The office of "bishop" was non-existent in the first century: number of sources demonstrate this fact. There were EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI, but no "bishops" in the technical sense of the word. Francis Beare writes concerning Phil 1:1:
"The two words translated bishops and deacons have been much debated. In the second century they became specialized in ecclesiastical usage; the bishop as the head of the local Christian community, the deacons as his assistants in whatever duties he might assign them."
Beare then adds: "Negatively, it may be said that the use of the plurals [in Phil 1:1] rules out any possibility that the Philippian church is governed by a monarchical bishop."
After citing Polycarp and other sources, Beare concludes: "This passing reference [to EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI in Phil 1:1] does not provide us with any crumb of information about the status or function of EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI at Philippi; and we are not entitled to read into them in this context the significance which belongs to them in later Catholic usage" (Francis Beare, Epistle to the Philippians, 1959, pp 49-50).
So while the Primitive Congregation used EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI, it does not follow that these "offices" were hierarchically arranged or that these men were leaders of the Church. The EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI were "individuals designated for special service within the Church and perhaps subject to the Church" (Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Series, page 8).
Heinrich Meyer also reasons: "We may add that placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by SUN, are characteristic of the relation between the two [the overseers, assistants and the flock], which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation" (Meyer, Philippians and
Colossians, page 14).
Jesus Christ issued this command: "Neither be called 'leaders,' [KAQHGHTAI] for your Leader [KAQHGHTHS] is one, the Christ [hO XRISTOS]" (Mt 23:10 NWT).
Admittedly, the term translated "Leader" can evidently mean either "leader, master, guide, teacher or professor." Certain scholars favor the sense "teachers" in this passage, but I think that "leader" is just as likely in view of Mt 23:6-8.
The Geneva Bible of 1599 has: "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ."
"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master,[even] the Christ" (ASV).
"nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ" (YLT).
One could argue that Jesus is saying that his followers should not be called "leaders" or "teachers" (i.e., they should not be given these titles). But I think such an argument, if valid, simply makes the important point.
Ellicott's Commentary: "Neither be ye called masters.—The word is not the same as in Matthew 23:8, and signifies 'guide,' or 'leader;' the 'director' of conscience rather than the teacher. (Comp. Romans 2:19.)"
2 comments:
The assertion that "bishop" was a non-existent office in the first century overlooks the evolving nature of ecclesiastical language and structure. While it's true that the term "episkopos" was not always used in the highly specialized, technical sense seen in later centuries, this does not negate the existence of a clear hierarchical structure. As early as the New Testament period, the terms episkopos (overseer) and presbyteros (elder) were used interchangeably to describe leaders within the Church, who exercised authority and governance over Christian communities.
In Acts 20:28, Paul addresses the elders (presbyteroi) of the church in Ephesus, calling them overseers (episkopoi) and charging them to "shepherd the church of God." This indicates that, even in the first century, there was a recognized leadership role for those referred to as episkopoi, whose function was not merely administrative but pastoral. The interchangeable usage of episkopos and presbyteros does not imply an absence of hierarchy, but rather that the titles were still in a state of fluidity.
Francis Beare's claim that the use of the plural "episkopoi" in Philippians 1:1 rules out a monarchical bishop is problematic for several reasons. First, the plurality of overseers in the early Church reflects the common practice of multiple elders or overseers serving in a local community, especially during the Church's formative years. This does not undermine the later development of a single bishop's office as the head of the local church. In fact, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, already affirms the presence of a single bishop overseeing each local church, alongside a body of presbyters and deacons. His writings (e.g., Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1) demonstrate a clear transition to the monarchical episcopacy, which had its roots in the structure of the first-century Church.
The transition from a collegial leadership model to a more centralized monarchical episcopacy occurred organically as the Church grew. This development was not a sudden innovation, but rather a response to the practical needs of governing expanding Christian communities and safeguarding apostolic teaching.
Contrary to the claim that episkopoi and diakonoi were merely "individuals designated for special service within the Church and perhaps subject to the Church," they played vital leadership roles. 1 Timothy 3:1-13 clearly outlines the qualifications for episkopoi (overseers) and diakonoi (deacons), indicating their importance in guiding and serving the Church. Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus also imply a structured, hierarchical Church with overseers who held positions of authority, teaching, and governance. For example, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, noting that an elder (presbyteros) must be "blameless" as "God’s steward" (episkopos).
The oversight responsibilities given to episkopoi were pastoral and authoritative, not merely administrative. Their role as "overseers" of the flock (as seen in 1 Peter 5:2) shows that they were entrusted with the care and leadership of the community, refuting the argument that they were not leaders or did not hold a hierarchical position.
Beare’s citation of Polycarp to suggest that the term "bishop" did not mean what it later came to signify is an incomplete view of early Christian leadership. Polycarp himself, as bishop of Smyrna, held a position of clear authority within his community. The fact that Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of Polycarp, emphasizes the central role of the bishop in maintaining unity and doctrinal purity further underscores that the hierarchical role of bishops was already well established by the early second century, if not earlier.
The argument based on Matthew 23:10 ("Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ") misunderstands Jesus' intention. Jesus is not forbidding titles such as "leader" or "teacher" in a literal sense, as he himself appointed apostles with clear leadership roles. The passage in context criticizes the Pharisees for seeking titles as marks of personal honor and authority over others. The New Testament elsewhere affirms leadership roles within the Church (e.g., Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders and submit to them"), showing that Jesus was not abolishing leadership, but rather condemning the pride and self-exaltation that often accompanied such titles among the religious elite of his time.
Heinrich Meyer’s comment that the placement of episkopoi and deacons after the church in Philippians 1:1 reflects a lack of hierarchical dislocation misses the point of the early Church’s fluid terminology. The structure of the early Church was indeed hierarchical, but the terminology was still developing. Meyer's observation does not disprove the hierarchical nature of the Church but highlights that the terms episkopos and presbyteros had not yet fully differentiated in their specific meanings. However, by the end of the first century, as demonstrated by Ignatius and others, this hierarchy was clearly articulated, with the bishop serving as the head of the local Church.
Post a Comment