WHY DID THE PRESBYTERIANS REPLACE BISHOPS WITH ASSEMBLIES OF ELDERS?

WHEN CHRISTIANS AGREED THAT ELDERS SHOULD LEAD—BUT DISAGREED ABOUT HOW

We began this entire study with a question about church leadership.

Who were the elders in the New Testament?

We found that Paul called the elders of Ephesus overseers and told them to shepherd God’s flock.

Read Acts 20:17, 28.

Titus moves from elders to bishops while discussing the same leadership.

Read Titus 1:5–7.

Peter told elders to shepherd the flock and take its oversight.

Read 1 Peter 5:1–2.

The terms describe the same group of leaders, not three levels of authority.

Centuries later, the Church of England retained bishops who governed dioceses containing many congregations.

Some English and Scottish Protestants challenged that arrangement. They argued that the church should be governed through elders working together rather than through a separate rank of bishops above them.

Their form of church government became known as:

PRESBYTERIAN.

But another question immediately followed.

IF ELDERS OVERSEE CONGREGATIONS, WHAT AUTHORITY MAY AN ASSEMBLY OF ELDERS EXERCISE OVER SEVERAL CONGREGATIONS?

That question is at the heart of this study.

1. WHAT DOES “PRESBYTERIAN” MEAN?

The word comes from the Greek presbyteros, meaning elder.

Presbyterian church government places oversight in groups of elders rather than in a single bishop governing a diocese.

In many Presbyterian churches, a local congregation is governed by a group commonly called a session.

Representatives of congregations also meet in wider assemblies, commonly called presbyteries.

Some Presbyterian bodies also have synods and a general assembly.

These wider assemblies may do more than offer advice.

Depending upon the particular Presbyterian church and its constitution, they may examine ministers, settle disputes, hear appeals, and make decisions binding within that church.

That last point is important.

The Presbyterians did not simply replace one bishop with several elders in each congregation.

They developed a system in which elders from multiple congregations exercise shared governing authority.

We need to examine both parts of that arrangement.

2. HOW DID THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT DEVELOP?

John Calvin and Geneva

In Geneva, Calvin helped develop a system in which pastors and other elders worked together in a body called the consistory.

It was concerned with discipline and the religious life of the community.

But Geneva’s arrangements were also closely connected with the city’s civil government.

We should not picture Calvin’s Geneva as though it were a modern independent congregation with no governmental involvement.

John Knox and Scotland

John Knox was influenced by the Reformation in Geneva and became a major figure in the Scottish Reformation.

In 1560, the Scottish Parliament adopted a Protestant confession and rejected papal authority.

Knox and other reformers also prepared a plan dealing with the church’s teaching, worship, leadership, education, and care of the poor.

Scottish Presbyterian government developed over the following decades. A fuller Presbyterian system received legal recognition in 1592.

Notice something important.

THIS WAS A PROCESS.

The Scottish church did not move from medieval bishops to a fully developed modern Presbyterian structure overnight.

Its early reforms included regional superintendents, and the relationship between bishops, assemblies, and the Crown remained contested.

The later Presbyterian system developed over time.

3. WHY DID THEY QUESTION DIOCESAN BISHOPS?

The Reformers looked again at the New Testament’s language about church leaders.

Paul told Titus:

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” — Titus 1:5, KJV

Two verses later Paul said:

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” — Titus 1:7, KJV

In Acts 20, Paul called for:

“the elders of the church.” — Acts 20:17, KJV

Then he told those same men:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” — Acts 20:28, KJV

The Presbyterian Reformers argued that the New Testament did not establish a separate, superior rank of diocesan bishops above ordinary elders.

They understood bishop and elder as names describing the same New Testament office.

Churches that retained bishops offered a different argument. They held that episcopal leadership preserved an ancient form of oversight and continuity in church leadership.

That brings us back to a distinction we made much earlier in our study.

AN ANCIENT DEVELOPMENT AND AN APOSTOLIC COMMAND ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY THE SAME THING.

The existence of bishops early in Christian history must be examined.

So must the claim that their later authority was established by Christ or His apostles.

4. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIBE A GROUP OF ELDERS IN ONE CHURCH?

Yes.

Acts 20:17 speaks of the elders of the church at Ephesus.

Acts 14:23 says Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the churches they had established.

