...

I differ from some of my Presbyterian brethren in that I do not conclude absolutely that the Bible outlines a certain normative form of church government. So much is clouded by the presence of Apostles.

But...

Paul's effective conflation of the offices of presbyter and episcopos in Titus 1:5-9 seems to rule out episcopacy.

But by the same token, there is little real difference between a properly instituted congregationalism and presbyterianism except for the responsibility of the local session to a larger authority (the presbytery).

Both can be seen in Scripture though I have to admit that I believe the Presbyterian form to be the most consistent.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I do think there is some leeway in forming a church government. But there are some ingredients which are required. 1) The church is governed by elders. 2) The church should be fellowshipping with other believing bodies 3) There must be some form of accountability for the elders by other elders and to the members.

Presbyterians and the New England Congregationalists had this structure to some extent. The New England puritans started out congregational but ended up forming associations to address and advise for common problems among the churches at large (remarkably similar to presbyteries in principle ). The very nature of ecclestiastical fellowship seems to me to naturally end up with some form of presbyterianism when the needs of accountability and fellowship are upheld.

 

[cupotea]

Bob,

Ya know, I was reading J N D Kelly's book "Doctrines of the Early Church" and it occurred to me that in Kelly's view at least, the early church looked an awful lot like a rather primitve kind of High Church Anglicanism...

 

[blhowes]

[b:79c53c8a7d]Michael wrote:[/b:79c53c8a7d]
...in Kelly's view at least, the early church looked an awful lot like a rather primitve kind of High Church Anglicanism...

Now I know what to ask for for Christmas - a dictionary of religious terms.

The term "High Church Anglicanism" is a new one on me. I did a quick search, but don't have time to read up on it now. Does this refer to the hierarchial structure of the church, or the order of worship within a local church (prayer book, etc)?

Bob

 

[blhowes]

[b:91eded4f21]Patrick wrote:[/b:91eded4f21]
But there are some ingredients which are required. 1) The church is governed by elders. 2) The church should be fellowshipping with other believing bodies 3) There must be some form of accountability for the elders by other elders and to the members.

Would number 1 rule out baptist churches for you, or do you use the term elder as interchangeable with pastor?

Bob

 

[JohnV]

[quote:59858d3cfb][i:59858d3cfb]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:59858d3cfb]
John,
Is the Anglican church structure similar to the catholic structure, in that they govern from the "top down". I've heard it said that the Presbyterian church is different in that it governs from the "bottom up". Is that correct? If so, how so? (as an outsider looking in, its difficult to differentiate)

That sounds like an interesting book you're reading. I know you're a Presbyterian, but in your unbiased opinion, are the arguments he makes from the scriptures pretty convincing? Even if you were a baptist, do you think you'd have to agree with most of his points?

If I'm not mistaken, you've read a bunch of the writings of the early church. Do they talk much about the structure of the early church?

Bob[/quote:59858d3cfb]

Bob:

In a way that is a trick question. "In my unbiased opinion" I am a Presbyterian. I don't believe I came to this position upon biases. So yes, I am convinced by what I have read. But, I know what you're asking, and I am also sensitive to your question, of course.

I think that Witherow, as far as I have read so far, is quite compelling. One of the things that I questioned at first was his contention that Paul ordained elders in the churches he established, but that they were chosen by "popular suffrage", that is, by nomination and vote by the members. But Acts ch. 1 bears that out, in the choosing of the replacement for Judas. I'm not a language scholar, but the references I have would also tend toward that assumption. The actual reference is to Acts 14:23, the appointing of elders in every church on the first missionary journey.

Another thing that struck me is that Paul is quite strong, especially in Galations where he opposes Peter in front of the people, when it concerns the rituals of the old covenant being imposed into the new. Yet for all that, he did not impose himself into the role of sole authority in a church where he did not have that office. Yes, he was an apostle, but he was not to dictate or lord it over anyone. The dispute in Antioch was taken to Jerusalem for resolution, and that before the elders and the people. And even in Jerusalem the Apostles did not dictate to the elders and the people what was to be done, but gave their input as witnesses of the workings of the Spirit and of the Scriptures.

Taken in the context, these are rather strong arguments. They cannot just be minimized, as if they could be taken to balance off some tradition. These accounts are included for very good reason. For the sake of the issue itself we have Romans and Galations, much more than enough to resolve and questions we may have about circumcision or the law. But the process, the administration, and the deliberaton were especially recorded for us so that we would not be without precedent in our own proceedures.

