Moriah pointed out to me that some translations use bishop where others use elders so as much as I hate to invite this chaos, it seems a word study is in order.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Authority, submission, and chain of command
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
And then this from I Corinthians 5
13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away fromamong yourselves that wicked person.
Who puts away the fornicators or immoral? Who decides? How is it done?
I know many on this forum have left the organized assemblies we generally call churches, but this is one reason why I have stayed. Most have this all figured out in a covenant or constitution. I either accept it, or find another location.
13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away fromamong yourselves that wicked person.
Who puts away the fornicators or immoral? Who decides? How is it done?
I know many on this forum have left the organized assemblies we generally call churches, but this is one reason why I have stayed. Most have this all figured out in a covenant or constitution. I either accept it, or find another location.
What verse are you referring to? There's no reason episkopos and presbuteros should be confused.....
Wouldn't that be the elders? (See post #132 in this thread....)
I just want to make sure I'm understanding what Zec said. If you're saying you're confused because I'm using the passage in 1 Tim 3 to talk about authority in the church while I'm talking about "elders", I get that, and it's an answerable question. If you're saying, though, that there are passages of scripture where one translation uses "elder" to translate the same Greek word that some other translation translates "bishop", I'd like to know about it, because that would be news to me.
Sarah, what translation are you quoting? Many translations give "his children must be "trustworthy" or "faithful" rather than "believers". Just wondering.
This is is my key passage to the 3 terms:
1 Peter 5:1-2
The elders (presbuteros) who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd (poimane aka pastor) the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers (episkopos) , not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly
Which I take to mean they are all three descriptive of the same office: Especially in the light that the qualifications of an Overseer (or bishop) in 1 Timothy line up with the qualifications for an Elder in Titus. It also helps explain why no qualifications are really given for a 'pastor' because the job isn't meant to be considered outside of the context of an Elder who is serving as an Overseer.
And why do you assume that it's two different things? (Answer: Same reason we all do at first, because that's what we've been taught....)
Here's the somewhat-less-short version:
There are certain words in the English NT that are not "translated" into English, they are "transliterated" from Greek or imported from Latin. This is a legacy of the council of church functionaries that gave King Jim his "authorized" version (that is, authorized by King James Stuart).
So for instance, "episkopos" should be translated "overseer" or "supervisor" (depending on whether you prefer northern european or southern european word forms (overseer is Anglo-Saxon; supervisor is Latin)), but instead they made up a new "English" word, "bishop", which is a sort of contraction of "episkopos" (and is found in "episcopal", that is, rule by bishops). "Pastor" should have been "shepherd" (the Anglo-Saxon word that translates "poime" in the Greek), but we got "pastor" instead from Latin--a word that simply means "shepherd" in another language. And "diakonos" in the Greek is transliterated "deacon" as an "English" word, even though if it had been translated into English it would have been "servant".
Oh, and there's "apostle", which just means "messenger" or "herald" or "ambassador", and should have been translated such from the Greek "apostolos", but instead we get a whole new English word "apostle" as a transliteration.
There are others, but you get the idea. The notion that there are "officials" in the church with titles and business cards and boxes on organization charts called "apostles" and "pastors" and "bishops" and "deacons" is an artifact of some weird translation/transliteration choices. If you think in terms of functional responsibilities, I submit that you will get closer to the intent of the original authors (mostly Paul).
So here, there's a case to be made that "elders" are who they are (the old guys with experience), and "overseeing" is what they do. You get the sense of this in the Titus passage quoted in part by Sarah:
For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things lacking and appoint elders in every city, as I ordered you: If anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not in accusation of loose behavior, or disobedient, (for the overseer must be blameless as a steward of God), not self-pleasing, not prone to anger, not given to wine, not a quarreler, not greedy of ill gain; but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, just, holy, temperate, clinging to the faithful Word according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage by sound doctrine and to convict the ones contradicting.
It is easier to read that passage thinking that Paul has one set of people in mind (that are described positionally as elders and functionally as overseers) than it is to read it as two different lists referring to two different groups of people.
