100AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). The Second Big Transition
One might think of the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 as codifying the first big transition in the church. At the council a major decision was made (or was identified that the Holy Spirit had already made it). That is that a Greek can become a Christian without also becoming (behaviorally or culturally) a Jew. In essence, Christianity formally recognized that it was a Universal Faith, rather than an Ethnic Faith.
I would argue that the end of the first century AD marks the second big transition. However, unlike the first, I don’t think one can identify it in only one aspect.
The original founders of the faith (The Twelve, the Seventy, the other early apostles, such as Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, and so forth) have died. It would not be accurate to call this a second generation— rather it was a third generation by this time… with only the oldest among them having interacted with the original Christians in a meaningful way. Due to this, major changes were taking place.
#1. The church was not seen as centered on the apostles. There are groups today that emphasize apostolic succession. And there was certainly, in some sense, apostolic succession. However, it does not seem to be in a vocational sense. By the early 2nd century, the church used the title “apostle” pretty much exclusively for The Twelve plus Paul. There were still people who carried out the original calling of the apostles (evangelizing and church planting) but they were not generally called apostles— a bit of an indication that they saw this new generation as doing the work of the original apostles but not formally taking on “their mantle” or authority (however one chooses to define such authority). Later in the 2nd century the idea of “apostolic succession” was seen rather as more of a logical succession. In response to groups deemed heretical who claimed to have the “secret doctrines of Jesus and the apostles,” the argument was made that if there was any “secrets” they would have been passed on to their true successors, the leadership of the churches they founded.
If one thinks about it, this sort of succession points to the fact that apostles did NOT have a unique authority. Rather, they had a unique role. They were church planters… and as church planters, their role was not, primarily, to create new church planters, but to create new churches and establish new church leaders. This is what continues for the next 2000 years. Church planters evangelize and establish churches, develop local leaders and then move on. Apostles, then are primarily outside of the church… but not because they were above the local church… but because they were BEFORE the local church. That seems to be apostolic authority… the authority of a parent, NOT of a ruler.
#2. During this time, there is a transition from the authority of the spoken word to the authority of the written word. This is nothing new. This happened in Judaism in the Intertestamental Period. During that time, rabbis became more important than prophets. Some have said that the prophetic word disappeared during the Intertestamental period. However, looking at the available evidence it seems as if the prophetic word was seen as continuing but lacking the same authority as it had before. The canon of Hebrew Scripture was established during this period, and rabbis were focused on interpreting and contextualizing authoritative Scripture rather than seeking a prophetic word. The same thing happened in the early church. The early church had apostles and prophets (church planters and traveling preachers),. However, with the passing of the original apostles it became more important to both collect early writings, and to identify what is canon (authoritative). While it took many decades to come to a full consensus of what is canon (driven again by a response to what was deemed to be heretics), writings in the time of the Apostolic Fathers and the Patristic Fathers show a huge dependence not only on Hebrew Scriptures, but also writings of the first century apostles.
It is clear pretty early on that there were concerns about “false apostles” and “false prophets.” Such concerns go back into the New Testament writers as well as the next generation of early writings such as the Didache and the works of the Apologists. Christianity would be a religion based on the Word (Jesus) and the Word (canonized scripture) rather than on living prophets.
#3. During this time there was a transition to the centrality of the local church. As noted before, the Christian leaders of the 2nd century were not apostles/missionaries, prophets, evangelists, or any such thing. Rather they were bishops of local churches. Some people find it strange that the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was headed by James (the half brother of Jesus) rather than by the Twelve. That however, pointed out that the Apostles were not church leaders. They established churches and parented churches, but they did not run churches.
It is interesting that today there has been a move in some denominations to reestablish the title of Apostle. I find it interesting because it seems that these denominations also place Apostle within the church leadership hierarchy. The establishing of power within churches and denominational hierarchies has become so normalized that seeing Apostles as not tied to the flow of power in a church structure does not seem to be entertained.
#4. New roles began to form that took on some of the roles of the early evangelists. That, however, will be saved for a later post.
Form more information, I have a blogpost and an article to look at:
