ἐπίσκοπος (Episcopos; Presbyteros; Overseer; Bishop; Elder)

 The following is copied from the Lexham Bible Dictionary on the Logos Bible app...

Etymology

The term “episcopos” is a transliteration of the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος. It is usually translated “overseer” or “bishop.” The plural of ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) is επίσκοποι (episkopoi).

 

“Episcopos” in the Bible (the LXX, Old Testament, and Deuterocanonical Literature)

The Septuagint (LXX) (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) used the term “episkopos” before it took on any ecclesiastical meaning. “Episkopos” occurs 14 times in the LXX in reference to a person (Numbers 4:16; 31:14; Judges 9:28; 2 Kings 11:15, 18: 12:12; 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; Isaiah 60:17; 1 Maccabees 1:51). In such cases it means “one who is in charge,” “an overseer.” It can refer to one who oversees:

1. an army (e.g., Num 31:14; 2 Kgs 11:15)

2. the temple (e.g., 2 Kgs 11:18)

3. a people group in some political way (e.g., Neh 11:9, 22).

 

It can also refer to God, who is the ultimate overseer over humankind (Wisdom of Solomon 1:6).

 

“Episcopos” in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the term appears four times in reference to a person other than Christ (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7). In these four instances, it refers to one who is appointed as a leader of the church to look after the physical and spiritual welfare of God’s people. It is also used once of Christ, who is the overseer of the souls of humanity (1 Pet 2:25).

“Episcopos” in Acts 20:1–35. In Acts 20:17, the Apostle Paul arrives in Miletus and sends word to the “elders of the church (τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, tous presbyterous)” in Ephesus. He offers final words of instruction in Acts 20:28: “Be alert for yourself and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit placed you as episcopoi, in order to shepherd the Church of God, which He purchased through His own blood” (author’s translation). In Acts 20:17, Paul addresses the “presbyteros” (πρεσβύτεροι, presbyteroi) of the church in Ephesus, but he refers to them as “episcopoi” in Acts 20:28. In this passage, there is no apparent distinction between a presbyteros (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros) and an episcopos—both terms describe appointed leaders of the church who are responsible for the physical and spiritual well-being of God’s people.

“Episcopos” in Titus 1:1–7. In Titus 1:1–7, the author explains the reason Titus was left in Crete: “So that you might organize what was left behind, and that you might appoint presbyteroi throughout the city, just as I have instructed you” (Titus 1:5, author’s translation). As in Acts 20, Titus 1 uses the words “presbyteros” and “episcopos” interchangeably. “Presbyteroi” appears in Titus 1:5, while “episcopos” appears in Titus 1:7 as the author describes qualifications for such a leadership position: “For an episcopos must be above reproach.”

“Episcopos” in the Early Church

Clement of Alexandria

First Clement (ca. ad 95–100) uses the same terminology in a similar way. 1 Clement 42:4 speaks of the apostles appointing “their firstfruits” as “episcopoi and deacons” (e.g., Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 111–2). 1 Clement 44:5 then refers to those same people as “presbyteroi.” Thus, the terms remain interchangeable even at the end of the first century (see Jay, “From Presbyter-Bishops to Bishops and Presbyters,” 135–6).

Ignatius of Antioch

By the time of Ignatius’ seven letters (approximately ad 110), a distinction between “episcopoi” and “presbyteroi” had emerged. For example, in the To the Magnesians 2.1, Ignatius praises Damas (the Magnesians’ episcopos) and Bassus and Apollonius (their presbyteroi) as people of distinct offices. The To the Magnesians 3:1 likewise evidences a distinction. Here Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians to follow the example of the presbyteroi in respecting the episcopos, even though the episcopos is young. These passages demonstrate that the two terms are no longer used synonymously and that the elders are hierarchically subordinate to the bishop—as would be the case thereafter.

