What was an Episkope in the 1st century Christian Congregation

by rassillon 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Was 'overseers' simply a generic, non-titular use of the term?

  Imo yes, at the simplest level of reading, and it is quite natural in the context of the shepherd/flock metaphor which uses the related verbs episkeptomai / episkopeô quite often (LXX, Jeremiah 23:2; Ezekiel 34:11f; Zechariah 11:16 etc.; cf.1 Peter 5:2).

  And at the same time it certainly alludes to episkopos as a current/emerging title.

  It is not either/or, if the very point of the Acts passage in its own setting (just as the pseudepigraphy of the Pastorals) is to groundthe current development (the church gradually uniting around their one "bishop" in the face of threatening centrifugal "heresies," cf. the "wolves" of Acts 20, which are relevant to the author's situation, not to the narrative of Acts per se) into Paul's words as a past reference -- hence necessarily to be set in the earlier, still known, pattern of collective leadership (presbuteroi). Not so different from Titus 1:5 from this perspective.

  This kind of "double entendre" is essential to the narrative construction of Acts and the Gospels, which deal with current issues from the standpoint of the author(s) through past narratives which have to be kept plausible as such.
• 

  rassillon

  Thanks for everyones input.
• 

  Euphemism

  That makes perfect sense, Narkissos; thanks.
• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  I would like to know if there is any significance to the fact that in 1Tim 3:2 it speaks about "the overseer" giving the sense that there is a single position of bishop but when it gives the qualifications for ministerial servants it refers to "Ministerial Servants" suggesting that there would be many of these in a congregation.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi proplog,

  Afaik diakonos as a specific office title (sometimes hard to separate from the broader sense of "servant, minister"; the Vulgate transliterates the perceived title as diaconus and otherwise translates the word as minister) always applies to a group of people, and the variation in number from one episkopos to several diakonoi already suits the general pattern of the Ignatian churches -- the main difference in the latter is the both stronger and clearer insistence on the bishop's authority, the "servants" becoming his "servants" as well as the church's. Certainly because of some hierarchical development in the meantime, but also because the Ignatian epistles are free from the concern of historical likeliness linked to Pauline pseudepigraphy, which has to connect the current office of episkopos to the tradition ascribing the authority of the presbuteroi to Paul.

  In Ignatius a clear distinction is made leading to a three-level hierarchy, one episkopos, several presbuteroi, several diakonoi.

  Trallians, 3:1:

  In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment 10 of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.

  Magnesians, 2:1:

  Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ

  Ibid., 6:1:

  Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, 36 while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, 37 and in the end was revealed
• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  Thanks for the information. The Watchtower makes clear the distinction between A Bishop and a Deacon is the Bishop's teaching qualifications. But then the Watchtower goes on to say that all males ought to be Bishops which seems to contradict the idea that "not many should be called teachers". And one of the signs of the apostacy is that they would accumulate teachers for themselves. It seems that is exactly what JW's have done.

  I appreciate the evidence of a three tiered hierarchy - Bishop-Elders-Deacons.

  The qualifications in Timothy contrasted Bishop with Deacons and NOT Elders and Deacons. One way of figuring out the relationship would be to think of Bishop and Deacon as the basic offices and Elder as a qualification. Both Bishops and Deacons ought to be Older Men. The only deacon by name was Stephen and he certainly was an older man.

  I'll have to think about the three tier idea. Hierarchies tend to form extra levels as time goes on.
• 

  Narkissos

  the Watchtower goes on to say that all males ought to be Bishops which seems to contradict the idea that "not many should be called teachers".

  Remember, though, that the latter idea belongs to the epistle of James, which criticises the post-Pauline church on many points, especially its emphasis on doctrine rather than action ("faith and works").

  The qualifications in Timothy contrasted Bishop with Deacons and NOT Elders and Deacons. One way of figuring out the relationship would be to think of Bishop and Deacon as the basic offices and Elder as a qualification. Both Bishops and Deacons ought to be Older Men.

  This view is certainly supported by the etymology of the terms and may have played a role in syntheses earlier than Ignatius (the traditional date of which, btw, is not beyond criticism, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html)

  The only deacon by name was Stephen and he certainly was an older man.

  While features of the office of "deacon" are used in Acts 6 (one common meaning of diakonos being that of "table waiter"), there is both more and less to this story than the institution of a "class of deacons". As much of Acts it tries to put together (and hierarchise) different pieces of conflicting early Christian tradition, the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists," the "Twelve" and the "Seven". And I fail to see any reference to age in the description of the "Seven," or Stephen in particular, but I may have missed something. Stephen in any case is definitely a teacher, and his talk reflects (and obscures) a very original (strongly anti-temple) Hellenistic theology.
• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  Thanks for the info. One thing is sure! There is nothing unique or spirit directed about the structure of the JW organization. I grew up under the pre-1972 "one overseer" system and it worked fine. In fact, it seemed to work better. At least there was a "go-to" person that could follow through on a necessary action and who could be held responsible if things went terribly wrong. Elder bodies, are just that - all body and no head.

  The Proclaimers Book says this about the 1972 Elder arrangement:

  How was this information about organization adjustments received by the assembled delegates? One traveling overseer was moved to say: "It has to work; it is from Jehovah." Another Witness of long experience added: "It will be an encouragement to all mature men to take hold of responsibility." Indeed, as many men as were qualified could now ‘reach out’ and be appointed to the "office of overseer." (1 Tim. 3:1) A greater number of brothers could thus gain valuable experience in shouldering congregation responsibility. Though they did not realize this at first, all of these would be needed to shepherd the great influx of new ones in the years to come.

  They obviously felt that Jehovah knew that they needed this special arrangement to handle the large increases. The large increases really never happened. The largest increase JW's ever had was in the post WWII period up to the mid 1950's which was under the old organizational structure.