July 8, 2004
Did Jesus intend for the Apostles to hand down their positions?
Apostolic succession has become a hot topic lately on the blog - we’ve had a couple of people suggest it isn’t Biblical, which is completely incorrect. So, I wanted to write a quick article outlining the Scriptural arguments for apostolic succession. I’ve already posted a list of references to apostolic succession in the Bible and the early Church fathers, but this will explain the Scriptural argument in a little more detail.
First an explanation: Apostolic succession is the handing down of the apostle’s position to a new person upon the apostle’s death. The Catholic Church can prove a lineage through the ages that began with the twelve apostles. But does this matter? What does Scripture say about apostolic succession?
Perhaps the most obvious example of apostolic succession begins in Acts:
Acts 1:15-17, 20-26. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was to guide those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’So one of the men who have accompanied us 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 - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
There are a couple of key points with this passage. If there was any apostle whose ‘seat’ you would not replace, wouldn’t it be Judas’? It seems that his seat might not be considered important anymore, however it was still seen as a valid ‘seat,’ so the apostles felt obliged to fill it. Not only that, Peter notes that Judas’ fall and his replacement were both prophecies from the Psalms, so it was foretold that both Judas' fall and his replacement must happen. Also note that in this passage Judas is called an episkopos, which is a bishop, rather than simply a normal priest like the other 120 "brethren."
So the apostles selected a new apostle who was one of these brethren. But did they make a mistake? Several people have suggested on our blog that this was an error, that Jesus intended for Paul to take that position and the apostles in essence jumped the gun. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no Biblical evidence to that effect. Nowhere does it suggest that Paul replaced Matthias or that the apostles were in error. In fact, if we look to the book of Revelation we see:
Revelation 21:14. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
So which twelve names are on the foundations? I think we can agree that "Judas" is not one of them. Could one name be Paul’s? No, because Matthias is the twelfth apostle appointed by the original apostles. Paul is considered a bishop later on, however he cannot be an apostle, since he was not with the apostles from the beginning (this is the ultimate distinction between an apostle and a bishop, otherwise the position is equal). From here you can move to the early Church fathers and see that this continues through the ages all the way until today.
Another good chapter on apostolic succession is 2 Timothy 4, where Paul apparently is giving his position to Timothy (a bishop in the Church). He "charges" Timothy to "preach" (note: not "write") the word and explains that his time is up. This is less clear than the preceding passage, but still an important point.
Reasonably speaking, did God really want to create a church that would go out of existence with the deaths of the original apostles? Jesus told us to go to the Church if we have a problem with our brother. He also promised that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church and compared it to a city sitting on a hill. Paul called the Church the "pillar and foundation of Truth." How could this ever be mistaken for a church that simply fades away with the apostles? If you look at the references to the early Church fathers you’ll note that they are very clear on apostolic succession - there’s no question they agree with the notion and support it. All the evidence points one way: Jesus Christ intended for the apostles to hand down their positions as they died.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
Two quick questions and one point:
1. Didn't Paul repeatedly call himself an Apostle?
2. I assume that in the eyes of the Church the Apostles rank higher than the Bishops in authority. In the Church can a subordinate reprimand a superior, as Paul reprimanded Peter?
In writing this you assume that it was the Church with its hierarchy and organization that was founded, which in fact could fade, and not the church (the general body of believers) which will not.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at July 8, 2004 11:12 AMJay,
You know always found it funny that they cast lots to pick the next Apostle...
God Bless
Also 1 Timothy 4:14:
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. (RSV)
Posted by: steve at July 8, 2004 1:53 PMAlso 1 Timothy 4:14:
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. (RSV)
Posted by: steve at July 8, 2004 1:53 PMAlso 1 Timothy 4:14:
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. (RSV)
Posted by: steve at July 8, 2004 1:54 PMSorry for the multiple posts, some problem with my internet connection.
Posted by: steve at July 8, 2004 2:11 PMThomas,
(1) Yes, Paul does refer to himself as an "apostle", but notice that he distances himself from the others in 2 Corinthians 12:11 (he calls them "super-apostles").
(2) In Galations 2:9-14 Paul doesn't correct Peter on a matter of morals or doctrine, but in a matter of prudence - Peter should have remained sitting with the Gentiles. In other words, this was a small error not a big one, but it actually supports my position. I'll quote from Bertrand Conway:
St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter, instead of implying a denial of his supremacy, implies just the opposite. He tells us that the example of St. Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews. St. Paul's example had not the same compelling power.
The duty of fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) may often require an inferior to rebuke a superior in defense of justice and truth. St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and St. Catherine of Siena have rebuked Popes, which fully acknowledging their supreme authority.
In other words, Peter was not making a doctrinal error. And, as the quote above points out, