f Confined to Paul, e.g., Rom. i. 9.
417
Very freq.
in Paul in
this
phrase Judith
g Rom. x.1; 2 Tim. i. 3; Eph. vi. 18;
εγω μεν ευχαριστω τω Κυριω In Aug. de corrept. et gratia, § το,
read εγω μεν, believing that these words were lost through such parallels as 1 Cor. i. 4, Col. i. 3, Philm. 4; so also Hpt. in Myr.®
tion of the Eucharist as the central rite of Christian worship (see Sohm’s strong insistence on this point, Kivchenrecht, pp. 84 ff., 121 ff.) and with the management of Church property, which would origin- ally consist of voluntary gifts offered to God in Christian worship. Gradually, as those endowed with extraordinary ‘‘charisms”’ (e.g., prophets, teachers, evangelists) passed away, their functions would tend to be assumed by the leading office-bearers in each congregation. So the sphere, e.g., of the ἐπίσκ., would be greatly enlarged. But we must be con- tent, for lack of evidence, to do without precise definitions, only concluding as to the general equivalence in the earliest times of πρεσβ. and ἐπίσκ., and granting that their oversight and guidance were concerned with the spiritual as well as the material well-being of the organisation. Deacons are first mentioned here in the N.T. It is often tacitly assumed that they hold the office or function whose institution is described in Acts vi. This was an early tradition; e.g., Iren., iii., 12, 10: Stephanus . . . qui electus est ab apostolis primus diaconus. But there are considerable arguments against this view. These are admirably summarised by Gwatkin (Hastings’ B.D., i., 574). (1) The seven are nowhere in N.T. called διά- κονοι. (2) The qualifications laid down (Acts vi. 3) for the seven are much higher than those of τ Tim. iii. 8. (3) Stephen was largely a preacher and Philip an evangelist. (4) The seven evidently rank next to the Apostles at Jerusalem. Hpt. (Myr.® ad loc.) holds that ἐπίσκ. and διάκ. denote here the same persons, the ἐπισκοπή being a διακονία towards the Church, and compares 1 Thess. v. 12, TOUS κοπιῶντας Kal προϊσταμένους. And the vague use of the word to denote any kind of Christian service (in earlier parts of N.T.) might seem to justify the idea. But considering the late date of Phil., it appears more reasonable to connect the office with that of 1 Tim. iii., where a