“Ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). In two characters does the Apostle here present to us the Lord Jesus Christ, which, though closely connected, are yet to be distinguished. Having looked in a former article a little at the one, let us now examine the other.
Bishops, or overseers, ἐπίσκοποι, is a term with which all readers of the New Testament are familiar, and one with which the students of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament were not unacquainted. For in matters as well civil (Isa. 60:17, Neh. 11: 9, 14, 22) as military (Num. 31:14; 2 Kings [4, Kings LXX.] 11:15), and in such as concerned the oversight of priestly service (Num. 4:16), we meet in that translation with those called overseers or bishops. But whilst in the Septuagint the term is applied to overseers of various services, in the New Testament it is, with one exception, used only of those men who had the oversight of such as professedly belonged to the assembly of God’s saints. That one exception we meet with in 1 Peter, who applies the word bishop in a manner not elsewhere met with in the sacred volume, when he writes of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory as the Bishop of our souls. Bishops there were upon earth, witness those at Philippi in Europe, and at Ephesus in Asia (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:28); for the Greek word, translated “overseers” in the latter passage, is that elsewhere translated bishop. Provision, too, was made for their appointment by Titus in the different cities in Crete (Titus 1:5-7). Peter, however, writes of one different from all these; inasmuch as He received not His appointment from men, and can have no successor in His office, and who therefore stands out as alone in His work, when described in the Word as the Bishop of our souls.
But what are we to understand by this term? and wherein does it differ from that of shepherd? All bishops shepherded the flock, but every pastor or shepherd was not a bishop. For a shepherd or pastor proper is a term of wider import than that of a bishop. The latter was concerned with God’s saints in the local assemblies, with which in God’s providence he was connected. The former found his work wherever he met with a single sheep of the flock of God. A shepherd intimates very close relations between the sheep and himself. With all their interests he is concerned; he feeds them, he leads them, he tends them. They confide in him, and receive from him. A bishop, on the other hand, found his special sphere of service in taking care of the assembly of God, and in preventing, by vigilance and timely counsel, being taught in the word, the introduction of disorder or false teaching into the flock. A shepherd suggests to the mind one who has a heart for those entrusted to his care. A bishop brings before us the thought of one able to rule in the assembly.
Bishops, then, in the New Testament, had confided to them the care of the local assembly (1 Tim. 3:5). To take the lead therein was their special duty, though some of them labored in the word and doctrine as well (1 Tim. 5:17). All elders or bishops, for though the words are different the office was the same (Titus 1:5-7), were to take the lead προιστἀναι, though all did not labor in the word and doctrine; for teachers are gifts from the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:8-11), whereas bishops were set in their places by the Holy Ghost (Acts 20:28), through the instrumentality of apostles (Acts 14:23) or their delegates (Titus 1:5). Sound in the faith such officers were to be, able, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (1:9), to exhort with sound doctrine, as well as to convince, or confute, the gainsayers. Conversant, then, they must have been with the truth, possessing, among other qualities enumerated, that of aptness to teach (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1), the opportunity for which, in the faithful discharge of their duties, would surely arise, if encouragement was needed, or gainsayers had to be refuted.
As their sphere was the local assembly (Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23), the flock of God, which was among them (1 Peter 5:2), we understand why the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, did not choose elders on their first missionary journey, till assemblies had been formed. An assembly must be in existence before bishops would be requisite. Gifts from the ascended Christ, evangelists, etc., must have labored in the locality before an assembly could be formed, and, till it had been, episcopal service with reference to it could clearly have had no place; but, when formed, that class of service, whether done by those officially appointed, or taken up by such as were qualified and willing for the work (1 Cor. 16:15, 16; 1 Thess. 5:12), was much needed, and to be highly prized. We see, too, as we understand their special line of service, why Paul summoned the elders of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, instead of convoking a conference of the teachers and pastors from that city, for he wished to warn them, as those to whom had been entrusted by the Holy Ghost the care of that assembly, of the dangers that would beset them from the incursion of grievous wolves, not sparing the flock, as well as from the rising up from amongst themselves of men speaking perverse (or rather perverted) things. On account of this they were to watch. Teachers might show what was wrong, and instruct the faithful in what was right, but the elders could act with authority in the discharge of their duty of watching over the assembly, and in this manner shepherding the flock, as both Paul and Peter enjoined on them (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, Greek.)
Tracing out from the word what the work and sphere of a bishop was, we can understand the class of service to which Peter refers when he writes of the Lord as Bishop of our souls. Bishop, he calls Him. For though the terms, elders and bishops, designate the same people in the church of God, elder was the title of respect borne by the individual, whilst bishop was descriptive of his work. Elders of the assembly, or church, such people were called; never bishops of the assembly, though, as elders, such officials took the oversight of, or, to coin a word, bishoped the flock. In accordance with this, Paul, writing to Titus, reminds him that he was left in Crete to establish elders in every city, but, as soon as he touches on the qualifications needed by the individuals, and the duties of their office, he gives them the title of bishops. Again, when writing to Timothy about the proper treatment of such laborers, he makes mention of them by the name of elders-their title of respect (1 Tim. 5:17-19); but when describing the class of people fitted for the work, he styles them bishops, and their work episcopal service (1 Tim. 3:1, 2). The same difference of terms are met with in that chapter of the Acts already referred to. Paul summoned the elders of Ephesus, but reminds them that they were bishops in, not over, the flock. The terms are not convertible, though both can be used of one and the same individual. As an elder, we think of the man; as bishop, we are reminded of his work.
