PUTTING THE WHOLE SYSTEM BESIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT
WHAT DID CHRIST ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?
We have traveled a long way.
We began in the New Testament.
Then we followed the evidence through the early church, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Constantine, Nicaea, Leo, Gregory, and the medieval papacy.
We watched church leadership develop.
Now it is time to come back to where we started.
THE TEXT.
Not merely:
What have I always believed?
What does my church practice?
What did Christians do five hundred years later?
Our question is:
WHAT DID CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES ESTABLISH?
Let us put the evidence side by side.
1. APOSTLES
The New Testament certainly has apostles.
Jesus selected the Twelve (Luke 6:13).
When the apostles considered who should take Judas's place, they specified that the man must have accompanied Jesus during His earthly ministry and be a witness of His resurrection (Acts 1:21–22).
Paul was personally called by Christ and saw the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8–9).
The apostles had a foundational role in the church.
Paul described the household of God as:
“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”
— Ephesians 2:20
Notice the picture.
A foundation is laid.
You do not continually lay another foundation on every floor of a building.
But the apostles' teaching continues.
Paul told Timothy:
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
— 2 Timothy 2:2
The passage calls for the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching.
It does not explicitly say that those later teachers inherit every aspect of Paul's unique apostolic commission.
Christians differ over whether the apostles also established a continuing office of succession through the bishops.
That is the question we examined earlier in this series.
We must distinguish the continuation of apostolic teaching from a claim that the apostles' particular authority continues in a later office.
Those are related claims, but they are not identical.
2. ELDERS
Elders are plainly found in the New Testament.
Paul and Barnabas:
“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
— Acts 14:23
Paul called for:
“the elders of the church.”
— Acts 20:17
Titus was instructed:
“And ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”
— Titus 1:5
Peter addressed:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.”
— 1 Peter 5:1
Notice that the word elders is plural in these passages.
Acts 14:23 describes elders being appointed in the churches.
Acts 20:17 describes elders associated with the church at Ephesus.
Titus 1:5 instructs Titus to appoint elders in every city.
These passages show that elders were an established part of church leadership.
They also give us a starting point for asking how their responsibilities relate to those of bishops and pastors.
3. BISHOPS
Bishops are also plainly biblical.
The Greek word episkopos means an overseer.
But here is where our historical study becomes important.
In Acts 20, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus.
He then told those same men:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
— Acts 20:28
The men called elders in verse 17 are called overseers in verse 28.
Now look at Titus.
Paul told Titus to appoint elders in every city.
Then, while explaining the qualifications required of these men, he said:
“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.”
— Titus 1:7
Paul did not introduce a new group of leaders between verses 5 and 7.
He was explaining the qualifications for the men Titus was to appoint.
In these New Testament passages, the terms elder and bishop refer to the same leaders.
The word bishop is biblical.
What we traced in the historical studies was the development of a different arrangement: one bishop distinguished from, and presiding over, a body of presbyters or elders.
That distinction is essential.
The question is not whether bishops existed in the New Testament.
They did.
The question is whether the New Testament establishes the later distinction between a bishop and the presbyters under his authority.
4. PASTORS
Pastors are biblical too.
The word means shepherds.
Peter told the elders:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.”
— 1 Peter 5:2
Paul told the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers:
“To feed the church of God.”
— Acts 20:28
The elders were to shepherd God's people.
Paul also wrote that Christ gave some to be:
“Pastors and teachers.”
— Ephesians 4:11
Christians differ over how the pastoral work described in Ephesians 4 relates to the office of elder.
But Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 clearly show elders performing the work of shepherds.
Consider the three descriptions:
ELDERS — a term associated with their position and maturity.
OVERSEERS OR BISHOPS — a term describing their responsibility to watch over the congregation.
SHEPHERDS OR PASTORS — a term describing their work of caring for God's people.
These words do not necessarily identify three separate offices.
In Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, they describe the same group of leaders and their responsibilities.
5. DEACONS
Deacons are also found in the New Testament.
Paul addressed the Christians at Philippi:
“To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”
— Philippians 1:1
Qualifications for deacons appear in 1 Timothy 3:8–13.
Notice Paul's description of the church at Philippi.
He addresses:
ALL THE SAINTS
with
BISHOPS
and
DEACONS.
That is an important New Testament picture of a local congregation.
It does not answer every possible question about relationships among churches.
