First among equals
First among equals
From Latin: Primus inter pares (Primus inter pares).
This is what the Roman emperor Octavian Augustus (63 BC - 14 AD) called himself. Some researchers attribute the authorship of this expression to Arpad, Duke of Hungary (889-907), since it can serve as a characteristic of the relationship between the monarch and large feudal lords in medieval society.
Playfully and ironically: about someone who leads people with formal equality with them.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.
Synonyms:
See what “First among equals” is in other dictionaries:
Main, bright, large, big, brilliant, brilliant, prominent, greatest, extraordinary, remarkable, outstanding, wonderful Dictionary of Russian synonyms. first among equal nouns, number of synonyms: 12 brilliant (63) ... Synonym dictionary
1. Book. About the main thing, outstanding among the rest. 2. Publ. Outdated Pathet. About the Russian people in relation to other peoples of the USSR. Khan Pira, 1999. /i> Tracing paper from Lat. primus inter pares. BMS 1998, 436 ...
first among equals- book. outstanding, main, leading, best. The expression comes from the Latin Primus inter pares (first among equals), a title held by Augustus before he assumed the imperial title. These words created the appearance of supporting... ... Phraseology Guide
First, first. 1. Numbers. order to one. First top. First number. First stage. First of January (date is implied). “Three treasures in this life were my joy. And the first treasure was my honor.” Pushkin. 2. only plural. Occupying the starting position in... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
- (colloquial and poetic) AMONG, preposition. someone what 1. In a part more or less equally distant from the edges of something, in the middle, in the center. Stand with. rooms, streets. In the north of the city there is a park. The well is located in the village. yard N. river island. // Within what l... encyclopedic Dictionary
The request “Faculty of Medicine, Moscow University” is redirected here. A separate article is needed on this topic... Wikipedia
among- among; (colloquial and poetic) 1) a) In a part more or less equally distant from the edges of something, in the middle, in the center. Stand in the middle of a room, street. There is a park in the middle of the city. The well is located in the middle of the yard. There is an island in the middle of the river. b) ott. Within… … Dictionary of many expressions
First. Novg. First time, first time. NOS 7, 116. First among equals. 1. Book. About the main thing, outstanding among the rest. 2. Publ. Outdated Pathet. About the Russian people in relation to other peoples of the USSR. Khan Pira, 1999. /i> Tracing paper from Lat. primus inter… … Large dictionary of Russian sayings
first- First of all, anyone with information. (colloquial) for the first time, for the first time (you have to do something, experience something; more often with a negative). It’s not for me to chop wood. Primitive state (jokingly) the former, former state. Return someone n. into the primeval... Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language
Books
- Images of Heresy. In 2 volumes. Volume one. Artbook, Merrett Alan. An amazing book, a real find for all fans of the Horus Heresy! From the ashes of the Great Crusade, betrayal was born. A superman who has no equal, the first among...
- First among equals. , Svetlov D.N. Having inadvertently activated a wedding gift from India, which in fact turned out to be a mobile means of teleportation, Admiral Count Sergei Nikolaevich Alekseev found himself on a deserted...
Monomakh's hat
During the era of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and before it, the eldest among the appanage princes bore the title of Grand Duke. Ya. N. Shchapov notes that the mention of princes as kings refers to two major figures of Rus' in the 12th-13th centuries: Mstislav the Great and Andrei Bogolyubsky.
After Rus' became dependent on the Golden Horde, the Great Khan of the Golden Horde began to be called tsar (derived from the Latin caesar). Title tsar first of all, it indicated that its owner is a completely sovereign ruler and does not depend on anyone. That is, the Grand Duke, being a tributary of the Horde, naturally stood lower in the hierarchy.
It is worth noting, by the way, that until a certain moment (before the reign of Dmitry Donskoy), the legitimacy of the Great Khan as the commander of the Russian princes in Rus' was not questioned, and the Tatar-Mongol yoke itself was perceived as God’s punishment for sins, which must be humbly endured.
The era of Ivan III, when Rus' freed itself from the yoke and became a completely independent state, also marks the first cases of the Grand Duke using the title “Tsar” (or “Caesar”) in diplomatic correspondence - so far only in relations with petty German princes and the Livonian Order; The royal title begins to be widely used in literary works.
It was possible to accept any title, but foreign rulers might not recognize it - that is why Ivan III tries out the royal title in diplomatic correspondence with smaller states.
In 1489, the ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor Nikolai Poppel, on behalf of his overlord, offered Ivan III the royal title. The Grand Duke refused, pointing out that “by God’s grace we are sovereigns on our land from the beginning, from our first ancestors, and we have the appointment from God, both our ancestors and we... and just as we didn’t want the appointment from anyone before, we don’t want it now.” we want."
It is worth noting that, deriving the word “tsar” from caesar, the Russian rulers considered this title to be the same as the emperor (“Caesar” in the Byzantine Empire), but after the fall of Byzantium under the onslaught of the Turks in 1453, Rus' was perceived as its the heiress and the only stronghold of Orthodoxy (or more broadly, of all Christianity, since other Christian denominations were considered “wrong”). Hence the famous “Moscow is the Third Rome”.
Western monarchs interpreted this title in a similar way - but not always, but when it was beneficial for them.
