by rassillon 17 Replies latest watchtower bible
One that held that position, what were they responsible for?
I understand that congregations were communal and shared resources.
Was an Episkope an overseer of Spiritual matters or physical needs such as food and money, political structure?
I guess I am asking an "overseer" of "what"?
-r
Episkopè and episkopos are very common Greek words for many kinds of charges and responsibilities, but they didn't become a specifically Christian technical term, for one "bishop/overseer" (vs. several presbuteroi = "elders" or "priests"), as already emerges in the Pastorals, and is clear in Ignatius' epistles, before the late 1st- or (rather) early 2nd-century. The Hellenistic churches of that period were definitely not communal -- and they probably never were, since (idealised) communality is presented as a quasi-exclusive feature of the Jerusalem "church". Think of all the stress in Pauline and post-Pauline literature on "earning one's living" and taking care of one's relatives. Sociologically the Hellenistic churches depended on the patronage of wealthy Christians in whose "house" the congregation met, and those patrons would naturally have held much power of every kind (a feature which is heavily criticised in the epistle of James): either they became the episkopoi or they were chosen in their close circle. In the Pastorals and Ignatius the episkopè is mostly "spiritual," and it is especially about keeping the "sound doctrine" (the emerging orthodoxy) and church discipline against the perceived threats of (overwhelmingly gnostic) heresy.
Narkissos
When I wrote communal I meant not that they all lived together but rather ones in the church which had more would share with those who were in need. A community inside a community
I suppose I chose the wrong word.
Regarding your quoting Ignatius, I was reading on BGreek that the POV expressed in his writing were not actually representative of the thought found in the NT but rather a post early christian (if that makes sense) viewpoint. I am not an expert and may just be misunderstanding.
It seems that the terms "overseer" and "elder" were used interchangeably. (Compare 1 Tim. 3 with Titus l) This oversight probably included matters other than "spiritual ones." For example, there was the collection for the brothers in Jerusalem that Paul mentions. And the distribution of food to the widows. The logical oversight of such projects would fall upon the overseers who, in turn, might delegate some responsibility to the others as was done in the example of the 12 apostles. (Acts 6)
In any case, Jesus' counsel applied to any of those who took leadership roles in the early church: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." Mark 9:35
I agree that the use of episkopos/è in the Pastorals doesn't point nearly as clearly as Ignatius to a "monarchical episcopate". However, the fact that the episkopos in the Pastorals is always referred to in the singular suggests that the church is, at least, heading this way. And, perhaps, that it is already the prevailing pattern.
I wouldn't read too much into the plural presbuteroi in Titus 1:5, as this introductive sentence is a generality ascribing to Paul, in the past, the origin (and authority) of the church organisation (or hierarchy), as valid everywhere (kata polin, in every city). As soon as the text gets into the specifics, it shifts to the singular (v. 6ff) -- and there theepiskopos pops in as the evident contemporary reference (v. 7).
I agree that the episkopos' authority extends to material issues (such as the lists of "widows" eligible to material support by the church) but it is certainly not limited to that: the episkopos' oversight is also on teaching (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9) and on church government (1 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:7). Actually there is hardly any concrete, human, limitation of this authority. So there may be less of a distance between the real setting of the Pastorals and Ignatius than many assume...
Sorry double post (again).
Was an Episkope an overseer of Spiritual matters or physical needs such as food and money, political structure?
There was the Jewish custom of relying on the better educated, capable or informed among themselves for special services, But the Apostle Paul was the only Apostle to specifically appoint such men to counter the apostasy that was corrupting the faith in his territories. This came mainly from the Jews among them that were still keeping the Law and teaching this as a basis for salvation. However some of the Gentile believers were also builty of apostate teaching as documented in the letter they sent to him. 1Cor. 7:1 Such men like Timothy and the ones they appointed by laying on of hands were specifically appointed for this task. In this way a measure of Paul's authority as one of the 12 was passed on to them. There is no evidence that this would or could continue after such a physical contact with Paul or another of the apostles was no longer available. Today people making such appointments have no supernatural capabilities or authority as Paul did and as the ones he authorized had. All we have today is the custom once again with no real scriptural authorization as shown in the NT texts.
Joseph
I'm not familiar with the details, but it would also be interesting to compare the mbqr "overseer" of the Qumran Yachad.... I'm sure that would be of comparative interest, as well as the secular use of episkopos in the period...To kinda link up with jgnat's thread, the episkopos in Aristophanes was a judicial inspector who was authorized to examine the courts in Athens and who carried the urns containing the acquittal pebbles.
J.M.
Excellent points! There seems to be some evidence in the scriptures that the church would remain in a confused and mixed state after the death of the apostles and early Christian leaders. If John's letters to the seven churches (Revelation) reflect the spiritual condition of the church in the "end time" as some believe, it would demonstrate just how corrupt and degenerate the majority would become. According to John, it wasn't the "overseers" or "elders" in these churches that were going to set the example. Rather, it was up to each individual to "overcome" and remain faithful in spite of the condition of the church and its leaders.
Even in some of Jesus' parables he spoke of the "weeds" among the "wheat" that would exist until the "harvest" time. So the human appointments to these positions would be just that "HUMAN appointments." For any church today to boast that it is "apostolic" or that is has returned to the early Christian arrangment is simply not true.
Narkissos... I'm sure this has been addressed before, but my memory is failing me. What do you think was the intended meaning in Acts 20:17,28? I thought that Acts is roughly contemporaneous with the pastorals, but the same group of people are referred to as 'elders' and overseers'. Was 'overseers' simply a generic, non-titular use of the term?
