Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Keryg 2021: "Elders" and "overseers" in Titus 1: a two-tier hierarchy, or not?
Ray Sunshine
Shipmate
5 I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)
In this passage, v. 6 lays out the qualifications to be looked for in an “elder” (presbuteros), and then vv. 7-9 lay out the qualifications needed for a bishop or, literally, an “overseer” (episkopos). They are basically the same qualifications, though one list is longer than the other.
On other websites I have noticed two conflicting readings of this passage. Catholics, for obvious reasons, tend to read them as referring to two different sets of people, the elders in one case and the overseers in the other, giving evidence of a two-tier hierarchy, but other posters challenge this, arguing that, at such an early date, there were only local churches, each one under the authority of a minister who might be labelled, indifferently, an “elder” or an “overseer”.
My question is simply this: Is there such a thing as a single, ascertainably correct answer, one way or the other?
In this passage, v. 6 lays out the qualifications to be looked for in an “elder” (presbuteros), and then vv. 7-9 lay out the qualifications needed for a bishop or, literally, an “overseer” (episkopos). They are basically the same qualifications, though one list is longer than the other.
On other websites I have noticed two conflicting readings of this passage. Catholics, for obvious reasons, tend to read them as referring to two different sets of people, the elders in one case and the overseers in the other, giving evidence of a two-tier hierarchy, but other posters challenge this, arguing that, at such an early date, there were only local churches, each one under the authority of a minister who might be labelled, indifferently, an “elder” or an “overseer”.
My question is simply this: Is there such a thing as a single, ascertainably correct answer, one way or the other?
Comments
First, there clearly is a two-tier hierarchy, but that is demonstrated in v. 5 alone. Paul (or “Paul” — the authorship of this epistle is disputed) is appointing Titus to the position of what, in present-day terms, would be called a “bishop”. He is told to appoint elders in every community in Crete. Even if each elder is selected by the members of his own community, he won’t actually become officially an elder until Titus says so. The Greek verb here is the same one used in Acts 6:3 about the selection of the seven deacons: “You choose the deacons you want, and then we (the Twelve) will appoint them.”
Second, I don’t think this necessarily means that the word “bishop” or “overseer” in v. 7 points to this distinction. It’s quite possible, or even likely, that Titus was not an “episkopos” but an “apostolos”, in the Pauline sense. The question of “elder” in v. 5 and “bishop” in v. 7 is a separate one, as I see it, from the question of Titus’ own position in the church. But I could be wrong.
The main, significant effect of this was to make the elders of a local church accountable to somebody from outside and 'above' the local church, rather than to their own flock, which had no realistic say in their appointment (or removal).
These days, while I see Paul's instructions in these verses as providing a useful basic code of ethics for people in positions of responsibility in a church, I see no more reason to take his specific designations as binding for all time than to adopt as definitive his characterisation of Cretans as "always liars, evil brutes, crazy gluttons" just a few verses later (v12-13).
(When I was in Crete, I hired a 4x4 to go and see Fair Havens. It is a desolate spot; I could see why the captain of Paul's ship was keen not to winter there!).
I have had friendly discussions from time to time, spread over a period of several years, with one poster in particular on another website, a former Anglican (like me) who sometimes describes himself as a “nonconformist” and sometimes as a “New Testament Christian”. His insistence that any church must necessarily be a local church only, not belonging to any diocese and not subordinate to a larger group of any kind, simply on the grounds that that’s the way it was in Paul’s time, I reject for two reasons. First, because there was in fact some kind of regional or diocesan structure, as we see in Titus 1:5 (“you are to appoint elders”). Second, because even if he could substantiate his claim about what people did in Paul’s time, there is no ban on changing things. There is no eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not appoint bishops”. I’m sometimes tempted to accuse him of living in a “time-warp ecclesiology”, but that might be a step too far. I’d rather lose the argument than lose a friend.
If it were just Paul, I can see your point. But immediately the Apostolic Fathers pick up the theme and run with it. It quickly became a permanent part of church governance.
The traditional understanding among us, at least as set forth in the Second Helvetic Confession (1560), is that the terms were used somewhat interchangeably and that whichever term is used elders and overseers are equal in authority and dignity. That said, the Second Helvetic Confession notes:
So, the understanding one often, but not always, finds in Presbyterianism is that the overseers/bishops governed in the church with a “council” of elders. In my particular tribe of Presbyterians, our Book of Order (our version of canon law) long contained language about what we commonly call Ministers of Word and Sacrament along the lines of: “This office is the first in the Church, both for dignity and usefulness. The person who fills it is given in Scripture different names expressive of the various duties of the office. When exercising oversight of the flock of Christ, this officer is termed Bishop. . . . .” (This language was removed in a recent revision that sought to streamline the Book of Order.)
