WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ELDERS AFTER THE APOSTLES DIED?
In the New Testament, the pattern of church leadership is fairly easy to see.
Local churches had elders.
Those same men were called overseers or bishops.
Their work was described as shepherding or pastoring God's people.
Paul called the elders of Ephesus to meet him. He told them that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers and that they were to shepherd the church of God (Acts 20:17, 28).
Titus was told to appoint elders in every city. A few verses later, Paul described an elder as an overseer (Titus 1:5–7).
Peter told the elders to shepherd God's flock and exercise oversight (1 Peter 5:1–2).
Three words.
One group of men.
Elders described who they were.
Overseers described their responsibility.
Shepherds described their work.
But what happened after the apostles died?
That is where history becomes important.
We do not have to begin centuries later. We have writings from Christians who lived close to the time of the apostles.
Those writings allow us to examine how church leadership was understood during the earliest generations of Christianity.
1. CLEMENT OF ROME — THE OLDER PATTERN IS STILL VISIBLE
One of our earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament is usually called 1 Clement.
It was written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, probably near the end of the first century.
That makes it especially important to our study.
In chapters 42–44, Clement explains that the apostles preached the gospel and appointed qualified men as bishops and deacons.
He also describes how provision was made for other approved men to continue the ministry after the first leaders died.
When discussing men who had been removed from leadership at Corinth, Clement speaks of presbyters and refers to their ministry using the language of the episcopate, or oversight.
Notice the terminology.
Presbyter means elder.
Episkopos means overseer or bishop.
Clement's language suggests that these terms still overlapped.
We do not find him clearly describing one bishop standing above a separate group of presbyters at Corinth.
Instead, he discusses several men who had served in the congregation's leadership.
That resembles the arrangement we saw in the New Testament.
But we should be careful.
Clement's failure to describe a single bishop at Corinth does not, by itself, prove that no such office existed anywhere at that time.
Nor should we overlook his teaching about the continuation of the ministry. Clement connects the appointment of church leaders with the apostles and describes how approved men were to succeed those who had died.
Christians who understand episcopal succession as a continuation of apostolic leadership consider this an important part of the evidence.
Our question here is narrower.
Does Clement clearly describe one bishop holding a separate office above the presbyters at Corinth?
The passages we have examined do not clearly describe that arrangement.
Near the end of the first century, the older terminology and a plurality of local leaders were still visible.
Source: 1 Clement, chapters 42–44.
2. THE DIDACHE — BISHOPS AND DEACONS
Another early Christian document is called the Didache, meaning Teaching.
Its exact date and place of origin are debated. It reflects an early period of Christian life, although we cannot assign every part of it a precise date.
Chapter 15 instructs its readers to appoint bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord.
Notice several things.
Bishops is plural.
The readers are told to appoint them.
And the two groups mentioned are bishops and deacons.
That sounds much like Philippians 1:1, where Paul addresses the saints at Philippi along with the bishops and deacons.
The Didache does not clearly describe a three-part arrangement consisting of one bishop, a separate group of presbyters, and deacons.
That arrangement is not apparent in this passage.
Again, silence does not prove that every church represented by the Didache had exactly the same organization.
Nor does the use of the plural prove that every individual congregation necessarily had several bishops.
But the document gives us another early example of bishops and deacons being mentioned without a clearly distinguished single bishop standing over a separate presbytery.
Source: The Didache, chapter 15.
3. THEN WE COME TO IGNATIUS
Now we encounter something different.
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch. He wrote several letters while being taken to Rome, where he expected to face execution.
His letters are commonly dated to the early second century, during the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98–117), although their precise date remains debated.
They are especially important because they describe church leadership in a way that differs from the arrangement we have seen in the New Testament passages.
Ignatius speaks distinctly of:
One bishop.
The presbytery.
The deacons.
In these letters, the bishop is not simply another name for one of the presbyters.
He is distinguished from them.
That is an important development in the use of the terms.
And Ignatius does more than give the bishop a distinct title.
He assigns him a central role in the life of the congregation.
Writing to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius urges Christians to follow the bishop, respect the presbytery, and honor the deacons.
Then he says:
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.
— Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
He also says that the Eucharist is to be regarded as proper when it is administered by the bishop or by someone the bishop has authorized.
Then comes an especially significant statement:
It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast.
— Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
Stop there.
We need to consider carefully what Ignatius is saying.
Source: Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8.
4. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IGNATIUS WAS A GOOD MAN
Ignatius was facing martyrdom.