In the treaty between the Muscovite state and Denmark in 1493, Ivan III was called “totius rutzci Imperator”. Vasily III was also named Emperor in the agreement with Emperor Maximilian I, concluded in Moscow in 1514: “Kayser und Herscher alter Reussen”. In the Latin charter of Albrecht of Brandenburg in 1517, Basil III was also called "Imperator ac Doniinator totius Russiae".
Only the grandson of Ivan III, Ivan the Terrible, decided to officially take on the royal title. On January 16, 1547, the Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' Ivan Vasilyevich was solemnly crowned with the title of Tsar. In his speech at the royal wedding, the Metropolitan described the height of the powers of the royal rank with the words of Joseph Volotsky: “Hear the kings and understand that power was given to you from God and strength from the Most High, for the Lord has chosen you in Himself as a place on earth...”
The royal title allowed him to take a significantly different position in diplomatic relations with Western Europe. The grand ducal title was translated as “prince” or even “grand duke.” The title “king” was either not translated at all, or translated as “emperor”. The Russian autocrat thereby stood on a par with the only Holy Roman Emperor in Europe.
The boyars did not immediately inform foreign states about the coronation of the 16-year-old grandson of Ivan III. Only two years later, the Polish ambassadors in Moscow learned that Ivan IV “was crowned king” following the example of his ancestor Monomakh, and that he “took not someone else’s” name. Having heard this extremely important statement, the ambassadors immediately demanded written evidence. But the cunning boyars refused, fearing that the Poles, having received a written answer, would be able to consider their objections, and then it would be difficult to argue with them. The messengers sent to Poland tried to explain the meaning of the Moscow changes so as not to cause displeasure at the Polish court.
Now, they said, our sovereign alone owns the Russian land, which is why the metropolitan crowned him king with the Monomakh crown. In the eyes of the Muscovites, the coronation thus symbolized the beginning of Ivan's autocratic rule in the fourteenth year of his reign.
Ivan groznyj
Ivan the Terrible was crowned king in 1547, but his foreign colleagues did not immediately recognize this title for him. 7 years later, in 1554, England unconditionally recognized it. The question of the title was more difficult in Catholic countries, in which the theory of a single “sacred empire” was firmly held. In 1576, Emperor Maximilian II, wanting to attract Ivan the Terrible to an alliance against Turkey, offered him the throne and the title of “emerging [Eastern] Caesar” in the future. John IV was completely indifferent to the “Greek kingdom”, but demanded immediate recognition of himself as the king of “all Rus'”, and the emperor conceded on this important fundamental issue, especially since Maximilian I recognized the royal title for Vasily III, calling him “by God’s grace Tsar and the owner of the All-Russian and Grand Duke."
The papal throne turned out to be much more stubborn, which defended the exclusive right of popes to grant royal and other titles to sovereigns, and on the other hand, did not allow the principle of a “single empire” to be violated. In this irreconcilable position, the papal throne found support from the Polish king, who perfectly understood the significance of the claims of the Moscow Sovereign. Sigismund II Augustus presented a note to the papal throne in which he warned that the papacy’s recognition of Ivan IV’s title of “Tsar of All Rus'” would lead to the separation from Poland and Lithuania of lands inhabited by “Rusyns” related to the Muscovites, and would attract Moldovans and Wallachians to his side. For his part, John IV attached particular importance to the recognition of his royal title by the Polish-Lithuanian state, but Poland throughout the 16th century never agreed to his demand.
It is known that in the correspondence of 1580 between the famous Flemish cartographer G. Mercator and the English geographer R. Hakluyt, the Russian monarch was called “le grand emperior de Moscovie”.
So, the title “tsar” was perceived by Russian rulers as equal to the imperial one. True, not all of their foreign colleagues agreed with this - at that time there was only one empire in Europe - the Holy Roman Empire and an emperor, which means there should have been only one.
False Dmitry I
False Dmitry I, oriented towards Poland, wanted to be called emperor. In a letter to the Polish king Sigismund III, False Dmitry I, “according to the ancient custom of great and powerful kings and emperors,” announced his accession to the throne. He indicated that he received a blessing as an heir from “our most serene mother.” Then followed an explanation of the new royal title, unusual for the previous tradition: “we are crowned and anointed with the sacred chrism by our most holy patriarch, not only to the rank of emperor of our vast domains, but also to the rank of king of all the Tatar kingdoms, which have obeyed our monarchy since ancient times.”
Having studied all the formulas of the title of False Dmitry I in foreign correspondence (messages to the Pope, the Polish king and nobles), N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky pointed out that since the fall of 1605 they have had the same symbolism of names: “We, the Most Serene and Invincible Monarch, Dimitri Ivanovich, by the grace of God, Tsar and Grand Duke of all Russia, and all Tatar states, and many other lands that belong to the Moscow monarchy, sovereign and king.” All of the listed titles claimed to recognize the power of False Dmitry I as the highest and most powerful among earthly monarchs and pointed to its Divine counterpart - the King of kings.
It is clear that these symbols-names immediately gave rise to a sharply negative reaction in Western courts, among foreign politicians and diplomats. They were also assessed negatively by their contemporaries in Russia. Konrad Bussow noted the reaction of foreigners in Moscow: “vanity increased daily... with him... it was manifested not only in the fact that in all luxury and pomp they surpassed all other former kings, but he even ordered to call himself “the king of all kings.” It is interesting that the Pretender initially distributed this title only for internal use (that is, at court). Stanislav Borsha, speaking about the murder of False Dmitry I, summarized: “Apparently it was so pleasing to God, who did not want to tolerate any longer the pride and arrogance of this Dmitry, who did not recognize any sovereign in the world as his equal and almost equaled himself to God.”