James wrote:

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church.” — James 5:14, KJV

Peter addressed:

“The elders which are among you.” — 1 Peter 5:1, KJV

Then he told them:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

These passages give us a clear picture of recognized leaders sharing responsibility for shepherding God’s people.

They do not present a local congregation as the personal possession of one preacher.

Nor do they describe the preacher as the owner of the flock.

Peter called it:

“THE FLOCK OF GOD.”

The Presbyterian emphasis upon shared eldership therefore raises a question with a clear New Testament foundation.

But we have not yet established everything about the later Presbyterian system.

5. WHY DO PRESBYTERIANS DISTINGUISH “TEACHING ELDERS” FROM “RULING ELDERS”?

Many Presbyterian churches distinguish between ministers, often called teaching elders, and other elders, often called ruling elders.

Ministers have particular responsibilities for preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments.

Ruling elders share responsibility for oversight and government.

Both participate in church councils, although their precise duties vary among Presbyterian bodies.

A passage often used to support this distinction is 1 Timothy 5:17:

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” — 1 Timothy 5:17, KJV

Paul speaks of elders who rule well and gives particular attention to those who labor in the word and teaching.

But what follows from that?

Does Paul describe two separate classes of elders?

Or does he describe elders sharing the same office, some of whom devote particular effort to teaching?

The verse does not explicitly name two offices.

We should also read 1 Timothy 3:2, where a bishop is required to be:

“apt to teach.” — 1 Timothy 3:2, KJV

And Titus says an elder must be:

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” — Titus 1:9, KJV

Those passages must be considered together.

A difference in work does not automatically establish a difference in office.

But neither should we assume that every elder must devote the same amount of time to every responsibility.

6. WHAT DOES “THE PRESBYTERY” MEAN IN 1 TIMOTHY 4:14?

Paul told Timothy:

“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” — 1 Timothy 4:14, KJV

There is our word:

PRESBYTERY.

It refers to a body or group of elders.

This is an important passage because it describes elders acting together.

Presbyterian interpreters see it as evidence that an assembly of elders can exercise responsibilities beyond the work of an individual elder.

But read the verse carefully.

Paul is speaking about Timothy’s gift and the laying on of hands.

The verse does not tell us how many congregations these elders represented.

It does not describe a permanent regional governing body.

It does not explain a system of appeals from a local session to a presbytery and then to a general assembly.

Those arrangements may be defended by arguments drawn from several passages together.

They cannot simply be read out of the word presbytery in this one verse.

A BIBLICAL WORD DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY AUTHORIZE EVERY LATER INSTITUTION THAT ADOPTS ITS NAME.

7. DID ACTS 15 ESTABLISH GOVERNMENT BY REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES?

This is one of the most important passages in the Presbyterian argument.

A dispute arose in Antioch because some men taught:

“Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” — Acts 15:1, KJV

Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem concerning the question.

There they met with the apostles and elders.

Read Acts 15:1–6.

After discussion, the apostles and elders, with the whole church, sent a letter to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.

Read Acts 15:22–29.

The letter addressed a dispute affecting Christians beyond Jerusalem.

Presbyterian interpreters see this as a biblical example of church leaders meeting together to resolve a question affecting several congregations. The Westminster Assembly later appealed to Acts 15 in defending broader church assemblies.

That argument deserves careful examination.

What does Acts 15 clearly establish?

Christians from different places can meet to address a shared doctrinal problem.

The apostles and elders discussed the matter together.

They examined what God had done among the Gentiles and considered Scripture.

Their decision was communicated to congregations beyond Jerusalem.

What does Acts 15 not explicitly establish?

It does not describe a permanent sequence of local sessions, regional presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies.

It does not say that every congregation must belong to such a system.

And the meeting included:

APOSTLES.

These were men who had a foundational role in the church that later elders cannot simply assume for themselves.

So what does Acts 15 give us?

A continuing pattern of binding regional government?

A pattern of cooperation and consultation?

Or elements of both?

That is the interpretive question.

8. WHO ACTUALLY SETTLED THE DISPUTE IN JERUSALEM?

Peter reminded the assembly that God had accepted Gentiles and given them the Holy Ghost.

Paul and Barnabas reported what God had done through their work.

James then cited the prophets and proposed how to respond.

