Introduction
Many Anglicans, seeking to defend their episcopal polity as the one ordained by Christ and the apostles and as most fitting to the church, appeal to the polity’s long provenance within church history. From Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century until the Protestant Reformation, the threefold structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons remained the unquestioned form of church government. This historical pedigree matters greatly to Anglicans, for whom appeals to patristic tradition and the undivided church constitute confirmation that the conclusions we draw from Scripture are not merely our own but belong to the whole church across the world and across time.
However, most other Protestant groups lack the same confidence in the history and tradition of the church. Though historicity may be a helpful guide to the original apostolic witness, it can never surpass or impede the witness of the Scriptures. Even if the whole church at one time, or even for a long time, believed some doctrine, this does not make it true; what matters is whether the doctrine can be found in Scripture. Hence, appeals to Ignatius and Irenaeus and arguments about other early documents such as 1 Clement and the Didache possess limited weight establishing doctrinal positions. While historical arguments may serve to convince some people, they will likely be those who already share core Anglican convictions about the harmony between Scripture and the practice and teaching of the early church. Indeed, appeals to history can be counterproductive insofar as they seem to imply that the threefold office—and specifically the role of the bishop—cannot be found in Scripture.
I fear that many Anglicans fail to make the case for the episcopacy and the threefold church order from Scripture because they do not confidently believe it can be found there. This, however, does a great disservice to the Anglican tradition, which proclaims Scripture’s primacy and sufficiency in essential matters of the Christian faith (see Article VI of the 39 Articles). If the episcopacy cannot be found in the Scriptures, it cannot be required to be believed as a matter of doctrine, and Anglicans should not seek to convince their Protestant brethren of its necessity for the church, and it should not divide Anglicans from other Protestants.
However, the episcopacy, and the threefold division of orders, are not contrary to Scripture, and thus should be believed and practiced as proper church polity. The third office—known throughout church history as the bishop—holds the apostolic office responsible for governing the church at the local, regional, and ecumenical levels. Scripture provides clear attestation of the threefold division of holy orders, a proper role for the highest of these orders, and the notion of succession, which together constitute the episcopal polity that endures beyond the death of the apostles. Because this case will be drawn from Scripture, this essay will not deal with sources outside of the Old and New Testaments, though it is certainly indebted to many historical and theological sources; in particular, Richard Hooker’s discussion of the matter in The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Book VII has been helpful.
Addressing Terminology
The terminology associated with the threefold office is a development that occurs outside of the New Testament. In particular, the words presbyter (πρεσβύτερος) and bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) are used interchangeably throughout the New Testament literature, and thus should be considered within the New Testament as referring to the same office.[ii] This becomes clear when considering Acts 20, where the “presbyters of the church” at Ephesus (Acts 20:17) are called to Paul and subsequently referred to in his speech as “bishops” (Acts 20:28). Paul’s instructions to Timothy for the ordination of bishops in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and his instructions to Titus for the ordination of presbyters in Titus 1:5-16 have sufficient parallels that they ought be considered the same office; further, this latter passage exhibits the same interchange of terminology as Acts 20, referring to presbyters in verse 5 and bishops in verse 7. It is clear, then, that to speak of a “bishop” or “presbyter” in the New Testament era was to speak of the same thing, and that the instructions about polity found in 1 Timothy and Titus show a pattern of ordination for two offices: bishop/presbyter and deacon.
For many, this admission settles the issue. If the words bishop and presbyter mean the same thing, then the New Testament only admits of two offices and the notion of a single presiding bishop is, while certainly early and traditional, at its root unbiblical. However, terminology ought not be the defining issue in every matter of doctrine. To give an example, many Protestant churches refer to their leaders as pastors, despite the word “ποιμήν” (shepherd/pastor) appearing only once in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11) to refer to someone other than Christ or a literal shepherd. Even in this case, it should be noted that the other titles mentioned in the list (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers) do not map onto the twofold office schema exhibited in the pastoral epistles. Despite the word never referring to an office, many churches—including some Anglican churches—use the word “pastor” interchangeably with presbyter (or elder) without reservation. Yet the reappropriation of the biblical terminology of pastors to apply to those who govern, lead, and teach the church is not antithetical to Scripture’s description of presbyters; more than this, any charitable participant in this discussion must admit that whether a church uses the term elder, presbyter, or pastor, they generally refer to the same underlying concept.
