When we think of a bishop, we tend to think of a single individual overseeing a group of churches, however this wasn’t the case in the New Testament times. In the New Testament the role of bishop did exist although it was simply another description for an elder. Moreover it wasn’t one bishop but several bishops that oversaw a church. So how did we get to the one bishop? The answer is that it was a development of the early second century. But before we arrive there, we will first look at the church leadership of the New Testament and what it meant to be an Elder or Bishop.
In the New Testament there are two leadership positions within the early church. These are Elders/Bishops and Deacons (Philippians 1:1). Notice that these are in the plural form. God’s design is for more than one leader. Ultimately there is one head of the church which is Jesus Christ, but there are to be many Elders and deacons. Now this leadership structure itself is inherited from the Jewish Synagogue. The early church began as a sect of Judaism before later becoming separate.
In terms of the roles, the elders were responsible for the leadership and oversight of the church, whereas the deacons were servants. The deacon’s role was to meet the physical and practical needs of the church. A good example of the plurality of leadership comes in James 5:14. Concerning the person who is on their deathbed, they are to send for the Elders (plural) of the church to pray over them in the name of the Lord. Then if God heals the person, the glory goes to God and not to an individual.
Now when the early Apostles preached the gospel in an area, they would set up elders over the new church from amongst the converts. This is what Paul and Barnabas did across Galatia during their first missionary Journey (Acts 14:23). These elders would then be responsible for pastoring the fledgling church.
The word Elder in Greek is presbuteros (presbyter), whereas the word Bishop is episkopos. An elder is relatively self explanatory, but though bishop became a title, the word episkopos literally means an overseer (skopos is to look, epi means upon thus look upon / oversee). Therefore an overseer is to watch over, and take responsibility for, the church to direct and organise it.
Now in the New Testament the terms Elder and Overseer are used interchangeably and are in fact the same thing. While elder refers to the position, overseer refers to the function. The term Elder is more frequently used with overseer less common, but as mentioned they are used interchangeably. A good example is seen in Paul’s letter to Titus. Titus is to appoint elders in every city and then Paul goes onto explain the qualifications for overseers (Titus 1:5-9). Another example is seen in Paul’s farewell discourse to the Ephesian elders. Paul calls the elders of the church of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus (Acts 20:14). When they arrive, he gives them instructions and tells them to take heed to the flock, which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (bishops) of, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his blood (Acts 20:28). From this we also learn something about the role of the elder/bishop. Firstly though appointed by men, it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately calls people to be overseers. Secondly these overseers are called to shepherd the church of God. They are to lead by example and take care of the church even as a shepherd cares for his flock. In doing so they are to recognise the awesome responsibility they have been given. The church was purchased by the blood of Jesus. It was therefore valued at the highest price imaginable. It is this valuable possession that has been entrusted to overseers, and they are to look after the church on behalf of Jesus who is the chief shepherd (1 Peter 5:5). Moreover they are to do so knowing that one day they must give an account to him for those that they have led (Hebrews 13:17).
Elsewhere in Titus, we see the elder/overseer is further described as a steward of God (Titus 1:7). Stewardship is literally the management of household affairs which is usually done by a servant on behalf of the master. In this context the church is the house of God and elders have been entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing its day to day affairs. With such a responsibility, elders should not be looking to their own interests but to the interest of the church, which they are to shepherd (1 Peter 5:2). For further qualifications and requirements of elders it’s worth reading 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.
Having established that elders and bishops were interchangeable and having determined their role, we will now look at how they became distinct positions. To do this we will look at the church of Antioch.
One of the major centres of early Christianity was Antioch. Antioch was an early offshoot of the Church in Jerusalem, and it was here that the believers were first called Christians. The church of Antioch was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles which flourished under the ministries of Paul and Barnabas. In fact it was the church in Antioch that commissioned Paul to preach the gospel in the regions beyond. Now by the beginning of the second century Antioch had become a large church and had developed a clear leadership structure. This structure is demonstrated in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. For Ignatius the church is structured with a single Bishop, who is over a group of Elders, who are in turn assisted by the deacons. This leadership structure would in time become the norm across the wider church. It is unclear whether it originated in Antioch although it is historically first demonstrated here.
As discussed in the early days of Christianity each church was led by Elders (Presbyters) who were also called overseers (Bishops). However over time these two interchangeable terms morphed into two distinct positions. Now amongst the elders of a church there was often a leader who was more prominent. This may be due to them being the founder of the church, having seniority or having a recognised gifting. Though such a person would be regarded as the leader of the church, they would have done so as chief amongst the elders. This can be observed in the case of Clement of Rome. Clement wrote on behalf of the elders in Rome to the Church of Corinth and later he would retrospectively be referred to as the bishop of Rome.
Now it seems that as churches multiplied, and grew larger, that there was a need for one who oversaw the elders. A city might have multiple churches meeting in different locations. Therefore in the absence of apostles, overseeing multiple churches, a bishop would be appointed over an area. Thus you would have a regional bishop looking after multiple churches that were overseen by elders and assisted by deacons.
When we look at the writings of Clement of Rome who wrote before Ignatius, and Polycarp who wrote at the same time, they both hold to the structure of Elders and Deacons. Yet in the writings of Ignatius, Ignatius refers to Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna. Now at this point Polycarp seems to have exercised great influence over the churches of Asia Minor in a similar manner to John the apostle before him. So though Polycarp doesn’t assume to be a solo bishop in the new sense, this was the role he was functioning in. What this all shows, is that the church hierarchy was in a state of flux around the beginning of the second century. However by the middle of the second century, the three tiered leadership structure had been widely adapted. From this point a Bishop had become a distinct position from an Elder.
In summary when we look at the New Testament the position of bishop and elder were one and the same with elder referring to the position and bishop/overseer referring to the function. However as the church grew there was a natural development in the leadership structure which came into effect in the second century. As there were no longer Apostles overseeing the churches, the role of a bishop became something distinct from that of an elder. A bishop would oversee a region with elders overseeing the local church. As to how this leadership structure should be applied in the modern church, one should not be too dogmatic. The structure and titles, whatever they may be, need to serve the practical and functional needs of the church based on the numbers and geography. What ultimately matters when it comes to leadership, is God’s calling and a faithfulness of those called, to look after the flock of God which Christ has purchased with his blood.