View Full Version : Was St. Paul a bishop?
CaDan
19th May 2005, 09:04 AM
TAW is the place to come when you have a question that is, well, ancient!
St. Paul was certainly an apostle (references to this are too numerous to mention). But was he also a bishop?
RobNJ
19th May 2005, 09:23 AM
Not answering the question.. But I'd like to compliment you on the FORMER Tom Waits avatar!! :thumbsup:
CaDan
19th May 2005, 09:26 AM
Not answering the question.. But I'd like to compliment you on the Tom Waits avatar!! :thumbsup:
:D
Of course I get this message right after I changed it again . . . .
Ah well.
Emmanuel-A
19th May 2005, 09:39 AM
I don't think Saint paul was a bishop. I think the only apostle who was a bishop was Saint James, bishop of Jerusalem.
When you mention a bishop, you always mention the diocese that goes along with the bishop title, ie a bishop is necessary the bishop of a particuliar place. It's (at least in theory) a sedentary ministry.
On the contrary, most of the Apostles, and Saint paul is well known for that, had a "travelling" ministry, they established churches and bishops everywhere they could, but did not settle in a particuliar place.
Feel free to correct me if I'm not clear.
CaDan
19th May 2005, 09:49 AM
I don't think Saint paul was a bishop. I think the only apostle who was a bishop was Saint James, bishop of Jerusalem.
When you mention a bishop, you always mention the diocese that goes along with the bishop title, ie a bishop is necessary the bishop of a particuliar place. It's (at least in theory) a sedentary ministry.
On the contrary, most of the Apostles, and Saint paul is well known for that, had a "travelling" ministry, they established churches and bishops everywhere they could, but did not settle in a particuliar place.
Feel free to correct me if I'm not clear.
That was the core of my thought while falling asleep last night. But I was wondering whether there are any traditions to the contrary of which I am unaware.
Maximus
19th May 2005, 10:17 AM
The tradition of the Church and a lot of historical evidence indicates that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome.
I don't think St. Paul ever acted as a bishop, however. That would have entailed settling in one place for an extended period.
minasoliman
19th May 2005, 11:21 AM
Hey guys, I hope you don't mind I butt in, but I learned that St. Paul was the "bishop" of the Gentiles of Rome. Why else would St. Paul write a letter to the Roman gentiles?
What else is a bishop other than an "overseer" over a congregation?
God bless.
Maximus
19th May 2005, 03:43 PM
Hey guys, I hope you don't mind I butt in, but I learned that St. Paul was the "bishop" of the Gentiles of Rome. Why else would St. Paul write a letter to the Roman gentiles?
What else is a bishop other than an "overseer" over a congregation?
God bless.
Was his Roman letter addressed only to "Gentiles"? Did the early Christians assemble in separate congregations according to whether or not one was circumcised?
St. Paul wrote letters to several local churches. Was he the bishop of all of them?
CaDan
19th May 2005, 05:18 PM
Was his Roman letter addressed only to "Gentiles"? Did the early Christians assemble in separate congregations according to whether or not one was circumcised?
They occasionally did, only to get chewed out by Paul for doing so.
St. Paul wrote letters to several local churches. Was he the bishop of all of them?
Kind of what I was wondering.
The Prokeimenon!
19th May 2005, 05:32 PM
This is a good question! I know that St Peter (and St Paul?) established the Church in Antioch, St Andrew in Byzantium,and Ss Peter and Paul in Rome, etc. My Godfather told me that while the Apostles did establish and oversee certain Churches and regions, they did not serve as Bishops proper, because their particular job was unique in the Church. But I don't know if this is accurate or what the Church says officially. So I'm interested to see what other people have to say about it.
Again- great question :)
Moses
Photios
19th May 2005, 10:02 PM
I have been given to understand that St John the Apostle was bishop of Ephesus for a time.
minasoliman
21st May 2005, 02:13 PM
Was his Roman letter addressed only to "Gentiles"? Did the early Christians assemble in separate congregations according to whether or not one was circumcised?
