Timothy and Titus Argument
First, apart from the Melchizedekkal
priesthood's structure itself, undoubtedly the strongest argument for Bishops
is the fact that the Apostle Paul at the end of his ministry tells individuals,
Timothy and Titus, to appoint Presbyters (Titus 6). Why doesn't he give
this directive to the Presbytery? Instead, he uses Jethro-type language to
describe their function. He says, "I charge you before God and the Lord
Jesus Christ and elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice,
doing nothing with partiality (I Timothy 5:21). With this solemn charge,
the Apostle sounds a note quite similar to the Melchizedekkal-Jethro advice to
Moses,
Then I commanded your judges at that
time, saying, "Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously
between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not
show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the
great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the judgment is
God's" (Deuteronomy 1:16-17).
According to this, the Apostle Paul
gives almost identical instructions to Timothy, making him a captain over
Presbyters since he as an individual is given specific authority to oversee the
overseers. Timothy and Titus were not functioning like regular Presbyters. More
importantly, this would have been the perfect opportunity at the end of Paul's
ministry for him to call in a Presbytery (synod) if the Presbyterian
system had been the government of the early Church. But he didn't. It was not
as though the Presbytery was not fresh on his mind, for he mentions it in
reference to Timothy's reception of a spiritual gift (I Timothy 4:15). And
there were plenty of geographic courts such as Presbyteries or Synods around
that part of the world. Why not send a commission, if the Presbyteries were too
far away, as is customarily done in the Presbyterian world?
Instead, when Paul decides to leave his
final legacy, he addresses individuals, Timothy and Titus, to perform
what has been historically been called Episcopal functions, ordaining
Presbyters and even exercising discipline (I Timothy 5:20). He speaks to them
as having authority over other Presbyters, implying that they were the
successors to an Ecclesiastical hierarchy. Whatever interpretation is placed on
the use of individual words for Elder in the Pastorals, the simple fact
that these letters give Episcopal authority to individuals should be seen as
the larger context of interpreting whether episcopos refers to Bishop or
Presbyter. It should be concluded, therefore, that the Pastoral Epistles (I
& I1 Timothy, Titus) are actually manuals on the Episcopacy, forming one of
the strongest arguments for pastoral hierarchy.
James Argument
Second, the role of James at the
Jerusalem Council is the next most powerful argument in favor of Episcopal
hierarchy. He functions as a Bishop figure at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)
and in the Jerusalem Church thereafter. He is not an Apostle in the true sense
of the Apostolic test; he is only a secondary Apostle. He is a
Presbyter/Bishop. His function is clearly Episcopal because he is not simply a
moderator of one meeting but he functions as the captain of the
Jerusalem Church. Notice that the text describes Paul's later visit to
Jerusalem, “And he [Paul] went into James and the all elders were
present” (Acts 21:8). Luke calls attention to the fact that Paul went to see
James, meaning he was in charge. He doesn't say that Paul went to the
Presbytery. Rather he distinguishes James from the others, which has to mean
more than that he was simply the moderator. If James were only a moderator, why
would special attention need to be called to him, unless he actually did hold a
unique position as distinct from the other Presbyters? Mentioning him would
have been otherwise unnecessary. On the other hand, however, neither were the
other Presbyters irrelevant. The text also says, “the other elders were
present," implying that James exercised oversight over the other elders
but not to their exclusion. Thus, James was a standing, perpetual,
pastor to other pastors.
Episcopal Messenger Argument
T
hree, by the end of the New Testament, city-churches have
one Presbyter who functions as the Pastor over the other Presbyters, a Bishop.
In the Book of Revelation, we read of letters that were sent to the “angel,”
literally messenger, of each Church (Revelation 2:1ff.) . Who was this
"angel” or "messenger"? Was he a human or a heavenly being? The
ancient Church, and some Reformational scholars such as Beza, for the most part
understood this person to be a human, specifically a Bishop of the Church.18 The
modern tendency of interpretation has been to reject this
interpretation,although some formidable scholars such as Billerbeck have
supported the Ancient position, "reviving an early conjecture that 'angel
of the church' is a precise translatiothe Hebrew phrase shaliach zibbor =
one authorized by the congregation.”
The Ancients, however, generally defended the Bishop view
on the basis of the Biblical use of “stars” and “messengers” to symbolize
people, particularly Ecclesiastical officers. Daniel was told regarding
a time when the leaders of the people of God would be, "Those who are wise
shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to
righteousness like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:3). And Malachi says,
"For
the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people
should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord
of hosts. . . . Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way
before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even
the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight” (Malachi 1:7; 3:1).
These passages support the Bishop interpretation because
they indicate a redemptive historical progression from the role of angels to
humans in the Bible. In other words, Old Testament Scripture says that
literal angels do have a role in leading the people of God and delivering
messages (Exodus 23:20), but it also indicates that a time would come when man
would take a more prominent role in leadership and specifically the angelic
conflict. This is a progression from angel to man in the Bible, indicated in
Malachi where the messenger becomes the ultimate messenger, Jesus Christ, who
is not an angel at all but a man. So, in the New Testament, man is brought into
the angelic conflict with the coming of Christ. Up to the Gospels there is not
one single record of an exorcism, demons being cast out of men. Suddenly in the
Gospels, however, men oppose demons. Indeed, the Apostle Paul tells the
Ephesians that the war is not against flesh and blood but against angels,
telling them therefore to put on their armor and implying that they (humans)
are to engage angels. The Old Testament background portrays angels as representing
human leaders and speaks of a day when the “stars” will be humans (Daniel
12:3). That day came when Christ called the disciples, “lights of the world”
(Matthew 5:14) and the Apostle Paul described the Christians at Philippi as
“stars” (Philippians 2:15; see the original Greek). Thus, it is not out of the
question that the letters to the seven churches would be sent to the “angel” as
a symbol for the human leader, the Bishop, especially in view of the immediate
context.
The ancients held the Bishop view because of the
symbolism of the immediate context in Revelation, where we are given a key to
the correct interpretation. John records, “The seven stars are the angels, of
the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven
churches. To the angel of the church of Ephesus write” (Revelation 1:20-2:1).
Notice the relationship between the seven stars and seven angels,
confirming the Old Testament background that referred to a day when the “stars”
would be “leaders” in the Church. But more importantly, we are told that the
“lampstand” symbolizes churches, actual realities in the physical world.
Given the symbolism it is Biblically logical to conclude that if the lampstands
are churches then the lights of those lampstands, the stars or angels,
are the leaders of the churches. So, the “angel” is actually some kind of
authority in the Church, a pastoral captain in the Biblical hierarchy who
functions as a pastor to pastors, the Bishop. This is consistent, as we would
expect, with the earlier interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles.
In all likelihood, Revelation was the last book of the
New Testament to be written. And as I said, it indicates a redemptive
historical development. But another redemptive development could also be in
view. Perhaps the office of Bishop did develop later in the New Testament,
explaining why the words presbuteros and episcopos are use
interchangeably in some places in Scripture. The Ancient interpretation of the
“angels” of the churches in Revelation would prove a later development. Perhaps
not, however, for maybe the recipients of the letters prove that some sort of
Episcopal office existed from the beginning of the Church. At least we can
conclude that even if Revelation was the last book then the function of Bishop
was already in existence fairly early. It is certain, however, that by the end
of Scripture the office of Bishop, or what came to be called Bishop, had
developed. (Ray R. Sutton, "Captains
and Courts: A Biblical Defense of Episcopal Government," pp. 77-81)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
