Question: I come from a Christian tradition that uses the term “pastor” for its ministers. Why would we ever use the term “bishop” or “priest” instead? Are they biblical?
This is a great question for those of us from more Evangelical Protestant backgrounds, and I, too, was raised in a setting where “pastor” was the only titular term I knew for a minister in the church.
The foundational reason why people would use the word “bishop” is because it is one of the offices/orders/positions in the church used by Paul in the New Testament itself. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives the qualifications for two of these offices: the office of the ἐπῐ́σκοπος/epĭskopos and the office of the δῐᾱ́κονος/dĭākonos.
As the Greek epĭskopos moved into Latin, the Germanic languages, and finally English, it morphed: episcopus (Classical Latin) → (e)biscopus (Vulgar Latin) → biscopo (British Latin) → bisċop (Old English) → bischop (Middle English) → bishop (Late English). In some more Evangelical English translations, the word has been translated to its original meaning, the office of an “overseer” in the church. Rarely do churches call an individual an “overseer” as a title, however, and so other English translations might instead use the term “superintendent,” or even “president/presider.” English translations that wish to keep the continuity with the original Greek word as a title simply say “bishop.”
Similarly, as the Greek dĭākonos moved into Latin, the Germanic languages, and finally English, it also morphed: diaconus (Ecclesiastical Latin) → diacon (Old English) → deacon (Late English). In some more Evangelical English translations, the word has been translated to its original meaning, the office of a “servant,” or also the office’s connotation of being an “agent/representative/messenger/ambassador” in the church. Rarely do churches call an individual a “servant” as a title, however, and so other English translations might instead use the Latin term “minister,” which is used more as a title. English translations that wish to keep the continuity with the original Greek word as a title simply say “deacon.” Either way, the role has the connotation of serving on behalf of someone else’s authority, which is why Paul calls Jesus a “deacon” of God the Father (Romans 15:8).
Several interesting notes here are that:
- Τhe first deacons are set apart by the apostles, serving under their authority and as their representatives (Acts 6).
- The dĭākonos is a singular agent who performs δῐᾱκονῐ́ᾱ/diākoníā, typically translated as “ministry” or “service,” and emphasizes more the agent’s relationship as an ambassador to the person with authority, rather than simply the agent’s functional tasks they are charged with. In the New Testament, there seems to be individuals set apart to the office of dĭākonos, but there also seems to be a general diākoníā in which all Christians share.
- Jesus, the apostles, Paul, and others refer to themselves as performing diākoníā.
- Τhe role epĭskopos is connected to the apostles: when Matthias is chosen as an apostle to replace Judas, Peter declares: “Let another take his position of overseer (literally, ‘ἐπισκοπὴν/episkopēn‘ or ‘bishopric’),” which is why the early church and the patristic church especially treated bishops as the successors to the apostles (Acts 1:20b).
- Early church writings often mention the epĭskopos and dĭākonos as successors to the apostles and prophets, seemingly indicating a two-fold office of ministry. However, early writers often use the word ὑπηρέτης/hypēretēs as a synonym for dĭākonos to emphasize the deacon as this representative agent of the bishop, often using deacons as messengers between dioceses who represent the sending bishop with their authority. Three early examples of this are: (1) Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Trallians: “Deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ…are not providers (διάκονοι/diakonoi) of food and drink but are agents (ὑπηρέται/ hypēretai) of the Church;” (2) Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition: “Why, then, have we said that the bishop (ἐπίσκοπος/episkopos) alone is the one who will set his hands over the deacon (διάκονος/diakonos)? This is the reason: he is not ordained to [the presbyterate], but to an agency (ὑπηρεσία/hypēresia) of the bishop (ἐπίσκοπος/episkopos), to do those things he will command him;” but also (3) Paul explicitly uses the agency language to describe himself in 1 Corinthians: “Thus let a person consider us as agents (ὑπηρέτας/hypēretas) of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries.”