The Poles, naturally, rejected the imperial title of False Dmitry.
As is known, the full royal title (“Great Title”) included a list of lands subject to the king. In 1645, that is, during the death of the first sovereign from the Romanov dynasty, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, and the rise to power of his son, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the “Great Title” sounded as follows: “By the grace of God, we, the Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich , Autocrat of All Russia, Vladimir, Moscow and Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novagorod, Nizovsky lands, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl , Beloozersky, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondiysky and all northern countries, the ruler and sovereign of the Iversk land, the Kartalin and Georgian kings and the Kabardian lands, the Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and many other states, the sovereign and owner.”
The mention of the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, which was not subordinated at that time, in the title of the king may cause surprise. In this case, what was desired was presented as reality.
This issue was studied by G.K. Kotoshikhin in his essay “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.” The inclusion of non-ruled territories in the royal title meant illegal claims to other people's prerogatives. Such actions could threaten diplomatic complications. Because of this, the royal court was forced to resort to tricks. In the charters addressed to Christian sovereigns, the great royal title was reproduced in full with a listing of the eastern lands; in the charters to the “Busurman states” and, first of all, to the Persian Shah, the “eastern” titles were not indicated. Otherwise, “as if he were written with those titles by everyone... and for that all the Busurman states would start a war against him.”
Kotoshikhin points out that the Russian Tsar did not write to the Turkish Sultan and the Persian Shah “with a large title, only as “overlord.” That is, the final phrase in the title remained “and the ruler of all northern countries,” while the phrase “Iveron lands of the Kartalin and Georgian kings, Kabardian lands of the Cherkasy and Mountain princes, and many other states, sovereign and owner” was removed. If you ask the question about the reasons for the sequence of listing territories in the royal title of the 17th century, then we can assume that not only the significance and status of the lands or their sequence of inclusion in the state predetermined it, but also practical considerations: it is worth putting at the end what is most controversial , which can always be removed if necessary.
Considering this fact, we can say that the big title in the 17th century. - not so much a reflection in the consciousness of the law on the territory or an expression of ideas about the territorial integrity of the state, but rather a means of diplomatic play in a situation in which there is a certain fragmentation of the West and the East, the existence of two worlds that are not well informed about each other due to a relatively weak interest in each other and the underdevelopment of diplomatic and trade relations, gave Russia a chance to raise the prestige of the power of its kings at the expense of one part of Eurasia in relations with another.
As noted above, not everyone in Europe recognized the equality of the imperial title with the tsar, and such equality did not exist in relations between Russia and the Holy Roman Empire. In the “Record made in Moscow between the Russian and the Tsar’s courts,” the Tsar’s envoys extraordinary clearly indicated that the existing in the 17th century. tradition consolidates the higher status of the emperor in relation to other sovereigns and is expressed in the fact that not only the Russian Tsar, but also other European kings, the title “Eminence” is always written from the emperor.
In the minds of Russian diplomats and the Russian court of Alexei Mikhailovich, the task of achieving for their sovereign recognition by the Empire of his title “Majesty” meant the opportunity to put the Russian Tsar on a par with the Emperor. In fact, in the international practice of that period, the term “tsar” = “king” = “Eminence”; the term “emperor” = “majesty”.
The problem was solved only after the sharp strengthening of Russia in the international arena after the victory over Sweden in the Northern War. However, it is worth noting that Peter I was called emperor until 1721. During his stay in England in 1698, the imperial resident Hoffmann reported that everyone here “calls the Russian monarch the Emperor of Russia,” and after the tsar’s visit to parliament, someone made a joke that he saw “the king on the throne and the emperor on the roof” - Peter, via The window watched as the English king approved the land tax bill. Peter I was also called Emperor by people from Western Europe who served in Russia. This is the only way, for example, that the brilliant French architect J.B.A. Leblon addressed him in numerous letters and projects.
Peter I
On October 18, 1721, the members of the Synod “had a secret discussion.” Having examined the “deeds”, “works” and “leadership” of His Royal Majesty in connection with the “eternal peace” concluded with Sweden after the Northern War, they decided that they should “invent something decent” for the monarch “from a person common to all subjects.” This “decent” was the decision to “beg the Tsar” to “accept the title of Father of the Fatherland, Peter the Great and Emperor of All Russia.”
Realizing that we were talking about a state matter, the members of the Synod “decided” to report it “secretly” to the secular authorities - the Senate. On October 19, this was done through the vice-president of the Synod, Feofan Prokopovich. On October 20, 21 and the morning of October 22, joint meetings of the Senate and the Synod were held in the audience chamber, that is, in the main throne room of St. Petersburg, located in the building of the “muzanka collegiums” on Trinity Square. On October 22, 1721 (in the new style - November 2) in St. Petersburg in the Trinity Cathedral, Tsar Peter I was presented with the title “emperor”. It is generally accepted that it was on this day that the Russian kingdom, Muscovy, officially turned into the Russian Empire and the countdown of a new, imperial period in the history of the country began.