His letters express devotion to Christ and concern for the unity of Christians.
He was also deeply concerned about false teaching and division.
We do not need to question his sincerity to examine his understanding of church leadership.
We need to read what he wrote.
Then we need to compare it with what the apostles wrote.
That is the purpose of TEXT B4 TRADITION.
The question is not:
Was Ignatius sincere?
The question is:
How does the authority Ignatius assigns to the bishop compare with the authority described in the New Testament?
In Acts 20, Paul addresses the elders of Ephesus and calls them overseers.
In Titus 1, Paul uses elder and overseer in the same discussion of the men Titus was to appoint.
In 1 Peter 5, Peter tells the elders to shepherd God's flock and exercise oversight.
Ignatius, however, distinguishes one bishop from the presbytery and gives that bishop a particular responsibility for the congregation's unity and worship.
How should we understand that difference?
Some Christians see Ignatius as evidence that church organization developed beyond the arrangement described in the New Testament.
Others understand his description of the bishop as a legitimate continuation of apostolic leadership, intended to preserve unity and sound teaching.
Those are different interpretations of the evidence.
We should understand what each is saying before reaching our own conclusion.
5. BAPTISM AND COMMUNION — WHAT AUTHORITY DID IGNATIUS GIVE THE BISHOP?
This point deserves careful thought.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not minor church activities.
They stand near the center of Christian life.
Jesus commanded baptism (Matthew 28:19).
On Pentecost, Peter told believers to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38).
Those who received the word were baptized (Acts 2:41).
The disciples continued in the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42).
Paul describes the church assembling to eat the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–34).
Now consider what Ignatius says.
The Eucharist is to be administered by the bishop or someone he authorizes.
Baptism is not to take place without the bishop.
In the arrangement Ignatius describes, the bishop's authorization is required for these activities.
That is more than a difference in title.
It concerns how the congregation carries out important acts of Christian worship and fellowship.
But we must make another distinction.
Ignatius does not say that the bishop personally performs every baptism or administers every Eucharist.
He explicitly allows the Eucharist to be administered by someone the bishop authorizes.
Nor does this passage tell us that the bishop may arbitrarily deny baptism or communion to any Christian he dislikes.
What it does establish is that Ignatius regarded the bishop's authorization as necessary.
That raises an important New Testament question.
Where do the apostles assign this particular responsibility to one bishop standing above the presbyters?
The New Testament certainly gives church leaders responsibility for teaching, oversight, and the care of God's people.
But the passages we have examined do not explicitly describe the arrangement Ignatius requires.
Some Christians understand his instructions as a way of ensuring that baptism and the Eucharist remain connected to the unity and recognized leadership of the congregation.
Others question whether making these activities dependent upon one bishop's authorization goes beyond the authority given to church leaders in the New Testament.
We need to keep both the historical statement and the biblical question clearly before us.
Source: Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8.
6. POLYCARP SHOWS WHY WE MUST MOVE CAREFULLY
Church organization did not necessarily change everywhere at exactly the same time.
Polycarp of Smyrna was a contemporary of Ignatius.
When Polycarp wrote to the Christians at Philippi, he discussed deacons and presbyters.
He urged Christians to respect their leaders and described the responsibilities of the presbyters.
They were to be compassionate.
They were to restore those who wandered.
They were to visit the sick.
They were to care for widows, orphans, and the poor.
They were to avoid greed and unjust judgment.
See Polycarp, To the Philippians 5–6.
What is striking is what Polycarp does not say.
He does not address a single bishop of Philippi.
He does not describe a bishop standing above the presbyters there.
Does that prove Philippi had no single bishop?
No.
A letter's silence cannot establish everything about a congregation's organization.
But Polycarp's letter gives us another early witness in which presbyters and deacons are prominent without a clearly described single bishop over them.
Compare that with Ignatius, who repeatedly distinguishes the bishop from the presbytery.
The surviving documents do not all describe church leadership in the same way.
That is why we should not imagine that every congregation adopted an identical arrangement on one particular day.
Source: Polycarp, To the Philippians, chapters 5–6.
7. WHY WOULD A DISTINCT BISHOP EMERGE?
We need to be fair to the Christians involved.
The early churches faced serious problems.
The apostles were passing from the scene.
False teachers were appearing.
Churches faced division.
Christians were also experiencing persecution.
Ignatius repeatedly connects the bishop with the unity of the congregation.
He urges Christians to remain together rather than form rival groups.
A recognized leader could help coordinate the congregation's activities and provide a point of unity during disputes.