But it does tell us which leaders Paul specifically identifies when addressing the Philippian congregation.
6. WHAT ABOUT PRIESTS?
Here we must be careful.
The New Testament certainly speaks about priests.
But what does it say about the priesthood of Christians?
Peter wrote:
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”
— 1 Peter 2:5
Then he said:
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.”
— 1 Peter 2:9
John wrote that Christ:
“Hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”
— Revelation 1:6
The New Testament describes God's people as a priesthood.
It also identifies Jesus as our great High Priest.
“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”
— Hebrews 4:14
Now we must distinguish that teaching from the later use of the word priest for an ordained Christian minister.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians understand the ordained priesthood as a ministry that serves Christ's people and participates in Christ's priestly work. They do not understand it as replacing Christ's unique high priesthood or denying the priesthood of all believers.
Other Christians understand the New Testament's teaching about Christ's priesthood and the priesthood of believers differently and do not recognize a distinct sacramental priesthood within the church.
For our study, the textual question is:
Where does the New Testament establish a separate Christian priestly office, and how does that office relate to the elders and overseers it describes?
We should examine the passages used to support that claim rather than assume that the later title, by itself, answers the question.
7. WHAT ABOUT A DIOCESE?
The later church developed geographical territories called dioceses.
A diocesan bishop exercises oversight within an assigned territory.
But look again at Acts and Titus.
Paul and Barnabas appointed:
“Elders in every church.”
— Acts 14:23
Titus was instructed to appoint:
“Elders in every city.”
— Titus 1:5
These passages do not describe one bishop holding a distinct office over the elders of numerous congregations within a large territory.
That territorial arrangement became clearly established in later church organization.
The question is whether a diocese is understood as a practical way of organizing the church's work or as an arrangement required by apostolic authority.
Those are different claims.
8. WHAT ABOUT A METROPOLITAN?
By the fourth century, bishops of major provincial cities had recognized responsibilities among other bishops.
The Council of Nicaea refers to the metropolitan in its canons concerning episcopal appointments and church administration.
That is historical evidence of an established regional structure.
But metropolitan is not an office identified in the New Testament's instructions about elders, overseers, and deacons.
We do not find Paul instructing Titus to appoint a metropolitan over the elders of Crete.
Nor does Acts describe a metropolitan governing the churches planted by Paul and Barnabas.
The metropolitan belongs to a later stage of documented church organization.
9. WHAT ABOUT AN ARCHBISHOP?
The title and responsibilities associated with an archbishop developed as church administration became more organized.
The term is used differently among Christian traditions.
An archbishop may oversee an ecclesiastical province or hold a particularly important episcopal see.
The title does not always mean that he exercises the same authority over every other bishop.
Our question remains:
Where do the apostles identify an archbishop as an office distinct from the elders and overseers described in the New Testament?
The passages we have examined do not identify such an office.
Its later historical development can be studied separately from claims that it is a required part of apostolic church government.
10. WHAT ABOUT PATRIARCHS?
As certain cities became especially important, their bishops acquired particular standing and responsibilities.
Among those centers were:
Rome.
Constantinople.
Alexandria.
Antioch.
Jerusalem.
These centers eventually became associated with patriarchal offices.
The precise history, titles, and jurisdictional arrangements differed across regions and centuries.
A patriarch's authority in one Christian tradition is not necessarily identical to a patriarch's authority in another.
But the basic textual question is straightforward:
Where does the New Testament establish a patriarchal office governing other bishops or churches?
We do not find that later arrangement described in the New Testament passages about church leadership.
Its development belongs to the history we have been tracing.
11. WHAT ABOUT CARDINALS?
Cardinals became especially important in the Western church.
Today, the College of Cardinals has responsibilities that include electing the pope.
But a cardinal is not simply a rank above patriarchs and archbishops in one universal chain of command.
A cardinal may also be a bishop or archbishop. The title carries particular responsibilities within the Roman Catholic Church, especially in relation to the pope and the governance of that church.
The New Testament does not describe a College of Cardinals.
It does not give qualifications for a cardinal.
It does not instruct cardinals to elect Peter's successor.
Those arrangements belong to later church history.
12. WHAT ABOUT THE POPE?
Now we come to the bishop of Rome.
The Roman Catholic Church understands the pope as Peter's successor, the bishop of Rome, and the holder of a particular responsibility for the unity and governance of the universal church.