Given these understandings, and given that many Reformed bodies also have deacons, many Presbyterians who think about such things, but again not all, would connect the Presbyterian ordered ministries of minister-elder-deacon with the three-fold ministry of bishop-priest-deacon (“priest” also being derived from presbuteros). These Presbyterians would see the three-fold ministry as understood by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans as being how the offices developed as the church grew, with bishops/overseers entrusting care of gatherings to those among their council elders.
All that said, despite the fact that the Reformed have historically believed that the pattern we use is the pattern seen in Scripture and followed in the early church, we’ve never (or at least rarely) taken the position that it’s the only permissible pattern. While we believe it has much to commend it, we also believe other Christian communities have the freedom to decide for themselves how best to order ministry to meet their needs.
Ray Sunshine, it would be helpful if you use quote signs when you quote Bible passages.
Host hat off
An Anglican priest for whom I have a very great respect says that there is a stronger argument from Scripture in favour of women as bishops than as priests. I've never understood how he gets there. At the risk of reviving a Dead Horse, does anyone have any comment on this?
I'd have to hear his argument. I don't know what particular verses s/he's looking at.
Question for Greek scholars: what is the sense of the conjunction that is translated as for?
For in English as a conjunction means 'because'. So the structure of the passage is: presbyteroi must have attributes xyz because episkopoi have attributes abc. And prima facie, I would parse that as: presbyteroi are a *subset* of episkopoi, and inherit their attributes (so to speak) from the parent class.
Taking the words in their literal sense, this would be reasonable: elders are indeed a type of overseer, they are the sort of overseer who has oversight over a congregation. This supposes that 'overseer' is merely a generic term, rather than the name of a specific office.
However, I take @mousethief's point that regardless of what might make sense to me, that's not how the Early Church actually interpreted the passage.
I wonder if this is from 'Junia, outstanding among the apostles' in Romans 16:7? (Wikipedia link.)
The most natural reading of the passage is that she was a woman and an apostle, and St John Chrysostom (among others) accepted her as such. I guess one can argue that the concept of apostolic succession implies that all apostles are bishops, and therefore Junia was a bishop - so there is a Scriptural precedent for a woman bishop, but no mention in Scripture of a female presbyeros.
(FWIW I don't object to women bishops, but I'm not sure the part after 'one can argue that' actually follows. But I may be misrepresenting your priest's argument anyway.)
“6An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who are not accused of wildness or rebellion. 7As an overseer of God’s household, he must be blameless, not arrogant, not hot-tempered, not an excessive drinker, not a bully, not greedy for money, …”
https://biblehub.com/csb/titus/1.htm
It is also a preposition corresponding roughly to the Spanish por and para, the German für, the French pour.
Even then, though, I could see female clergy meeting the standards of these epistles with a few simple word changes.
The rest of the statements present as plain fact things which are highly contested.
I don’t disagree with you, however, about female clergy.
gar: The conjunction for, which is virtually equivalent to because and not to be confused with the preposition for.
Pretty much all the ecclesiastical language (including ecclesiastical itself) is as I understand it Common Greek Where they are biblical, Reader(tm) is of course common English and in early texts distinguishing between the Churchy definition and the Common definition is probably difficult.
Having just said that. Barclay's Commentary (for what it's worth he subscribes to the equivelence theory) does make a deal of how English Communitys had Aeldermen (literally old men, used as a secular local government title), Jewish Communities has Presbyters (literally old men, used as a secular and religous local government title), Roman Communitees had Senators (literally old men, used as a secular government title), and Greeks had Geri___ (literally old men, used as a secular local government title).
This makes me wonder (a) if we ought to treat it as a more formal appropriation of a secular Jewish role which is then explained. or (b) and this would be going against Pauline tendencies, whether the use of Presbyter should be seen as a qualification. Either in the sense of Overseers (TM) pick old guys (not the kids), or the former Presbyter(TM) of the Synagogue/Village have the experience, put him in charge.
They are both a bit long shots, although they just about pass the test of making sense with early church practices.
However even if we assume genuine Pauline authorship to a genuine Titus (I do, but I don't know how well founded that really is) it's not unknown for there to be more than one person bearing a name (and some of the church merging has been ... dubious). So we should also assess this separately.
On the pro side, the Titus from the letter was left in Crete by Paul. And the Titus from Corinthian's and Galatians also worked closely with Paul (so it seems more likely that those two Titus-es were the same rather than say identifying one with Titus the Emperer instead). And again the church did make the identification.
Both Timothy and Titus were part of Paul's ministry, true, but there is no proof that the epistles were actually written to Timothy or Titus. It is not all that uncommon for pseudo writers to appeal to historical characters back in that day.