That helps us understand why Ignatius considered the bishop's role important.
But understanding the reasons for an arrangement is not the same as establishing its biblical authority.
A practice may be intended to protect the church and still require examination in the light of Scripture.
The question is not merely:
What problem was the arrangement intended to solve?
We must also ask:
How does it compare with the leadership described by the apostles?
That question applies to every form of church organization, including arrangements familiar to us today.
8. HOW MIGHT THE CHANGE HAVE OCCURRED?
We have seen the difference between the documents.
But can we explain exactly how that difference arose?
Not with certainty.
The surviving evidence does not give us a complete record of every step.
Consider one possible development.
A congregation has several elders.
For convenience, one elder regularly presides when they meet.
At first, he may simply coordinate their work.
Over time, the congregation may begin looking to him as its principal leader.
Eventually, his position may become distinct from that of the other elders.
He may be called the bishop, while the others continue to be called presbyters.
That is one possible way such a distinction could emerge.
But it is an illustration, not a documented history of how Ignatius's office began.
Other explanations have been proposed.
Some Christians understand the distinct office of bishop as a continuation of leadership established by the apostles themselves.
Others understand it as a development that took place as congregations sought to preserve unity and sound teaching.
The surviving documents do not establish every step by which the arrangement described by Ignatius came into existence.
What we can establish from the writings themselves is more limited—and more important.
In the New Testament passages we have examined, elder and overseer describe the same leadership.
In Ignatius's letters, the bishop is distinguished from the presbytery.
Our task is to understand that difference without inventing the steps between the two.
9. PUT THE DOCUMENTS SIDE BY SIDE
Let us review the evidence.
NEW TESTAMENT
In Acts 20 and Titus 1, elders and overseers are the same men.
In 1 Peter 5, elders are instructed to shepherd God's flock and exercise oversight.
Philippians 1:1 addresses bishops and deacons.
1 CLEMENT
Presbyter and bishop language still overlaps.
Several leaders are discussed.
The document does not clearly describe one bishop standing over a separate presbytery at Corinth.
Clement also describes the continuation of the ministry through the appointment of approved men.
DIDACHE
Chapter 15 instructs its readers to appoint bishops and deacons.
Bishops are plural.
A separate single bishop above presbyters is not described there.
IGNATIUS
His letters distinguish one bishop, the presbytery, and deacons.
He gives the bishop a central role in the congregation's unity.
He also says that the Eucharist and baptism are to take place under the bishop's authority.
POLYCARP
His letter to the Philippians discusses presbyters and deacons.
It does not clearly describe a single bishop over the presbyters at Philippi.
These documents do not answer every question.
But they show us something important.
By the early second century, at least some churches had a bishop whose office was distinct from that of the presbyters.
That is a historical observation.
Whether that arrangement was a faithful continuation of apostolic leadership or a development beyond it is a question we must examine by comparing the documents with Scripture.
THE QUESTION WE CANNOT AVOID
Perhaps the most important question is not:
When did Christians begin having bishops?
The New Testament already uses the word bishop, meaning overseer.
The better question is:
When did a bishop become a distinct leader over the presbyters, rather than another name for an elder?
Ignatius gives us clear evidence that such an arrangement existed in churches reflected by his letters in the early second century.
But this is only the beginning of our historical investigation.
Once a bishop holds a distinct office within a congregation, another question becomes possible.
What happens when a bishop's influence extends beyond his own congregation?
How did relationships develop among bishops in different cities?
What authority did they exercise over other churches?
And how did Christians understand that authority?
Those questions take us to the next stage of our study.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Before moving on, read these passages and documents.
New Testament passages
Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5–7; 1 Peter 5:1–4.
Early Christian writings
1 Clement, chapters 42–44
The appointment of bishops and deacons, the continuation of their ministry, and the removal of presbyters at Corinth.
Read 1 Clement.
Didache, chapter 15
Instructions concerning the appointment of bishops and deacons.
Read the Didache.
Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8
The bishop, presbytery, deacons, baptism, and the Eucharist.
Read Ignatius.
Polycarp, To the Philippians, chapters 5–6
The responsibilities of deacons and presbyters.
Read Polycarp.
The English translations linked above are from the nineteenth-century Ante-Nicene Fathers collection.
Do not begin with what a church says its leadership should be.
Do not begin with what TEXT B4 TRADITION says it should be.
Read the documents.
Then ask:
What do these writings actually tell us about church leadership, and where must we distinguish the evidence from our interpretation of it?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: FROM ONE BISHOP TO BISHOPS OVER BISHOPS