Reasons for Development

The need for the distinct office of episcopos in the post-apostolic age is understandable. As more churches (and with them more elders) arose, there was a need for individuals who could maintain order and authority amongst these churches. The implication from Ignatius’ writings is that the churches were not wholly obedient to the bishops yet—the exhortation for the congregations to obey their episcopoi is a predominant theme in each letter. For this reason, Ignatius even goes so far as to say that since Christ is absent, an episcopos stands in the place of God, while the elders stand in the place of the apostles (Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 6.1).

Bibliography

Beyer, Hermann W. “ἐπισκέπτομαι (episkeptomai); ἐπισκοπέω (episkopeō); ἐπισκοπή (episkopē); ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos); ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος (allotriepiskopos).” Pages 608–20 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited and translated by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Coenen, Lothar. “Bishop, Presbyter, Elder.” Pages 190–2 in vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Dix, Dom G. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1978.

Jay, Eric G. “From Presbyters-Bishops to Bishops and Presbyters.” The Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies 1, no. 3 (Fall 1981): 125–62.

Rohde, Joachim. “ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos).” Pages 35–6 in vol. 2 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. R. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Robert C. Kashow

Church Scandals that Disgrace Jesus's Name and Character and Bring Shame On His Church

What the heck is going on in our churches and in Christianity?! Scandals among pastors are increasingly being exposed, and Christian music artists are leaving Christianity because they are "deconstructing" their faith or have "deconstructed" their faith, or whatever. I'm not sure why they use that term, except they think that it sounds better than simply saying that they no longer believe in Jesus. 

This year alone, several celebrity and megachurch pastors including Tony Evans, Robert Morris, David Platte, and most recently, Steve Lawson, have been caught in sin, causing them to either step down from the pulpit, or get fired by their church. Is this due to the fact that sin among church leaders is increasing, or is it because of how news spreads these days due to the internet and social media? Both ideas are possibilities and even likely, however I have a thought that I want to share, and that is that when celebrity and megachurch pastors fall, they disgrace the name of Jesus and bring shame upon the Church, however, we the people also play a part in it and allow it to happen by the way we view church and Christianity in this country. 

We view church as the place we go on Sunday to worship God and hear a good, uplifting sermon, presented by a professional pastor whom we consider to be qualified because they went to college and obtained a degree. We elevate these men or women above the rest of the church body because we view them as being our spiritual leaders due to the fact that they went to college and pursued a career in pastoral ministry.

In some cases, these pastors are talented speakers, or they provide a specific nichè in ministry, so people enjoy listening to them, which causes their ministry to grow, sometimes to celebrity status. They're on TV, the radio, YouTube, and podcasts. Millions of people around the world know their names and hear their messages. Then they fall. They fall after millions of people, including both believers and unbelievers, have come to know who they are and have heard their messages.

Many who know them and listen to their messages may be their disciples and walk away from God after hearing such devastating news about the man or woman they believed was above sinning. Unbelievers will be quick to point out their sin to world to say, "Look at the hypocrisy of the church", or "Look at what Jesus's followers do", or they blame religion for the world's problems. When these guys fall, the real church takes a hard hit.

The real church is not a building that we go to, nor an institution that we become members of. Buildings and institutions are places that are filled with a combination of people, from skeptics and atheists, to devoted and faithful Christians, and everything in between. They are places where "All are welcomed", so a variety of different beliefs, backgrounds, and values fill the pews and occupy the pulpits. The pulpit is not always occupied by a faithful Christian in these places, and sometimes they are not even true believers in Christ. They might be someone who is only looking for a vocation in ministry, rather than someone God has gifted and called. Or they might have an insidious agenda to bring down the church. Yet, the church will elect or hire these kinds of people to lead them, often giving them full authority over the church with zero accountability. They may give the impression of having accountability, but in reality they surround themselves with yes men who agree with everything they say and do, so they have no real accountability. These leaders will eventually cause internal divisions and scandals within the church, or they will fall into sin, taking down the church and its people, and when these things happen, unbelievers will pounce on the opportunity to point out the "church's" sin.