The same notion, it will be argued, applies in the case of the word “bishop.” Though in the New Testament era, the word was used as a synonym for presbyter, as the apostolic era came to an end, it came to be used as the word for the third and highest office of the church. Just because a word came to be used in a new way does not mean that its underlying concept is novel; indeed, as Hooker points out, “Things themselves are always ancienter than their names.”[iii] What matters then is not whether the word bishop is used in the New Testament to refer to the third office, but whether the New Testament presents the concept of the third office and its endurance beyond the apostolic age.
The Apostolic Office in the Apostolic Age
During his teaching ministry, Christ appoints the twelve apostles to a special role within the church (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16). He grants them authority in healing (Matt. 10:1), exorcism (Matt. 10:1), teaching and preaching (Mark 3:14), and discipline (Matt. 18:18), makes them special participants in his ministry and explains his obscure parables to them, and brings them as his friends to the institution of the Eucharist. Jesus says that their authority will endure into the age to come, when they will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). In the Book of Acts, following the ascension of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the apostles act as those who have authority to govern and teach the whole church. They stand not merely as eyewitnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection but as those appointed by him to administer the kingdom of heaven to the ends of the earth. When a new office is required in the church, the apostles are the ones who establish this office and ordain the ones selected for it (Acts 6:1-7). At times, the apostolic authority and gifting seems required for the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17).
Though Jesus appointed only the Twelve during his earthly ministry, it becomes clear that the title and authority of the apostles extends beyond those selected by Christ. Following Judas’s betrayal and death, the apostles determine to appoint Matthias as the new twelfth apostle, with his qualification being that he “accompanied us [the apostles] during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21-22). The apostles presume the authority, though it is not granted explicitly by Christ, to ordain others to the apostolic office. Paul, though not a witness to the whole ministry of Christ in the same way as Matthias, is likewise an apostle, though it seems he receives his office directly from Christ and is approved by the other apostles (Gal. 1:11-2:10). During his ministry, he performs the apostolic functions of preaching, teaching, ruling, and ordaining. Others outside the Twelve are called apostles in the New Testament, including Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), and the unnamed “brothers” in 2 Corinthians 8. The first two evidently share a similar authority and gifting to the original eleven apostles, Matthias, and Paul.
Yet, as with the word “bishop,” the word “apostle” may carry some ambiguity in its meaning, as it can refer to a gifting, a function, or an office. In the first place, apostle may refer to a gift together with (or instead of) an office, as in 1 Corinthians 12. Second, not every use of the word “apostle” by necessity designates someone who possesses authority on a level with the Twelve; for example, not enough is known of Epaphroditus or the brothers in 2 Corinthians to know whether Paul’s reference to them as apostles is meant to designate them as apostles or merely to refer to them as having been sent to the Philippians and Corinthians. Third, the uses of the word “apostle” do not necessarily exhaust all those who might be regarded as apostles: if someone appears to exhibit the authority of an apostle and follow the apostolic pattern of ministry, he might be regarded as an apostle (a case considered further on).
With this caveat in mind, there are two further significant points to address about the apostolic office. First, the apostles possess certain responsibilities in virtue of their office, and these responsibilities align wholly with those claimed for the bishop’s office in episcopal polity: authoritative teaching, discipline and governance of the church, and ordination of presbyters and deacons. Second, the apostolic office is distinct from the office of presbyter. This second point emerges most clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 15, at the Jerusalem council, “the apostles and the presbyters were gathered together” (Acts 15:6) to deliberate the matter of Gentile circumcision, and their decision is consistently communicated in terms of this distinction (see Acts 15:22-23 and 16:4). Though sharing in the council and decision, the offices are referred to as distinct. This distinction need not in itself imply a distinction in authority; however, throughout the rest of the New Testament, it becomes clear that the office of presbyter is subject to and ordained by the apostolic office (see especially Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5).
Thus, the New Testament reveals a threefold pattern for the offices of the church: the apostolic office, presbyter-bishops, and deacons. The apostolic office governs the other two and is responsible for their creation and ordination. The notion that the threefold structure emerges only after the apostolic age ignores the important reality that the apostles themselves represent a layer of authority over the presbyters and deacons appointed in local churches.
The Apostolic Office Endures
Those opposed to episcopal polity may, at this point, be inclined to grant the point that in the apostolic age a threefold distinction existed; however, they might deny that the third office endures into the post-apostolic age. This denial could come on two levels: first, the apostles did not intend for their office to endure, and second, the apostles possessed a unique gifting and task from Christ that does not continue into the post-apostolic church. It will be seen, however, that the New Testament reveals continuity between the first generation and second generation of those who hold the highest office, and that this continuity, along with the practice of the apostles, obligates the church to maintain an episcopal polity.
