The Part Played By Religious Persecution
Under Roman auspices, Judaism persecuted the church at Jerusalem right after its beginning in the first century. Both were Jewish, the religion of Israel and the church, and the Roman Empire didn’t distinguish between the two. To Rome, the church was a mere sect of the Jewish religion. With more conversion to Christ and the spread of churches across the then-known world, Rome began persecuting churches across its Empire.
Subservience to Jesus Christ threatened allegiance to Rome. This replayed in future centuries under nations and other governments where states required devotion and sought to eliminate their competition. The Roman Empire became steeped in polytheism, including worship of the Roman emperor. This clashed with New Testament churches of the first century, threatening the Roman view of the world and presaging an uprising.
As Christianity began to spread, it faced increasing hostility from both local populations and the Roman state, which viewed it as a challenge to traditional religious practices and societal norms. The need for cohesion became paramount as churches sought to protect themselves from external threats. The decentralized nature of early and biblical Christianity, characterized by local congregations each led by a single bishop, seemed inadequate to address the challenges posed by the power of the secular government.
Consolidation of Power and Pragmatism
Leaders of churches consolidated power into prominent pastors and churches, leading to a hierarchy among churches and their elders. This resulted in the emergence of bishops who could oversee multiple congregations and coordinate responses to persecution, thereby fostering a sense of unity across different regions. They reinvented church government by adding layers of extra scriptural authority, in part so they could disseminate information more efficiently regarding threats across regions to cope with persecution.
Newly conceived extra-scriptural and hierarchical networks organized mutual support among churches to share resources, send aid to persecuted members, or coordinate collective actions against oppressive measures imposed by local authorities of the Roman Empire. The idea here was that New Testament government wasn’t suitable to face its opposition. This new type of government was superior and more efficient. Rather than biblical, it was pragmatic. To defend this pragmatism with scripture necessitated reassigning new definitions to the already plain meaning of the text of the New Testament.
Altering Scriptural Roles
The term “bishop” (from the Greek word episkopos, meaning overseer) began to be used to describe leaders who had authority over multiple congregations. This altered the scriptural role of the bishop over only his congregation, not other pastors and churches. Nothing substantial in the first two centuries in historical writings advocates for something more than local leadership of pastors in separate churches. Since Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, the church at Rome took on prominence in this new iteration of ecclesiological organization.
Skilled and successful pastors, actual ones, shepherding their congregations according to the New Testament could become marked for higher authority in these newly devised positions. Bigger is very often thought to be better. Seeking for greater things meant something beyond local only, even if that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ started and the New Testament taught. Men rationalized these new offices with a need to help the churches. They could both complement and supplement the churches in a protective and helpful manner. This meant though also deferring to these more powerful offices.
Human government doesn’t tend toward shrinking. The tendency is toward something bigger and even intrusive, exerting power over people. Many suggest that Nicolaitism represented an early form of clerical hierarchy where church leaders exercised dominion over laypeople. Etymological analysis supports this notion. When breaking down “Nicolaitan” into Greek components, it means “conquering” (nike) and “people” (laos), implying a conquering authority over the laity. Revelation 2:6 and 15 chronicle the rise of Nicolaitism in the first century.
Defenses of New Positions and Perverting Doctrine
New theories emerged about the nature of the church to justify innovations in governance of churches. All of this, men deemed, would work better, but it meant finding this in scripture too. The Petrine theory emerged from passages in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 16:18-19, saying that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock upon which He will build His church. This presented Peter with a unique role among the apostles.
The concept of apostolic succession began to develop, suggesting that Peter, as one of Jesus’ closest disciples, passed on his authority to his successors in Rome. Early ecclesiastical leaders such as Irenaeus and Clement of Rome acknowledged a connection between Peter and the bishopric of Rome. They deemed regional power over churches like the apostles. In his writings, Against the Heretics (3:3:2), Irenaeus writes:
We point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus held up Polycarp as an example of apostolic succession. By the late second century, figures like Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged the special status of the church in Rome due to its association with Peter and Paul. This recognition laid groundwork for later claims about papal authority.
More to Come
Kent wrote:
“ Many suggest that Nicolaitism represented an early form of clerical hierarchy where church leaders exercised dominion over laypeople.”
The only example in the Bible is of a local assembly not accepting a brother in Christ (2 John).
All other examples of churches “working together” (Acts15, 2 Corinthians 8) in an organized and administrative manner are positive!
So, scripture alone shows that it is more prevalent that individualism (autonomy) leads to Nicolaitism rather than the other way around.