These places are not the real church. The real church is comprised of God's people who are people who believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and because they believe in Jesus, they live according to His teachings and God's ways. They seek to bring God's love, peace, mercy, justice and righteousness to the earth. The real church is not a place you go to, but it is the people of God. 

If Christians began operating as equal members of Christ's body working towards God's goal, and stopped elevating men and women in the church, especially to celebrity status, the name of Jesus would not be disgraced so frequently, and the church would not be viewed with such hypocrisy by outsiders. The early church model in the Bible does not exalt one person above another, but all members work together. If churches did not strive to become the biggest and best, fewer people would seek or be sought to become the next big name in ministry. Fewer people in the world would know who they are so fewer people would know when a pastor falls into sin. I'm not saying that the church needs to hide its sin by remaining small, but what I'm saying is that pastors are only human like the rest of us, and are not exempt from sin. Everyone in the church is equal in God's sight, He does not elevate a pastor above the rest of us. If people understood this, then when a pastor falls, it would not be such a blemish on the church. Every member within the church needs to be held accountable, including pastors, and especially pastors if they are going to assume the role of spiritual leader. A pastor by definition is supposed to protect the flock from harm, not be the source of it. Eliminating status positions would decrease pride, and eliminating celebrity status would minimize scandals and the disgrace of Jesus's name and character.

Only in the American church is Christianity like this. Let's work towards reforming it to be a light on a hill and to become something that brings glory to God, rather than reproach.

-------------------------

As I mentioned before, the people elevate the pastor as being the "spiritual one" who is above the rest of us, so he gets paid a salary for doing his job, and in some cases a huge salary, but he/she might leave the church and go somewhere else if tough times cause for giving to be down, rather than depending on God, who allegedly called him into ministry, to provide for his needs. 

Worship leaders and bands are sometimes hired, rather than have its own God gifted volunteers do the music. They do this to bring in more people, even people from other churches. These churches are in competition with other churches and they operate as a business rather than a gathering of Christians for equipping, edification, and encouragement. 

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: 𝐀 𝐓𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝: 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 8 : David Anointed King of Israel Part 3

1 Samuel 16

God sent Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint the king God had chosen to replace Saul. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, but the new king was from the tribe of Judah, the tribe that God had said the Messiah would come from. In a sense, David was Israel's messiah during that time. He was a militaristic leader who conquered the Philistines, Israel's number one enemy, and took control of the Promised Land. He captured Jerusalem where he established his throne and reigned over his kingdom from. He brought the ark of the covenant there, and because of his desire to build a house for the Lord, the temple of God was built by his offspring, making Jerusalem "the City of David", and more importantly, the "City of God".

[12] So David knew that the Lord had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted His kingdom for the sake of His people Israel. (2 Samuel 5:12).

Israel experienced peace and prosperity under David which they have not at any other time in their history. The reason is because Lord God of hosts was with him.

God later established a covenant with David, promising that another King would come from his lineage and establish His eternal kingdom over the entire earth with the new Jerusalem. Interestingly, this King would also come from Bethlehem of Judah. He will reign with an iron scepter of righteousness and justice, and peace will preside over the earth like there has never been before because God will be with Him.

In 1 Samuel 16, Samuel invited the elders and Jesse and his family to make sacrifices with him. When he saw Jesse's son Eliab, he thought, "Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord", but the Lord said, "Do not consider his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, "The Lord has not chosen any of these. Are these all the sons you have?". So Jesse brought his youngest son David from tending the sheep, and when he came the Lord said, "Rise and anoint him for he is the one." So Samuel took the horn of the oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power. But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. 

God anointed David as king, but he did not actually become king until fifteen years later. This may have been so that God could both prepare him and test his faithfulness to rule over His kingdom of people as we see He did with Joseph:

[19] Until the time came to fulfill his dreams, the Lord tested Joseph’s character. (Psalms 105:19 NLT).

