WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ELDERS AFTER THE APOSTLES DIED?

In the New Testament, the pattern 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 the flock.

Paul called the elders of Ephesus to meet him and 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 the same man 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 very important.

We do not have to begin centuries later.

We have writings from Christians who lived very close to the time of the apostles.

And those writings allow us to watch something change.

1. CLEMENT OF ROME — THE OLD 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 extremely important.

Clement says that the apostles preached the gospel and appointed their first converts as bishops and deacons. Later, when discussing men who had been removed from leadership at Corinth, he speaks of those same leaders as presbyters and refers to their office as the episcopate.

In other words, the terminology still overlaps.

Presbyter — elder.
Episkopos — overseer or bishop.

We do not yet see one bishop standing over a group of elders.

We see something that still looks remarkably like the New Testament arrangement.

Clement also says something important about succession. The apostles made provision that other approved men should continue the ministry after the first leaders died.

That deserves attention.

But notice what Clement does not describe.

He does not describe one supreme bishop of Corinth replacing the apostles.

He speaks about a group of presbyters or overseers.

The church at Rome itself writes collectively to Corinth rather than presenting its case as an order from one ruling bishop.

So near the end of the first century, the older pattern is still plainly visible.

2. THE DIDACHE — STILL “BISHOPS AND DEACONS”

Another very early Christian document is called the Didache, meaning Teaching.

Its exact date is debated, but it comes from the early period of Christianity.

When it discusses local church leadership, it says:

“Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.”

Notice several things.

Bishops is plural.

The congregation is told to appoint them.

And the two groups mentioned are bishops and deacons. (New Advent)

That sounds very much like Philippians 1:1:

“To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”

Again, there is no clear three-level organization of:

one bishop
over several presbyters
over the deacons.

At least in the churches reflected by the Didache, that later arrangement is not yet apparent.

3. THEN WE COME TO IGNATIUS

Now something changes.

Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and wrote several letters while being taken to Rome for execution, generally dated to the early second century.

His letters are enormously important because his description of church leadership is noticeably different.

Ignatius speaks distinctly of:

one bishop,
the presbytery,
and the deacons.

The bishop is no longer simply another word for an elder.

He stands apart from the elders.

That is a major development.

And Ignatius does more than give the bishop a special title.

He gives him special authority.

Writing to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius tells 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.”

He goes farther.

The Eucharist is to be considered proper when it is administered by the bishop or by someone whom 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.” (New Advent)

Stop there.

Something important has happened.

4. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IGNATIUS WAS A GOOD MAN

Ignatius was facing martyrdom.

He loved Christ.

His writings show deep concern for the unity of Christians and for protecting churches from false teaching.

We do not need to attack Ignatius.

We need to read him.

And then compare what he wrote with what the apostles wrote.

That is the purpose of TEXT B4 TRADITION.

The question is not:

Was Ignatius sincere?

The question is:

Where did the apostles give one man this authority?

Where in Acts 20 did Paul tell the Ephesian elders that one elder should eventually become bishop over the others?

Where in Titus 1 did Paul separate the bishop from the elders?

Where in 1 Peter 5 did Peter place one bishop above the other elders?

Where did Jesus say that baptism required the permission of a bishop?

Where did Paul say that the Lord's Supper was valid only when a bishop or his representative authorized it?

Those are textual questions.

And they deserve textual answers.

5. CONTROL OF BAPTISM AND COMMUNION CHANGES THE OFFICE

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 happens when one man is given authority to determine who may perform a baptism and who may preside over the Eucharist.

His authority has moved beyond shepherding.

He has become a gatekeeper.

If baptism requires his approval, access to baptism comes under his authority.

If the Eucharist requires his approval, participation in one of the central acts of Christian fellowship comes under his authority.

That is considerably more power than we saw given to any individual elder in the New Testament.

And once such authority is accepted, the office itself has changed.

6. POLYCARP SHOWS THAT THE CHANGE WAS NOT UNIFORM EVERYWHERE

This is another reason we should move slowly.

