Historically, the post-apostolic Christians adopted this pyramid rule into their lives by shifting toward the organizational patterns of their culture. Ignatius was the first figure instrumental toward this shift and toward the elevation of one elder (called “Bishop”) who had ultimate power like Jesus, while the others stood in the position of the apostles under the authority of one figure. We must emphasize that he took charge of an organization. You have to establish such an organization to which the people become members to affect any control over them. Of course, Ignatius claimed his motivation was to present a united front in the face of so much chaos and error. To have unity, there must be someone who makes the final decision. Therefore, he insisted that the unity of the church (church organization) was based on submission to the local bishop.
The presbyters and bishops became two separate offices of the church instead of them referring to the same work in the Scriptures. Clement had not yet made that shift by the time he wrote 1 Clement. Polycarp did not insist on monarchical bishops like Ignatius nor does there appear to be any real evidence that they existed at that time. While there is evidence that the ideas were propagated, it wasn’t until the 170’s that there is clear proof that they were established. Irenaeus favors the concept of Roman succession because he claimed that the apostolic tradition was preserved in Rome. By the middle of the second century, the primacy of Rome was established as Justin who refers to a single “president” and by the third century, we find references to the “Petrine promise” (Matthew 16:19-20). Soon, another comparison was made between the presbyter and priests while the bishop was compared to the high priest. It was first used by Tertullian and Hippolytus until more frequent references were made by Origen and Cyprian.
These developments did not take place overnight but the thought of the church forming itself into an organization with power located in church officials was the starting point of the digression. Rather than allowing every doctrine equal presence, especially during the Gnostic claim to revelation, the authority had to be placed in the church organization just as it had been in the apostles. The practice of synods of bishops arose around the latter half of the second century in Asia. They appear to be occasioned by the philosophy known as the Montanist. With the power of succession, these synods found justification in the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15.
The Bible knows nothing of such succession and power, nor the presence of a special priestly office. Instead, the body is built up as each individual supplies a needed service toward its growth (Eph. 4:16). Neither apostles, prophets, evangelists nor elders can do all the ministering that needs done nor does such accomplish the will of God. The habit of gathering together where such “gifts” were present provides the occasion for the necessary teaching. They were all involved in the same work; one being just an extension of the other. Whether it’s an apostle, a shepherd (Heb. 13:7, 17), or an evangelist like Timothy that commits the things he had learned from Paul to “faithful men,” they share the work of teaching to equip others to teach, also. Wherever brethren gathered together for such teaching, one would expect to find at least one of these gifts.
Unfortunately, some have a very different narrow vision in applying the pattern of leadership. Some see that God gave the gifts (of men) to a local church organization through which the individual Christian functions. With such an arrangement, individuals may physically come to the institution and receive a blessing and the sanction of the organization. Such an arrangement would defeat the entire purpose of individual service. Just as the elder’s qualification to be “apt to teach” implies teaching as their function, so “equipping each for the work of service” implies that the ekklesia (called-out class of people) are to function as servants. Thus, a working membership with each member of the body contributing to each other member supplies the needs of the body. A city of saints that depends upon just a few members of a body would be as dysfunctional as a human body depending upon just a few members of its body. Not only does every member function toward the edifying of the body, but every member has the potential to harm the body. Every member is subject to disciplinary action when sin is practiced. We see an example of this teaching when a man who was living with his father’s wife had a negative influence on the Jerusalem people of God in Corinth like leaven in a lump of bread. Paul writes, “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened…” (1 Cor. 5:6-7). This “wicked person” (verse 13) was to be “put away from them.” He is to be “delivered over to Satan “when you are gathered together” (1 Cor. 5:4). Elders are not exempt from this withdrawal of fellowship. Paul told Timothy, “Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may also fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). All men are subject to sin, error, poor judgment, etc. But, those who are headstrong and refuse divine counsel are not to be fellowshipped.