Quit Quoting J.B. LIGHTFOOT

Misquoting J.B Lightfoot TO ARGUE AGAINST Bishops, that is.

by Richard A. Shaward (originally posted 2009)

Okay, .  Seriously. I was going to remain silent on this until talking to a certain individual I greatly love in the Lord and respect and am thankful to have known in my early Christian years. (We have never talked about it). I want to remain a brother with him in the Lord so I hope he accepts this as a scholarly criticism only in defense of Truth. This is not directed against any individual in particular but some Protestants in general.

Some Protestants, [especially baptists, who have no roots in history whatsoever before 1606] who hold to either “congregationalism” or “presbyterianism,” write books and dissertations on the subject of “elders and overseers” arguing that “elder & overseer” are one office and therefore in the Church of Christ there should be only two total offices : “elder/overseer” & deacon.”

They use a Commentary on Philippians written by J.B. Lightfoot to prove their thesis and claim that some of J.B. Lightfoot’s comments in his Commentary represent the “accepted majority view” that elder and overseer is the same office; and therefore one can conclude that there is no threefold ministry of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon in the Church. In other words, they use his comments to support their view that there is no valid ‘biblical’ distinct office of “Bishop” in the “early church.” Some even use Lightfoot as the foundation of their thesis.

I submit that they really must stop misusing him to support their view as you will see by the end of this article.

Lightfoot writes in his commentary on Philippians :

“It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (πρεσβύτερος). Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. 1913 (J. B. Lightfoot, bp. of Durham, Ed.) (95). London: Macmillan and co., limited.

Seems clear, does it not? That settles it. JB Lightfoot says Bishops (overseers) and elders (presbyters) are the same office, therefore, we (today) may conclude, that there are to be only two offices in the church – elder/overseer  &  deacon. Right?

Well, NO. This is not what JB Lightfoot argues for in his commentary. Lightfoot is saying in his Commentary that the terms “ἐπίσκοπος” (oveerseer) and “πρεσβύτερος” (elder) were sometimes used interchangeably for the same office within the New Testament period. Nothing more.

Now let me say that no one would have a problem saying that in the New Testament period while the Apostles are still alive that the terms for overseer/elder were sometimes used interchangeably. The Apostles would be considered the ‘bishops’ or “overseers’ or ‘authority’ in the Churches in the sense they are the ones with authority given directly by Jesus Himself.

However, contrary to what Protestants try to prove from these comments of Lightfoot, he definitely is NOT supporting the view that there should only be two offices in the church (elder & deacon). And furthermore Lightfoot is not saying that there is no validity to a threefold ministry of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon.

How do I know this? For three simple reasons I will demonstrate :  First, J.B. Lightfoot was a “Bishop” himself in the Anglican Church, and held to the Anglican view of Bishops; second, Lightfoot himself has told us that he is not arguing against the threefold ministry but demonstrates it;  and third, many in Lightfoot’s day were already misusing his Commentary on Philippians and he writes against this misuse in the prefaces of the Commentary on Philippians in subsequent editions.

1. JB Lightfoot himself was the Anglican Bishop of Durham and supports the Anglican thesis of Bishops.

In 1879 Lightfoot was consecrated Anglican “Bishop of Durham” in succession to Charles Baring. The Anglican bishop of Durham was responsible for the diocese of Durham in the province of York. The Diocese is one of the oldest in the country and its Bishop is a member of the House of Lords. He was as successful in this position as he had been when professor of theology, and he soon surrounded himself with a band of scholarly young men. He endeavored to combine his habits of theological study with the practical work of administration (Wikipedia)

Now, seriously, Protestants wants us to believe that Lightfoot was arguing against a particular separate office of “Bishop” that he himself held? Again, Lightfoot is Anglican ! And what is the Anglican Thesis of Bishops? Anglicans (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) believe by “tradition” that the original bishops were consecrated by one of the 12 apostles, to be their successors. These successor bishops later consecrated more bishops, so that there would always be bishops. This chain of consecration is called “apostolic succession.” This ordination of Bishops was practiced by the “laying on of hands” as already seen being done in the NT (1 Timothy 5:22 ; 2 Timothy 1:6). There is documentation tracing the chain of consecration back to the early 2nd century, to people who were no doubt the successors of the Twelve.

So, JB Lightfoot, an Anglican Bishop himself,  clearly was not arguing against his own Anglican thesis of the succession of “Bishops” ordained by the Apostles. All Bishops are elders, but not all elders are Bishops.

2. JB Lightfoot himself in fact has told us that he is not arguing against the threefold ministry of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon but demonstrates it

In his Commentary on Philippians itself in the original complete editions Lightfoot includes his dissertation called “The Christian Ministry” he states the following about “Bishops” :

(1) the Episcopate developed from the presbytery, (p. 196 sq., 207, 227 sq.)

(2) there was cause for having Bishops (p. 201, 206, 234 sq.)

(3) there was gradual progress of the specific office of Bishop , (p. 205 sq., 227, 234 sq.)

(4) The Episcopate first matured in Asia Minor, (p. 202, 206 sq., 212 sq., 227)

(5) *** James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, *** (p. 197, 208 sq.)   [Acts 15]

(6) Bishops were in other churches, (p. 201, 209 sq.)

(7) There was a prevalence of the Episcopacy, (p. 227)

(8) Ordination was confined to Bishops alone, 232 sq.

