What does the Bible teach about church structure?

The elders and bishops, or overseers, then, were the same persons. There were, as the passages quoted in the last paragraph will show, several in each assembly, and their appointment is always either by apostles or apostolic delegates. When Paul and Barnabas, in their first journey, had reached Derbe, they returned through the various cities which they had before visited, comforting and exhorting the brethren, "and when they had ordained them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed" (Acts 14:23). This shows, not only that elders were appointed by the apostles, and that there were several of them in each assembly, but also that the assembly was not dependent upon them. The journey described occupied a considerable time, and during this time, till the apostle's return to each city, the Church of that city had no elders, notwithstanding the persecution it endured and the little knowledge it possessed.

The Greek word ἐπίσκοπος is once translated 'overseer,' Acts 20:28, and this occurrence shows conclusively that the 'elders' and the 'bishops' were the same. Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, Acts 20:17, and called them 'overseers.' The same thing is seen in the epistle to Titus: Paul left Titus in Crete to "ordain elders in every city . . . . for a bishop must be blameless." Titus 1:5-7. The above two passages prove that, instead of a bishop being set over a large district, with inferior clergy (as they are called) under him, as is now the custom in Christendom, each city had more than one bishop or overseer, and at that time there was only one assembly in a city. Titus was to ordain (literally 'to appoint') elders in every city.

In Titus 1: and in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 the qualifications necessary for a bishop are given. Special gifts are not mentioned, but moral qualities are essential. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection, etc.; but he must be able to 'take care' of the church of God, and be 'apt to teach.' The bishops of Ephesus were exhorted to take heed to all the flock, and to feed the church of God. Though an apostle or his delegate was the instrument used in the appointment of the bishops, and thus the unity of the church was preserved, Paul could say "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Acts 20:28.

"Bishopric," or "office of a bishop," misleads here; because the modern office, with which most are familiar, so greatly differs from the primitive reality. For there were in each assembly several, with co-ordinate governmental duties of a circumscribed nature, however valuable and to be honoured in their place. Hence it appears best and wisest, as well as most consistent, to call the function "oversight" and the functionary "overseer," in accordance with the Authorized Version of Acts 20:28, where the elders of the Ephesian assembly (ver. 17), who met the apostle at Miletus, are so designated. There it will be observed that it is not episcopal rulers of many dioceses or of separate assemblies, still less the several chiefs! that are styled and called presbyters, because they must have been of the lower grade to attain the higher. But the elders, or presbyters, are called "overseers" or bishops; and this of the single assembly in Ephesus.

Still the object in appointing elders was to oversee the flock and all the flock. There might be, and in general were, several overseers; but the duty of the overseer is to take heed 'to all the flock' where he lives. This is the more important, as it humbles the spirit while it enlarges the heart, for who is sufficient for these things? It tends to neutralize the self-importance of 'my people', as well as the rivalry when one thinks of another and 'his people'. The 'one body' was a new thing then; it is absolutely unheard of in modem Christianity. The saints had to learn that God had but one flock here below. There was unity whether in each place or all over the world. Yet the elders had to do with all the flock where they resided, not elsewhere. Eldership was a local charge.

In this the elders are wholly distinct from 'the gifts' (Eph. 4:8-11) which are in the unity of the body of Christ. They themselves of course were members like others, and as such consequently belonged not to 'a body', but to 'the body'. But the office of eldership was within definite limits; the charge did not run beyond the particular assembly or city wherein they were appointed. It is admitted, nay pressed, that no one could claim to be an elder unless he were duly appointed; and it is plain from scripture that none could appoint save the apostles, or one positively commissioned by an apostle for the purpose. In other words the bishops, or elders (for they are identical in God's word), depended for their due installation on an apostle, directly or indirectly; but when thus appointed, it could be said, as here, that the Holy Ghost set them as bishops or overseers: His sanction accompanied apostolic nomination.

It is important to note the distinction between 'gift' and 'office.' The former is direct from the Lord; the latter by human appointment. Gift needed no human authority for its exercise, and was held in immediate responsibility to the Head. Elders were such by apostolic authority, direct or delegated. Their appointment was not to preach or teach (though if they took the lead well, and had the gift of teaching, they were worthy of double honour, 1 Tim. 5:17), but 'to shepherd' the assembly of God, Acts 20:28, and to maintain it in order in the locality where they lived. Their authority was over the unbroken local assembly. There can be now no such elders either in the source of their authority, or in the sphere of its exercise.