St. Paul wrote letters to several local churches. Was he the bishop of all of them?
It was my impression that to wherever he wrote, it was because he established something there.
In Romans 15, for example, he was planning to visit them. Why minister to them if St. Peter was the bishop of Rome? Probably because like he said in that same chapter, to minister to the Gentiles. In addition, the greetings in Romans 16 seems to suggest he established something there.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
God bless.
Maximus
21st May 2005, 02:19 PM
It was my impression that to wherever he wrote, it was because he established something there. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
God bless.
I think you are right. St. Paul established churches. As an apostle, he appointed others to serve in those churches as bishops.
Like this:
Acts 14:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=14&verse=23&version=50&context=verse)
So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Well, I guess that's not the best verse, since it could be speaking of priests as well as bishops.
minasoliman
21st May 2005, 02:30 PM
So is it okay then to say that the successors of Roman bishops (theoretically speaking) was not just to St. Peter, but also to St. Paul?
It seems he oversaw a very strong Church in Rome.
CaDan
21st May 2005, 03:55 PM
I think you are right. St. Paul established churches. As an apostle, he appointed others to serve in those churches as bishops.
Like this:
Acts 14:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=14&verse=23&version=50&context=verse)
So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Well, I guess that's not the best verse, since it could be speaking of priests as well as bishops.
You hit it with your last sentence. Our English word "priest" is derived from the Greek presbyteros, which is generally translated as "elder". A bishop is an episkopos.
As MosestheBlack pointed out earlier, Paul was pretty constantly on the move. I think that, while he founded small-c churches and counseled them, he did not "oversee" them directly.
CaDan
21st May 2005, 04:10 PM
So is it okay then to say that the successors of Roman bishops (theoretically speaking) was not just to St. Peter, but also to St. Paul?
It seems he oversaw a very strong Church in Rome.
It's hard to say.
The tradition (which I do not dispute) is that Peter ended up at Rome, too. Eusebius, citing Pappias, indicates he was able to do some preaching there.
While Acts 28 indicates that Paul was in Rome for at least two years, I don't know if Peter was there at the same time. Luke kind of loses interest in Peter after Acts 15, and just doesn't say.
CopticGirl
21st May 2005, 06:34 PM
I don't think Saint paul was a bishop. I think the only apostle who was a bishop was Saint James, bishop of Jerusalem.
St. James was not the only bishop. I know that St. Mark was the 1st Bishop of Alexandria.
God Bless.
CaDan
21st May 2005, 07:52 PM
St. James was not the only bishop. I know that St. Mark was the 1st Bishop of Alexandria.
God Bless.
Who was the first Bishop of Antioch? I would suspect Peter, but I just don't know.
Maximus
21st May 2005, 07:53 PM
Who was the first Bishop of Antioch? I would suspect Peter, but I just don't know.
It was St. Peter. He was also the first Bishop of Rome.
CaDan
21st May 2005, 09:16 PM
It was St. Peter. He was also the first Bishop of Rome.
He sure got around! :D
gtsecc
22nd May 2005, 12:09 AM
Apostle is really higher than Bishop.
Thousands and thousands of folks have been Bishop.
Only 12 have been apostles.
MORTANIUS
23rd May 2005, 01:36 AM
The Apostle Paul was not a Bishop. He was an Evangelist. In your Orthodoxy I believe he may also be termed a Spiritual Father, if one considers his attending to spiritual matters of those he brought to Jesus Christ.
sin_vladimirov
23rd May 2005, 04:47 AM
Gtsecc what do you call these 70 from Lk chapter X (If only 12 were apostles how come, Ss. Mark, Luke and Paul were apostles)?
Mortanius, St. Paul was Apostle.
Ss. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were Evangelists and Apostles.
I am not sure if he ever had bishopric though. Could be, could be not... soon enough, those better than I am right now, will be able to ask him themselves.
in ICXC
stefan+
Copyright ©2000-2008, ChristianForums.com