Content:  

The reason why different denominations, with very different forms of church government, can all claim to be based on the "New Testament model" is that the New Testament is not very specific about how the Church is to be organized or how services are to be conducted. It would be a grave mistake, however, to infer from this that the early Church had no definite structure or patterns of worship. The New Testament does not give a detailed plan of Church government, because the Church already existed when the books of the New Testament were written. As we pointed out above, the epistles were not written to be an "owner's manual."

Because of this, if we want to know more about the early Church, we must look beyond the pages of the Scriptures to the earliest documents of the post-apostolic Church. This is not to suggest that these other documents are more important-or even as important-as the Divine Scriptures; they certainly are not. Their importance lies in the fact that they tell us how the earliest Christians interpreted the Bible and applied those interpretations to their lives. In doing so, they answer many of the questions that modern Protestants have about Church life.

Earlier (in ch. 5) we examined how the description of Baptism in the Didache shed light on the biblical passages relating to the practice of Baptism. Let us now turn our attention to a more systematic study of life in the early Church, focusing in particular on Church government and worship.

In addition to the Didache, four other documents from the first two centuries help us understand how the early Church was organized and how She worshipped: I Clement, the Letters of St. Ignatios of Antioch, the Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher, and Against Heresies by St. Irenaios of Lyons. To be sure, we have many other documents from the second century, but these contain the most specific information about Church life.

I Clement is a letter that was sent from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96. Although St. Clement is not mentioned by name in the letter, early tradition is unanimous in assigning it to Clement. There is now no serious scholarly challenge to this attribution. St. Irenaios of Lyons, writing in the latter half of the second century, tells us that Clement was the third bishop of Rome and that he personally knew Ss. Peter and Paul. He has also been connected with the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3. This letter, therefore, stands as a bridge between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. (For a general introduction and bibliography, see Quasten, pp. 42-53. Translations may be found in collections of the Apostolic Fathers. There is also a translation by J.A. Kleist, The Epistles of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 1, NY: Newman Press, 1946. It is generally accepted that II Clement is an early sermon by someone other than St. Clement of Rome).

Around A.D. 107, St. Ignatios, the bishop of Antioch, was sent, under arrest, to Rome for execution. During his sojourn, he wrote letters to several Churches. Seven of those letters are extant. They provide an invaluable insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century. (Quasten, pp. 63-76).

The Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher are somewhat unique in that they are addressed not to fellow Christians, but to the pagan emperor. Dating from the middle of the second century, their value for our purpose lies in the fact that Justin describes Church life to the emperor in order to dispel various myths that were circulating through the Roman world. I Clement and the Letters of Ignatios are similar to the epistles of the New Testament in that they are occasional letters. Justin, however, describes in some detail things that these letters only hint at. (Quasten, pp. 196-221).

One could say that St. Irenaios is the theologian par excellence of the second century. His Against Heresies is a gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus, Irenaios was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles. (Irenaios is also spelled Irenaeus. For background and bibliography see Quasten, pp. 287-313. We do not possess complete texts of Against Heresies. There is a translation in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers, pp. 315-578. For excerpts, see Bettenson, pp. 65-102.).

From these documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices: the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church worshipped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, in the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able to truly share in the life of God.

What is most important about this, however, is the way in which all of these elements of Church life were integrated with one another, forming a seamless whole. As we shall see below, episcopal government is tied directly to the nature of the Church as a Eucharistic community. At the same time, the Eucharist is the ultimate manifestation of the Church's belief that Her life is nothing less than life in Christ: He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him (John 6:56).

In the New Testament, the terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. (Most English translations render presbyter as elder. The KJV and RSV usually render bishop as bishop, although the KJV does render it as overseer once (Acts 20:28). The NIV, however, renders it as overseer exclusively, thereby avoiding using a word that is objectionable to most Evangelicals).This is evident from the following passage from Titus:

We can quote many similar passages from the literature of the early Church where these terms are also used interchangeably:

Our Apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the title of bishop. For this reason, therefore, since they had perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforementioned persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.... For it will be no trivial sin on our part if we depose from the bishop's office those who have in a blameless and holy manner offered the gifts. Happy the presbyters who have gone on their way before this, for they obtained a ripe and fruitful departure; since they need not fear that anyone should remove them from their appointed place. (I Clement 44. For St. Clement, the office of bishop derives from the Apostles. Elsewhere he writes, "The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. In both cases, the process was orderly and derived from the will of God... They preached in country and town, and appointed their first-fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe. Thus, the concept of "Apostolic Succession," dates from the first century).

But when on our side we challenge them [that is, the Gnostics] by an appeal to that tradition which derives from the Apostles, and which is preserved in the churches by the successions of the presbyters, then they oppose tradition claiming to be wiser not only than the presbyters but even than the Apostles, and to have discovered the truth undefiled.... This tradition the church has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all men, and has come down to our own day through the successions of bishops (Against Heresies III:2:2; III:3:2).