It is known that before this act, negotiations took place between the tsar and some senators and archbishops of Novgorod and Pskov, Theodosius Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich. Negotiations with the monarch turned out to be necessary, since the king “refused for a long time” to accept the title and gave many “reasons” for this. However, the “important ideas” of the senators and bishops prevailed and Peter “inclined to do so.”
Perhaps this behavior of the king was nothing more than a tribute to tradition and some kind of theatrical modesty - not to immediately accept what was offered. Or perhaps there were more compelling reasons for Peter’s objections. After all, the introduction of differences between the titles “emperor” and “tsar” meant that Russia recognized that the imperial title was higher than the tsar’s - contrary to the ideas that had existed in Rus' since the time of Ivan the Terrible. It is likely that this was not entirely to the liking of Peter I.
It should be noted that Feofan Prokopovich, in his “Word of Praise... to the Memory of Peter the Great,” noted that even before the title “Great Emperor” was adopted in 1721, this title “had previously existed and was bestowed on everyone.”
The meaning of FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in the Phraseology Directory
FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK)
outstanding, main, leading, best. The expression comes from the Latin Primus inter pares (first among equals), a title held by Augustus before he assumed the imperial title. These words created the appearance of maintaining the prestige of the Senate, masters and courts.
Handbook of phraseology. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- FIRST in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
RISK - in property insurance: a loss compensation scheme in which damage less than the insured amount is compensated in full, and ... - AMONG in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
, preposition with gender p. 1. someone or something. Inside, in the center of some. space. Lawn s. forests. S. crowds. 2. what. Between … - FIRST in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
, "aya, -oe. 1. see one. 2. Initial, earliest; occurring, acting before all others.. First impression. First time (at first). ... - FIRST
FIRST SEPARATE DEMONSTRATION ORCHESTRA OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, leading full-time musician. Armed team forces Ros. Federation. Created in 1935 as... - FIRST in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
FIRST ATHENS MARITIME UNION, the same as the Delian League... - FIRST in the Complete Accented Paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, ... - FIRST in the Thesaurus of Russian Business Vocabulary:
1. ‘first in a series of subsequent ones’ Syn: initial (book), initial, early Ant: final, final 2. ‘of primary importance, having the greatest significance highest ... - FIRST in the Russian Language Thesaurus:
1. ‘first in a series of subsequent ones’ Syn: initial (book), initial, early Ant: final, final 2. ‘of primary importance, having the greatest ... - AMONG
cm. … - FIRST in Abramov's Dictionary of Synonyms:
chief, instigator, leader, instigator, instigator, vanguard, initiator, pioneer. Wed. . See main, best || to be first, to come to the fore, ... - AMONG
inside, in the middle, in the middle, between, between, ... - FIRST in the Russian Synonyms dictionary:
first in a series of subsequent Syn: initial (book), initial, early Ant: final, final of paramount importance, having the greatest significance highest in degree ... - AMONG
preposition (as well as obsolete among) with gender. pad. Usage with meanings: 1) inside, in the center of something. space; 2) between the beginning... - FIRST in the New Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
1. m. 1) The one who or what begins a series of homogeneous objects, phenomena. 2) The one who or what is mentioned is named... - FIRST in Lopatin's Dictionary of the Russian Language.
- FIRST in the Complete Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language.
- AMONG in the Spelling Dictionary:
among... - AMONG in the Spelling Dictionary:
among and among... - FIRST in the Spelling Dictionary.
- AMONG...
Forms adjectives with meaning. located in the middle, in the middle, mediterranean, midday, ... - AMONG in Ozhegov’s Dictionary of the Russian Language:
Usage When naming the subject, someone, in the circle of some S. specialists, had doubts. among other objects, persons, phenomena... - FIRST in Ozhegov’s Dictionary of the Russian Language:
<= один первый лучший из всех в каком-нибудь отношении, отличный П. сорт. (лучший или следующий за высшим сорт товара, продукций; … - BOOK in Dahl's Dictionary:
(abbreviation) literary and bookish... - FIRST in Dahl's Dictionary:
or south , app. first, counting, in order of counting, initial; one, once, from which the count begins. First, second, third -... - AMONG
and (obsolete, vernacular) middle, preposition with gender. p. 1. In the gap between the edges of some. space, mainly equidistant from... - FIRST in Ushakov’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
first, first. 1. Numbers. order to one. First top. First number. First stage. First of January (date is implied). - Three treasures... - BOOK) in Ushakov’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
action according to verb. see. Gift of Providence. PROVIDENCE, providence, pl. no, cf. (church). According to the ideas of religious people, it is the action of a supreme being... - AMONG
among the preposition (as well as obsolete among) with gender. pad. Usage with meanings: 1) inside, in the center of something. space; 2) ... - FIRST in Ephraim's Explanatory Dictionary:
first 1. m. 1) The one who or what begins a series of homogeneous objects, phenomena. 2) The one who or what is mentioned... - AMONG
sentence; from birth; - middle Used with meanings 1) inside, in the center of some space 2) between the beginning and end of some ... - FIRST in the New Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
- AMONG
sentence ; since birth ; = middle Used with meanings 1) inside, in the center of some space 2) between the beginning and ... - FIRST in the Large Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
I m. 1. The one who or what begins a series of homogeneous objects, phenomena. 2. The one who or what is mentioned is named... - ESTONIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC
Soviet Socialist Republic, Estonia (Eesti NSV). I. General information The Estonian SSR was formed on July 21, 1940. From August 6, 1940 in ... - THE USSR. LITERATURE AND ART in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
and art Literature Multinational Soviet literature represents a qualitatively new stage in the development of literature. As a definite artistic whole, united by a single socio-ideological... - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
States of America (USA). I. General information The USA is a state in North America. Area 9.4 million... - RUSSIAN SOVIET FEDERAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, RSFSR
- JAPAN*
- ASTRONOMY in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
- GENDER QUOTAS in the Dictionary of Gender Studies Terms:
- legalized level of representation of women and men in government bodies. Quotas are based on the modern concept of equality between women and men. ... - BABEF in the Directory of Characters and Cult Objects of Greek Mythology:
- BABEF in 1000 biographies of famous people:
Francois-Noel (Babeuf, Francois-Noel) (1760-1797). The leader of the extreme left wing of the plebeian forces in the French Revolution, from the very beginning of the French Revolution he took direct... - JAPAN in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Japanese: Nippon, Nihon). I. General information Japan is a state located on the islands of the Pacific Ocean, near the coast of East Asia. Consisting of… - FRANCE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB.
- UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian Radyanska Socialistichna Respublika), Ukraine (Ukraine). I. General information The Ukrainian SSR was formed on December 25, 1917. With the creation ... - THE USSR. CHRONOLOGY in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Chronology of historical events of the 9th-1st centuries BC. e. 9-6 centuries BC e.- State of Urartu. 7th-3rd centuries BC e.- ... - THE USSR. TECHNICAL SCIENCE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
science Aviation science and technology In pre-revolutionary Russia, a number of aircraft of original design were built. Ya. M. created their own airplanes (1909-1914) ... - SOMNERA METHOD in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
a method, a method for determining the geographical latitude and longitude of the observer’s location from the measured heights of celestial bodies by constructing altitude lines of position. ...
It is quite clear that all elders are equal, but each has some special spiritual gift or gifts. Church leadership cannot be a faceless bureaucracy. The character, gifts, and spirituality of each individual leader shape the entire governing body of the church. For example, in the passage we are studying from 1 Timothy, individual elders who worked especially hard are singled out from the general mass of leaders. Ministers who have the gift of teaching are regarded as first among equals.
People have a misconception about collegial government of the church. They believe that, working in a team, talented people cannot realize their gifts. However, shared leadership actually only enhances the talents of talented leaders. Although leaders work together and have equal responsibility for leading God's flock, they are not equal in talent, knowledge, and ability to lead. Therefore, one or more elders will naturally stand out from the crowd and become leaders. This is what Catholics mean when they say “first among equals” (primus inter pares), or “first among equals” (primi inter pares). This type of leadership can be seen among the twelve apostles and New Testament elders.
Among the first apostles, Jesus singled out three and gave special attention to them. These are Peter, James and John. The Gospels tell us that of these three, as of the twelve, Peter stood out in a special way and was “first.” In all four lists of names of Christ’s disciples, Peter always comes first (see: Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus calls on Peter to “strengthen his brothers” (see: Luke 22:32).
Among the twelve who jointly oversaw the first church (see: Acts 2:14, 42; 4:33, 35; 5:12, 18, 25, 29, 42; 6:2–6; 8:14; 9:27; 15:2–29), Peter was the main speaker and leading figure (see: Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:1ff; 4:8ff; 5:3ff Dal.; 5:15, 29; 8:14–24; 9:32 – 11:18; 12: 12:3ff; 15:7–11; Gal. 2:7–14). Since Peter was by nature a leader, a preacher and an active person, he encouraged the other disciples to act. Without Peter, the twelve would have been much weaker. Surrounded by eleven disciples, Peter himself became stronger and was protected from his own impulsiveness and fears. Despite his recognized leadership and oratorical abilities, Peter had neither ranks nor titles that would elevate him above his comrades, since they did not obey him in any way. They were not his workers or his students. Peter was simply the first among equals.The same relationship is observed between the seven deacons who were appointed assistants to the apostles (see: Acts 6). Philip and especially Stephen stand out as outstanding figures among the rest of the brothers (see: Acts 6:8 - 7:60; 8:4-40; 21:8). But nevertheless, they do not have any titles and do not occupy a special position in the group.
The same principle of primus inter pares applies to the council of elders. Any church council is bound to have one or more leaders. In a sense, all elders are first among equals in the assembly of believers (see: Acts 15:22). But in the council of elders itself there will also appear a first or first among equals, especially among those who have the spiritual gifts of shepherding and governing. According to our passage from 1 Timothy, elders who work worthy (especially those who labor in word and doctrine) deserve special honor (i.e.
material support). If the church provides financial resources for gifted elders, these elders can devote part or all of their time to church leadership, which greatly strengthens both the elders' board and the entire congregation. Apostle leaders did not assign any titles to themselves or make any distinctions between themselves and other apostles. Likewise, elders who have earned “pure honor” cannot form any special class, assign titles to themselves, or invent new, higher positions.There is always a danger that the members of the body of elders will place their responsibilities on the shoulders of one or more gifted ministers. This danger will always exist due to human selfishness and laziness, especially in spiritual matters. A person always unconsciously strives for someone else to do his work for him. In Christian families, for example, many fathers have delegated responsibility for the spiritual education of their children to their wives or Sunday school teachers. The elevation of the bishop over the presbyters, which arose in the 2nd century, undoubtedly occurred through the fault of Christians, who transferred their duties and honorary rights to the shoulders of one gifted person. Didn’t Israel joyfully and willingly give up their freedom, rights and privileges, choosing a king for themselves and becoming like the nations around them (see: 1 Samuel 8)?
