BISHOP
(gr. “episkopos”, “supervisor”).
In the LXX this term designates an official supervisor, civil or religious, such as the priest Eleazar (Num. 4:16) and army officers (Num. 31:14).
In the NT, this term first appears in Paul’s exhortation to the elders or presbyters of the church at Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (or overseers). ; Acts 20:17, 28).
In this passage and in others, Paul uses these words “elder” and “bishop” to designate the same people (cf. Tit. 1:5-7). The first term designates the dignity of age, while the second denotes the dignity of the function performed.
Instead, a clear distinction is made between the bishop and the deacon (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-8). Using the term “episkopeõ,” Peter exhorts the elders as follows: “Feed the flock of God that is among you, taking care of it…” (1 Pet. 5:2).
The name bishop is applied to Christ: “You have returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25).
Already during the life of the apostles there were numerous tendencies, within Christianity, that departed from obedience to the instructions given by the Lord through them, both in doctrines and in practice (cf. Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Colossians , etc.).
The same thing happened after the death of the apostles. Soon a distinction, non-existent in the Scriptures, began to be made between the elders or presbyters and the bishops. In the second century this difference is mentioned in the epistles of Ignatius, who died in the year 107 (or 116).
Jerome has left us an eloquent testimony of the state of things that led to the ascension of the episcopal regime: “In the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same, because the first is the name of dignity, and the last of age” ( Epistle to Oceano, Vall. 69, 416).
And in his epistle to Evangel he quotes Phil. 1:1; Acts. twenty; Tit. 1:5, etc.; 1 Ti. 4:14; 1 P. 5; 2 John and 3 John, using very strong language, and says verbatim: “that afterwards one was chosen who was above (lat.: “praeponeretur”) of the others, was done as a remedy for schisms, lest at the same time going each one to attract to themselves the church of Christ would divide it.
In this and other writings, Jerome amplifies the testimony that the election of a presiding bishop among the elders was a provision not taken from the Scriptures, but made for convenience, due to the clericalism that had already fallen into at that time, and that would go growing in the subsequent development of the history of the Church, culminating in the Catholic papacy.
At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Roman church proclaimed that “bishops, successors of the apostles, are established by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God, and are superior to its presbyters or priests.”
The position of the church of Rome is that the elders, who had been established in the ministry, led the regional assemblies. The church of Rome also assumes that, as the number of communities had increased, the apostles, in need of helpers, appointed district supervisors, who were designated as their successors. This, according to Rome, would have been the case of the angels of the seven churches.
According to the Anglican Church, James the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem, the angels of the seven churches, Timothy and Titus, were those who exercised these functions. However, it must be noted that, while the apostles sent personal delegates with their authority, there is no indication in the Scriptures that this authority could be given to successors.
The alleged motive of the episcopal office is to maintain the care of the church. However, the following observations must be made:
(a) The apostles established the elders and deacons with their own authority, either directly exercised or delegated to people who had this charge formally.
It is evident that the churches had no power to make such appointments, from the very fact that Timothy and Titus were charged with such a mission in the churches to which they were sent (1 Tim. 1:2; 3:1-15; Tit. 1:5 ff.).
It is evident that the disappearance of the apostles in their singular character also gave rise to the disappearance of the elders and deacons as positions that had been established in the nascent church by the irreplaceable apostolic authority.
(b) The arrangement of the episcopal regime did not have its origin in obedience to the Scriptures, but in a human attempt to curb schismatic tendencies; It arose, therefore, as a consequence of the strong tendencies towards clericalism. Ultimately, and seen from a historical perspective, the cure was worse than the disease.
(c) The Scriptures do not commend the church to bishops or elders as a remedy for the evils that would come, but rather point to them as future causes of those evils.
Indeed, Paul, in his moving farewell to the Ephesian elders, tells them: “For I know that after my departure ravenous wolves will enter among you, not sparing the flock.
And of yourselves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them… And now, brothers, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance with all those who are sanctified. » (Acts 20:29-30, 32, etc.).
This is the resource that God has given to his people, a full and effective resource. Himself, and the Word of grace from Him. The apostles, and everything they entailed, fulfilled their historical mission, establishing the foundations of the Church, and giving believers the Word of God and the living hope of the return of Jesus Christ.