Authority and Apostolic Teaching in the Nascent Church
In this present series on the early Church and the development of certain fundamental doctrines and practices I believe the first idea that we should examine is the issue of authority and apostolic teaching. There are certain issues and teachings that we see touched upon in the New Testament writings but whose interpretations are not immediately clear. The advantage then of looking at the early Fathers of the Church, especially those few whom we know knew the Apostles and learned from them is that through them we are given significant insight into not just what the early Church wrote in what would become the New Testament, but also how these teachings were understood by those whom the Apostles entrusted with teaching and passing on these doctrines.
The necessity of the soundness of doctrinal teaching, and the means of ensuring it, is brought up by St. Paul especially in his Letter to Titus and his First Letter to Timothy. Paul says to Titus, whom he has appointed as overseer of the Christian community in Crete: "But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). In order to ensure that sound doctrine is taught with consistency, Paul has instructed Titus to appoint presbyter/bishops (I write it in this way because it is likely that in the beginning, the office of bishop and the office of presbyter were not separate in the way they would very soon come to be, as we will see presently). The presbyters and bishops were appointed through the laying of hands, thus conferring upon them the gifts (charisma) of the Holy Spirit necessary to their office.
In the Letter to Titus, Paul recognizes that there was defective teaching occurring there, and it was for this reason that he instructed Titus to appoint presbyter/bishops in every town. They were to be holy men of sound judgment and wisdom, and they were to act with and be recognized for their apostolic authority, as the authoritative teachers of authentic doctrine. Thus Paul writes to Titus in regards to the bishop that "he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). Note here that Paul refers to the bishops as holding firm to the sure word as taught. The teaching entrusted to the bishop is the teaching received by the Apostles from Christ and handed down, and the bishops then are stewards of that teaching.
Timothy is in the community at Ephesus, and Paul writes to him concerning very similar issues. Once again, the authenticity of apostolic teaching is of paramount importance. Paul writes that he urged Timothy to remain in Ephesus so that he "may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Tim 1:3). He tells Timothy that in order to be a good minister of Jesus Christ he must teach the good doctrine that was taught to him (cf. 1 Tim 4:6, 11). And again, as with Titus, in order to ensure that this sound doctrine is taught and preached, Paul instructs Timothy as to the qualifications that make for good bishops and deacons.
As I mentioned in the post introducing this present series, Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle and was himself a bishop appointed to oversee Antioch, probably sometime around the year A.D. 67. He would have received there teaching from Paul, from Peter (there is a tradition that Peter directly ordained him as Bishop of Antioch), certainly from John, and from many other first generation disciples of Jesus. Looking at his writings then we are able to glean a keen insight into how someone who himself was appointed and ordained into this office of bishop mentioned by Paul would have recognized the nature of the Church as he himself learned it from the Apostles.
In Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians we see explicitly that the bishop is not only the teacher of sound doctrine, but in fact is to be regarded as a representative of Christ on earth:
Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.
It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment.
Several points are worth considering in the above excerpt. First, of a somewhat superficial matter, but while presbyter does refer to an "elder," in the early Church it was not necessarily someone of any particular age, but rather someone of advanced wisdom, and it was a particular office of anointing which required certain qualifications, thus why Ignatius needs to defend the bishop here against any attempts to undermine him due to his youth. Second, and this becomes more explicit in other letters, but while in Paul's pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus there did not appear to be a difference in the office of bishop and presbyter, by the time we get to the letters of Ignatius they were clearly two distinct and separate offices.
But most importantly is the authority that Ignatius, disciple of John who learned directly from the Apostles, tells the Magnesians that they must recognize in the bishop. The bishop is in fact to be obeyed just as the Father, and thus Christians must submit to the bishop, for he is indeed granted authority. And as we see in Paul, the primary responsibility of this authority is the assurance of sound doctrine. Thus Ignatius writes again in the same letter:
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one. Be not deceived with strange doctrines.
The link here is clearly made from the presbyters to the bishops, from the bishops to the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to the Father. Though not stated explicitly here, the common thread linking all of these is the Holy Spirit, for it is He who ensures that this authority always exists in the Church.
The important thing on which to focus in all of this is that the soundness of doctrine was and is of the utmost importance, and in the very early Church measures were taken to ensure that sound doctrine was taught, false doctrine strongly rebuked and refuted, and that the Church would always abide in the Holy Spirit, and that this Spirit would especially run through the ordained leaders of these communities. Leaders were chosen, ordained, and upon whom, through the laying of hands, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were conferred. This will conclude this first examination of the nascent Church, and hopefully will both encourage fruitful discussion and also segue well into the next topic for discussion (on which I have yet to decide).