Read Acts 15:7–21.

The letter was issued in the name of the apostles and elders, with the agreement of the whole church.

It said:

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” — Acts 15:28, KJV

That is a remarkable statement.

But we must not overlook who was present.

The apostles were witnesses commissioned by the risen Christ.

Ephesians says the household of God is:

“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” — Ephesians 2:20, KJV

Later church assemblies may study the apostles’ teaching.

They may discuss it.

They may reach judgments about how it applies.

But may they claim the same authority the apostles exercised in Acts 15?

That cannot be established merely by calling a later gathering a council or assembly.

TWO MEETINGS MAY LOOK SIMILAR WITHOUT THEIR PARTICIPANTS POSSESSING IDENTICAL AUTHORITY.

9. WHAT DOES ACTS 16:4 ADD?

After the Jerusalem meeting, Paul and his companions traveled through the cities.

Luke tells us:

“And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” — Acts 16:4, KJV

Presbyterian interpreters point to this verse because the Jerusalem decision was not treated merely as advice that every congregation could ignore.

The decrees were delivered:

“FOR TO KEEP.”

That is a serious point.

But the verse again identifies the decision-makers as:

“THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS.”

The presence of the apostles is not an incidental detail we may simply remove.

To use Acts 16:4 as authority for later assemblies, we must explain why their decisions would possess the same binding force—or what kind of authority later assemblies may properly exercise without apostles present.

A later assembly can rightly remind Christians of an apostolic command.

But the authority of that command comes from Christ through His apostles.

It does not come from the assembly’s vote.

10. CAN CONGREGATIONS COOPERATE WITHOUT A PERMANENT GOVERNING BODY?

Yes.

The New Testament gives clear examples of cooperation.

Christians in Antioch sent relief to believers in Judea.

Read Acts 11:27–30.

Paul helped organize a collection among several congregations for needy Christians in Jerusalem.

Read 1 Corinthians 16:1–4 and 2 Corinthians 8–9.

The Philippians supported Paul’s gospel work.

Read Philippians 4:15–16.

These passages show Christians and congregations working together.

They do not require us to imagine that every congregation operated in isolation.

But:

COOPERATION AND JURISDICTION ARE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

A congregation may send assistance to another congregation.

Several congregations may consult one another about a problem.

They may support a shared work.

But does any of that establish a permanent body authorized to overrule the elders of a congregation?

Not automatically.

We must identify the point at which cooperation becomes government.

11. WHY DID PRESBYTERIANS WANT WIDER ASSEMBLIES?

The Presbyterian argument was not simply that larger meetings would be convenient.

Its defenders believed congregations belonged to one church under Christ and should be accountable to one another.

Wider assemblies could help resolve disputes.

They could examine ministers.

They could maintain shared teaching.

They could address wrongdoing that a local congregation might fail to correct.

The Westminster Assembly’s Form of Presbyterial Church Government defended governing assemblies at congregational, regional, and broader levels.

There is a practical concern here that deserves attention.

What happens if a congregation’s elders mistreat a member?

What if the elders refuse to hear a complaint?

What if a preacher teaches something contrary to the gospel and the congregation’s leaders protect him?

An outside body may provide a place to seek review.

That could be very useful.

But we must keep our categories straight.

A USEFUL ARRANGEMENT AND A DIVINELY REQUIRED ARRANGEMENT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.

The question is not merely whether an arrangement could solve a problem.

The question is what authority Scripture gives it.

12. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ELDERS THEMSELVES ARE WRONG?

Paul warned the elders of Ephesus:

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” — Acts 20:30, KJV

Notice who received that warning.

ELDERS.

Holding the office did not guarantee that they would always teach correctly or act faithfully.

Peter likewise told elders:

“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” — 1 Peter 5:3, KJV

Paul instructed Timothy not to receive an accusation against an elder except before two or three witnesses.

He then said:

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” — 1 Timothy 5:20, KJV

These passages establish that elders are accountable.

They do not place elders above correction.

But they do not explicitly prescribe a permanent regional court to hear every complaint.

That is where Presbyterian and congregational interpretations differ.

One emphasizes shared oversight and accountability through wider assemblies.

The other emphasizes the responsibility of the local congregation under Christ while allowing Christians to seek counsel and help beyond it.