In the Apostle's address to the elders at Ephesus, three things are brought before us as characterising oversight. Firstly, the overseers are to take heed to themselves and “to all the flock”. They are to seek that their own walk, and the walk of the Lord's people, may be worthy of the Lord. Secondly, they are to “feed the church of God.” They think, not only of the practical walk of God's people, but they seek the welfare of their souls, that they may enter into their Christian privileges and make soul progress in the truth. Thirdly, they are to “watch” over the flock that it may be preserved from the attacks of the enemy without, as well as from the corruptions that may arise within the Christian circle through perverse men who divert souls from the Lord to themselves (Acts 20:28-31).

On the return journey they also found that amongst the older converts some were manifesting the character that marked them out as fit to exercise spiritual supervision, and these men they ordained as elders. Apostolic discernment was needed in making the choice, and also a real spirit of dependence on God — hence, prayer — and a refusal of the desires of the flesh — hence, fasting. And when the elders were chosen so that all might recognize them, they did not commit the rest of the believers into the hands of the elders. No, they "commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Each believer was set in direct connection and communion with the Lord by faith. Elders were instituted, not to intercept the faith of the saints, but to incite it to more reality and depth.

Even at Rome we learn from the first chapter of the Epistle that Paul longed to see those there, that he might communicate some spiritual gift to them, in order to their strengthening. Still more would this be called for in the far less frequented island where Titus was left. There would be things wanting which the short stay of the apostle could not suffice to complete. Further, there was the need of elders to be appointed, which was regularly, and sometimes long, subsequent to the gathering of the saints. It is implied that several cities, perhaps many, had assemblies in them, and that elders were later appointed in each. Bp. Ellicott is quite right in questioning the statement of Jer. Taylor, "one in one city, many in many" (Episc. § 15). It is a strange, as well as certainly a precarious, statement from an Episcopalian, though natural enough to one of dissenting ideas. There is nothing here to limit eldership to one person in each city; there may have been several. This would of course be modified by circumstances; but we know from elsewhere in the New Testament that plurality of elders in any given assembly was the rule, and so no doubt it was at Crete. Church order, though flexible, had a common principle and character. "For this cause," says the apostle to the Corinthians, "have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved child and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you to remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17: compare 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:33-37).

It should be observed, as a consideration of the greatest moment, that the apostle does not specify a particular gift as requisite for these local charges. Scripture takes marked care to guard from that dangerous confusion, which was soon to characterise Christendom, and to form the separation of clergy from laity, which is in fact a return to Judaism, and a denial in both principle and practice of the distinctive fulness of privilege for the church. It is not that a gift and a charge might not be combined in the same individual; but they are in themselves, and for most who have but one or the other, altogether different. The gift was one given by Christ to the church and from the greatest to the least, apart from all intervention of man. This can no more cease to be than Christ can abnegate His grace and living functions as the Head of the body. The charge of "elders" or "bishops" required not only fitness but also choice or appointment by competent authority defined by scripture.

Many saints have not a due and right sense of what ministry springs from, and so, in their minds, the exercise of spiritual gifts has been confounded with local offices. Now, an elder, or a deacon, might be a gifted man or not. Ministry is the exercise of a spiritual gift which flows from the Lord in glory, and belongs to the Church at large; while these appointments were purely local, and are only seen in certain Assemblies, where the apostle Paul or his delegates had ordained them.

By the baptism of the Spirit, then, the Church has been formed into a body, consisting of many members, but yet one, "for as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12). This is, perhaps, the most striking, and certainly the most frequent, figure used in Scripture to describe the Church. In the passage just cited, the length to which the metaphor is carried is very remarkable. Not merely is the body said to be united with Christ, but to be Christ Himself — "so also is Christ." The limbs, so to speak, are regarded as being merely attached to the Head, which gives motion, life, and character to the whole, so that it is all spoken of under the name of the Head. It is not perhaps, easy to grasp the full force of this remarkable language, which appears so to lose the Church in Christ, that He alone is seen, and it is regarded merely as a part of Him. But though our minds may fail to mount to the full height of blessing revealed in the figure, it is at least manifest that a closeness and completeness of union is here made known which may well fill the soul of the believer with wonder and adoration.