In the church, however, gifted teachers, pastors, and leaders should not monopolize the ministry or allow themselves to be elevated above other leaders. Gifted elders, as humble servants, are to instruct their brothers in the faith so that each can serve for the edification of the Body of Christ (see: Eph. 4:11, 12). The principle of “first among equals” in no way means that someone in power alone can take responsibility for making all decisions. Not a single person from among the elders should cause fire on himself. All decisions should be made jointly.
Since all elders are equally responsible for the leadership of the church, each member of the congregation must also take responsibility for their service to the Lord and to each other (see 1 Pet. 4:10, 11). As free people in Christ, members should not be passive. Otherwise, such an attitude will give rise to church dictators like Diotrephes. John said: “I wrote to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to excel among them, does not accept us. Therefore, if I come, I will remind you of the deeds that he does, reviling us with evil words, and, not being satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers, and forbids those who want to, and expels them from the church" (3 John.
9, 10).By the design of the Holy Spirit, all elders are responsible for the leadership of the church. And while elders may be first among equals, the New Testament does not allow anyone to be superior to his brethren. Thus, the modern division between lay elders on the one hand and ordained pastor on the other was not sanctioned by God. There are no lay elders, there are only elders with the responsibility for this ministry entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit.
New Testament church leadership is more than just being on a board of trustees where people are chosen to do the necessary work. Church leadership is not an organizational structure that allows the people within it to make important decisions. The board of elders is not a set number of vacant positions to be filled, nor is it a means by which rich and powerful people can be lured into the church. The Council of Elders is a governing body consisting of dedicated pastors appointed to this ministry by the Holy Spirit (see: Acts 20:28). This is a close-knit group of leaders who are qualified for their position, committed, and placed in service by the Spirit. This is not a passive and inactive committee. Church leadership based on biblical principles is the correct form of leadership that avoids the pitfalls of one-man rule and the confusion that results when authority is given to all members of the congregation.
Chapter 17
Church leadership based on the principle of the priesthood of all believers
But do not call yourself teachers, for you have only one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers...
In contrast to the indifferent attitude towards the problem of the laity, which prevailed throughout almost the entire church history, recently this issue has worried many. “In the 20th century,” writes Kenneth Chafin, “theologians rediscovered the doctrine of the laity.” 1 Commenting on modern readings of Ephesians 4:11, 12, Chafin says, “The rise of interest in the question of the laity represents the most radical change that has taken place in the church during the present century.”2 Even the Roman Catholic Church, at Vatican II, abandoned the negative attitude toward the laity that had been a hallmark of Catholic theology for many centuries.
And yet, despite the beautiful words spoken at the Second Vatican Council, there is still an insurmountable gap between the clergy and the laity, priests and ordinary members of the church. Unfortunately, this is true of many Protestant churches. Even in churches that do not seem to support the separation of priesthood and laity, in practice there is a noticeable difference between the ordained minister and the non-ordained members of the church. As Robert Girard argues, our churches are dominated by a two-caste system of ministry:
A two-caste system of service, which is not in accordance with biblical teaching, is deeply rooted in our churches. In this two-caste system, there is a clan of priests who are trained and invited to the parish. They are paid for their work and are expected to serve honorably. There is also a caste of lay people who usually form the audience. They pay with gratitude for the shows that the priesthood puts on, or they harshly criticize the shortcomings of these shows (and there are always shortcomings).
No one expects much from the lower caste of the laity (other than “attendance, tithe and testimony”). But everyone expects something extraordinary from the highest caste of priests (including the priests themselves)!
The trouble is that such a system is absolutely contrary to the biblical view of ministry. Therefore, we are faced with the impossible task of trying to achieve biblical ideals of ministry using unbiblical methods that are absolutely unsuitable for achieving this goal! No matter how high we set the standard for the priesthood, it can never live up to the requirements set out in the Bible! 4
Moreover, even scientists who study this problem and try to correct the situation are only reforming something that needs to be completely eradicated. John Stott, for example, correctly speaks of the shortcomings in the clerical system:
...The true ugliness of clericalism is visible only against the background of the equality and unity of God's people. Clericalism always tends to concentrate all power in the hands of the priesthood, and this, at the very least, hinders the unity of God's people... I dare say that the perception of the Church as a privileged priestly caste or hierarchical structure distorts the New Testament teaching about the Church.
…In other words, the New Testament, in revealing the nature and operation of the Church, focuses not on the status of the priesthood, not on the relationship between the priesthood and the laity, but on all the children of God in their relationship to God and to each other. According to the New Testament, God's people are a unique community of people called by God's grace to be His inheritance and His ambassadors in this world 5 .
Unfortunately, Stott does not reach its logical conclusion in his criticism of clericalism. While pointing out the obvious abuses inherent in clericalism, Stott still supports the division of the church into clergy and laity and uses, by his own admission, unbiblical terminology: “The question before us, then, is what is the relationship between the representatives of these two groups, teachers and students, pastors and flocks , or, in modern, unbiblical language, “priesthood” and “laity”?” 6.