The biblical question is:

DOES WIDER ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRE WIDER GOVERNING JURISDICTION?

13. DOES A LARGER ASSEMBLY PREVENT ABUSE?

A larger assembly may provide additional review when local leaders act wrongly.

It may also make decisions that local Christians believe are wrong.

No organizational arrangement removes the possibility of human error.

A single bishop may misuse authority.

A local group of elders may misuse authority.

A regional presbytery may misuse authority.

A general assembly may misuse authority.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED DOES NOT MAKE THEIR CONCLUSIONS APOSTOLIC.

An appeal process may be very helpful.

It does not guarantee a just outcome.

The New Testament’s warnings about false teaching, favoritism, and domineering leadership remain relevant at every level.

The question is not simply how many people exercise authority.

It is:

WHAT AUTHORITY HAS CHRIST GIVEN THEM, AND HOW ARE THEY REQUIRED TO USE IT?

14. WHAT AUTHORITY DOES A PRESBYTERY EXERCISE TODAY?

Presbyterian churches differ in their constitutions, so we should not describe all of them as though they were identical.

A contemporary example helps us understand the basic arrangement.

In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), local sessions govern congregations.

Presbyteries have responsibilities involving congregations and ministers.

Synods and the General Assembly exercise wider responsibilities.

The denomination also has procedures for reviewing decisions and hearing appeals. Some decisions of higher councils are binding within that church’s constitutional system.

That is a description of one denomination’s organization.

It is not a description of every Presbyterian body.

And it helps us distinguish two questions:

WHAT DOES A PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH’S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE ITS ASSEMBLIES TO DO?

And:

WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORIZE CHURCH LEADERS TO DO?

The first can be answered by reading that church’s governing documents.

The second must be answered by examining Scripture.

A church constitution can describe the authority recognized within its own organization.

It cannot, by itself, establish that Christ gave it that authority.

15. CAN A CONFESSION OF FAITH BECOME AN AUTHORITY OVER SCRIPTURE?

Presbyterian churches have historically used confessions and catechisms to express their understanding of biblical teaching.

The Westminster Confession and catechisms became especially influential in English-speaking Presbyterian traditions.

A confession can be useful.

It can help Christians state clearly what they believe.

It can help a congregation explain its teaching to prospective members and ministers.

But a confession is a human document.

So what happens if our interpretation of a passage of Scripture conflicts with our understanding of a confession?

Which one must be reconsidered?

Paul wrote:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” — 2 Timothy 3:16, KJV

The authority of Scripture is not transferred to a later document merely because that document quotes many Bible verses.

And this question reaches far beyond Presbyterians.

Every congregation has some understanding of what it believes.

Some write that understanding in a formal confession.

Others express it through sermons, classes, membership expectations, or long-standing customs.

AN UNWRITTEN TRADITION CAN BECOME JUST AS DIFFICULT TO QUESTION AS A WRITTEN CONFESSION.

16. DID PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT END THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE?

Not immediately.

The Scottish Reformation took place within a kingdom where church and civil government remained closely connected.

The Scottish Parliament played an important part in the religious changes of 1560 and in the later recognition of Presbyterian government.

The relationship between the Crown and the Scottish church remained contested for generations.

The reformers rejected papal supremacy and challenged the authority of diocesan bishops.

But that did not mean every reformer supported what we would now call separation of church and state.

We should not read later ideas about religious liberty back into every sixteenth-century reform movement.

And we should not assume that a church’s rejection of one form of outside control means it has rejected all forms of outside control.

The question of civil authority over the church remained unresolved.

17. WHAT DID THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY ADD?

During the English Civil War, Parliament called an assembly of theologians and other participants to advise on reforming the Church of England.

The Westminster Assembly began meeting in 1643.

Its work included a confession of faith, catechisms, and a proposed form of Presbyterian church government.

The Form of Presbyterial Church Government, completed in the 1640s, defended assemblies of church officers at several levels and described their responsibilities in church affairs.

This was another attempt to answer the question that had divided English Protestants.

Should the church be governed by bishops?

By independent congregations?

Or by connected assemblies of elders?

The Westminster participants themselves did not agree on every point.

Congregationalist members argued for a different understanding of the authority of local congregations.

That is important.

