Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 19

 The eighth Mark of the Apostolic Church was the fraternal equality, the essential priesthood, of all the members…the fraternal equality of all the members involving the fraternal equality of the ministry. –Hassell

A hierarchy of ministers is not established in scripture. The traditional catholic churches have three degrees of holy orders: deacon, priest, and bishop. The bishop, in this view, is the fullness of holy orders, while deacon and priest are degrees underneath the full degree of bishop. Then there are different levels of jurisdiction for bishops, where they preside or even direct other bishops that are under their administrations. I share this so I can focus on the features that we are comparing to the Apostolic Church. The Bible does give us the office of bishop with certain authority and requirements to rule, so I want to discuss the order that Christ placed in the continuing leadership of his Church.

First consider the function of priest.

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus. Hebrews 3:1

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. Hebrews 7:33-28

Jesus Christ is the one and only High Priest in the Church. He’s the only one that made an offering to put away sins and this he did once, so that there is no need for continual offerings of sacraments meant to confer eternal life. There is no other mediator between God and men but the man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Any church that has additional priests in the sense of mediating between God and men, is moving believers farther away from God than Christ did when he organized his church and is therefore regressive and not the true Church.

Once we have been cleansed by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, we have the authority to enter the priesthood of the church. Peter says ye (the elect, sanctified strangers who have tasted that the Lord is gracious and are coming to him) are an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5,9). Priests have a responsibility to offer sacrifices to God, which we are commanded to do. Praising God is explicitly listed as a sacrifice that we offer from our lips (Heb 13:15). We are also told to draw near to God because Jesus Christ has consecrated a way for us to go through the veil and given us boldness to enter the holiest place. There is no distinction in the level of our priesthood if we through the sacrifice of our High Priest have boldness to enter the Holiest of all (Heb 10:19-22).

Next let’s consider the function of Apostle. It’s clear that Apostles had a special kind of authority in their day that commanded the deference of all the other elders in the church. I believe Matthew 16:19 is teaching that Christ gave apostles a special gift to teach authoritatively so that what the Apostles taught the church was the same as Christ teaching them from heaven. John 16:13 shows that the Holy Spirit was present with them bringing all the teachings of Christ back into remembrance so that they remembered and taught “all truth” in the sense of everything the church needed.

Apostles were set apart by their direct commission from Christ in person, they were eyewitnesses of his resurrected body, and they had the ability to work miracles and to confer ability to work miracles in a way that has never been here since they left the earth (Mt 10:5-7; Gal 1:1; Ac 1:22; 1Co 9:1; Mt 10:8; Ac 8:14-19; Ac 19:6). Apostles are regarded as foundational to the establishment of the church with Christ (Eph 2:19-20; Mt 19:28; Rev 21:14). Now the question is what became of their authority and role in the church when they left?

I believe that their teachings, which were committed to writing and kept by the churches as scripture, carry apostolic authority (2Pe 3:16; 2Ti 2:2). So, there is no need for, nor example of, the authority and supervisory role of apostles to be passed to other members. Notice how Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9 for churches to compare what anyone preaches (even if it be someone with him, or an angel) to what we have already preached. This requirement is given here to the churches. So, there is a pattern within the Apostolic Church for the congregations to appeal to what has already been taught under inspiration, and to let those false teachers be accursed. That proves that Paul was expecting that the authority of the apostles to be on permanent record and that the church was to refer to it (scripture) and not to authoritative bishops.

Notice again Jude, the brother of the Apostle James, tells us to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). This alludes to a body of faith that was delivered once and not progressively or gradually delivered. If the faith was once delivered, then it makes sense that the scriptures are sufficient to teach the whole body of faith—including the order of the ministry. Then there is no need for a man or group of man to be present in every age to teach doctrine on the authority of their office like they did before the scriptures were complete.

Let’s make a little syllogism to simplify the argument. 1. The scriptures are profitable for doctrine and instruction so that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Tim 3:17). 2. Scriptures do not furnish the church with a succession of apostolic authority. 3. Therefore, claiming to be successors of the apostles is not a good work.