If the terms "priest" and "lay" are truly unbiblical, then why does such an eminent biblical scholar as John Stott continue to use them? It should not be forgotten that the names that a society gives to its leaders speak volumes about the character and beliefs of the society itself. Knowing this, the New Testament writers carefully selected appropriate titles for church leaders. The words “priesthood” and “laity” that we use today distort both the New Testament language and the essence of Christian fellowship.
Every teacher of the Word has a solemn responsibility to identify and correct anything, including the use of unfortunate terminology, that misrepresents the precious truths of Scripture. Although Stott argues that priests are merely servants of the laity, in practice he justifies clericalism with its unbiblical division of the family of God and the establishment of a class of priests above the laity: “We must, of course, retain to the priesthood the exclusive right to teach the Word and administer the sacraments. No one should be allowed to preach sermons or perform sacraments in the church unless he has been called in accordance with the rules to perform these duties.” 7 These words are contrary to the principles of the apostolic, New Testament Christian community; they represent clericalism, which, in addition to the wrong division of the holy brotherhood, has, far more than any other teaching, weakened the leadership of the Church. Moreover, supporters of clericalism, using New Testament texts to support their position (see: 1 Tim. 5:17, 18), only further distort the biblical teaching about the Church.
In order to fully restore the institution of elders and give it its rightful place in the church, we must recognize the existence of a dichotomy between the priesthood and the laity and categorically reject such opposition between two parts of one whole. If we want to be faithful to the Word of God and Jesus Christ, we should avoid using the words “priest” and “layman” because these terms express concepts foreign to the New Testament church. But more importantly, we must oppose any action that divides God's people into laity and priesthood, ministers and non-ministers, ordained and non-ordained Christians. We must boldly follow the teachings of Christ, according to which we are all brothers, no matter whether we are teachers or students, shepherds or flocks, leaders or followers.
Royal title
As we have already said, both Ivan III and Vasily III were sometimes called tsars. But officially it was Ivan the Terrible who became the first Russian Tsar.
The word “king” itself comes from the Latin “Caesar” (from the personal name of Gaius Julius Caesar, which gradually became part of the imperial title). In Rus', the emperors of Byzantium were called tsars, so were the khans of the Golden Horde, and then the khanates that emerged from it. The “Grand Duke”, which had hitherto existed in the country, was not much higher in rank than just “prince”. But there were enough great princes in Rus', but there was no official king yet. If the Grand Duke could be perceived as first among equals, then the Tsar should have no equal. It was a qualitatively new title. In Byzantium, for example, in serious theological literature, a lot of space was devoted to teachings about how to honor the king and what honors to give him. These recommendations, as it were, should have automatically transferred to Muscovy.
Monomakh's hat
In international relations, the title of king also provided certain advantages. After all, both the Kazan and Crimean khanates, with which Russia waged wars and negotiations, were ruled by kings. And now the Moscow sovereign was on the same level with them. In Western Europe, the title "Grand Duke" was translated as "prince", "duke", but not as "king" or "emperor". But the “king” was placed on the same level as the king and emperor. So, from all sides, the adoption of a new title was beneficial and important for the sovereign.
...The crowning took place on January 16, 1547 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. First, the life-giving cross, crown and barmas were solemnly brought here on a golden platter. Then Ivan himself came, accompanied by his confessor, princes and boyars. In the middle of the temple, on a high pedestal (pulpit) with twelve steps, two places were built, “dressed with golden carpets, at the feet lay velvets and damask.” Ivan IV and Metropolitan Macarius sat at these places after the prayer service. N. M. Karamzin writes: “In front of the pulpit stood a richly decorated lectern with royal utensils. The archimandrites took it and gave it to Macarius. He stood up with John and, placing a cross, bars and a crown on him, loudly prayed that the Almighty would protect this Christian David with the power of the Holy Spirit, seat him on the throne of virtue, grant him terror for the obstinate and a merciful eye for the obedient. The ceremony concluded with the proclamation of a new many years to the sovereign... From that time on, Russian monarchs began not only in relations with other powers, but also within the state, in all matters and papers, to be called tsars, retaining the title of great princes, consecrated by antiquity ... "
Metropolitan Macarius
Cross
Power - a symbol of royal power
Thus, the adoption of the royal title, as a result of which Ivan IV was equated with Western European emperors, was done primarily in order to strengthen central power and emphasized the unlimited power of the monarch within the state.
At the same time, this step also had a special spiritual and moral significance for Russia. The state ideology of that time and the worldview of the common people was extremely characterized by the idea of the special role of Russia as the only surviving independent Orthodox state. After all, after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, only Orthodoxy remained in the Russian state - Christianity of the Eastern model. This was explained by the special piety of the Russian Orthodox Church.
“Two Romes have fallen, Moscow is the Third Rome. There won’t be a fourth.” This meant that if Moscow, the custodian of Orthodoxy, collapses, then sacred history will perish and end. This was considered the special messianic role of Moscow before the Orthodox world. And the Russian sovereign was obliged to consider his main task to be the protection of Orthodoxy and concern for the salvation of the souls of the Orthodox - the establishment of “true truth” on earth.