Church organization did not necessarily change everywhere at exactly the same time.

Polycarp of Smyrna was a contemporary of Ignatius.

Yet when Polycarp wrote to the Christians at Philippi, he discussed deacons and presbyters.

He told the Christians to be subject to the presbyters and deacons.

He then described the responsibilities of the presbyters: they were to be compassionate, restore those who wandered, visit the sick, care for widows, orphans, and the poor, and avoid greed and unjust judgment. (New Advent)

What is striking is what Polycarp does not say.

He does not address a single bishop of Philippi.

He does not tell the Philippians to obey their bishop.

He does not describe a bishop standing over their presbyters.

So we should not picture the whole Christian world suddenly changing its organization on one particular day.

The evidence suggests a development.

In some places the older arrangement continued.

In other places, particularly those reflected in Ignatius' letters, one bishop had emerged above the presbyters.

7. WHY WOULD THIS HAPPEN?

We need to be fair to the people involved.

The early churches faced serious problems.

The apostles were dying.

False teachers were appearing.

Churches were threatened by division.

Christians were being persecuted.

A strong central leader may have seemed like a practical way to preserve unity and protect the church.

Ignatius repeatedly connects the bishop with unity.

We can understand the reasoning.

One congregation.

One center of authority.

One bishop.

Division becomes harder.

But there is an important principle we must not miss:

Something can appear useful without being authorized by the apostles.

The question is not merely:

Did it work?

The question is:

Did Christ authorize it?

8. A SMALL CHANGE CAN BECOME A LARGE ONE

Imagine the first step.

A congregation has several elders.

For convenience, one elder begins presiding when they meet.

That does not necessarily change anything.

He may simply be chairman.

But suppose people gradually begin looking to him for final decisions.

Then suppose he begins speaking for the entire eldership.

Then suppose certain church activities require his approval.

Eventually he is no longer simply one of the elders.

He has become the bishop, while the others remain presbyters.

The vocabulary has changed because the structure has changed.

And once the church accepts the principle that one bishop may stand above the elders, another question eventually becomes possible:

Who stands above the bishops?

That question will take us much farther.

9. WATCH THE CHANGE

Put the evidence beside itself.

NEW TESTAMENT

Elders = overseers/bishops = shepherds.

Plural leadership in local churches.

1 CLEMENT

Presbyter and bishop still appear to overlap.

Plural leadership remains visible.

DIDACHE

Churches appoint bishops and deacons.

Again, bishops are plural.

IGNATIUS

One bishop is distinguished from the presbyters and deacons.

The bishop's authority extends to the Eucharist and baptism.

POLYCARP

Presbyters and deacons are still prominent at Philippi, showing that the development was not necessarily uniform everywhere. (New Advent)

We are watching church organization develop before our eyes.

And we are only in the early second century.

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 or overseer.

The better question is:

When did a bishop stop being one of the elders and become a man standing over the elders?

That is a very different question.

And the surviving evidence lets us see the transition surprisingly early.

But this is only the beginning.

Once one bishop stands above the elders, the structure can continue upward.

Bishops begin exercising authority beyond one congregation.

Important cities gain greater influence.

Regional authority develops.

And eventually the Christian world will debate an even larger question:

Is there one bishop who stands above all the others?

That is where our study goes next.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF

Acts 20:17, 28
Philippians 1:1
Titus 1:5–7
1 Peter 5:1–4
1 Clement 42–44
Didache 15
Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
Polycarp, To the Philippians 5–6

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 one question:

Can I find the later office in the text, or am I watching it develop after the text was written?

The key to this page, I think, is that we do not claim that somebody suddenly invented the bishop's office. The evidence is stronger when we simply put the documents in front of the reader and let him watch the terminology and authority change. Ignatius' statement about baptism and the Eucharist requiring the bishop's authority is especially important because that shows this was becoming more than a change in title. (New Advent)

And Page 5 can naturally ask what happened once one bishop over the elders became accepted: How did a local bishop eventually become a bishop with authority over other churches and other bishops?