(9) foreign correspondence entrusted to Bishops, p. 222

(10) Bishops mode of addressing presbyters, p. 96 sq., 230

(11) Bishops represent the universal Church, p. 242

So it is again indisputably clear that JB Lightfoot never argued against the threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, but demonstrated that Bishops are distinct from elders – but Protestants continue to misuse his comment of “interchangeability” of the terms in some passages of  the New Testament in his Commentary on Philippians to prove otherwise. Have Protestants misunderstood (misread) Lightfoot?  Lightfoot also addresses this in the final point !!!

3. Many Non-Anglicans already in JB Lightfoot’s day were misusing his Commentary on Philippians and he writes against this misuse in the prefaces of subsequent editions. For me, this is the biggie.

In the Sixth edition preface Lightfoot forcefully states :

“I desire equally to disclaim the representations of those opinions which have been put forward in some quarters. The object of the essay was an investigation into the origin of the Christian Ministry. The result has been a confirmation of the statement in the English Ordinal, ‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’ “

In the Twelve Edition preface of 1896 it is even more expanded

“The following extracts from Bishop Lightfoot’s works illustrate his view of the Christian Ministry over and above the particular scope of the Essay in his Commentary on the Philippians. He felt that unfair use had been made of that special line of thought which he there pursued, and soon after the close of the Lambeth Conference of 1888 he had this collection of passages printed”

There is then four pages of quotes in the preface from Lightfoot’s work that specifically defend the threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. I give only four here.

‘Unless we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received documents, it seems vain to deny that early in the second century the Episcopal office was firmly and widely established. Thus during the last three decades of the first century, and consequently during the lifetime of the latest surviving Apostle, this change must have been brought about’ (The Christian Ministry, 201)

‘The evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John’s latest labors, may be considered irrefragable’ (The Christian Ministry, 214)

“It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered from the name of St John’ (The Christian Ministry, 234)

‘If the preceding investigation be substantially correct, the threefold ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction; and short of an express statement we can posses no better assurance of a Divine appointment or at least a Divine sanction’ (The Christian Ministry, 236)

Powerful statements of Lightfoot, would you not agree? So it can clearly be seen that JB Lightfoot would not and did not support the Protestant post-reformation idea that there are “only two offices of elder/overseer & deacon in the Church”

The reality is, and Lightfoot himself demonstrates, that the Church of Jesus Christ since the lifetime of the last Apostle (John) there has been the threefold ministry of Bishops, Presbyters (Priests), and Deacons in the church. This is true for all of the Church’s 1600 year history until the Protestant revolt against Rome in the 16th century. There is not one single scholar, church father, or argument against the specific office of “Bishop” to be found in 1600 years of pre-reformation history and writings,period. Furthermore, “Congregationalism” (1592) and “Presbyterianism” (1707) were new innovations of Church government resulting from the anti-Roman Catholic protestant revolt.

So my dear Protestant brothers, if you are going to argue against Bishops (and hold to the silly claim that the 1600 year history of Bishops in the church is ‘unbiblical’ or ‘everyone was wrong’ or ‘the church went astray right away’) then please don’t quote JB Lightfoot and especially not as your foundation to your thesis. He is not on your side of the argument. And to continue misusing a few statements in his Commentary on Philippians (like many did while he was still alive) to dispel the historical reality that God ordained the office of “Bishop” beginning in the early church is not only wrong, (unfair in Lightfoot’s words) but it is dishonest, and in light of all of JB Lightfoot’s excellent works together, it is poor scholarship.

**UPDATE** Since originally posting this article  I have discovered an old interesting article originally written in 1828, a Sketch of the Life and Works of J.B. Lightfoot, which in the article it discusses individuals misrepresentation of Lightfoot’s Commentary on Philippians to argue against anEpiscopalian form of government (ie. the threefold ministry of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.)

I post a portion of the long article here. Bold print and underline is added by me for emphasis. Link to entire article is at the bottom of this post. Here is the unedited portion :

————————-

“A full note on another subject does not, indeed, express any change of opinion, but protests against imputations of opinion which Dr. Lightfoot never held, and which are inconsistent with a fair interpretation of his essay as a whole. It is not easy to see how an essay which contained from the first such passages as these, could be interpreted as in favor of the Presbyterian as opposed to the Episcopal view of the Christian ministry. But it was natural that controversialists should endeavor to support their arguments by the authority of so great a man; and as advocates will always select their facts, we cannot think it is a matter of surprise that some of the statements have been used, perhaps even understood, in a sense which is opposed to that of the author. A great writer on such a subject is sure to be misunderstood if to be misunderstood is possible, and he should take care to make it impossible. When the sixth edition of the Philippians was published, in 1881, the Preface contained the following explanation:–

But on the other hand, while disclaiming any change in my opinions, I desire equally to disclaim the representations of those opinions which have been put forward in some quarters. The object of the Essay was an investigation into the origin of the Christian Ministry. The result has been a confirmation of the statement in the English Ordinal, ‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ But I was scrupulously anxious not to overstate the evidence in any case; and it would seem that partial and qualifying statements, prompted by this anxiety, have assumed undue proportions in the minds of some readers, who have emphasized them to the neglect of the general drift of the Essay.

Even after this statement the misrepresentations continued, and soon after the close of the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Bishop Lightfoot felt it to be his duty to collect and print a series of extracts from his published writings bearing on this subject. There is nothing new in them. Their value is that they show distinctly what the author’s opinion was and had been throughout; and that they were collected by himself. His trustees have done good service in reprinting them together with the Essay and the following note:–”It is felt by those who have the best means of knowing that he would himself have wished the collection to stand together simply as his reply to the constant imputation to him of opinions for which writers wished to claim his support without any justification.” It is perhaps hardly to be expected that such misrepresentations will cease, but every vestige of justification, if any ever existed, is now removed.”