THE DEBATE WAS NOT SIMPLY BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO RESPECTED SCRIPTURE AND PEOPLE WHO DID NOT.

It was a disagreement about what the biblical passages established.

18. WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT CHRIST’S HEADSHIP?

Paul wrote:

“And he is the head of the body, the church.” — Colossians 1:18, KJV

He also wrote that God:

“gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” — Ephesians 1:22, KJV

Presbyterian churches affirm Christ’s headship.

So do many churches governed by bishops.

So do congregational churches.

Therefore, the disagreement is not settled by asking which group says:

“CHRIST IS THE HEAD.”

We must ask how each group understands the authority Christ gives to human leaders.

Does Christ’s headship permit a bishop to govern several congregations?

Does it permit a presbytery to make binding decisions for several congregations?

Does it give a local congregation complete authority over its own affairs?

Or does Scripture establish some other relationship among congregations?

Those are questions about the meaning and application of the biblical text.

Declaring that Christ is our head is essential.

But that declaration does not, by itself, settle every question about church organization.

19. CAN A GROUP OF ELDERS BECOME ANOTHER KIND OF HIERARCHY?

The Presbyterian reformers rejected the idea that one diocesan bishop should stand above the elders.

But their system gave wider assemblies authority over local congregations.

That does not make a presbytery identical to a diocesan bishop.

The structures are different.

Authority is exercised through representatives and assemblies rather than concentrated in one office.

Yet the biblical question remains.

If a wider assembly can overrule a congregation’s elders, suspend a minister, or impose a binding decision, what is the biblical basis for that jurisdiction?

The answer cannot simply be:

“SEVERAL ELDERS MADE THE DECISION.”

We have already seen that elders themselves can be wrong.

And we have seen that a council’s decision must be examined against Scripture.

Shared authority differs from authority concentrated in one person.

But both require biblical examination.

20. WHAT ABOUT THE SHEEP?

We must not allow a study of church government to become a discussion only about offices, courts, constitutions, and authority.

The New Testament’s language is personal.

Peter told elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

Paul told the Ephesian elders:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock.” — Acts 20:28, KJV

Why?

Because it is:

“the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” — Acts 20:28, KJV

The people are not property belonging to a bishop.

They do not belong to a presbytery.

They do not belong to a minister.

They do not belong to a congregation’s officers.

THEY BELONG TO CHRIST.

That means every proposed form of leadership must be examined not only for its organizational structure but also for how its leaders carry out their responsibilities.

Do they teach the word faithfully?

Do they care for the weak?

Do they protect people from false teaching?

Do they correct wrongdoing without favoritism?

Do they lead by example rather than domination?

A structure cannot substitute for the character and work Scripture requires of elders.

21. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED—AND WHAT REMAINS AN INFERENCE?

The New Testament clearly describes elders serving as overseers and shepherds.

It describes elders acting together.

It describes cooperation among congregations.

It records a meeting in Jerusalem where apostles and elders addressed a dispute affecting Gentile believers elsewhere.

It also warns that church leaders may teach falsely and must remain accountable.

Those observations are grounded in the text.

The Presbyterian conclusion that congregations should be governed through a permanent series of local, regional, and broader assemblies requires an additional interpretive argument.

That argument should be examined carefully.

We should not dismiss it merely because the complete later structure is not named in a single verse.

But neither should we treat it as established merely because Acts 15 describes a meeting of apostles and elders.

We must distinguish three things:

THE BIBLICAL EVENT.

THE PRINCIPLE WE INFER FROM IT.

THE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM LATER BUILT UPON THAT PRINCIPLE.

Those are not automatically the same thing.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

22. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE OUR HISTORY?

The English and Scottish Reformers challenged the authority of bishops and the Crown over the church.

But they did not agree about what should replace those arrangements.

Some favored government through connected assemblies of elders.

Others favored congregations governing their own affairs.

Still others retained bishops while seeking reform in doctrine and worship.

And those disagreements did not disappear when the Reformers died.

They helped shape Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and other Protestant churches.

Before we leave this branch of the Reformation, we need to examine the other side of the dispute more closely.

Why did some Christians believe that no permanent regional assembly should possess governing authority over a local congregation?

That brings us to:

WHY DID THE CONGREGATIONALISTS INSIST ON LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE CONGREGATIONALISTS INSIST ON LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT?