A FEW MORE WORDS ON JASON G. DUESING'S ARTICLE AND SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE AND THE VOCABULARY OF NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT
I had mentioned that the New Testament had a two-tier model of leadership elder/bishops and deacons. I questioned Duesing a little on the statement on the persistence of the New Testament model in this Church in the centuries following. But in fairness I should say that he was not writing so much as a scholar himself but as a popular writer reporting what different scholars had said in standard reference works and popular books.
This being the case, the statement about the terms "bishop" and "elder" being used interchangeably "well into the third century," didn't actually come from Duesing himself but from his source, which in this case was Greg Allison’s Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 590. Here is what Allison said:
"As already noted, the terms for elders (or presbyters) and bishops (or overseers) were used interchangeably in the New Testament (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5-7). The linguistic practice continued in later church writings well into the third century."
As I explained in my last post, that isn’t correct.
In any case, I would like to talk a bit more about this subject, starting with a little discussion of the terms “bishop" and "elder"
Episcopos: Bishop or Overseer
The Greek word episcopos is translated “overseer” in some Bible translations and “bishop” in others. So if we take 1 Tim 3:1 as our example, we find that the ESV, NIV, HCSB, NASB translate it “overseer” and the KJV, NAB, NRSV, translate it “bishop”. The term “overseer” is a translation of episcopos, but “bishop” is actually a transliteration. Here is what happened:
The declinable ending -os, in episcopos was replaced by the Latin declinable ending -us, to make the Latin terms episcopus.
Eventually the e- gets dropped from the beginning, and the -p- becomes a -b-, which sounds a lot alike. This gives us biscopus.
In Old English it drops the Latin declinable ending to become biscop.
In Middle English the -sc- is slurred into an -sh- and becomes bishop.
For me the translation “overseer” for the Greek episcopos is preferable to the transliteration bishop, because using the latter word tends to be filled by our ideas of the later more fully developed episcopal office, which we then might quite easily impose anachronistically on the New Testament.
On the other hand, when we translate episcopos as bishop in New Testament texts it helps us see what a bishop should be like. So, for example, when I first read 1 Timothy 3:1-4 in the RSV that “a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,” I was, as someone raised Catholic, quite surprised, because it signaled that somewhere along the way the Church of my youth had added requirements to holders of the episcopal office that were not supported by the original Apostolic witness of Holy Scripture. In that sense it was a good thing that the transliteration rather than the translation was used.
More on the Greek word episcopos.
The Greek term episcopos which English Bibles translate as overseer or bishop was a perfectly ordinary word used in secular Greek. In Homer's Iliad, for example, Hector is described as an episcopos (24.729). It combined the preposition epi- whose basic meaning was on, but in certain instances (as here) over, and scopos meaning "one who watches," "looks after," etc. Our English word scope is related to it. Following up on our discussion of the New Testament two-tier Church leadership (Elder/Overseers plus Deacons), in the article that we have been discussing in recent post Jason G. Deusing comments:
“However, through the Church of England is the cousin of Catholicism, Baptists and other free churches share the Scriptures as our common source of authority. Because many Anglicans treasure Scripture, there lies the beginning of a basis for discussion about Church leadership.” (p. 248).
The statement presumably assumes that when the said discussion occurs it will primarily subsist in our showing the Anglicans where they've gone wrong while and offering our services in setting them straight.
As a Baptist (a Christian who endorsed believers baptism) doing his doctorate in an Anglican institution, I was of course aware of how useful it might be for networking and so on if I could find a way to become an Anglican myself. But, for various reasons, I could not.
And yet I do think that before we set about fixing the Anglicans, we might make sure we ourselves are following the Scripture in our own Church leadership practices. In other words, do we follow the two-tier model of the New Testament ourselves? And here we need to turn to the Baptist Faith and Message, which is basically our version of the Church of England’s 39 Articles.
In Old English it drops the Latin declinable ending to become biscop.
In Middle English the -sc- is slurred into an -sh- and becomes bishop.
For me the translation “overseer” for the Greek episcopos is preferable to the transliteration bishop, because using the latter word tends to be filled by our ideas of the later more fully developed episcopal office, which we then might quite easily impose anachronistically on the New Testament.
On the other hand, when we translate episcopos as bishop in New Testament texts it helps us see what a bishop should be like. So, for example, when I first read 1 Timothy 3:1-4 in the RSV that “a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,” I was, as someone raised Catholic, quite surprised, because it signaled that somewhere along the way the Church of my youth had added requirements to holders of the episcopal office that were not supported by the original Apostolic witness of Holy Scripture. In that sense it was a good thing that the transliteration rather than the translation was used.
More on the Greek word episcopos.
The Greek term episcopos which English Bibles translate as overseer or bishop was a perfectly ordinary word used in secular Greek. In Homer's Iliad, for example, Hector is described as an episcopos (24.729). It combined the preposition epi- whose basic meaning was on, but in certain instances (as here) over, and scopos meaning "one who watches," "looks after," etc. Our English word scope is related to it. Following up on our discussion of the New Testament two-tier Church leadership (Elder/Overseers plus Deacons), in the article that we have been discussing in recent post Jason G. Deusing comments:
“However, through the Church of England is the cousin of Catholicism, Baptists and other free churches share the Scriptures as our common source of authority. Because many Anglicans treasure Scripture, there lies the beginning of a basis for discussion about Church leadership.” (p. 248).
