FROM ONE BISHOP TO BISHOPS OVER BISHOPS
In our last study we watched an important change take place.
In the New Testament, elders and bishops were the same men.
By the time of Ignatius in the early second century, we find something different:
one bishop
a group of presbyters
and deacons.
One man now stood above the elders.
But church organization did not stop changing there.
Another question soon appeared:
If one bishop can stand above the elders, can one bishop also stand above other bishops?
History shows us what happened.
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 for them in every church.”
— 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 who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”
— Philippians 1:1
Titus was told:
“appoint elders in every town.”
— Titus 1:5
Paul then immediately described an elder as an overseer.
— Titus 1:7
Notice what we do not find.
We do not find a bishop of Asia ruling 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 ruling the worldwide church.
The pattern we actually see is much simpler.
Local churches had local overseers.
2. BUT CHRISTIANITY WAS GROWING
The gospel spread.
Congregations multiplied.
Cities became important centers of Christian activity.
Churches communicated with one another.
False teaching crossed congregational boundaries.
Persecution affected whole regions.
Disputes sometimes involved Christians from several churches.
These were real problems.
And Christians naturally wanted cooperation and unity.
Bishops began meeting with other bishops to discuss problems affecting several churches.
That by itself does not necessarily create another office.
Christians can cooperate without one church ruling another.
But something else gradually happened.
The bishops of certain cities gained greater influence.
3. WHY THE BIG CITIES?
Think about the ancient world.
Some cities were political, commercial, and transportation centers.
People traveled through them.
Messages traveled through them.
Teachers traveled through them.
Churches in these cities often became large and influential.
Some also claimed a special connection with apostles.
Rome was associated with Peter and Paul.
Antioch was an ancient center of Christianity and the place where the disciples were first called Christians.
Alexandria became an important center of Christian learning.
Jerusalem obviously carried enormous historical importance.
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 small neighboring city.
But again we must ask:
Is influence the same thing as biblical authority?
4. IRENAEUS SHOWS US ANOTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT
Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostic teachers troubling the churches.
The Gnostics claimed to possess secret teaching.
Irenaeus answered by appealing to the churches whose teaching could be traced publicly back to the apostles.
He spoke of the succession of bishops in those churches.
Then he gave special attention to the church at Rome.
He traced its bishops and argued that its publicly preserved teaching agreed with the apostolic faith.
Why?
Because Irenaeus was fighting people who claimed that the apostles had secretly taught something different.
His argument was essentially:
The apostles' teaching was not secret. Look at the churches that received it. Look at what they have continued teaching.
That is important.
But something else is happening.
A line of bishops is becoming evidence for the preservation of apostolic teaching.
The bishop is no longer merely a shepherd of one local flock.
His office is increasingly connected with the historical continuity and doctrinal identity of the church.
5. SUCCESSION BEGINS TO MATTER
There is nothing strange about wanting teaching to continue faithfully from one generation to another.
Paul told Timothy:
“What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
— 2 Timothy 2:2
There is clearly a succession there.
Paul taught Timothy.
Timothy taught faithful people.
They taught others.
But notice what is being passed down.
Teaching.
The authority remains in the apostolic message.
The question that will become increasingly important is whether succession means:
faithful people continuing to teach apostolic truth
or
an office passing apostolic authority from one bishop to another.
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
We will examine that question more closely in our next study.
6. THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUED TO EXPAND
As churches multiplied, bishops in the chief cities of Roman provinces became increasingly prominent.
Eventually these leading bishops became known as metropolitans.
The word makes sense.
A metropolis was the chief city of a province.
The bishop of the metropolis therefore became the metropolitan bishop.
Now look at how far we have traveled.
We began with:
elders/bishops overseeing one local church.
Then:
one bishop over the presbyters.
Then:
bishops overseeing churches associated with cities and surrounding areas.
Then:
a metropolitan bishop with recognized precedence among the bishops of a province.
The structure is becoming taller.
7. BY NICAEA, THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE IS CLEAR
The Council of Nicaea met in A.D. 325.
Its fourth canon concerned the appointment of bishops.
It said that a new bishop should normally be appointed with the participation of the bishops of the province, with at least three present when circumstances prevented everyone from gathering.
But then it added something important:
The action was to be ratified by the metropolitan.
That tells us something.
By A.D. 325, the metropolitan structure was not merely an idea someone was proposing.
It was already functioning.
The bishop of the chief city had a recognized position in relation to the other bishops of the province.
The Council did not invent the arrangement.
It regulated an arrangement already operating.
8. NICAEA ALSO RECOGNIZED LARGER SPHERES OF AUTHORITY
Canon 6 of Nicaea is also important.
It refers to established authority associated with major centers including Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch.
Whatever later arguments would be made about the exact meaning and extent of these jurisdictions, one thing is clear:
The church organization visible in A.D. 325 is considerably more complex than the organization described in Acts and the pastoral epistles.
We now have churches organized geographically.
We have bishops.
We have provincial structures.
We have metropolitan bishops.
And some major episcopal centers possess authority or customary privileges extending over larger territories.
The organization has continued to develop.
9. NOTICE HOW NATURAL EACH STEP COULD HAVE SEEMED
This is worth emphasizing.
We do not have to imagine a room full of wicked men deciding:
“Let us abandon the New Testament organization.”
History usually does not work that way.
Each step could have seemed reasonable.
False teaching threatens several churches.
Let the bishops meet.
One bishop is in the chief city.
Let him preside.
A new bishop must be appointed.
Let neighboring bishops participate.
Someone must coordinate them.
Let the metropolitan do it.
A dispute affects an entire region.
Let the leading bishop help settle it.
Each step can be explained.
Each step may even solve a real problem.
But after several generations, compare the resulting organization with where we began.
It is no longer the same structure.
10. THE NEW TESTAMENT QUESTION REMAINS
This series is not asking whether later Christians were intelligent.
Of course they were.
It is not asking whether they faced serious problems.
They certainly did.
It is not even asking whether some of their organizational changes were effective.
They may have been.
We are asking something much narrower:
Where did Christ and His apostles authorize the office?
Where is the metropolitan in the New Testament?
Where is the bishop who governs other bishops?
Where is the provincial church government?
Where is the bishop whose authority extends over many local churches because he occupies an important city?
If it is there, we should be able to find it.
If it is not there, we should be willing to say so.
LOOK AT THE LADDER
Watch what has happened so far.
NEW TESTAMENT
Local congregations with elders/bishops.
↓
EARLY SECOND CENTURY
One bishop distinguished from the presbyters.
↓
LATER DEVELOPMENT
The bishop's authority increasingly extends beyond the original local arrangement.
↓
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION
Bishops of important cities gain greater influence.
↓
METROPOLITAN SYSTEM
A leading bishop has recognized authority or precedence within a province.
That raises an unavoidable question.
If authority can move from:
elders → bishop → metropolitan,
what prevents it from moving another step?
And another?
Eventually some bishops would possess enormous authority over vast territories.
Among them, one particular city would become increasingly important:
Rome.
But before we get there, we need to examine something that made the entire developing system much stronger.
It is the claim that authority could be traced through an unbroken line back to the apostles.
It came to be called:
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
And that raises our next question:
What exactly did the apostles pass on — their teaching, or their office and authority?