Acts 14:23
"And when they had appointed elders [plural] for them in every church [singular], with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
The New Testament does not depict Jesus establishing or clearly outlining a developed, multi-tiered hierarchical structure (like the later monarchical episcopate, metropolitan archbishops, or universal papal jurisdiction). The early church leadership pattern in Scripture is simpler, more local, and collegial. Paul and Barnabas planted multiple churches but installed a plurality of elders in each one. No single leader.
Titus 1:5
"This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders [plural] in every town [singular] as I directed you."
The pattern repeats; multiple qualified elders per local area/town.
Acts 20:17, 28
Paul "called the elders [plural] of the church [singular, Ephesus]" and told them, "the Holy Spirit has made you [plural] overseers [bishops], to care for the church of God."
This is the uniform NT pattern. Local, plural, collegial leadership; not a single "super-bishop" ruling a diocese or a supreme head.
Colossians 1:18
Christ is "the head of the church...the head of the body."
As Jesus explicitly stated:
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them…It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant…" (Matthew 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45)
Jesus explicitly rejects top-down, domineering authority modeled after worldly empires. No exalted titles or ranks that elevate one over the rest.
"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers…The greatest among you shall be your servant." (Matthew 23:8-12)
It is true, based upon the obvious works of the Spirit, that the apostles (all of them) had unique foundational authority and God-given power. But after them there is no biblical command or scriptural example of one elder ruling over other elders, regional metropolitans, or a perpetual monarchical office with universal jurisdiction. In fact decision making is often collaborative and collective (apostles + local elders together).
Even Peter himself testified to this:
1 Peter 5:1
"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them; not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away."
In short:
The NT depicts the "church" ekklesia (assembly) led locally by a team of qualified elders/overseers who shepherd their flock under Christ the Head. There is no "clearly outlined" developed politically motivated hierarchy like the later monarchical episcopate or papal structure. Clearly the papacy emerged during the early post-apostolic period as a practical response to regional challenges.
I feel like it's notable that no writings following the apostolic period has ever been considered "scripture", though clearly one should expect that the apostolic successors should have been given such powers.
Post-apostolic authors giving us their take on the so called "deposit of faith" were respected as faithful transmitters, but they explicitly did not claim the same inspired, authoritative status as was given to the direct apostolic eye witnesses of Christ's earthly mission and their companions.
The apostles alone delivered the once-for-all faith.
Jude 3
"the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints"
Revelation culminating in the Son, with the apostolic witness (inspired by the Spirit) sealing the deal. All writings that followed were beneficial for edification but were excluded from the canon precisely because they lacked apostolic authorship/origin.
This to me is strange in light of the claims of certain traditions. If successors received equivalent authority (full apostolic powers to bind doctrine infallibly and produce new normative revelation), one would expect ongoing inspired writings or additions to the canon.
It's clear to me what happened. The early "church fathers" saw that it was necessary to fend off Gnostics inventing new "secret teachings". In the same way that we continue to see this need even now. To show continuity in orthodox teaching in order to protect the faith from error, not to claim new revelation.
Ignatius (c. 107 AD) humbly distinguishes himself:
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles…"
The apostles had a foundational, once-for-all role. Their successors (bishops/elders) have real authority to teach, shepherd, and discipline. But it is derivative, accountable to the apostolic Word, and not on the same level for producing binding new revelation. The absence of new Scripture after the apostolic period is strong evidence that the early church itself recognized this distinction. The NT’s silence on perpetual inspired writing from bishops reinforces the sufficiency of the apostolic Scriptures (Sola Scriptura) for the church’s faith and practice.