However, these aren’t the only terms for an office used in the New Testament. Paul and other writers also use the term πρεσβῠ́τερος/presby̆teros, which is sometimes used as an equivalent of epĭskopos (although they are clearly distinct offices by the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John who probably died c. 108). As the Greek presby̆teros moved into Latin, the Germanic languages, and finally English, it morphed: presbyter (Late Latin) → prēost (Old English) → prestre (Old French) → preest/prester (Middle English) → priest (Late English). In some more Evangelical English translations, the word has been translated to its original meaning, the office of an “elder” in the church. English translations that wish to keep the continuity with the original Greek word as a title simply say “presbyter,” or “priest.” Note that this is [very confusingly and unhelpfully in English] not the same word that is often translated as “priest” in our Evangelical Bibles: as in the Old Testament priests, the priesthood of Melchizedek, Jesus as the high priest, or the body of Christ as the royal priesthood. All of these words are actually ῐ̔ερεύς/hĭereus, which denote a type of sacrificial role. This is not connected to the role of presby̆teros/presbyter/priest and in most other languages that stem from the Latin, the word is translated as a cognate of sacerdōs, where we get the word “sacerdotal.” Hĭereus is also interestingly where we form words such as “hierarchy,” a word from ῐ̔ερᾰ́ρχης/hierárkhēs literally meaning “high [sacerdotal] priest.”
These words obviously have meaning for churches today:
- Churches that have an “episcopal” style of governance are ones that are led by “bishops” who “oversee” local areas of congregations with presbyters/priests and deacons. More could be said about this, of course. Ignatius of Antioch already writes about the advent of the μόνοἐπῐ́σκοπος/monoepĭskopos in the early church by the end of the first century. In this model, there was always only one (mono) bishop (epĭskopos) serving as the overseer of each geographic region, usually a city or metropolitan area called a “diocese.” These bishops were the spiritual authority in these areas and determined local church practice in their dioceses. When an issue of church practice or doctrine affected the entire global church, the bishops from each area would travel to make a decision in an “ecumenical” (οἰκουμενικός/oikoumenikós meaning “from and concerning the whole world”) council, participating in a way they called “catholic” (καθολικός/katholikós, meaning “according to the whole”). As the church grew, bishops would maintain a seat (καθέδρα/kathédra) in their central congregation, eventually called a cathedral. They would send presbyters/priests (presby̆teros) as their representatives to other congregations to lead with their authority. How these bishops are appointed as well as their relationship to the college of presbyters/priests is a matter of debate. Churches that maintain this “episcopal” model typically refer to a diocese consisting of several congregations when they refer to the “local church,” and they typically believe only a college of bishops with the office of oversight can “elevate” an individual to their office, as did the apostles. Because of this, these churches also usually believe that only a bishop can exercise the ability to set apart presbyters/priests and deacons. Unity in the Church, then, is garnered through these bishops as a symbol of unity. Some churches even place the episcopal model in their name (e.g. The Episcopal Church), but most of the ancient churches of the “Great Tradition” have a similar episcopal model: Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Anglican, etc.
- Other churches might have a “presbyteral” style of governance where a council or gathering of presbyters/priests/elders provide “oversight” of congregations together. Some churches place this in their names, too (e.g. Presbyterian churches). Churches that maintain this “presbyteral” model typically refer to one congregation as the “local church,” but these congregations are connected to each other through their presbyters/priests/elders in a gathering that is sometimes called a “presbytery” or “session.” There are some churches that maintain a mixed of episcopal-presbyteral form of church government, where presbyters are the symbol of unity among churches, but bishops are elected from the presbyters to perform the function of oversight for a period of time. This is common in the synodical ministeriums of various Lutheran churches. The common denominator between all presbyteral churches, however, is that there is not a hard distinction between the offices of epĭskopos and presby̆teros in the New Testament, and so any function of oversight is granted out of the council of presbyters, and is not necessarily seen as an elevation to a distinct office that comes in direct succession to the apostles in a way that is different to the manner in which every presbyter already succeeds the work of the apostles. Because of this, these churches usually believe that a presbyter or council of presbyters can also exercise the ability to set apart deacons.