Our historical studies have shown that Rome became important very early.
Peter was important.
The Roman church was influential.
Its bishops increasingly appealed to Peter.
Leo I made strong claims about the authority of the Roman see.
The medieval papacy acquired extensive ecclesiastical and political responsibilities.
But after following that history, we must return to the textual question:
Where does the New Testament establish a continuing office in which Peter's particular authority passes to a succession of bishops in Rome?
Matthew 16:13–20 is central to the Catholic understanding of that claim.
Other Christians interpret Peter's commission differently and do not conclude that it establishes the later Roman papal office.
The New Testament does not explicitly give a procedure for selecting a bishop of Rome as Peter's successor or describe the later papal system.
That observation does not, by itself, settle the debate about whether such an office may be grounded in apostolic teaching and tradition.
It tells us precisely what we must investigate:
What does the text say about Peter?
What does it say about the other apostles?
What does it say about the leadership of local churches?
And what additional reasoning is required to connect those passages to the later office of pope?
13. PUT THE TWO STRUCTURES SIDE BY SIDE
Here is what we have found in the New Testament.
CHRIST
Christ is the Head of the church and the Chief Shepherd.
See Colossians 1:18 and 1 Peter 5:4.
APOSTLES
Christ commissioned His apostles as witnesses and gave them a foundational role in the church.
See Acts 1:21–22 and Ephesians 2:20.
LOCAL CHURCHES
The New Testament describes congregations with elders, also called overseers, who shepherd God's people.
It also identifies deacons.
See Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; and Titus 1:5–7.
ALL CHRISTIANS
Christians are described as God's holy priesthood.
See 1 Peter 2:5, 9.
Now compare that with offices and arrangements found in later church history.
DEVELOPED CHURCH STRUCTURES
Over time, Christian traditions came to include offices and arrangements such as:
A bishop distinguished from the presbyters.
Dioceses governed by bishops.
Metropolitans and archbishops with regional responsibilities.
Patriarchs associated with major episcopal centers.
A distinct ordained priesthood.
In the Roman Catholic Church, cardinals and the papal office with its claims of universal primacy and jurisdiction.
These are not all separate steps in a single chain of command.
Some are titles held by the same person.
Some identify geographical responsibilities.
Some concern sacramental ministry.
Others concern relationships among bishops or the selection of the pope.
And different Christian traditions organize them differently.
The point of our comparison is not to draw a misleading organizational chart.
It is to distinguish offices and responsibilities expressly described in the New Testament from those documented in later church history.
14. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE LATER SYSTEM IS OLD
It is old.
Very old.
Some of its features can be traced back more than fifteen hundred years.
That deserves serious historical study.
But age alone does not establish apostolic authority.
Jesus confronted religious traditions that had become deeply established.
In Mark 7:1–13, He challenged practices that allowed human tradition to displace God's command.
We should not assume that every later church practice is equivalent to the tradition Jesus condemned.
But His teaching gives us a necessary question:
Does a tradition serve God's word, or does it set God's word aside?
A practice can be ancient and still be later than the apostles.
The question is not simply:
How old is this practice?
It is:
Where did it come from, and what authority is claimed for it?
15. NOR SHOULD WE ASSUME EVERY CHANGE WAS MADE FOR BAD REASONS
The early church faced real problems.
False teachers threatened congregations.
Persecution created disorder.
Churches needed to cooperate.
Disputes needed to be resolved.
Christians wanted unity.
A single bishop could provide a recognized point of leadership.
Regional bishops could coordinate churches.
Councils could address controversies affecting many congregations.
A respected Roman bishop could be asked to help resolve disputes.
An organized structure could provide continuity and stability.
We do not need to accuse everyone involved of seeking power.
We cannot know the private motives of every person who contributed to these developments.
But we can examine their stated reasons, the practices they established, and the authority they claimed.
A historical explanation for a development is not the same thing as a biblical argument for its authority.
We must examine both.
16. THIS IS NOT JUST A CATHOLIC QUESTION
It would be easy to finish this study by pointing only at Rome.
That would miss the larger lesson.
Every church tradition needs to ask the same questions.
Churches of Christ.
Baptists.
Methodists.
Lutherans.
Presbyterians.
Anglicans.
Orthodox churches.
Independent churches.
Community churches.
Every one of us can inherit traditions.