Those who argue the second objection—that the apostles possessed some unique gift or task—might point to a one or more distinguishing features of the apostles: they knew Christ personally, they were appointed by Christ, they were responsible for the writing of the infallible Scriptures, and they possessed a general and itinerant authority and ministry. Bishops cannot (or at least do not) possess these features, and so they cannot be considered legitimate successors to the third office.
Yet as in considering each of these characteristics, it becomes apparent that they do not apply as necessary and defining features of the apostolic office, as seen below:
- Knowing Christ personally: Paul did not know Christ personally during his earthly ministry. He would not fulfill the criteria established by the Twelve for the appointment of Matthias in Acts 1. Yet, he is regarded as an apostle.
- Appointed directly by Christ: Matthias, though having known Christ during his ministry and being an attested witness to his death and resurrection, was appointed by the other apostles, not directly by Christ.
- Authoring Scripture:
This may at first seem to be the strongest distinction between the apostles and second-century bishops. The New Testament canon closes with the death of the apostles, thus creating a clear distinction between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. If the apostolic writings cease, so too should the apostolic office.
However, authorship of Scripture is not a defining characteristic of the apostolic office. Not all of the apostles wrote Scripture, and not all of the New Testament Scriptures are written by apostles. Only some of the apostles (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, James the brother of the Lord, and Jude) wrote books that become the New Testament; thus, “writing Scripture” cannot be a necessary condition of the apostolic office. Further, though Mark and Luke/Acts have an apostolic connection (the former possessing a traditional association with Peter and the latter with Paul), they were not written by apostles. The Holy Spirit inspired authors who were not the apostles to write Scripture, thus, the analog between the closing of the canon and the cessation of the apostolic office breaks down.
- General and itinerant ministry:
This objection states that the apostles possess a pattern of authority and ministry that differs from post-apostolic bishops. Whereas bishops preside over individual churches (such as the church at Antioch or Alexandria), the apostles presided over the church as a whole, and did not do so by local residence but by itinerant ministry. The third office thus may be regarded as a provisional necessity in the apostolic age, as the apostles ensured the proclamation of the gospel to the ends of the earth and consistent faith and governance of the church, then turned over their authority to local groups of presbyters.
However, within the apostolic age, examples emerge that complicate the pattern of general and itinerant ministry. Though the apostles certainly exercised authority over the church as a whole (as seen in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15), they also saw fit to entrust various jurisdictions to different apostles. Paul says that James, Peter, and John accepted that his apostleship was for the sake of the Gentiles and theirs for the sake of the Jews (Gal. 2:9). This division of responsibilities does not mean that John or Andrew could not exercise authority over a church containing Gentiles—Peter, for instance, is obviously accepted as an authority at Rome in the years before his martyrdom—but it does mean that the apostles saw fit to exercise their office within certain spheres. The notion of general or ecumenical authority applies to the apostolic office as a whole, but individual authority over certain churches may also be delegated to specific apostles.
Likewise, the notion of “itinerant” ministry does not hold for all of the apostles. In particular, James the brother of the Lord seems to remain in Jerusalem for the entirety of his ministry, and is regarded as the leader of the church there (see Acts 12:17 and 21:18). Though the word “apostle” refers grammatically to the notion of “sending,” individuals did not have to travel spreading the gospel in order to be regarded as apostles.
One might argue in response to the above that these are exceptions, but the general rule remains: apostles in general knew Christ, received his appointment, and exercised universal and itinerant authority. Even if Matthias, James, and Paul differ from the pattern in one regard, the basic notion remains that the apostles are those who have some unique connection to Christ’s ministry and work and were seen as responsible for the spread of the gospel in the decades following his resurrection and ascension. Yet the major features associated with the apostolic office, detailed in the last section, are without exception: the apostles possess the authority to teach, govern, and ordain, and do so on a level above the presbyters and deacons of the various churches.
Thus, in addressing the first objection—that the apostles did not intend for their office to endure—we should ask if there are characteristics of the apostolic office that would indicate its continuation. Though personal connection to Christ, authorship of the Scriptures, and itinerant ministry might indicate apostleship, they do not guarantee it; the core notion of the apostolic office is the responsibility of governing, teaching, ordaining, and so forth.