Like David, Jesus also was anointed King, but did not assume His role as King over God's kingdom until years later when He took His seat next to God in heaven. God prepared Him and tested Him for several years before making Himself known and beginning the work of establishing His Kingdom. He first had to prove Himself faithful by being tested by God. God tested Him by sending into the wilderness where Satan tempted Him to see if He would overcome the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Jesus passed this test by denying Satan's temptations, however, the testing was not complete. 

After encountering Satan in the wilderness, He was tested constantly by the Jews who threatened His life as He called them to repent and believe in Him, and as He attempted to teach them about truly following YHWH. This was going on at the same time that He was discipling twelve men whom God had chosen to carry on the mission of establishing His Kingdom after He died for the forgiveness of sins and left to go be with the Father.

It was also going on at the same time that He was destroying the works of the devil by casting out demons, healing, and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus actually told the Jewish leaders who opposed Him that they were doing the work of their father, the devil, and He was undoing their works by doing the work of His Father, YHWH.

His mission was difficult to say the least. Would He accomplish everything that God had sent Him to do while facing so much opposition? It would have been easy for Him to turn back and give up because it was too hard. The devil was throwing everything at Him that he could to get Him to stop doing what He was doing. He had free reign up until now. Then suddenly this guy shows up and begins undoing everything he has done, limiting his power and authority over the people, binding him so that he no longer has free reign. 

Satan was also working from the inside to destroy the work that Jesus was doing. One of His disciples had fallen away and made a deal with the devil to turn Jesus over to them. God had chosen Judas to be one of the twelve men who would continue the work that Jesus started, but somewhere along the way his faith must have begun to falter, so Satan seized the opportunity to destroy Jesus and His work. This was no doubt another obstacle that Jesus had to endure in the work that God had sent Him to do; another of God's tests to ensure that He was able to be the King of God's people. 

His final test was whether or not He would follow through with being mocked, tortured, and murdered so that men could be reconciled back to God. It was extremely important for Jesus to follow through with this, otherwise, all the other work He was doing would not mean anything, and God's plan would not come to fruition, at least not through Him. He would sacrifice His own life as an atonement for man's. His death would allow God to forgive man's sins so that they could be with Him and He could be with them. His blood that He shed when He died would be the seal of the new covenant which God made with those who believe in His Son, Jesus the King. Fortunately for mankind, Jesus passed the tests that God had given Him by finishing the work that He sent Him to do (John 17:4; John 19:30), showing Himself faithful to be the King of God's eternal kingdom.

Unlike David and Jesus, Saul was not tested before being made king of Israel, and he failed and was rejected by God and ejected as king of God's people. He was replaced by David whom God anointed as king. But prior to David taking control of Israel, Saul remained as king until his death fifteen years later. Then, even after that, it was another seven years before David took control of all of Israel. During this time, David was king of Judah and Saul was king of Israel. There was continual war between the two, and though David began with a small following, his house grew stronger and stronger, while Saul's grew weaker and weaker. 

Jesus is the anointed King who currently sits enthroned over His kingdom from heaven. However, like Saul, Satan still rules as king on the earth, while Jesus waits for God to send Him to conquer Satan and take His throne on the earth. Like David and Saul, there is continual war between Jesus and Satan, and though Jesus's kingdom began small, it continues to grow stronger and stronger, while Satan's grows weaker and weaker. And similar to David, when Jesus returns, He will take control of all of the earth, setting up His eternal kingdom throughout, and reigning as King over all of His creation.

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: 𝐀 𝐓𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝: 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 7 : David Anointed King of Israel Part 2

1 Samuel 16:1-5

The Lord instructed Samuel to go to Jesse of Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king. Samuel's response was similar to that of many others that we read of in the Bible whom God had instructed to do something; a response of fear and uncertainty: 

"How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me?"

