• 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.

General And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, ...?"

Strong's Greek: 1984. ἐπισκοπή (episkopé) — 4 Occurrences
Luke 19:44 N-GFS
GRK: καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου
NAS: the time of your visitation.
KJV: the time of thy visitation.
INT: season the of visitation of you

Acts 1:20 N-AFS
GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω
NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
KJV: and his bishoprick let another
INT: and the Overseership of him let take

1 Timothy 3:1 N-GFS
GRK: Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται καλοῦ
NAS: aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine
KJV: desire the office of a bishop, he desireth
INT: if anyone overseership aspires to of good

1 Peter 2:12 N-GFS
GRK: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς
NAS: God in the day of visitation.
KJV: in the day of visitation.
INT: in [the] day of visitation


episkopé: a visiting, an overseeing
Original Word: ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: episkopé
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is-kop-ay')
Definition: a visiting, an overseeing
Usage: (a) visitation (of judgment), (b) oversight, supervision, overseership.
HELPS Word-studies
1984 episkopḗ (a feminine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on, appropriately fitting," which intensifies 4648 /skopéō, "look intently") – properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation."
 
NickF said:
Strong's Greek: 1984. ἐπισκοπή (episkopé) — 4 Occurrences
Luke 19:44 N-GFS
GRK: καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου
NAS: the time of your visitation.
KJV: the time of thy visitation.
INT: season the of visitation of you

Acts 1:20 N-AFS
GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω
NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
KJV: and his bishoprick let another
INT: and the Overseership of him let take

1 Timothy 3:1 N-GFS
GRK: Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται καλοῦ
NAS: aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine
KJV: desire the office of a bishop, he desireth
INT: if anyone overseership aspires to of good

1 Peter 2:12 N-GFS
GRK: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς
NAS: God in the day of visitation.
KJV: in the day of visitation.
INT: in [the] day of visitation


episkopé: a visiting, an overseeing
Original Word: ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: episkopé
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is-kop-ay')
Definition: a visiting, an overseeing
Usage: (a) visitation (of judgment), (b) oversight, supervision, overseership.
HELPS Word-studies
1984 episkopḗ (a feminine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on, appropriately fitting," which intensifies 4648 /skopéō, "look intently") – properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation."
Click to expand...
So would you say all overseers be elders?
 
James Pease said:
So would you say all overseers be elders?
Click to expand...
No, there isn't a scriptural precedent for that. They are different operations. One is an overseer, the other is an elder. I wouldn't say one must be an elder to be an overseer, but being an elder surely wouldn't preclude one from being one as far as I can see.
 
steve said:
Exactly, it is a hired political appointment.

Edit: Hired to be spiritual in their place.
Spectator Christianity.

Further edit: Priests/pastors was something that the Protestants didn’t leave behind when they left the Universal (Catholic) church. A man, (increasingly women) to represent them.
Paul never appointed a pastor, just elders.
Click to expand...
Mind bomb! How did I never make that connection! No pastors, only elders. Holy hell Hannah.
 
NickF said:
No, there isn't a scriptural precedent for that. They are different operations. One is an overseer, the other is an elder. I wouldn't say one must be an elder to be an overseer, but being an elder surely wouldn't preclude one from being one as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
How would you separate them?
 
While we've slid significantly OT, but this is a very important topic I cover in some depth in my book Authority, Headship, and Family Structure; According to Moses

Israel is a patriarchal, tribal, family. From the beginning, they(we) have always had 'elders', they are called 'patriarchs' who have earned the right to lead the family. Exodus 18 is where Paul draws his very pragmatic solution to select 'leaders' for the fledgling fellowships that are not connected in a familial way.

I believe he expected the Tanak understanding to rule the day once the ekklesia became established and grew.
 
PeteR said:
While we've slid significantly OT, but this is a very important topic I cover in some depth in my book Authority, Headship, and Family Structure; According to Moses

Israel is a patriarchal, tribal, family. From the beginning, they(we) have always had 'elders', they are called 'patriarchs' who have earned the right to lead the family. Exodus 18 is where Paul draws his very pragmatic solution to select 'leaders' for the fledgling fellowships that are not connected in a familial way.