In this, I now turn to a full-throated defense of the notion of apostolic succession, which serves as the defining characteristic of episcopal polity beyond the threefold distinction in offices. The New Testament clearly reveals that the apostles intended for their office to endure. In the first place, as already addressed, the Twelve saw the expansion of the apostolic office beyond those directly appointed by Christ as natural and correct. They ordained Matthias, affirmed the ministry of Paul, and regarded James the brother of the Lord as one of their own. This does not in itself necessitate the continuation of the apostolic office beyond the apostolic age, but it does indicate that the apostles themselves saw their office as something that could be shared and expanded.
More conclusive than this for the continuation of the office are the cases of Timothy and Titus. Timothy and Titus, of course, shared in Paul’s ministry, with Timothy responsible for co-authorship of 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Both Timothy and Titus were sent by Paul as continuants of his ministry (see Acts 19:22, 1 Cor. 4:17, Phil. 2:19, 1 Thess. 3:2, and 2 Cor. 12:18). It becomes clear in Paul’s pastoral epistles that Timothy and Titus were appointed to exercise core functions of the apostolic office: authoritative teaching within the church (1 Tim. 4:6-16, 2 Tim. 2:14-26 and 4:1-5, Titus 2:1), governing those within the church, including older men, older woman, and ruling presbyters (1 Tim. 5, Titus 2:2-15), the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 5:22), and ordination of presbyter-bishops (Titus 1:5).
What is even more telling about these examples is the notion that the local churches referred to in the pastoral epistles (Ephesus in the case of 1 Timothy and Crete in the case of Titus) should be subject to a level of authority above that of the local presbyter-bishops. Though lacking the explicit clarity of Titus 1:5, Paul’s discussion of the offices of presbyter-bishop and deacon in 1 Timothy 3 imply that Timothy is responsible for the testing and appointing of these other offices; likewise, the instruction that Timothy should “not admit a charge against a presbyter except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim. 5:19) implies that Timothy will be the one judging accusations against the presbytery. Titus is left specifically in Crete to put the church in order and appoint presbyters (Titus 1:5), and is told to “exhort and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Though clearly still accountable to Paul, Timothy and Titus possess an authority that is the highest in the individual churches they are called to serve, and which exemplifies the exact same duties associated with that of the apostles.
Hence, the earlier point about the language of “apostle” reemerges. While Timothy and Titus are never called apostles, they are charged with performing the duties of the apostolic office as delegates, coworkers, and successors of Paul. The name, again, is less important than the appointment and function—though Timothy and Titus are not eyewitnesses of the resurrection and do not have their appointment directly from Christ, they are considered authoritative in teaching, governing, and ordaining, and doing so on a level higher than that of the presbyter-bishops.
Conclusion: The Apostolic Pattern
The New Testament makes clear the existence of a third office, which begins with the Twelve apostles and extends to those recognized and appointed by them. This third office exemplifies the characteristics of the bishop in current episcopal polity. There are no strong reasons to think that the office perished with the death of the apostles, closure of the canon, firm establishment of local churches, or the close of the apostolic age. Likewise, the New Testament contains no indicators that the apostles intended their ministry to cease with themselves; on the contrary, the example of the ordination of Matthias in Acts 1 and the sending of Timothy and Titus seems to imply that others ought to fill the apostolic role upon the death or loss of an apostle. Yet non-episcopal Protestant brethren might still have qualms about accepting the argument here; I anticipate three primary lasting objections, which I will try to assuage in this final section.
First, one might object that the New Testament never explicitly states that the apostolic office should endure. Scripture does not give a clear command about the matter, so at most it can be regarded as a matter of interpretation and preference, left up to individual denominations and churches. It should be recognized, however, that Scripture never explicitly commands many matters of Christian worship that are nonetheless regarded as scriptural. For instance, the New Testament never commands Christians to worship on Sundays—yet Sunday worship is exemplified in various places (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10) and it becomes the enduring, authoritative custom of the church because it is the day of the Lord’s resurrection. Though it is clear that the early Christians prayed, read the Scriptures, heard sermons, and celebrated the Eucharist during their worship, these things (with the exception of the final one) are not explicitly required as parts of a worship service—yet Christians continue to practice them even to this day. Further, there is no Scriptural command requiring the ongoing ordination of presbyters and deacons, though most churches seeking to practice a biblical polity maintain these offices. These are warranted, normative practices for the church not because the New Testament says, “You must do this!” but because the entire pattern of the New Testament upholds them as the practices that mark the Christian church.