BTW, the argument that Paul ended up on the isle of Crete is not supported in the description of Paul's travels in Acts. In Romans, Paul does discuss the option of going to Spain, but it is unknown if he did go there. The only mention of Paul being in Crete is from Titus itself.
My mate has got back to me. His argument rests upon Junia and also Lydia. Now I'd not think of Lydia as a proto-bishop as much as a priest, but he moves from her role as leader of the church to the role of bishop as leader in a city with priests as his deputies. Indeed, a former rector of St Sanity used refer to himself as the Abp's deputy while the regional bishops were simply his curates.
As for Junia, the phrase in Romans 16 ("they were prominent among the apostles") is open to a variety of interpretations. We really need to know more about Andronicus and Junia before we can determine her actual role. It's a frustratingly tantalising comment but clearly Paul and the people he was writing to knew what he meant.
So, for example, Irenaus (d c.202) appears to accept all the Pauline epistles including the pastoral epistles.
It is a mistake to take the date of canonical lists as anything other than a latest possible date of acceptance of the books listed - a terminus ad quem.
I find his argument very difficult to follow.
Some playing around on the site @Ray Sunshine linked to brought me to this link, where it seems the KJV regularly translates gar as 'for' and the Interlinear alternates between 'for' and 'indeed'. Which suggests that it might be one of those words that often just serves as a kind of verbal throat-clearing, and therefore one shouldn't read too much into it ...
I think the best French equivalent might be en effet.... An interpreter colleague I'll be working with tomorrow uses 'actually' in English in similar manner.
"Monepiskopos" is a word I've never seen until now. It's not in the NT. I'll look and see if I can find some early occurrences.
Previously, I did acknowledge the Muratorian canon listed the pastoral epistles, and yes people do claim it is a canonical list from 170 CE. A couple of problems, though is the earliest fragment we have of this list is from the seventh-century common era. Anr d there is no secondary source mentioning it. Now, the earliest guess is it came from around 400 CE.
There are two other canons known to have come from that era. The Marcion Canon is dated around 140 AD and it does not list the Pastoral Epistles. The Codex Vaticanus which was from 300 CE also does not list the Pastoral Epistles.
One way or another the writer of these epistles is expressing his own opinions which do not seem to be supported in other Pauline epistles. I do not see any reason to argue that they are set in stone Pauline.
The idea of theological difference between the Pastoral Epistles and the rest of the Pauline corpus is hugely overblown. Equally strong arguments can be made in favour of their consistency with the other Pauline epistles.
In any event, their contemporary authority is that they are in the canon. We don’t dismiss Hebrews, James, John, Peter or Jude on the basis that they are not Pauline.
I would love to hear your arguments that the Pastoral Epistles are consistent with the rest of the Pauline Corpus.
While you want to dismiss the Marcion canon, it is very hard to explain the Codex Vaticanus which also does not contain the pastoral epistles.
For example, take the ancient collector (or committee) charged with obtaining new copies of biblical books. If he already has a copy of the pastoral epistles or what have you, he may well decide to omit them from the new commission. His goal is not to make a single codex which includes all the inspired books and none that are un-inspired, but rather the much more mundane aim of gathering new stuff for his library that he doesn't already possess. And when every extra book of the Bible carries a high cost in terms of time, effort and money, the likelihood of him saying, "Eh, go ahead and throw in those six (eight, ten, whatever) as well, what the heck." He's far more likely to say, "Give me the Gospels, these letters of Paul--not those ones, I've got them already--and what the hell, throw in Hebrews too." Then, too, he's going to have to deal with the fact that everything he wants may not be available at this moment. If you have no copy of the pastoral epistles available for the copyist, you'll just have to do without.
And if the commissioner finds he's got extra parchment at the back, he may well decide to fill up the extra room with a shorter work, even one that he does not consider to be on the same level as the others. For him, a codex is not a book as moderns think of it, a work-possessing-unity; it is more like a bookshelf, where the Gospel According to Luke may sit cheek by jowl with the Gospel According to Peanuts.
Not to BroJames. Personally, I do not think the discussion on the Pauline authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles should be separate from the discussion of what is meant by elders or overseers or who is qualified to fill those offices. My argument is that Paul would have never used the terms. Therefore, it came from someone else at a later date. To me, the offices are a valid reflection of the church at the time the epistles were written, but do the epistles have the same apostolic authority as the other epistles we know were written by Paul? I am arguing in the negative.
What is the basis for your argument that Paul would have never used the terms 'elder' or 'overseer'? (Incidentally I see him as using them interchangeably.)
There is one incongruency with Phillipians that has yet to be explained. There is no mention of Luke. Luke was from Phillipi and had been with Paul when Paul first visited there. This is reported in Acts, No mention of that visit in the Epistle.
Wikipedia says and further down
What’s your source for him being from Philippi?