Over the past year, I have engaged in several public discussions concerning whether the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true church established by Jesus Christ. While we share many beliefs in common with Eastern Orthodoxy, we also have disagreements on important doctrinal topics. One of those is the organization and qualifications of church leadership.
The New Testament identifies church leaders using three main terms: presbyteros (elder), episkopos (bishop/overseer), and poimēn (shepherd/pastor). These terms do not describe different offices, but different aspects or functions of the same leadership position.
Consider the three inspired witnesses of Luke, Peter and Paul. In Acts 20:17, Paul summons the elders (presbyteroi) of Ephesus. In verse 28, he tells these same men that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (episkopoi) to shepherd (poimainein) the church. All three terms describe the same men with differing functions within church leadership. In 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter instructs the elders to shepherd God’s flock while exercising oversight. In Titus 1:5-7, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every city, immediately explaining their qualifications by saying, “For a bishop must be blameless.” Notice three inspired writers, Luke, Peter, and Paul, identify bishops and presbyters as the same office.
When it comes to the qualifications of this office, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 require bishops to be husbands of one wife who properly manage their households and have faithful children. Paul explains that a man’s ability to manage his household provides evidence of his qualifications to oversee God’s church, asking, “If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5).
Despite these clear instructions, modern Eastern Orthodoxy requires its bishops to be unmarried or celibate at the time of their appointment, excluding married men from the episcopate. A man who is currently married and faithfully raising his children is excluded from the episcopate, although this is required by Paul. This stands in clear contrast to the qualifications outlined by Paul by the Holy Spirit.
It is also important to mention that this understanding is not unique to churches of Christ. Anglican scholar J. B. Lightfoot wrote, “It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the language of the New Testament the same leader in the church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ … and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter.'” (Philippians, p. 109). Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown also acknowledged that presbyters and bishops in the New Testament were, “for all practical purposes the same” (Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections, p. 35). The Orthodox Church of America’s own instructional manual acknowledges: “At first, the words presbyter/elder (presbyteros) and bishop (episcopos) were used interchangeably…These verses indicate that the words presbyteros and episcopos described the same office.” (Essential Orthodox Christian Beliefs, pp. 137–138).
Although the Orthodox manual tries to explain the later separation of these offices as just a change in terminology, it does admit that the New Testament describes bishops and presbyters as the same office.
How do we explain the difference between Scripture and the Eastern Orthodox churches pattern for church leadership? The earliest uninspired Christian writings give us some information here. As we try to trace this development, they mostly reflect the same pattern we see in the New Testament.
Clement of Rome (late first century) speaks of presbyters faithfully fulfilling the duties of the episcopate (1 Clement 44). Polycarp (early second century) instructs Christians to submit to their “presbyters and deacons” without mentioning a separate bishop over the presbyters (Philippians 5). The Shepherd of Hermas describes “the presbyters who preside over the Church” (Vision 2.4). The Didache similarly instructs congregations to appoint for themselves bishops and deacons (15.1).
However, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, explicitly distinguishes one bishop from a council of presbyters (Magnesians 6). This provides early evidence of what historians call the mono-episcopate—a single bishop presiding over the presbyters of a congregation. Nevertheless, even Ignatius’s writings present the bishop as the leader of the local Christian community, rather than the later idea of the bishop exercising authority over a large area. Even Ignatius’s description doesn’t match Eastern Orthodoxy today.
Interestingly, Jerome living in the 4-5th century, gives us some information about this change. In Epistle 146, he wrote, “the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops…when subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism.” In his commentary on Titus 1:5, Jerome explained that bishops were placed over presbyters through tradition rather than a particular institution by the Lord. Historian Philip Schaff also recognized that the episcopate developed over time, identifying three stages associated with Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 144).
The New Testament shows congregations overseen by qualified elders who were also called bishops and pastors. However, we can see from history the emergence of a different hierarchical arrangement. This is interesting considering Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders that men would arise from among themselves, drawing disciples after them (Acts 20:28–31).
The question is not whether Eastern Orthodoxy possesses an ancient ecclesiastical structure. It does. However, something being ancient does not make it apostolic. The question is whether that structure is the one established by the apostles and revealed in the inspired Scriptures. The episcopate of Eastern Orthodoxy today is not the New Testament pattern. It is a post-apostolic development that differs from the pattern revealed in the New Testament.
-Aaron Gallagher