The advocates for apostolic succession often claim that it is necessary because scriptures do not explicitly answer every question. We do answer new questions from time to time, and they are recorded as confessions, creeds, and articles of faith; but the answers still rely on scripture. The inability to agree on these answers does not mean there is anything insufficient with the scriptural record. The fault is with the people making wrong interpretations, which is a fault that even having an episcopacy can’t solve. If having an episcopacy could solve the problem of division or misinterpretations, you’d think there would be one catholic church that agreed on these important questions.

Nevertheless, Christ and the apostles anticipated that there would be divisions and denials of the faith, so the crux of the issue is the order that they followed. Their answer was to withdraw from every disorderly brother (2Th 3:6), and to be separate from the world (2Co 6:17). There is no need for an episcopacy to do this. The episcopacy tries to solve a problem that Christ didn’t tell us to solve: outward or formal universal church unity. Our job is to contend for the faith once delivered, reject heretics after the second admonition, and to not walk with brethren that are disorderly or teaching another gospel. That is the order established in the Apostolic Church.

Moving on to bishops/elders. I think it’s not controversial to point out that the terms bishops and elders are used interchangeably in scripture and therefore throughout the Apostolic church so I will not try to prove it. By late second century or early third century, there became a distinction in the use of those terms and along with that development came the development of an hierarchy.

The term bishop in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word episkopos, which means overseer, and the term elder from presbyteros. The requirements of this office are to feed (spiritually), teach, care for, take the oversight of the people of God. They have a gift to preach the gospel with the Holy Ghost send down from heaven (1Pe 1:12) and by ordination the authority to baptize believers (Mt 28:19) and ordain other elders (Ti 1:5). They have the responsibility, by the influence they have gained through preaching and teaching, to ensure that the church behaves decently, in order, and as the pillar and ground of the truth (1Cor 14:40, 1Ti 3:15).

Hierarchical churches have a rank referred to as patriarch and they also claim the title of Father for their priests. Since Jesus condemned the use of religious status and titles by saying call no man Father on earth (Mt 23:9), I would seriously question the motive of Catholicism in using that title for their priests. Yes, it’s not saying you can’t call your natural father, father; and it’s also valid to point out that Paul considered himself to be a father to those whom he brought to the faith. But Paul never had anyone address him as father which is what Jesus is addressing Mt 23:9.

The second part of that compound word, -arch, is associated with ruling/governing and it refers to Jesus (archōn, Rev 1:5; archēgos, Ac 3:15, Ac 5:31, Heb 2:10, Heb 12:2; archē Col 1:18) or those who lead in the wrong way (Mt 20:25-28). This again makes me question why they would want to associate with a system that has “archbishops”. Jesus specifically contrasts a “gentile” or worldly way of exercising authority with how he expects his bishops to rule and lead. After James and John asked if they could sit next to him in the kingdom, he uses árchōn to describe the princes of the gentiles and says “It shall not be so with you”. He prescribes servant leadership for his ministers and there is always different terminology used for the sense in which bishops and elders are to rule in the church. Jesus evidently doesn’t want leaders in his church leading by status or rank like pretty much every worldly kingdom does. I know that these word choices are not what proves that a hierarchy does not match the order that the Lord gave his church, but it at least gives me a strong hint that those things are an effort to make the church match worldly kingdoms instead of the Apostolic pattern.

Hassell quotes a secular historian, Ernest Renan, on the history of ecclesiastical hierarchy being called “The history of a triple abdication: first, the community of believers committed their power to the presbyters; then the corps of presbyters abdicated to the Bishop; and last, the Bishop to the Pope (in the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870)." We covered the government of the church belonging to the whole body of the church in the fifth mark and is closely related to why a hierarchy is used in those churches. And the second point is similarly striking that it’s not only a mix up on abstract doctrine, it’s denying someone’s relationship and accountability directly to Christ by placing someone else between.

In sum, the hierarchy we see develop in the mainstream Catholic Church in the first few centuries after Christ is not only absent in the Apostles’ Day, it contradicts the order Christ established in his church. Although elders have varying levels of influence, they lead by example, not by rank, lording over God’s people (1Pe 5:3).