Tom
Hi Tom,
That’s not what happened though. Hierarchicalism did not come from church autonomy, but from expanding beyond the biblical bounds of authority. Apostolic succession was an invention or innovation to enable an unscriptural, extra-scriptural hierarchy. You don’t have any biblical or historical proof to this idea of yours, that I have heard only from you in my entire life, that the autonomy of a church results in hierarchy. Autonomy contradicts hierarchy. I’m not going to keep writing on this issue, because I’ve already heard it from you and debunked it scripturally. I’m not going to go around again with you on this. I’m not writing this series to you to deal with things you’ve said. I’m writing it as a matter of historical theology, indicating how these concepts developed.
Kent wrote:
“ Leaders of churches consolidated power into prominent pastors and churches, leading to a hierarchy among churches and their elders.”
It is not a hierarchy that the Bible teaches.
“But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;” (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10)
It is centered around “brotherly love” where the functions and administrative roles are to promote such things as truth, the gospel, discipleship, holy living, family unity and such like things.
This is not a hierarchy, but structured up-down as well as down-up. A balanced system that is designed in a way to keep all churches functioning honestly together and when trouble arises, orderly meetings to determine the cause and meet out justice when necessary.
Tom
Expanding authority to outside of a church isn’t love. Love is of the truth. The church, which is only an assembly in scripture, is the pillar and ground of the truth. God gave each church the means to keep the truth pure. This doesn’t occur with something bigger, unscripturally bigger, than an assembly. This globalist view brings the corruption, deception, and perversion of a one world church, like the political and religious Babylon of Revelation 17-18. Again, I’m not going to keep discussing this with you.
Meaning, you have no answers to the biblical truth that is against what you teach and therefore refuse to discuss it.
Let the ignorant be ignorant.
Tom
Tom,
No, I’ve already answered your claims and a definition of insanity is trying the exact same thing and expecting different results. I’ve written on this subject a lot. Intimidation isn’t going to work. With those types of comments, I would consider not having you comment and a lot of people would be happy if I did. You have not at all answered the generic use of the singular noun. Ever. You very often read into scripture your positions.
Kent wrote:
“No, I’ve already answered your claims and a definition of insanity is trying the exact same thing and expecting different results.”
Do you actually believe 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10
1> First part is to love the brethren within the local church.
2> Love the brethren in all of Macedonia.
3> It finishes with that you should increase more and more.
Q1- If I am to actually love my brethren from other local churches in Macedonia, would it not seem reasonable that all these churches had common ground (articles of faith) that they all believed?
Q2- If the church in Thessalonica was told to go above even Macedonia, would it seem reasonable to conclude that these churches had a “common faith” which they are adhered to by administration through an organized system of biblical doctrines of the faith?
If not, explain in practical application on how you are to do what those verses command you to do. They go perfectly along with Acts 15 and 2 Corinthians 8.
Tom
What do you think, Tom? Do I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10?
It actually hurts your view, if you were to believe it. Paul says, “Ye,” excluding himself. He tells them to love one another. Why? If the church is universal, why not say, “Love the church,” meaning, “Love every believer,” because they would have known that. And yet, he says, “Ye.” I would think you might be curious for someone who believes like you, to see this distinction. But you don’t see it, because of this myopia, reading into the text this mystical view of the church.
Scripture teaches a familial love between brethren. All of them would have believed like I do, these separate churches in Macedonia, tied together by a common belief, not a common toleration of false doctrine, just ignoring that this person is infant baptism, this person believes in women preachers, etc. Just ignore all that, get along, which isn’t love. But if there is to be this unity between all believers, disregarding major doctrinal and practical differences. No. Each church has its pastor, discipline, the ordinances, unique authority.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for this post.
I have noticed that Catholics have made early patristic writers more Catholic with later forgeries inserted into earlier writings. Do you happen to know how much textual evidence we have that Irenaeus actually wrote what is in that quote? I’m not saying he didn’t, but if it turns out that it isn’t in Greek but only in Latin manuscripts of his writings, or something like that, it wouldn’t surprise me, either.
Thank you.
I appreciated your comments on the recent interview about that. It’s not something I was aware of, so helpful. I think it is good for people to know that they might not be able to trust the manuscript evidence for the patristics.
My point, as you know, is that external factors affected the history of doctrine, including and especially the doctrine of the church, since the universal church isn’t in the Bible.
Yes, you are certainly 100% right about that. Thanks.