FROM ONE BISHOP TO BISHOPS OVER BISHOPS

In our last study, we watched an important change in church leadership.

In the New Testament, elders and overseers—or bishops—were the same men.

By the time of Ignatius in the early second century, his letters describe a different arrangement:

One bishop,

a group of presbyters,

and deacons.

The bishop was now distinguished from the presbyters.

But church organization did not stop changing there.

Another question soon appeared:

If one bishop has a distinct position over the presbyters, can one bishop also have authority over other bishops?

To answer that question, we must examine the historical evidence.

1. BEGIN AGAIN WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT

Before looking at later history, keep the original pattern in front of us.

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches they established (Acts 14:23).

Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus and told those same men that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (Acts 20:17, 28).

Paul wrote:

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

— Philippians 1:1

Titus was instructed to:

“ordain elders in every city.”

— Titus 1:5

A few verses later, Paul described an elder as a bishop, or overseer (Titus 1:7).

Notice what these passages do not describe.

We do not find a bishop of Asia governing the bishops of Ephesus, Smyrna, and neighboring cities.

We do not find an archbishop.

We do not find a metropolitan.

We do not find a patriarch.

And we do not find one bishop governing the worldwide church.

The pattern described in these passages is much simpler.

Local churches had local overseers.

That is our starting point.

2. BUT CHRISTIANITY WAS GROWING

The gospel spread.

Congregations multiplied.

Cities became important centers of Christian activity.

Churches communicated with one another.

False teaching could cross congregational boundaries.

Persecution affected Christians in entire regions.

Disputes sometimes involved more than one congregation.

These were real problems.

And Christians had good reasons to cooperate with one another.

Bishops and other church leaders met, corresponded, and sought to address matters affecting several churches.

Cooperation, however, does not necessarily mean that one church governs another.

Christians can work together without creating a new level of authority.

So we need to watch for a distinction:

When did the influence of certain bishops become recognized authority in relation to other bishops?

3. WHY DID CERTAIN CITIES BECOME IMPORTANT?

Think about the ancient world.

Some cities were centers of government, commerce, travel, and communication.

People traveled through them.

Messages traveled through them.

Teachers traveled through them.

Churches in these cities could become important points of contact for Christians in surrounding areas.

Some cities also had strong historical connections with the apostles.

Rome was associated with Peter and Paul.

Antioch was an early center of Christianity and the place where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

Alexandria became an important center of Christian learning.

Jerusalem had a unique place in the history of the gospel.

Other cities also became regional centers.

It is not difficult to understand how the bishop of an important city could become more influential than the bishop of a smaller neighboring city.

But we must distinguish two things.

Influence is not necessarily authority to govern.

A church may be respected for its teaching.

Its leaders may be consulted during disputes.

Its example may carry great weight.

None of those facts, by itself, proves that its bishop has the right to command other bishops.

That distinction will become increasingly important as we proceed.

4. IRENAEUS SHOWS US ANOTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT

Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote against teachers who claimed to possess special knowledge that other Christians did not have.

Some of these teachers claimed that their ideas came from secret teaching passed down from the apostles.

Irenaeus answered by pointing to the teaching publicly preserved in churches associated with the apostles.

He argued that the apostolic message was not a secret available only to a select group.

Christians could examine what the churches had received and continued to teach.

Irenaeus also appealed to the succession of bishops in those churches.

In Against Heresies 3.3, he gave particular attention to the church at Rome and traced a succession of its leaders.

His purpose was to defend the public continuity of apostolic teaching against claims of secret teaching.

That is important.

A succession of recognized church leaders was being used as evidence that apostolic teaching had been preserved.

But we should not read more into the passage than it establishes.

Irenaeus also makes a much-debated statement about Rome's “pre-eminent authority” or “preeminence,” saying that other churches must agree with it. The original Greek of this sentence has not survived, and Christians and scholars disagree about exactly what kind of Roman primacy Irenaeus meant. The passage therefore deserves attention, but it should not be made to prove more than its uncertain wording allows.

His argument concerns the public preservation of apostolic teaching.

The question of authority over other churches must be examined separately.

5. WHAT DOES “SUCCESSION” MEAN?

There is nothing strange about wanting the teaching of Christ to continue faithfully from one generation to another.

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

There is a succession in that passage.

Paul taught Timothy.

Timothy was to teach faithful people.

They were to teach others.

Notice what Paul explicitly tells Timothy to pass on.

The things he had heard from Paul.

The apostolic teaching was to continue.

But as church organization developed, another question became increasingly important.

Does apostolic succession mean that faithful people continue to teach what the apostles taught?

Does it also mean that an office and its authority are passed from one bishop to the next?

Or are both involved?

Christians have understood these questions differently.

We will examine them more closely in our next study.

For now, notice that a bishop's connection with an earlier line of leaders could become an important part of the way Christians understood his office.

6. THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUED TO EXPAND

As churches multiplied, bishops in the principal cities of Roman provinces became increasingly prominent.

A Roman province was an administrative region.

Its chief city was often called a metropolis.

The bishop of that city eventually came to be known as the metropolitan bishop.

But the word itself is not the main issue.

The important question is:

What recognized responsibility did the bishop of the chief city have in relation to the other bishops of the province?

By the fourth century, we have clear evidence that metropolitan bishops held a recognized place in the organization of the churches.

We do not have to guess about that arrangement.

We can read the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.

7. BY NICAEA, THE METROPOLITAN STRUCTURE IS CLEAR

The Council of Nicaea met in A.D. 325.

Its fourth canon concerned the appointment of bishops.

It called for a new bishop to be appointed with the participation of the bishops of the province.

