I see, so you say that the “elders” were actually bishops, not priests…rather than saying really they were just one class of people?All Bishops are priests. In the very early Church, there were no priests who were not also Bishops. The Church started out with nothing but Bishops - 11 of them. At some point, these Bishops appointed deacons - this is described in Acts 6:1-7.
We are not certain when the Church began appointing priests who were not Bishops. But the Bible never clearly makes a distinction between “elders” and “overseers” or defines the exact meaning of each term. This fact is sometimes used by critics of the Church to point out that the priesthood is not “Biblical.” Indeed, it is possible that there were no (or very few) priests in Biblical times.
St Ignatius in 110AD makes explicit that there are three classes of ordination: bishop, priest, deacon.I see, so you say that the “elders” were actually bishops, not priests…rather than saying really they were just one class of people?
You should also look at the Epistle of clement of rome to corinth…here are selected quotes:The John example is certainly evidence against the idea…to some degree. I don’t think anyone doubts that there was a hierarchy, but there are questions about what that hierarchy looked like. Think about today, we have different positions in the Church, such as “Cardinal” that didn’t exist before…The Ignatius quote is proof of there being a distinct difference, but that is after the period I am talking about.
Great post yes, but notice he uses the term “bishops and deacons” numerous times before even mentioning elders, which has led many scholars to believe that initially, the bishops and priests were one order, indistinguishable from one another with interchangeable terms. Others have argued that bishops were elders, just with more of an overseer role, but still only elders. In other words, bishop is just a rank within the class of elder but isn’t a separate class itself.You should also look at the Epistle of clement of rome to corinth…here are selected quotes:
42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.
57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.
57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope
59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,
He mentions deacons and presbyters…in Corinth…so I presume this is around mid to late AD80 or so…or in AD 90…
No one is actually disagreeing with you. It does appear that for the first generation of Christians, “elder” and “overseer” were interchangeable terms referring to the ordained who are above the rank of deacon. We would say that, at that time, all such men had the full power of holy orders that we now associate with the title bishop/overseer. The distinct middle rank of elders/priests seems to have developed later (but not very much later, since Ignatius at the very start of the second century speaks of the distinction as though it is known to everyone). I believe the common theory is that, as the Christian population grew and there came to be multiple congregations in a given city or region, the bishops needed assistants who could serve as pastors, with full priestly powers that the deacons lacked, but without the governing powers of a fellow bishop.Excellent letter written by St. Jerome on this and it is very persuasive. Not sure how the Catholic Church responds to this. Does anyone know? ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm
Hmmm. I’m not so sure. Does a priest today have the authority to excommunicate anyone? The principle of excommunication has become more specific over time, but even today a priest does not (to my knowledge) have the authority to issue a ferendae sententiae of excommunication against anyone. Such authority (to my knowledge) is reserved to Bishops alone.Clearly, Diotrephes is in a position of ecclesial power, which includes the authority to excommunicate. But it is undeniable that John’s authority is greater, indicating another level of hierarchy that even Diotrephes must submit to.
This is precisely the Bishop-Priest hierarchy model we use to this day.
This is a little misleading since Paul was an apostle.Hmmm. I’m not so sure. Does a priest today have the authority to excommunicate anyone? The principle of excommunication has become more specific over time, but even today a priest does not (to my knowledge) have the authority to issue a ferendae sententiae of excommunication against anyone. Such authority (to my knowledge) is reserved to Bishops alone.
But in both ancient and modern times, there has been a hierarchy of Bishops - Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops. We see that both St. Timothy and St. Titus were both Bishops, but subordinate to St. Paul.
So it seems more natural that Paul refers to “overseers” as Metropolitan Bishops and “elders” as Suffragan Bishops.
I agree with everything here…so I guess we are all in agreement then!No one is actually disagreeing with you. It does appear that for the first generation of Christians, “elder” and “overseer” were interchangeable terms referring to the ordained who are above the rank of deacon. We would say that, at that time, all such men had the full power of holy orders that we now associate with the title bishop/overseer. The distinct middle rank of elders/priests seems to have developed later (but not very much later, since Ignatius at the very start of the second century speaks of the distinction as though it is known to everyone). I believe the common theory is that, as the Christian population grew and there came to be multiple congregations in a given city or region, the bishops needed assistants who could serve as pastors, with full priestly powers that the deacons lacked, but without the governing powers of a fellow bishop.
Usagi
Thanks for the post and the information…very helpful.In Hebrews 13:17 we are told:
Obey your prelates (bishops) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing for that would be harmful to you
Here is a good article:
Where in the New Testament are “priests” mentioned?
catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned
"The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity. …
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.”
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister. …
There is more to be read as this is just an excerpt.
blessings,
CEM
Well, not really. Apostles were a class to themselves. While Bishops succeeded the Apostles, they did not replace them. Succession and replacement are two different things. There were only few who were worthy to be Apostles.This is precisely the Bishop-Priest hierarchy model we use to this day.
The term “excommunicate” was a bit strong, the authority to cast someone out of a given ‘parish’ is not excommunication as we know it, but I’d argue it was a step up from a modern day version of priests being able to forbid certain people from entering his parish.Hmmm. I’m not so sure. Does a priest today have the authority to excommunicate anyone?
But in both ancient and modern times, there has been a hierarchy of Bishops - Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops. We see that both St. Timothy and St. Titus were both Bishops, but subordinate to St. Paul.
That’s actually a good point.So it seems more natural that Paul refers to “overseers” as Metropolitan Bishops and “elders” as Suffragan Bishops.
Again, I want to point out that St. Paul was an apostle, not just a bishop…so it’s really apples and oranges here.That’s actually a good point.