Don Icon of the Mother of God, before which Ivan IV prayed
Interior view of the Assumption Cathedral
Such a great role was quite to the liking of the young, ambitious Ivan IV. Here is what Klyuchevsky writes: “... his own person in such a reflection seemed to him illuminated with splendor and greatness, which his ancestors, simple Moscow princes-owners, had never sensed. Ivan IV was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who saw and vividly felt within himself the king in the true biblical sense, the anointed of God. This was a political revelation for him, and from that time on his royal self became an object of pious worship for him. He became a shrine to himself and in his thoughts created an entire theology of political self-adoration in the form of a scientific theory of his royal power. In a tone inspired from above and along with the usual subtle irony, he wrote during peace negotiations to his enemy Stefan Batory, piercing his eyes with his electoral power: “We, humble John, are the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' by God’s will, and not by the multi-rebellious human desire "".
And, naturally, the Church actively supported him. It is not for nothing that it was Metropolitan Macarius, who sought to strengthen the autocracy and put an end to the boyar lawlessness, who conceived and carried out the ritual of crowning the kingdom.
From the book Vasily III. Ivan groznyj author Skrynnikov Ruslan GrigorievichThe royal title Vasily III ordered the boyars, as noted above, to “take care” of their son until he was 15 years old, after which his independent rule was to begin. 15 years is the time of coming of age in the lives of people of the 16th century. At this age, noble children entered the military as "newcomers"
From the book Rus' and Rome. Colonization of America by Russia-Horde in the 15th–16th centuries author1. The title of the Moscow Tsar What would you say if you saw that the coat of arms of a certain modern state is constantly depicted in pairs with the coat of arms of some other state? Moreover, being enclosed with him in a common frame. On coins, charters, government papers, etc. Probably
author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4.3.13. The Royal Garden and the City of David inside the Jerusalem fortress wall - The Royal Garden Embankment and the Royal Palace in the Kremlin Near the Source Gate of the Jerusalem fortress wall, the Bible places the royal garden, the Selah reservoir and the “city of David.” The Bible says that the SAME
From the book Moscow in the light of the New Chronology author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4.3.21. The Tsar's House and nearby the "High Pillar" inside the Jerusalem Fortress are the Tsar's Palace and the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great in the Kremlin. According to the Ostroh Bible, as we move further we reach "even to the EVALUATION and even to the corner" (Nehemiah 3). In the Synodal translation, instead of
From the book Rus'. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book History of Peter the Great author Brikner Alexander GustavovichCHAPTER VII Imperial title Russia under Peter became a great power. The overall result of his efforts in the field of foreign policy was the transformation of the Muscovite kingdom, alien to Europe, into the All-Russian Empire, which was in the closest connection with Europe. In 1715, Peter already wrote:
From the book The Secret Chancellery under Peter the Great author Semevsky Mikhail Ivanovich4. New title On October 22, 1721, during the solemn celebration of the Peace of Nystadt, Feofan Prokopovich gave a laudatory speech. Calculating the unusually wise orders and benefits of His Majesty in favor of his subjects, the archbishop announced that the sovereign deserved
author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich From the book I Explore the World. History of Russian Tsars author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich From the book “The Dowager Kingdom” [Political crisis in Russia in the 30s–40s of the 16th century] author Krom Mikhail Markovich1. Political status of the ruler and her title So, by the autumn of 1534, Grand Duchess Elena concentrated supreme power in her hands. Was the change in her status somehow reflected in the sources? For the first time in historiography, this question was raised by A. L. Yurganov. Scientist turned
author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4.13. The Royal Garden and the City of David inside the Jerusalem fortress wall are the embankment of the Royal Garden and the Royal Palace in the Kremlin. Near the Source Gate of the Jerusalem fortress wall, the Bible places the Royal Garden, the Selah reservoir and the “City of David.” The Bible says that THE
From the book Book 2. Conquest of America by Russia-Horde [Biblical Rus'. The Beginning of American Civilizations. Biblical Noah and medieval Columbus. Revolt of the Reformation. Dilapidated author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4.21. The Royal House and next to it the “High Pillar” inside the Jerusalem Fortress are the Royal Palace and the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great in the Kremlin. The Ostroh Bible indicates that as we move further we reach “even to the EVADER and even to the corner” (Nehemiah 3). In the synodal
From the book The Fight for the Seas. Age of Great Geographical Discovery by Erdődi Janos From the book Tsar Ivan the Terrible author Kolyvanova Valentina ValerievnaTsar's title As we have already said, both Ivan III and Vasily III were sometimes called tsars. But officially it was Ivan the Terrible who became the first Russian Tsar. The word “Tsar” itself comes from the Latin “Caesar” (from the personal name of Gaius Julius Caesar, which gradually turned into
From the book I Explore the World. History of Russian Tsars author Istomin Sergey VitalievichTitle - Grand Duke Grand Duke is the oldest title of Russian rulers. When the family of Prince Rurik grew, the older princes began to be distinguished from the younger ones by the title “Grand Duke”. Initially, this title had only an honorary meaning. Later, “Grand Duke” - the title
From the book I Explore the World. History of Russian Tsars author Istomin Sergey VitalievichThe title is king. King is from the Latin caesar - sole sovereign, emperor, and also the official title of the monarch. In the Old Russian language, this Latin word sounded like Caesar - “Tssar”. Initially, this was the name of the Roman and Byzantine emperors, hence the Slavic