The statement presumably assumes that when the said discussion occurs it will primarily subsist in our showing the Anglicans where they've gone wrong while and offering our services in setting them straight.
As a Baptist (a Christian who endorsed believers baptism) doing his doctorate in an Anglican institution, I was of course aware of how useful it might be for networking and so on if I could find a way to become an Anglican myself. But, for various reasons, I could not.
And yet I do think that before we set about fixing the Anglicans, we might make sure we ourselves are following the Scripture in our own Church leadership practices. In other words, do we follow the two-tier model of the New Testament ourselves? And here we need to turn to the Baptist Faith and Message, which is basically our version of the Church of England’s 39 Articles.
In the 1925 version of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) we read concerning the leadership of the Church, "Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons." That is, on the face of it a biblical statement. This was changed in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message to read instead “Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons,” which was taken over verbatim in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. In my view the replacement of the term “bishops, or elder” with “pastors” is unfortunate, because I am not convinced that the term “pastor” (poimēn), which is the common Greek word for shepherd, actually refers to an office, rather than to a gifting or a role. I am even less certain that it can be shown that the term pastor is clearly set forth in the New Testament as another way of referring to elder/bishops. So while the terms elder and bishop are used interchangeably in the New Testament, I do not see that the same can be said for “pastor” and “elder” or “pastor” and “overseer”.
But that is the lesser of my two concerns with the shift in the BF&M statement. To be sure if I had my way I would encourage a return to the more biblical language of the 1925 BF&M, by restoring "bishops, or elder” in place of "pastors." But leaving aside the quibble over terminology, even though the wording of the 1925 BF&M allowed for the exercise of the New Testament model, it does not necessitate it, and when many signed it, they did so understanding the statement in a way that, at least in so far as I have been able to discover through my own study of Scripture, actually runs counter to the New Testament model.
What do I mean?
When the BF&M says that the Biblical offices of the Church are Bishops/Elders/Pastors & Deacons. That is true to the New Testament so long as it means the aim is to have multiple Bishops/Elders/Pastors and multiple Deacons in each Local Church. To take the words instead to imply that we have multiple Bishops/Elders/Past in the plurality of Churches, but only one in each local church, along multiple deacons in each local church is to pursue a model of leadership that the New Testament and early Church knew nothing of.
The issue is not simply whether we can have someone serving as a "head pastor." The real problem is that the one elder, plural deacons model, obliterates the whole idea of a body of elders in the Church. Even in situations where a lead pastor is actually hired and supported by a Church, the members of the Church are robbed of opportunity of serving as elders simply because there is no such category.
What often happens is that since there are only deacons, those with teaching gifts end up moonlighting as elders only without the name.
So let's suppose we were following the early second century model attested in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch where there was one bishop in each local church over a group of elders and deacons. On that model even though we would be departing from the NT use of the terms bishops and elders being interchangeable, our three-tier model would actually more closely resemble the biblical model than the oft practiced Baptist model of one bishop (called a "pastor"), and a body of deacons, but no elders. This being the case, shouldn't we ask ourselves if were are really as ready as we thought we were to begin correcting the Anglicans?
When discussing different models of leadership in the Church we should always remember that it isn't the main thing, that it does matter and that it doesn't matter. Jesus is the main thing: knowing, loving, obeying, cherishing, Him. As Thomas à Kempis has so aptly put it:
"What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply about the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?"
You say you have the right ecclesiology. Congratulations! But now ask yourself, who do you look to as the great saints of the last century? Who would you say God really used? Did they share your correct ecclesiology? Or again name the top five most important theologians or biblical commentators you can think of. How about them? If the lists you come up with only includes your own guys, members of your denomination, then you really need to get out more.
So let's suppose we were following the early second century model attested in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch where there was one bishop in each local church over a group of elders and deacons. On that model even though we would be departing from the NT use of the terms bishops and elders being interchangeable, our three-tier model would actually more closely resemble the biblical model than the oft practiced Baptist model of one bishop (called a "pastor"), and a body of deacons, but no elders. This being the case, shouldn't we ask ourselves if were are really as ready as we thought we were to begin correcting the Anglicans?
When discussing different models of leadership in the Church we should always remember that it isn't the main thing, that it does matter and that it doesn't matter. Jesus is the main thing: knowing, loving, obeying, cherishing, Him. As Thomas à Kempis has so aptly put it:
"What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply about the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?"
You say you have the right ecclesiology. Congratulations! But now ask yourself, who do you look to as the great saints of the last century? Who would you say God really used? Did they share your correct ecclesiology? Or again name the top five most important theologians or biblical commentators you can think of. How about them? If the lists you come up with only includes your own guys, members of your denomination, then you really need to get out more.
%20-%20Copy.png)
Comments
Post a Comment