- Other churches believe that every congregation should be independent and have autonomy to govern itself, and thus might have a council of elders from within its own congregation. These churches have a “congregationalist” style of governance. Some of these churches also place this in their names (e.g. Congregationalist churches), although “independent” churches or “non-denominational” churches often denote the same concept. These churches see unity as most important within the “local church” (which is one local congregation), and less essential between the greater Church, at least in some formal way. These churches believe that any sort of ministerial authority or office (including all the offices mentioned above) is granted by the people of the local congregation to any individual they choose to appoint and set apart to fulfill certain functions and tasks. Often, they may not use terms like bishop (epĭskopos) and presbyter/priest (presby̆teros)—although they might use the term “elder” for a presby̆teros—yet strangely enough, they do often use the term deacon (dĭākonos).
So, where does the title “pastor” come from? Well, in the New Testament, the word pastor comes from the Greek word ποιμήν/poimēn, which is a shepherd. The Latin translation for a poimēn is a pāstor, and has the same cognate for words such as pastoral and pasture, which all have to do with shepherding and grazing. Jesus, of course, calls himself the “Great Shepherd,” but also connects shepherding to the task of the apostles (who represent him), as well (John 21:16), telling them to “feed his sheep.” One might argue that Jesus means this spiritually (in preaching the Holy Gospel and administering the spiritual nourishment of Holy Communion), but also physically (i.e. literally feeding the hungry, etc.). Paul, correspondingly, does not describe a poimēn as an office, but more appropriately, a “gift” or “function” or “task” that some believers might be charged with (Ephesians 4:11), often connecting it with teaching. However, Paul and other epistlers do connect the task of spiritual shepherding (with the sense of guiding and protecting the souls of the people, who are the sheep) to the offices of epĭskopos and presby̆teros (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2). This is why in the historic church, bishops and others who exercise oversight and spiritual jurisdiction over groups of Christians (including abbots/abbesses) are given a “crozier” or “pastoral staff” in the shape of a shepherd’s crook. It is also why bishops and presbyters/priests in all of the governance models mentioned above who are tasked with the “cure/care of souls” are also called “pastors” or “shepherds.”
Still very early after the apostles (c. 140), the popular work entitled The Shepherd of Hermas (in Greek, Ποιμὴν τοῦ Ἑρμᾶ/Poimēn tou Herma; in Latin, Pastor Hermæ) was an early exhortation about the morality of the Church and its leaders. In fact, it was considered canonical Scripture by many churches and prominent theologians between the second and fourth centuries, and is a good taste of the values and practices of which early Christians thought “ministry” should embody. In the fourth century, St. Augustine of Hippo (a prominent African Catholic bishop and considered one of the fathers of Western Christianity) gave this job description for pastor-bishops: “Disturbers are to be rebuked, the low-spirited to be encouraged, the infirm to be supported, objectors confuted, the treacherous guarded against, the unskilled taught, the lazy aroused, the contentious restrained, the haughty repressed, litigants pacified, the poor relieved, the oppressed liberated, the good approved, the evil borne with, and all are to be loved” (Sermon CCIX).
To conclude, I pray this helps answer the question why someone would ever use the term “bishop,” and whether these words were all the same in the New Testament. Ultimately, I believe that there are a lot of good reasons to use all of these terms, mainly due to their prominence in Scripture and church history. It is easy for us today to forget that the use of the term “pastor” to refer to the common Protestant title of modern times dates only to the days of John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli in the sixteenth century. Both men, and other Reformers, seem to have revived the term to replace the term “priest” in the minds of their followers. However, it’s important to remember that the majority of our Christian brothers and sisters throughout time have also used terms such as “bishop,” “presbyter/priest,” and “deacon” to describe the offices charged to the Church in the New Testament, and as strange as it may be sometimes to conform to this vocabulary, it seems to better join the practice of the Church in “all times and places.”
For the next conversation: Are vicars, curates, rectors, archdeacons, and canons all presbyters/priests? And why are there so many different kinds of bishops (commissary, suffragan, coadjutor, diocesan, ordinary, etc.)? Help!
Related Reading:
Ex Vitæ Verborum 