When it was difficult for all of them to gather, at least three were to participate, with the absent bishops giving their agreement in writing.

Then the canon added an important requirement.

The metropolitan was to confirm the appointment.

That tells us something definite.

By A.D. 325, the metropolitan had a recognized responsibility in the appointment of bishops within the province.

This was not simply a matter of one respected bishop offering advice.

The council's rule gave the metropolitan a specified role in the process.

At the same time, notice what the canon does not say.

It does not say that the metropolitan personally appoints every bishop without the participation of the other bishops.

The arrangement involves both the bishops of the province and the metropolitan.

The metropolitan had recognized authority, but the canon describes that authority within a particular process.

We should not turn it into a claim that he possessed unlimited power over every other bishop.

The Council of Nicaea did not create the metropolitan arrangement from nothing. Its canon reflects a structure already known to the churches and sets out rules for its operation.

8. NICAEA ALSO RECOGNIZED LARGER AREAS OF AUTHORITY

Canon 6 of Nicaea is also important.

It refers to established customs involving major centers, including Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch.

The canon recognizes longstanding arrangements under which certain bishops had authority or customary privileges extending beyond a single local congregation.

The exact nature and extent of those arrangements—and how they relate to later claims—have been interpreted differently.

We should not assume that every later claim made for one of these cities was already established at Nicaea.

But one point is clear.

By A.D. 325, church organization included recognized relationships of authority among bishops and across geographical regions.

Compare that with the New Testament passages we examined at the beginning of this study.

There we found elders who were also called overseers.

Here we find bishops participating in provincial appointments, metropolitans confirming those appointments, and major centers with recognized regional privileges.

The organization described in these documents is not identical.

That is a historical observation.

Whether these later arrangements were legitimate ways of carrying out apostolic responsibilities, or additions to the organization authorized by the apostles, is a further question.

It requires biblical examination.

9. WHY MIGHT THESE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE SEEMED REASONABLE?

We should not imagine that every change in church organization began with someone deliberately trying to seize power.

Christians faced genuine difficulties.

Suppose false teaching affected several congregations.

Their leaders might meet to discuss it.

Suppose a congregation needed a new bishop.

Neighboring bishops might participate to help ensure that the man was qualified and that the appointment would be recognized.

Suppose a dispute affected an entire province.

A bishop in its chief city might help coordinate a response.

Those are understandable reasons for cooperation.

They help explain why Christians might have welcomed regional arrangements.

But there is an important distinction between explaining a practice and establishing its authority.

A practice may address a real problem and still need to be examined in the light of Scripture.

The question is not simply:

Was the arrangement useful?

It is also:

What authority did Christ give church leaders, and does this arrangement remain within it?

That is a question we should ask of every form of church organization—including our own.

10. THE NEW TESTAMENT QUESTION REMAINS

Let us return to the beginning.

Paul called the elders of Ephesus and told them that they were overseers of God's flock (Acts 20:17, 28).

Titus was told to appoint elders, whom Paul also called overseers (Titus 1:5–7).

Peter instructed elders to shepherd the flock and exercise oversight (1 Peter 5:1–4).

These passages describe responsibility for God's people.

They do not explicitly describe a metropolitan bishop confirming the appointment of other bishops or exercising authority across a province.

But the absence of a later title from the New Testament does not, by itself, settle whether every later arrangement is unauthorized.

Christians differ on whether the apostles established a permanent organizational pattern in all its details or provided principles that could be applied through developing structures.

That is why we must examine both the text and the claims made for later offices.

What authority did the apostles give local overseers?

What authority, if any, did they give one overseer over others?

What did later Christians say justified the authority of a metropolitan?

And does their explanation agree with the apostolic teaching?

We should not answer those questions merely by pointing to a title.

We must examine the responsibilities and authority attached to the office.

WATCH THE DEVELOPMENT

Put the evidence beside itself.

NEW TESTAMENT

Local congregations had elders who were also called overseers or bishops.

EARLY SECOND CENTURY

Ignatius' letters describe one bishop distinguished from the presbytery and deacons.

LATER EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

Writers such as Irenaeus appeal to the succession of bishops when defending the public preservation of apostolic teaching.

BY A.D. 325

The Council of Nicaea describes provincial participation in the appointment of bishops and a recognized role for the metropolitan.

It also acknowledges established regional arrangements associated with major Christian centers.

We are not looking at a complete record of every step.

But the documents show that church organization became more complex over time.

They also show why we must distinguish a bishop's influence, his recognized responsibilities, and his authority over other bishops.

Those are related questions, but they are not identical.

WHAT MADE SUCCESSION SO IMPORTANT?

We have now seen two developments.

First, the bishop became a distinct leader in the churches described by Ignatius.

Later, bishops in certain cities held recognized responsibilities in relation to bishops elsewhere.

But another idea became closely connected with the authority of bishops.

Apostolic succession.

Christians appealed to the continuity between their present leaders and the apostles.

What did they mean by that?

Was the essential inheritance the teaching the apostles delivered?

Did the apostles also pass on an office carrying their authority?

And how should we test a claim that a later leader possesses apostolic authority?

Those questions deserve a study of their own.

That is where we go next.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF

Read these passages and early Christian documents before drawing your conclusion:

• Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28

• Philippians 1:1

• Titus 1:5–7

• 1 Peter 5:1–4

• 2 Timothy 2:2

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3

• Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Canons 4 and 6

Do not begin with what a later church says its organization must be.

Do not begin with what TEXT B4 TRADITION says it must be.

Read the documents.

Then ask:

What authority do these documents actually describe, and how does that authority compare with what the apostles taught?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

Return to ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS

Next Study: What Did The Apostles Pass On