Now, about other writings. I have mostly merely assumed the soundness of the presbyterial system until recently. You can imagine that interaction such we have on the Board is not common in our little circles at church. A glib answer is often sufficient, regretably. But lately, with discussions on this Board, and with ground-shaking occurrances in my home church, this has been of great interest to me. Calvin goes into some detail in Book Four of his Institutes, I found. Matt has some very good reading in his pastoring section on [u:59858d3cfb]A Puritan's Mind[/u:59858d3cfb] as well, where he records for us some Puritan writers' views on the ministry of the Word. But in these you have to assume the Presbyterian milieu to catch the import it has on the centrality of the Word and on the whole system. And that may be difficult to someone not given to it beforehand.

My recent readings have not gone much beyond that, other than [u:59858d3cfb]The Marrow of Modern Divinity[/u:59858d3cfb], which was recommended to me by Fred Greco; I am reading that at the moment as well.

I would say that, biases aside, the thing to do is to get as broad a picture of the original structure as you can, keeping to Scripture, and to narrow in from there. That way you're not just left with this opinion against that opinion, but have some substantial basis for believing in the suffieciency of Scripture even for the magistracy in the church.

And yes, the Anglican Church's structure is basically the same as the Catholic one. The Church of England, remember, did not object to the misuse of office and of the administration of the Word like the Reformers did; they objected to the authority the church had even over the personal affairs of the king, even though it was a public office. For them it was more a matter of putting their own men into ecclesiastical position rather than one of reforming the church.

Right now my interest lies in what a minister is commissioned to preach, the extent of his licence, and who it is that sets the parameters of what that "gospel of Christ" is; whether or not it includes propounding ideas he may legitemately hold, but which are not ruled by the church as a whole to be "the gospel". There is a great amount of difference between "not being at variance with the confessions" in your views, and making your opinions equal to the Scripture on the pulpit. But this too leans quite heavily on the Presbyterian system.

I'd like to see where this thread goes. I hope I didn't sway it off course for you, Bob.

 

[Reena Wilms]

Does anyone of you can recommmend me a good book on this topic of Presbyterian Church-Government, and that related to the early church ?

Ralph

 

[blhowes]

[b:6d739747b5]John wrote:[/b:6d739747b5]
I'd like to see where this thread goes. I hope I didn't sway it off course for you, Bob.

Not to worry. Steady as she goes.

[b:6d739747b5]John wrote:[/b:6d739747b5]
I would say that, biases aside, the thing to do is to get as broad a picture of the original structure as you can, keeping to Scripture, and to narrow in from there.

Thanks for the advice. Will do.

[b:6d739747b5]John wrote:[/b:6d739747b5]
One of the things that I questioned at first was his contention that Paul ordained elders in the churches he established, but that they were chosen by "popular suffrage", that is, by nomination and vote by the members

Its interesting that Paul ordained elders, but he also passed that authority on to others, as in the example of Titus.

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Let's say that Titus went to 10 different churches in Crete and ordained elders in each church. How do we then determine the authoritative relationship between these elders and Titus, and then to Paul and finally to the church at Jerusalem?

As I think about Titus 1:5, it almost seems like Titus is doing both the selecting of the elders and the ordaining also. When it says, "as I had appointed thee", does anybody know if the word appointed has anything to do with selecting, or is that more closely related to the ordination? Strongs say:

G1299
diatasso?
dee-at-as'-so
From G1223 and G5021; to arrange thoroughly, that is, (specifically) institute, prescribe, etc.: - appoint, command, give, (set in) order, ordain.

Bob

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:8a33216d2a][i:8a33216d2a]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:8a33216d2a]
[b:8a33216d2a]Patrick wrote:[/b:8a33216d2a]
But there are some ingredients which are required. 1) The church is governed by elders. 2) The church should be fellowshipping with other believing bodies 3) There must be some form of accountability for the elders by other elders and to the members.

Would number 1 rule out baptist churches for you, or do you use the term elder as interchangeable with pastor?

Bob [/quote:8a33216d2a]
I think a pastor is one type of elder. I think an independent baptist or congregational church would fall short because of 2 and 3. But I think they may satisfy the requirements through some sort of association with other like mined churches. This certainly isn't a hard and fast rule. These are just the principles I think are common in the NT regarding church government.

 

[blhowes]

[b:25af179b72]Patrick wrote:[/b:25af179b72]
I think an independent baptist or congregational church would fall short because of 2 and 3. But I think they may satisfy the requirements through some sort of association with other like mined churches.

I would agree that there may be a tendancy for these churches to fall short in these areas. That's been the case in my limited experience, especially number 2 (fellowshipping with other churches). The doctrine of separation was emphasized and we became very isolated from other believers in any other church. Reformed baptist churches may be different from independent baptist churches in that regard (?).

Bob

 

[jfschultz]

[quote:3286a08ceb][i:3286a08ceb]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:3286a08ceb]
John,
Do you know offhand where Calvin wrote about the consistory? I'd like to read what he has to say about it.
Bob [/quote:3286a08ceb]

I find this more in biographical and historical accounts. I have not yet seen anything of Calvin's theological treatment on this. I would think that it would be in book 4 of the Institutes and I am still in book 3.