But wait, there's more! As an added bonus, I leave you with this tidbit quote from Noah Webster's dictionary (where I was fact-checking a couple of points I'm bringing up from research I did 30 years ago...):
It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called indifferently "bishop" and "elder" or "presbyter." --J. B. Lightfoot. [1913 Webster]
Doesn't settle anything (argument from authority). Just submitted as an illustration that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Slumber, take a look at what I did here and tell me if you could make the jump to thinking in terms of function and purpose instead of office and title.
Which I take to mean they are all three descriptive of the same people, viewed from different perspectives: Especially in the light that the qualifications of an overseer (or bishop) in 1 Timothy line up with the qualifications for an elder in Titus. It also helps explain why no qualifications are really given for a 'pastor' because the job isn't meant to be considered outside of the context of an elder who is serving as an overseer.
I just think it helps to think functionally. When we talk about the heart, eyes, lungs, and liver, we are not thinking in terms of titles, hierarchy, and authority, we are thinking simply in terms of what that organ does that contributes to the health and well-being of the body. You get the same vibe here:
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
"Ruling" is just one of many gifts. When all of us are exercising our gifts to the best of our ability, the whole body prospers.
1 Tim 3 ;1
King James = bishop
New international = overseer
Living bible = pastor
Revised standard = bishop
The interlinear bible ( J P Green) = overseership
The new american bible = bishop
New living translation= elder
American standard = overseer
The Jerusalem Bible =elder
New English bible = leadership / leader or bishop
The Bible for today = church official
Holy scriptures by J N Darby = aspires to exercise oversight
Authorized Version = Bishop
Good news = church leader
New world = overseer.
What can I say I love the Bible!
I would think so. This was meant to put more ammunition in your argument
And another feather in the cap of the Presbyterian form of government.
If as a Christian we come to know of a fellow believer that is an unrepentant fornicator or immoral person is it not our obligation to stop association with such ones. If however the situation is that we are unaware and others (shepherds) have been dealing with it and they then determine that such a person will not change then they would be responsible to advise the rest of the flock but the responsibility is still on the individual to put such ones away from them and their family.
Raises an interesting question for those that still find themselves attached to a church or group. If that church would see polygamy as immoral or a matter of fornication/ adultery do they then understand the scriptures with enough clarity to hold oversight and thus instruct us or our families? The same question could be asked in relation to any number of scriptural standards. If we allow them such oversight then should we not be prepared to live by the judgments that they would make even in a matter such as polygamy?
Or is eldership accepted if we agree and rejected if we disagree? Remember, generally those that are removed disagree.
Would it not be binding upon us to submit to such oversight in all matters if we allow such oversight in any matter, or can we pick and choose when the person or people are appointed under holy spirit, when we agree they are and when we disagree they are not?
Sounds like a foot in both camps to me.
But in defense of those Pastor/Bishop led churches (that aren't Pastor Popes---I like that term), many are based on the "first among equals" principle that Parliamentary forms of government follow, or as you see in the House of Representatives.
The Prime Minister/Speaker of the House has technically the same office as every other member, but has been placed in a position all his own as a way of consolidating leadership into smaller groups. Too many cooks can spoil a soup, so the buck has to stop somewhere.
If you look at Jesus' model of leadership, there were all the disciples (hundreds/thousands?), the twelve apostles, then Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and finally Jesus himself.
The Prime Minister/Speaker of the House has technically the same office as every other member, but has been placed in a position all his own as a way of consolidating leadership into smaller groups. Too many cooks can spoil a soup, so the buck has to stop somewhere.
If you look at Jesus' model of leadership, there were all the disciples (hundreds/thousands?), the twelve apostles, then Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and finally Jesus himself.
Not trying to be cleaver but I would like to understand if you can help me.
According to 1 Pet 5:1-2 peter was an Elder ( the only disciple to walk on water Mat 14: 27-30, held the keys to the kingdom etc) But according to your above posts Paul was not? Paul was a traveling overseer, but wasn't Peter also a traveling overseer? Or is it that Paul never said that he was an elder?
Just trying to get a little clarity to enable me to grasp your argument. It may seem to be old news but with the level of authority that seems to be being sought for those that carry the badge of elder, the scriptural qualifications would seem to be more than a little relevant.