Every one of us can continue practices simply because:
“That is how we have always done it.”
And every one of us can give a preacher, board, eldership, convention, institution, or tradition more authority than the text gives it.
So this study is not:
THEIR TRADITIONS VERSUS OUR TRADITIONS.
It is:
EVERY TRADITION BESIDE THE TEXT.
Including ours.
17. THE CHURCH STILL HAS A HEAD
Paul wrote of Christ:
“And he is the head of the body, the church.”
— Colossians 1:18
He also wrote that God:
“Hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.”
— Ephesians 1:22
Christ is the Head of His church.
Peter pointed elders toward:
“The chief Shepherd.”
— 1 Peter 5:4
There is no vacancy in that office.
CHRIST IS THE CHIEF SHEPHERD.
Christians disagree about whether particular human offices are authorized ways of serving under His headship.
But no Christian leader replaces Christ.
Every elder, bishop, priest, patriarch, or pope remains accountable to Him.
18. THE CHURCH STILL HAS THE APOSTOLIC MESSAGE
The apostles died.
But their teaching did not disappear.
John wrote:
“Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning.”
— 1 John 2:24
Jude urged Christians to:
“Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
— Jude 3
Paul told Timothy:
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”
— 2 Timothy 1:13
Christians have the apostolic writings.
They can read them.
They can examine what the apostles taught.
They can test claims about church leadership against those writings.
Christians differ over the relationship between Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the church's teaching authority.
But those differences do not remove the responsibility to examine the apostolic message carefully.
What did the apostles actually teach?
That question belongs at the center of our study.
19. WHY DOES THIS MATTER TO US?
We have not spent eleven studies examining ancient church offices merely to win an argument about history.
The question is much closer to home.
WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER YOUR FAITH?
A preacher?
An elder?
A bishop?
A council?
A denomination?
A tradition?
A pope?
Human leaders have real responsibilities.
Christians should respect faithful leaders.
Hebrews says:
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.”
— Hebrews 13:17
But every human leader remains under Christ.
No elder becomes the Chief Shepherd.
No teacher becomes the source of truth.
No bishop becomes Christ.
And no church tradition should be placed beyond examination.
Christ's authority is the standard by which claims to Christian leadership must be considered.
20. SO WHERE DID THE BISHOP COME FROM?
We can finally answer our historical question with greater precision.
The bishop did not come from nowhere.
The word is in the New Testament.
The office of overseer is in the New Testament.
But in the passages we examined:
THE BISHOP WAS AN ELDER.
What developed afterward was a distinction between one bishop and the presbyters of a congregation.
Later, bishops exercised responsibilities over wider geographical areas.
Metropolitan and patriarchal structures developed.
In the West, the Roman bishop's claims to primacy became increasingly explicit.
The medieval papacy acquired extensive ecclesiastical and political responsibilities.
The word bishop remained, but the organization and responsibilities associated with the office developed.
That is one of the central historical findings of this series.
We have also seen that Christians disagree about how to interpret that development.
Some understand it as the legitimate growth of an office and authority established by Christ through His apostles.
Others understand particular later offices or claims as additions that cannot be established from the apostolic writings.
Our task has been to identify the evidence so that those claims can be examined rather than assumed.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with the New Testament:
Matthew 16:13–20
Matthew 20:20–28
Acts 14:23
Acts 20:17–32
Philippians 1:1
Titus 1:5–9
1 Timothy 3:1–13
2 Timothy 1:13–14
2 Timothy 2:2
1 Peter 2:4–10
1 Peter 5:1–4
Ephesians 1:20–23
Ephesians 2:19–22
Colossians 1:15–20
Hebrews 4:14–16
Hebrews 13:17
Jude 3
Then return to the historical documents examined throughout this series.
Do not be afraid of church history.
Study it.
It helps us see when particular practices and offices were documented, how their responsibilities changed, and what arguments Christians made for them.
But do not let later history silently rewrite an earlier text.
READ THE TEXT FIRST.
Then read the history.
Then ask:
What did Jesus establish?
What did the apostles teach?
What appeared afterward?
What authority was claimed for those later developments?
And what am I following today?
That last question is one each of us must answer for ourselves.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT SECTION: EAST AND WEST: HOW DID THE CHURCH DIVIDE?
NEXT STUDY: BEFORE EAST AND WEST DIVIDED