There is one writer from the second century, however, who did not employ bishop and presbyter as interchangeable terms: St. Ignatios of Antioch. In his Letters, St. Ignatios makes it clear that in a given local Church, there is one bishop, a council of presbyters, and the deacons:

It is commonly asserted by Protestant scholars that St. Ignatios' view of Church government was unusual in the early Church — even revolutionary. Indeed, the authenticity of the Ignatian Letters was hotly contested by many Protestants, based upon their a priori conviction that the episcopal form of Church government was impossible in the first decade of the second century. Today, however, there is little doubt among scholars as to the genuineness of the seven Letters in the current collection.

It cannot be denied that St. Ignatios' clearly defined use of bishop and presbyter is highly unusual for this point in Church history. Nor can it be denied that he places a much greater emphasis on the role of bishop than do the other authors we are considering. However, this does not mean that the actual Church structure he describes was unique to Antioch. On the contrary, an examination of the other documents under consideration will demonstrate that they evince a similar understanding of Church government. (The only exception to this is the Didache, which gives very little information about Church government. The Didache is concerned primarily with the authority of traveling apostles and teachers and takes an almost apologetic attitude toward local clergy. This is a point in favor of dating the Didache in the first century, perhaps as early as A.D. 70. It is highly unlikely that a second century document would give such emphasis to traveling teachers).

Although St. Clement uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably, there is considerable evidence that he has in mind the same kind of Church structure as described by St. Ignatios. This letter was occasioned by dissent within the Corinthian Church. In particular, there was a revolt against the current presbytery. In arguing that the Corinthians should submit to their appointed leaders, St. Clement speaks of the proper order in the Church in terms of the Old Testament ministers of the altar:

Here, St. Clement is describing the proper order of the Church, but he does so using the imagery of the Old Testament. The high priest represents the bishop. (This terminology is still used in the Orthodox Church). The priests represent the presbytery, and the Levites represent the deacons. Notice also that St. Clement specifically mentions the role of the laity. Thus, for St. Clement, the Church has a four-fold structure: bishop, presbyters, deacons, and laity.

Notice also that St. Clement uses specifically cultic imagery. That is, the structure of the Church is presented within the framework of Israel as a worshipping community. In other words, the structure of the Church is directly related to the way She worships God. This point is of the utmost importance, and we shall return to it below.

In Against Heresies, St. Irenaios uses the succession of bishops in the various local Churches as an argument against the Gnostics' claims to have special knowledge handed down secretly from the Apostles. As we saw above, St. Irenaios speaks of the succession of both presbyters and bishops. However, when he gets around to actually listing the succession of bishops for a particular Church — he uses Rome as his example — he gives a single line of succession. That is, he describes one bishop succeeding another. There is no suggestion of multiple successions. Indeed, it is Irenaios who formally identifies St. Clement as the author of the letter from the Church of Rome to the Corinthians:

From the foregoing it is evident that while the terminology regarding the offices of bishop and presbyter remained somewhat fluid in the first and second centuries, the offices themselves were not interchangeable. Ss. Clement and Irenaios, like St. Ignatios, know of only one bishop in a church at a time.

The key to understanding this is provided by St. Justin the Philosopher in his First Apology. In describing the Eucharistic celebration to the emperor he writes:

Notice that he describes the leader of the Church's worship as the president. This is extremely important. Obviously an assembly can have only one president. Regardless of how many presbyters may have been present, only one of them could have presided. (It is possible, of course, that the office of president (ie. bishop) was not held permanently by any one presbyter, but rotated among them. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that this is how the early Church was actually governed. On the contrary, all of the documents from this era, from St. Clement's equating the bishop with the OT high priest to St. Irenaios' list of episcopal successors, explicitly rule out this idea.).

Notice also that this passage deals specifically with the celebration of the Eucharist. Remember that St. Clement treated the topic of Church government within the framework of the Church's worship. The Church is first and foremost a worshipping community, gathered around the Table of Her Lord. Thus, it is precisely the Eucharistic nature of the Church that defines the structure of the Church's ministry. John Meyendorff writes:

St. Ignatios also speaks of the place of the bishop in the Church in terms of the Eucharist:

From the writings of the early Church Fathers such as St. Clement, St. Ignatios, St. Justin, and St. Irenaios, it is evident that the governing structure of the early Church was directly related to Her nature as a Eucharistic community. The Church is most truly Herself when She is gathered around the Table of Her Lord. It is in this most self-expressive of liturgical acts that the various ministries of the Church are delineated.

