For our idea of ‘office’ the Greek language has a wealth of terms. In the New Testament the Greek terms ‘archê’ (precedence, being at the head, ruling) and ‘archôn’ (ruler) are used for Jewish and Gentile 
authorities, demonic powers and for Christ  (Col. 1.18). ‘timê’ (position of dignity)  is used only once (Heb. 5.4) of Christ’s official dignity as high priest.  ‘telos’ (complete power of office) is  nowhere found in the New Testament.  The early Christians used the common terms of the time to express the tasks of the various functionaries in their communities. Thus for the task of service, help or assistance they employed diakonia, diakonos, diakoneô  and for the task of supervision they used the terms, episkopê, episkopos and the verb episkopeô. The primary and main sense of these words is that of ‘looking upon, observing, inspecting’ which then acquires the connotation of ‘visitation’ whether benevolent or punitive. So episkopos  could be used of people in charge whether they were a god, an army general, a city official or a student’s tutor. It is in this general use that episkopos and the related terms are employed in the New Testament. They did not yet have the specific meanings the modern terms, derived from them, have today. 

Paul 

In the Pauline letters community order is shown to be in a fluid state, functions are defined in terms of gifts, ‘charisms’ of the Spirit rather than offices and it is expressed in the natural and familiar terms for the particular functions  in use at the time. The terms and functions overlapped, one person could perform more than one function. Synonymous terms for the same functions were used by Paul, thus the  ‘episkopoi’  i.e. overseers, those in charge were also called ‘proistamenoi’ (those in front, leaders, - Rom 12:8  and 1 Thess 5;12)  or ‘kubernêseis’ ( leadership, guidance, - 1Cor 12:28). The Christian groups had 
their local community projects to undertake, which necessitated the involvement of those who were capable to organize i.e. overseers and those willing to help in carrying them out, the servers, assistants. 

Phil. 1:1,   “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus. To all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and servers.” In this salutation Paul addresses all the members of the Philippian community as ‘holy ones’ or ‘saints’ in the fundamental sense of ‘hagios’ i.e. set apart ‘in 
Christ’ which became a common designation for the Christians (cf. also 4:21).  Yet he appends two groups of functionaries, ‘episkopoi,’ i.e. overseers, superintendents and ‘diakonoi’  i.e. servers, ministers*.  This is done as a special mention, at the outset, of those who were instrumental in procuring 
the pecuniary contribution of the Philippian community to Paul, and at the end, in 4:10-20, he makes it a point to thank and praise the whole community for their gift sent to him by means of Epaphroditus (2:25). Note the plural ‘episkopoi,’ obviously not one leader over others, so this addition amounts to Paul saying, “and those who were in charge, supervised, and those who carried out, assisted” i.e. in the collection. The recipients of the letter would be well aware of those involved in the collection project.  Here there is no 
evidence of ‘ecclesiastical offices or orders.’ 

Luke-Acts 

Luke-Acts uses two words connected with this topic, ‘episkopê’ (inspection, guardianship) and ‘episkopoi’ (overseers, guardians). 

In Luke 19:44 ‘episkopê’ refers to the visitation / inspection of God while at Acts 1:20, in the sense of ‘guardianship, overseership,’ it is found in a quote of  Ps 109:8 regarding Judas’ position among the ‘Twelve’ taken over by another after his defection and death. 

In Acts ‘episkopoi’ is employed only in Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus: “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopoi), to shepherd the assembly of God that he obtained with the blood of his own (i.e. son).” (20:28)  In Luke’s 
mind the elders are all overseers in charge of the community; ‘overseers,’ here, does not carry the force of title of office especially since it is so closely connected to and overwhelmed by the vocabulary expressing the metaphor of the shepherd (watch, flock, shepherd). This is preacher’s exhortative parlance not the designation of official titles. From the lack of a fuller use of the term, - only this instance, - one may conclude that ‘episkopos’ was not yet established as an ecclesiastical title in the communities comprising the early readership or audience of the author of Acts and that neither does the author want to depict the existence of ‘bishops,’ in the modern sense, in the early times of the Christian movement. 

The Pastorals   (pseudonymous late writings) 

In the Pastorals we find a different atmosphere from that of the genuine Paulines. In these writings, even though they deal with the qualities and characteristics of functionaries in the communities, the Holy Spirit is not said to bestow upon the members any functional gifts for the building up of the community. On the contrary these letters stipulate what desirable and required qualities the officials should possess. The officials are not the choice of the Holy Spirit but are appointed and installed through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 5:22). In 1 Tim 4:14 the gifts (charismata) are given through the prophetic utterance at the laying on of hands by the elders. The Spirit does not come into the picture at all; again in 2 Tim 1:6 the gift of God within Timothy was given through the laying on of the author’s hands. On the other hand the ‘charisms’ of the time of Paul were considered bestowed by the Spirit without any dependence on the laying on of anybody’s hands. In fact, ‘the laying on of hands’ does not figure at all in the genuine Paulines. The ritual is an import from and imitation of the same Jewish custom when many Christian 
communities adopted and adapted elements of the Jewish system of leadership around the end of the first century. 