Once one moves past the need to see a specific command for the continuation of the apostolic office, it becomes clear that, far from being a minor or unimportant issue in the New Testament, the proper place of the apostolic office is an enduring feature. The Acts of the Apostles consists primarily of stories about the apostles fulfilling their role as those responsible for the governance and spread of the church. The epistles to various churches by Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude become exemplary representations of what proper, authoritative care of Christ’s church looks like from those who have been appointed to lead it. The pastoral epistles, though containing instructions about presbyters and deacons, are written to holders of the third office and thus provide ongoing instructions about how bishops should lead, instruct, and ordain. Even parts of the gospels may be seen as written primarily for holders of the apostolic office, insofar as they reveal Christ’s teaching to those he appointed as leaders of his church.
Second, one might argue that while the third office exists in the New Testament and beyond, its modern manifestation in episcopal polity is contrary to the apostolic institution. Specifically, the idea of the “monarchical episcopate”—of a single bishop over a single church surrounded by the council of presbyters (as seen in Ignatius of Antioch)—does not appear in Scripture. There is indeed no stated requirement that one apostle or one bishop and one only needs to be in each church, but there are examples of this pattern emerging in James the brother of the Lord who consistently presides over the church at Jerusalem and in Timothy, who Paul commands to “remain at Ephesus” (1 Tim. 1:3). These, it should be noted, are regarded in church tradition as the first bishops of their respective churches. It seems likely that as churches grew more established and the apostles continued to send figures like Timothy and Titus to oversee local churches, the apostolic office took on a more local character, with future bishops being drawn not from the apostles’ companions, but from the local presbytery and the disciples of the sitting bishops. As successors to the apostolic office, they bore responsibility for governing the local churches as well as, in synod, governing the church as a whole.
A third objection to episcopal polity is not so much an objection, but a gut-level response that this pattern of church authority is somehow un-Christian and, perhaps, un-Protestant. The episcopacy represents top-down authority and hierarchical control; accepting the notion of apostolic succession cedes too much ground to the Roman Catholic position. Surely, Christ, as a wandering teacher who advocated servant leadership, spent time with the marginalized, and built a grassroots, anti-establishment movement, would not advocate such a rigid, authoritative framework for church governance. The notion of local groups of presbyters assisted by deacons, or perhaps some form of congregationalism, seems much more amenable to these egalitarian and down-to-earth ideals.
Christians should not forget, however, that the church is regarded as a kingdom, with Jesus Christ our Lord as its King. Jesus, though certainly exhibiting humility, gentleness, a willingness to upend certain power dynamics, and a concern for the least of these, also proclaimed himself as the king of a kingdom, and appointed the apostles as those who would rule underneath him. The radical teaching that, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35) only makes since in a context where some really are regarded as those deserving of being granted authority. The church, though drawing people from all strata of society, is not “bottom-up” in the sense that its organization comes from its individual members agreeing to band together and appoint for themselves leaders, but is instead “top-down”: Jesus, the head of the church, appointed apostles who themselves appointed their delegates and successors along with presbyters and deacons.
Indeed, if one asks where the notion of apostolic succession comes from, it might well be said that the idea comes from Christ himself. When Paul appoints Timothy and Titus and when the Eleven appoint Matthias, they do so because it is the very thing Christ did to them. He called them and gave them authority (Mark 3:16) and laid his hands on them for the reception of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Jesus sent the apostles, just as he was sent by the Father (John 20:21)—is it any surprise that they would follow the example of their Teacher and send others after them?
Ultimately, what gives the third office its authority is the institution of Christ and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s commands did not cease to be operative with his ascension, nor did the activity of the Holy Spirit cease with the death of the apostles. Though contemporary Christians do not have the historical immediacy or personal knowledge that the original apostles did, we are part of the same church, children of the same Father worshipping in the same Spirit through the one Son who is his church’s head and husband. The episcopal office, rightly upheld, testifies to the church as a unified body, as an organic communion instituted by Christ, as a kingdom rightly governed by the Lord and his chosen servants. To be faithful to the pattern taught in Scripture, Christians ought not reject this foundational institution nor the polity that it undergirds.
Notes
Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in Works, Vol. III, 7th ed., arr. John Keble, R.W. Church, and F. Paget (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888).
[ii] I have chosen to use the word “presbyter” rather than “priest” throughout this piece, though it should be noted that the latter is merely a different Anglicization of the same Greek word. I quote from the ESV but amend translations (changing “elder” to “presbyter” and “overseer” to “bishop”), preferring to keep continuity between the biblical titles and traditional English names for the offices.
[iii] Hooker, Laws, 7.2.2.