Christianity did not spring from a vacuum. Jesus Christ did not found a new religion. The first Christians were Jews, and from the very beginning, they viewed the Church as the New Israel. There is no question that Judaism is a liturgical religion. Most Protestants, however, fail to make this liturgical connection between the Old and New Israels.

Within the New Testament there is evidence that the Apostles continued to observe Jewish liturgical practices. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that the literature we have been examining, written by Gentiles long after the Christians had been expelled from the synagogue, also testifies to the fact that Christian worship was based on Jewish patterns.

In the first century, Jews prayed at set times of the day and fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The Didache enjoins Christians to fast and pray, but in a way that differentiates them from the Jews:

The important thing to notice about this passage is that although the early Christians were eager to disassociate themselves from the Jews, they nevertheless saw their life and worship in terms of Jewish liturgical practice. Concerning the Eucharist we read:

Notice that the Eucharist is considered an "offering" and a "sacrifice." These non-Jewish Christians understood their worship as a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Their interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, according to the Law of Moses, sacrifices were to be offered only in the tabernacle or in the temple in Jerusalem, and only by the Aaronic priesthood. Only in the Christian Church — the New Israel — is it possible to offer a pure sacrifice in every place.

St. Clement also speaks of Christian worship in terms of its Old Testament prototype. He warns the Corinthians that they must not revolt against their appointed leaders, for only those appointed by God are able to offer the sacrifice of the altar. There can be only one Church, and one offering:

It should be stressed at this point that these Christians were not practicing Jewish rituals. Indeed, St. Ignatios goes so far as to say, "It is monstrous to speak of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism" (Magnesians 10:3). They were practicing Christian worship, but their worship patterns were based on Jewish patterns. (It has become popular in some circles for Evangelicals to celebrate the Jewish Passover seder. This would have been seen by the early Church as an act of apostasy. Christ, and Christ alone, is the Passover). St. Irenaios of Lyons makes this perfectly clear. He too interprets Malachi 1:10-11 as a prophecy of Christian worship:

Speaking specifically about the difference between Christian and Jewish worship, St. Irenaios states:

A college New Testament professor of mine once outlined the order of service for a Jewish synagogue of the first century for our class. He then drew direct comparisons between the synagogue service and a typical Baptist service. We were all rather impressed by the fact that our worship practices had their roots in Jewish worship.

Far more important, however, than what we learned in class that day was what we did not learn. Our professor neglected to inform us that this basic pattern is that of the liturgy of the Word, which is common to most Christian traditions. In his Apology, St. Justin describes the Sunday service in the second century as having two basic parts. In the first part the Scriptures are read and explained in the sermon, and in the second part the Eucharist is offered.

The liturgy of the Word, not unlike the typical Baptist service, is indeed patterned after synagogue services. However, the Sunday service in St. Justin's day — and today in the Orthodox Church — did not end with the liturgy of the Word. We must remember that, strictly speaking, the worship of Israel did not take place in the synagogues. The synagogue derives from the period of exile in Babylon. There is no provision for the synagogue in the Law of Moses. (The purpose of the synagogue is primarily educational. Likewise, the purpose of the liturgy of the Word is to instruct Christians and catechumens in the faith, so that they might be prepared to participate in the Eucharist). Indeed, as we saw above, the only place where Israel was authorized to offer sacrifice was in the temple in Jerusalem.

The documents we are considering testify to the fact that the early Christians saw their worship precisely in terms of sacrifice. As an Evangelical, however, I was taught that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross put an end to all sacrifice. How, then, do we reconcile the undeniable practice of the early Church with the uniqueness and finality of Christ's work?

When St. John the Baptist first encountered Christ, he exclaimed, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This theme is echoed in the Book of Revelation. John beholds a Lamb upon the throne as the angels and elders sing, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12).

St. Paul writes that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). In Hebrews we read:

Jesus Christ is, therefore, our Passover Lamb, slain for the salvation of the world. (According to St. John¹s chronology, Saturday was the Passover. The Passover seder would have been on Friday night. This means that Christ died as the Passover lamb was being sacrificed). Moreover, His Sacrifice is perfect and can never be repeated. There can be no doubt that the Crucifixion of Christ is the apex of all human history.

There is a tendency in Protestantism, however, to limit the Cross of Christ to a point in history. That the Sacrifice of Christ cannot be repeated is taken to mean that it can only be remembered as a past event. Thus, the Lord's Supper is a "memorial" — an act of psychological remembrance.

This is manifestly not how the early Church saw things. To begin with, the Greek word for remembrance — This do in remembrance of Me (1 Cor. 11:24) — has an active connotation. It involves more than the mere psychological act of remembering. It implies the representation of the event remembered:

Thus, the Eucharist is an active participation, here and now, in the unique and unrepeatable Sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. It is not merely an act of reminiscence, but an act of genuine Communion with Christ:

In his Letters, St. Ignatios takes great pains to counter the claims of the Docetists, who maintained that the Word of God had taken flesh in appearance only, not in reality. These people, seeing themselves as more spiritual than the rest of the Church, absented themselves from the worship of the Church. What is most interesting, however is the reason why they did not participate in the Eucharist:

In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man. There is, in the eyes of the Fathers of the early Church, a direct and unbreakable correlation between the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist. To deny one is to deny the other.

Writing to the emperor of Rome, St. Justin also makes an explicit connection between the Eucharist and the Incarnation. Just as the Word of God became man in the Incarnation, even so the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

St. Irenaios is even more specific about the relationship of the Eucharist to the Incarnation. His primary target in Against Heresies is Gnosticism. Among other things, the Gnostics taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God of Christ were two different Gods. Furthermore, they explicitly disdained creation, asserting that matter is not capable of being a true vehicle for the spirit. Irenaios, therefore, goes to great pains to affirm both the inherent goodness of God's creation and the reality of the Incarnation:

We saw that earlier in the second century the Docetists whom St. Ignatios opposed absented themselves from the Eucharist because they did not believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. They may have been heretics, but at least they were consistent. According to Irenaios, the Gnostics were not consistent. They called creation evil and denied that Christ had truly suffered and died, yet apparently they continued to participate in the Church's worship. Irenaios was quick to point out the discrepancy between their theology and their practice:

There are two aspects of this passage that are of crucial importance for our study. First of all, St. Irenaios states, "But our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion." In other words, his theology is in accord with the worship and life of the Church, and the worship and life of the Church confirm the truthfulness of His theology. (What would happen if we pressed modern Evangelicals to demonstrate the continuity between their professed theology and the way they worship? If in the early Church belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist implied the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, that in Christ God had truly become man, then what would be the logical implication of the Zwinglian view that the Eucharist is not truly the Body and Blood of Christ?).

This is another example of how the Fathers of the early Church appealed to the life of the Church-tradition-in order to settle theological disputes. Earlier in Against Heresies, Irenaios actually talks about the relationship between Scripture and tradition. He says that when the Gnostics are refuted from the Scriptures, they claim that there is something wrong with the Scriptures. They then rely on their own tradition, which, they claim, has been handed down secretly (III:2:1).

To this secret tradition, St. Irenaios opposes the tradition handed down by the Apostles and maintained publicly by the bishops in the Church. (By publicly I mean the tradition that was open and available to all the baptized members of the Church. This tradition, however, would not have been made available to those outside the Church. See the discussion of St. Basil's understanding of tradition in Ch. 7. The Gnostics claimed to have a tradition that was not public knowledge within the Church, but was accessible only to a small spiritual elite). For Irenaios, Apostolic Succession is not merely a means of insuring valid Church government, it is also a public guarantee of the authenticity of the Church's teaching:

It is, no doubt, difficult for Evangelicals to understand why the Fathers of the Early Church would place so much emphasis upon tradition, particularly upon worship. We are used to thinking that we do x because we believe y. It can be somewhat disconcerting, therefore, to hear someone assert the inverse as well: we believe y because we do x. Yet, this is precisely what St. Irenaios is saying.

This brings us to the second notable aspect of St. Irenaios' argument: "…so our bodies, after partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the eternal resurrection." For Irenaios, as for the other Fathers of the second century, as for Orthodox Christians today, the Eucharist is genuine Communion with Christ. It is our participation in His divine humanity.

The reason that St. Irenaios is able to interpret the Scriptures based on the way He worships in the second century is because that which is described in the Bible is experienced first-hand in the life of the Church. The Scriptures testify to Christ; the Church is life in Christ.

St. Ignatios writes to the Church in Philadelphia:

Ss. Ignatios and Irenaios understood that there is little point in arguing about Scriptural interpretation. They are able to interpret the Scriptures correctly not because they are smarter than others, but because in the Church they have true union with Christ. The Church is not a voluntary assembly of individuals who happen to have common beliefs about God, She is the mystical Body of Christ, His continuing presence in the world. ("Ignatius is no decetist [sic]. Christ came in flesh and we are to 'flee to the gospel as the flesh of Jesus Christ.' But that historical coming in the flesh is really and timelessly present in the church now' so that to 'flee to the presbytery' is to flee to the apostles. The ekklisia or eucharistic assembly represents a reality which entered time and history and is significant just because it is such. Union with the bishop in union with the diaconate and presbyterate establishes contact therefore with an historically grounded reality. Christ is incarnate in the flesh and as such there will be represented in the church which is the extension of the incarnation the dual character of flesh and Spirit of him who is both 'Son of David' and 'Son of God."' A. Brent, "Pseudonymity and Charisma," Augustinianum 27, 1987, p. 351).

(worship_early_church_ext.doc, 12-04-2001).

Edited by Donald Shufran