The character of service, then, carried on by the Lord, to which the apostle makes reference, we can understand, as we observe the use of the term bishop. And may not the order in which the Shepherd and Bishop are mentioned by the inspired writer be worthy of notice? For, as a pastor would find opportunities for the exercise of his gift before a bishop would have a sphere in which to work, so the Lord, as the Shepherd, has to do with the sheep before His episcopal care could be called into exercise. The sound doctrine must first be known, before it can be applied to encourage or confute. But, besides noticing the order, we should mark likewise the phraseology employed. Bishop of our souls, he calls the Lord. Not merely bishop, not bishop in the flock, for such there were upon earth, appointed by the Holy Ghost, but he calls Him, Bishop of our souls, as the One who, in His grace, manifests episcopal care for each of His people individually. And, what it must be to Him to see His people walking in an orderly manner, we can in some feeble measure understand from the sentiments expressed by Paul to the Colossians (2:5), and by John to the elect lady (2 John 4), and to his well-beloved Gaius (3 John 3,4). For both apostles had drunk deep of the Spirit of Christ.
Bishop of our souls the Lord is, and as such takes the oversight of His people individually. For though He has sat down on high, having accomplished the work given Him to do in making atonement on the cross, He is occupied with His own in their orderly walk whilst on earth. The words of Peter make this clear, the term Bishop used by him being explicit, and those to whom the apostle thus wrote must have understood it. He is the Bishop of our souls, whatever believers may think about it, or are conscious, or not, of His personal service to them in that capacity.
But have we, it may be asked, any illustration in the New Testament of such care for His people? Was it not acting somewhat in that capacity that the Lord presented Himself to the angels of the Seven Churches in Asia? As Son of Man, John saw Him in the vision about to deal judicially with the Churches, as by and by He will with the world. But does He not also appear in these seven addresses in the character of One, who, fully cognizant of the state of each assembly, desires the real welfare of every individual that would hearken to what the Spirit saith unto the Churches? Evangelistic labors had professedly gathered out these souls from the midst of the abominations of heathendom, as well as from that moral condition of things called in Scripture the world (1 John 2:15, 16). Pastors, too, doubtless, they had possessed, and teachers likewise, who had ministered to their spiritual wants, and had instructed them in the truth. The assemblies having been first formed, then it was the Lord came forward, and manifested by these epistles, that though, as Son of Man, He must deal with what is wrong, if not corrected, yet He was in their midst, as one who not only surveyed all, but sought by His admonitions to get the wrong put right, and by His encouraging words to sustain the faithful in their path. No new truth is brought out, no fresh revelations are vouchsafed beyond the announcement, by promises of what He would give to the faithful, and by warnings as to the way He must deal with the impenitent. Of all the truth that they wanted, to deal with anything that was wrong, the assemblies were already in possession, as we learn from the Lord’s exhortation to the angel of the Church in Sardis, to remember how he had received and heard, and to hold fast and repent. To feed the flock, then, was not the character of His ministry amongst them at this juncture; nor did He at this time intervene in answer to entreaties from His people. He came on the ground of authority to address them, having the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, as He told the angel of the Church in Sardis.
Comparing the tenor of these epistles with the rest which we have in the New Testament, we must be conscious of the difference between the sheep being ministered to of the things of Christ, and souls being admonished as to their ways, or cheered by the Lord’s approbation of their faithfulness to Him. Much that was wrong in the different assemblies to which he wrote Paul had to correct, but he did it, by ministering to them truth in that aspect of it which would especially meet their condition, and at times (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:15) by revealing things previously unknown to them. What was wanted at Corinth would not have suited the assembly at Thessalonica. What he wrote to the Galatians would have been out of place had it been sent to the saints at Philippi; and the line of teaching needed by the Colossians would not have met the Hebrew saints in their difficulties from old associations, and the determined opposition of their countrymen. Yet, differing as these epistles do one from another in the line of truth dwelt on, they all minister Christ to the soul, and thus act as the suited corrective to whatever required it in the assemblies to which they were addressed. Now it is just this class of teaching which is absent in the Lord’s communications to the seven assemblies in Asia. Yet He is as much concerned with His people in these addresses, as He was, when Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote the different epistles ascribed to them. There the saints were taught truth; here they are admonished, and the faithful encouraged—just the work of a bishop, as Paul, writing to Titus, sets forth (1: 9).
But, as Bishop of our souls, the Lord takes the oversight of individuals. So, in these epistles, which are illustrations of episcopal supervision, the Lord’s care of individuals is also exhibited. Addressed always to the angel, the closing exhortation takes notice of individuals. Besides this, “the rest” are especially addressed in Thyatira (Rev. 2:24), and the Lord speaks with special commendation of the walk of the undefiled in Sardis (3:4); and, if He condemns in most unsparing terms the wicked conduct of Jezebel at Thyatira (2:24), He mentions with marked approval the name of His faithful witness, Antipas, at Pergamos 13). Again, whilst He states what is in store for Jezebel’s children, He opens a door for those to repent, if they would, who had committed adultery with her, seeking to arrest in their downward course those who were hastening on to everlasting ruin, as well as to uphold to the end those who were mindful of Him. Hence we may turn to these epistles to learn in some measure how the Lord exercises oversight over saints individually, and what He desires for them.
“Admonishing the saints” characterized those who were set over them at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:12). “Addicting themselves to the ministry of saints” is the description we have of some who labored at Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). A similar service does the Lord carry on for all who are His own. Time, circumstances, or locality make no change in His service for us. Death could not sever the Shepherd from His sheep, and now, as risen from the dead, we read of Him, not only as the Shepherd, but also as the Bishop of our souls.