But was [the author of 1 Clement] really the bishop of Rome? Did the office of bishop even exist at this early date? The answer is yes and no. When we read the earliest Christian literature, including the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, there are two Greek words used for those who lead and preside in worship. One is the word presbyteros (which means elder, but is often translated priest) and the other is episkopos (which means overseer, but is usually translated bishop). On the surface, it seems that these two terms are used interchangeably. Upon closer inspection, we can see that the two words overlap in meaning, but are not complete synonyms, though some early authors use them as though they are. The point is that in the first century, the Church did not have the familiar three-tier hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon. Rather, it had a two-tier hierarchy of presider and assistant. (James L. Papandrea, Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2022], 43)
As late as the turn of the fifth century, Chrysostom said that the terms are interchangeable, and that a priest or bishop could even be called a deacon, because the word “deacon” means servant. See John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, 1. See also Alistar C. Stewart, The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 6-8, 15-17, 18, 22-24, 48, 354. Building on the work of Lampe and Brent, Stewart makes a somewhat compelling case for the priority of the word episkopos as the original term for house-church pastors. He further argues that the term presbyteros came into use as multiple house-church pastors formed citywide or regional councils, thus becoming the “elders” of the Church in that place. He cites the pre-Christian meaning of the term presbyteros as referring to “senior members of guilds and associations in the Hellenistic cities.” Stewart adds nuance to the work of his predecessors on this topic, and corrects some aspects of their theories that are based on erroneous assumptions, though he still fails to take the influence of direct apostolic appointment and succession seriously enough. (Ibid., 43 n. 37)