I believe he expected the Tanak understanding to rule the day once the ekklesia became established and grew.
Click to expand...
I have made it halfway through so far!
 
The Revolting Man said:
Mind bomb! How did I never make that connection! No pastors, only elders. Holy hell Hannah.
Click to expand...
There are more than just elders. Take 1 Timothy 3 - we are given separate instructions for both "bishops / elders / overseers", and "deacons / ministers". So there are at least two separate roles (though the names for each may vary). And we see the first practical example of this separation (although the terms are not used) in Acts 6 - the apostles (the elders of the early church) were too busy to deal with the day-to-day practical matter of ministering to the widows, so they appointed men who may properly be called "ministers" to minister to them - to do this practical work.

So the church is to be led by elders - but they may appoint (even hire) men to do practical tasks. They may appoint men to run a ministry to the needy, study scripture and teach the flock, teach children, do the bookwork, maintain the church buildings, or whatever. And they will be given job titles accordingly - "minister", "pastor", "deacon" etc.

So there is certainly a place for pastors. However, they should not be the top leader of the church - they should be the second level, working under the elders.
James Pease said:
What would you label Joseph when he started ruling egypt?
Click to expand...
Were Egypt a church, Joseph would have had the same job as a pastor does - second-in-command, in charge of the day-to-day running of the church, but ultimately accountable to the elders. Pharoah being the elder in this case, with the power to appoint or dismiss the pastor.
Keith Martin said:
Yes; who decides who is ordained?
Click to expand...
We attend a Baptist church, who have an elected "eldership" of people who serve in the role for a while, then retire and someone else gets elected. Honestly, I don't pay any real attention to these, I don't consider them real elders. I distinguish between the "official elders" and the "natural elders".

The true elders - the natural elders - are well known to anyone who actually attends the church. They're the old guys who have been there for decades and who are actually the pillars of the local Christian community. These are the men who should be in charge of the church, and it's really not that controversial who they are. It's generally obvious.

The elected "elders" in a Baptist church are really deacons, and have been given the wrong official name.
 
FollowingHim said:
There are more than just elders. Take 1 Timothy 3 - we are given separate instructions for both "bishops / elders / overseers", and "deacons / ministers". So there are at least two separate roles (though the names for each may vary). And we see the first practical example of this separation (although the terms are not used) in Acts 6 - the apostles (the elders of the early church) were too busy to deal with the day-to-day practical matter of ministering to the widows, so they appointed men who may properly be called "ministers" to minister to them - to do this practical work.

So the church is to be led by elders - but they may appoint (even hire) men to do practical tasks. They may appoint men to run a ministry to the needy, study scripture and teach the flock, teach children, do the bookwork, maintain the church buildings, or whatever. And they will be given job titles accordingly - "minister", "pastor", "deacon" etc.

So there is certainly a place for pastors. However, they should not be the top leader of the church - they should be the second level, working under the elders.

Were Egypt a church, Joseph would have had the same job as a pastor does - second-in-command, in charge of the day-to-day running of the church, but ultimately accountable to the elders. Pharoah being the elder in this case, with the power to appoint or dismiss the pastor.

We attend a Baptist church, who have an elected "eldership" of people who serve in the role for a while, then retire and someone else gets elected. Honestly, I don't pay any real attention to these, I don't consider them real elders. I distinguish between the "official elders" and the "natural elders".

The true elders - the natural elders - are well known to anyone who actually attends the church. They're the old guys who have been there for decades and who are actually the pillars of the local Christian community. These are the men who should be in charge of the church, and it's really not that controversial who they are. It's generally obvious.

The elected "elders" in a Baptist church are really deacons, and have been given the wrong official name.
Click to expand...
Would you see 1st timothy 3 in is this aspect? Elders, then overseers, then deacons or elders then overseers and deacons at the same level?
 