It sounds strange coming from Samuel, "the man of God", who we read of in the Bible as being bold in obedience to God by speaking God's often harsh messages to Saul. The Bible provides records of Moses, and the prophet Elijah responding in a similar manner when God instructed them to go and fulfill His purpose. The point is that it is not unusual to be afraid and uncertain when God instructs us to go to work.

God responded with a specific plan detailing exactly what Samuel was to do to avert Saul so that he would be protected. The plan: "make it appear and say that you are there for a reason other than what you are really there for." God's plan included a deception and a lie. It required Samuel to deceive Saul by making it appear that he was there to offer sacrifices, and it required him to lie to Saul about the reason that he was there. Now, I'm not saying that God is a deceiver or liar, nor am I saying that God advocates for such things. But there are times when doing God's work that His people need to operate under the radar, and cannot truthfully say why they are there. The underground church in nations that are hostile to Jesus operates in this way on a daily basis. Jesus instructed His disciples to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves, and this is what He meant by that. It is unwise and careless to honest and forthright when doing the Lord's work in potentially dangerous situations. Being deceptive in such scenarios is for our own protection, as it was for Samuel's. 

Despite his fear and uncertainty, "Samuel did what the Lord said." He was obedient to God, demonstrating faith and trust in Him. 

When he arrived in Bethlehem, the elders trembled when they met him and asked, "Do you come in peace?". 

The man of God Samuel was well known, and the elders recognized him when he arrived, and probably thought that he came to bring a message of rebuke or judgment against them. Samuel was a "seer" which is a prophet, and prophets usually did not bring good news. If one showed up in town, it probably wasn't going to be a good day. In Christianity today, many people say that Christians should be "joy givers", which means you appear to be happy and joyful all the time whether you are or not, and you have a positive attitude and outlook on life. If you aren't this way, they say, then you're a "joy stealer" or you must not have Jesus because you don't have the joy that comes from knowing Jesus.

But number one, this is one of the reasons why so many people look at the church as being full of hypocrites. There are people who are genuinely and naturally joyful, and they are great to be around. They have positive attitudes and big smiles and everyone loves them. But there are many who fake it because their church leaders instructed them to portray an image of joy in order to create a joyful environment so that people will enjoy coming to the church. This is hypocrisy.

God did not create everyone with an exuberant, joyful personality. He made some to have a more somber personality, however, they are still joyful because they are obedient to Jesus, which is where real joy comes from. Christians who live in persecution experience great joy because of their obedience to Jesus, but they may not always have an outward appearance of joy because they are living in tough conditions. When you speak speak with them though, their joy will be evident because they understand the source of their joy.

God made some to be prophets. Prophets usually brought messages from God to His people, and they were usually not messages containing good news. They were usually messages calling for His people to repent - turn away from your idolatry and turn back to Him - and if they didn't, then He was going to discipline them by way of judgment and wrath. 

In some cases, their messages were of rebuke, like we see when the prophet Nathan rebuked King David for raping Bathsheba and killing her husband. The deed had already been done, so God sent His prophet to rebuke him and inform him of how He was going to discipline David for committing these evil acts. Make no mistake, God's discipline of His people is His wrath and judgment being played out in real time. If we respond with repentance, then He will not make us account for it again at the judgement on the Last Day because He will have already forgiven us. But if we respond with unrepentance by continuing to rebel against Him, we will have to answer for our wickedness when we stand before Him on judgment day, and the outcome might not be very good.

David's life after he committed these heinous acts of wickedness was not so good, even though he seemed to have repented. God kept His promise of judgment against David, and his family fell apart. 

All that to say, prophets would be considered "joy stealers" in modern day Christianity because they did not bring a positive message or outlook on life with them. Their messages were typically of doom and gloom. And because of that, many of them suffered terribly at the hands of God's people who were the recipients of the message. They probably viewed them as messengers of doom and gloom, so they rejected God's word because they did not believe that it was true. So when the elders saw Samuel come into town their hearts probably sank, and they trembled with fear because they thought that he was there to give them a message from God.