In 1Tim 3 we find both episkopê and episkopos.  After providing guidance relating to community members (ch.2), the writer starts his instructions regarding the leaders by  quoting a saying applicable to all ‘overseership’ in human life: “The saying is sure: whoever aspires to overseership (episkopê) desires a noble task.” (3:1) Then he goes on to elaborate on the qualities of the overseers (3:2-7) and of the assistants (3:8-13)*. Little is said of their duties but the whole stress is laid on the character of the functionaries. 

1Tim. 3:2  “Now an overseer (episcopos) must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, [3]  not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. [4]  He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way-- [5]   for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s assembly? [6]  He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7]  Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.” 

That ‘overseer’ (v.2) is in the singular does not necessarily mean that there was only one in the community but it more probably denotes the singular of definition, as a type (similar to our saying, ‘the/a Christian is...’). No definition of his duties is given, but the following seem to be implied: 
a) some management involving discipline, cf. the analogy of the family (vv.4-5); 
b) teaching (v.2); 
c) control of finances, cf. ‘not a lover of money,’ otherwise the community purse would be in jeopardy (v.3); 
d) representative of the community to Christians elsewhere cf. ‘hospitable’ (v.2) and to outsiders, cf. ‘well thought of by outsiders’ (v.7). 
These qualifications form guidance for scrutinizing the candidates who desire the position.  They are partly the ordinary moral qualities expected and respected in any member of the community and partly those required for his special standing in the community. 

In the writing to Titus, while discussing the appointment and qualities of elders, the author abruptly 
switches over to ‘overseer’ (episkopos) in the singular (as a type cf. 1Tim3:2 above) indicating thereby that he refers to identical functionaries:  Tit 1:5 “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, [6] if any man is blameless, the 
husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. [7] For an overseer (episkopos), as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, [8] but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; [9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.”  Many of these qualities parallel those in 1Tim 3.  Note that the marital status of these candidates, while not explicitly stated as a necessary requirement, is certainly of utmost significance, since ability in domestic rule is the test for the candidate’s ability to manage the congregation - so much for the Roman Catholic celibacy rule concerning priests! 

1 Peter  (a late writing) 

In 1 Peter we have episkopê, episkopos and the verb episkopeô.  In 2:12 episkopê refers to God’s day of visitation/inspection - judgment.  In 2:25, by episkopos, God or Christ is meant: “but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian (episkopos) of your souls.”  The passage more pertinent to our topic is 5:2ff where the author exhorts the elders of the community, [2] “to tend (shepherd) the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight (episkopountes  - omitted in some MSS), not under compulsion 
but willingly, as God would have you do it-- not for sordid gain but eagerly. [3]  Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. [4]  And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away.” 

In this writing ‘oversight’ is connected with the metaphor of ‘shepherding’ both regarding God or Christ in 2:25 and, if in 5:2 the reading is original, the responsibility of the leaders of the community. It is possible that under the influence of 2:25 a copyist added the idea of oversight to that of shepherding. The latter instance (5:2) parallels Acts 20:28, in both, the concept refers to the elders. 

The term shepherd figuratively used for the leader was very common in antiquity even since Babylonian times when kings were sometimes called ‘shepherds.’ In the New Testament we also find ‘shepherd’ (poimên) denoting a task as a gift of God in Eph. 4:11 “The gifts he gave were that some 
would be envoys, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers, ...”  In the Gospel of John ch.10,  through several metaphors, Jesus is represented as the Good Shepherd. Then in ch. 21, Jesus, still being the owner of the flock enjoins Simon Peter to feed his lambs and sheep after rehabilitating him among his disciples by insisting Peter avows his love for him (Jesus) three times to counter the three denials of  18:17,25,27, then tells him, “Follow me” and Peter literally begins to follow him. Thus the author of ch.21 (a later addition), though he rehabilitates Peter, brings him back into Jesus’ group and allows him to feed the flock. Yet in no way does he exalt him above the other disciples. He rather humiliates him by having Jesus force the avowal out of him, irk him (v.17) and even rebuke him (v.22). The disciple assigned preeminence in the Johannine community was the Beloved Disciple, whoever he/she was. 

The wandering charismatic preachers of the Good News, i.e. envoys, prophets and teachers, are never called  episkopoi. The term is applied where there are settled local congregations and it seems to imply no distinction from the elder (presbuteros) including plurality in one place where none takes precedence. The Pastorals clearly show that these elders were selected and appointed according to certain requirements with no reference to the Holy Spirit as the bestower of these qualities. Therefore no monarchical ‘episcopate’ in the modern sense can logically be inferred from these passages. Nor should the word episkopos, being a secular term, be translated in its New Testament occurrences by ‘bishop’ since this carries highly ecclesiastical connotations.  Besides, for some people today the word ‘bishop’ carries too much excess baggage like mitres, gold brocade, bejeweled rings, palliums and gilded sticks - the luxurious trappings of power, tootally alien to Jesus of Nazareth. 

* Note: ‘diakonoi’ (servers, assistants) will be discussed in a future article.