John

 

[cupotea]

High Church Anglicanism refers to the smells and bells Anglicans, it represents the Anglo-Catholics and others who insist on a rather structured liturgy. Usually with High Churchers the doctrine is also conservative even if it does give rather more authority to tradition than an Evangelical would be comfortable with; they do not usually ordain women, but they might just believe in purgatory...

 

[blhowes]

[b:d0587ce3ad]John wrote:[/b:d0587ce3ad]
I have not yet seen anything of Calvin's theological treatment on this. I would think that it would be in book 4 of the Institutes and I am still in book 3.

You're right. I downloaded a searchable version of the institutes and most of the information is in chapter 11 of book 4. Thanks.

[b:d0587ce3ad]Michael,[/b:d0587ce3ad]
Thanks for defining High Church Anglicanism for me.

Bob

 

[luvroftheWord]

Matt or Fred (or anyone who has an opinion),

I admit that I haven't studied this issue as much as I should have, but I was thinking of something. If I understand your posts correctly, you seemed to be suggesting that the church at Jerusalem was a presbytery made up of smaller congregations that met in various households (sorry if I inferred too much from your comments). Given what you said, how would you respond to those individuals who point to the passage that Matt mentioned about the various households and attempt to argue that Jerusalem was a "megachurch" that was met in smaller "house groups"? I know that there are some purpose-driven folks that have made comments to that effect. I guess what I'm essentially asking is about other evidence that suggests a presbyterian form of government in the church at Jerusalem.

 

[Dan....]

Since no one would argue that all 8000 converted in Jerusalem actually resided in Jerusalem, may I safely say that a minimum of at least 1000 lived in the Jerusalem area?

If we are to conclude that Jerusalem was but one church with many individual congregations which had both elders and apostles who collectively exercized authority over the whole of the individual congregations, then what are we to conclude about deacons?

Let's say that the 1000 Christians in Jerusalem met as 20 congregations of 50 (and 50 be a rather large amount trying to crowd into one house). We do not know how many (if any) elders there were at the time of the appointment of deacons, but we do know that there were 12 apostles along with 7 deacons.

Hmmmm..... [b:9e9983a30b]7 deacons who's responsibilities extend over 20ish congregations of 50ish members each.....[/b:9e9983a30b]

I'm not very familiar with Presbyterian church government (only the little that I have read). Do the deacons in the Presbyterian church oversee the physical needs of multiple congregations, or, are there (as in most churches) several deacons in each congregation who only hold the responibility in their own particular congregation?

If any reply that the deacons responsibility is limited to just one particular congregation within the Presbytery, then please explain why only the eldership needs to follow the example in Acts, while the deaconate does not. Why do not the deacons share the responsibility of multiple congregations as they did in the first century?

It would be inconsistant to model the structure of the eldership after the example of the Jerusalem church and not do the same with the deaconate.

 

[JohnV]

Dan:

I'm not really sure what you're asking. But I don't think that seven is the limit of deacons that there were. We may have recorded for us the original seven, and the seventh may have been the originator of the Nicolaitans, which was a heretical group. But that doesn't mean that that was all the deacons there were.

At the time, it seems to me, they were not appointing elders in Jerusalem yet. It seems that it all fell on the Apostles to do the work. The need came as the organization became more of an entity, rather than just a group with a commonality. I don't think that today's characteristics can be superimposed into that setting at all.

You won't find a Church Order, for example. You won't find a manual on Church government either. These principles were all being worked out according to Scriptural givens. When you look at the methods that they used, and the forms they took, then it seems to me that this is the same structure that we now call the Presbyterian form of government.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Dan, if I remember right, those deacons were appointed to serve the Hellenistic Jewish converts because they were being neglected. So, there may have been more deacons to serve the "hebrews" as well as the "hellenists."

Acts 6
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists,[1] because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
5And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

 

[py3ak]

2 Points

Dan,

Just two things.

[quote:b7b2f47e71]
(and 50 be a rather large amount trying to crowd into one house)
[/quote:b7b2f47e71]

There were about 120 in the upper room, so perhaps we could expand the size of the congregation a little (Acts 1:15).

About the deacons, as I understand it, the apostles comprehended in themselves all other offices. If you were an apostle you were by virtue of that also a deacon and an elder. As given portions of the work [b:b7b2f47e71]that had to be officially structured[/b:b7b2f47e71] became too great for the apostles to handle, they split out some of their functions. Deacons came first (I remember one liberal author suggesting that this is why the apostles sort of declined after that --I am not sure on what he based that, though I am sure that he was wrong-- because they weren't humble enough to do the lowly job of serving tables), and elders followed in due time, as the apostles had to travel more.