James Pease said:
Would you see 1st timothy 3 in is this aspect? Elders, then overseers, then deacons or elders then overseers and deacons at the same level?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is clear because 1 Tim 3 does not mention elders. It mentions "overseers / bishops" and "deacons". So due to this ambiguity I said that there are "at least two separate roles". I just see that there must be at a bare minimum the role of actual long-term church leadership (elders), and people appointed by the elders to do stuff (ministers / deacons).

I may be wrong, but I think the term "Overseer / Bishop" may have different uses in different contexts. In a small congregation it might just refer to the elders. In a larger congregation it may form a middle tier in a larger heirarchy (elder-bishop-minister), such as an eldership, appointing a senior pastor, over multiple junior pastors & ministry leaders. Or company board - CEO - other staff.

I think the terminology is ambiguous enough to be used in different ways depending on the practical circumstances. Ultimately, elders are in charge, and they then appoint people to do stuff.
 
FollowingHim said:
I don't think it is clear because 1 Tim 3 does not mention elders. It mentions "overseers / bishops" and "deacons". So due to this ambiguity I said that there are "at least two separate roles". I just see that there must be at a bare minimum the role of actual long-term church leadership (elders), and people appointed by the elders to do stuff (ministers / deacons).

I may be wrong, but I think the term "Overseer / Bishop" may have different uses in different contexts. In a small congregation it might just refer to the elders. In a larger congregation it may form a middle tier in a larger heirarchy (elder-bishop-minister), such as an eldership, appointing a senior pastor, over multiple junior pastors & ministry leaders. Or company board - CEO - other staff.

I think the terminology is ambiguous enough to be used in different ways depending on the practical circumstances. Ultimately, elders are in charge, and they then appoint people to do stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's kinda how I have understood it. When comparing Titus and Timothy. In Titus they are called elders, in Timothy overseers. I have always used them synonymously but maybe I need to look at it again?
 
James Pease said:
Thanks, that's kinda how I have understood it. When comparing Titus and Timothy. In Titus they are called elders, in Timothy overseers. I have always used them synonymously but maybe I need to look at it again?
Click to expand...
And, based on the fact that Paul isn't even consistent in what he calls them is evidence that he wasn't trying to create some new class of people or leadership position. Look to the ancient patriarchs and their family structures. Abraham had Eleazar and later Isaac, Isaac had Jacob... Moses had Joshua, etc. The spies were 'deacons' or understudies doing the grunt work that helped the gray hairs.
 
FollowingHim said:
There are more than just elders. Take 1 Timothy 3 - we are given separate instructions for both "bishops / elders / overseers", and "deacons / ministers". So there are at least two separate roles (though the names for each may vary). And we see the first practical example of this separation (although the terms are not used) in Acts 6 - the apostles (the elders of the early church) were too busy to deal with the day-to-day practical matter of ministering to the widows, so they appointed men who may properly be called "ministers" to minister to them - to do this practical work.

So the church is to be led by elders - but they may appoint (even hire) men to do practical tasks. They may appoint men to run a ministry to the needy, study scripture and teach the flock, teach children, do the bookwork, maintain the church buildings, or whatever. And they will be given job titles accordingly - "minister", "pastor", "deacon" etc.

So there is certainly a place for pastors. However, they should not be the top leader of the church - they should be the second level, working under the elders.

Were Egypt a church, Joseph would have had the same job as a pastor does - second-in-command, in charge of the day-to-day running of the church, but ultimately accountable to the elders. Pharoah being the elder in this case, with the power to appoint or dismiss the pastor.

We attend a Baptist church, who have an elected "eldership" of people who serve in the role for a while, then retire and someone else gets elected. Honestly, I don't pay any real attention to these, I don't consider them real elders. I distinguish between the "official elders" and the "natural elders".

The true elders - the natural elders - are well known to anyone who actually attends the church. They're the old guys who have been there for decades and who are actually the pillars of the local Christian community. These are the men who should be in charge of the church, and it's really not that controversial who they are. It's generally obvious.

The elected "elders" in a Baptist church are really deacons, and have been given the wrong official name.
Click to expand...
But no one was ever appointed teacher.
 
I never said a paid teaching pastor was "necessary" either. They certainly are not. I'm only arguing that they're permissible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top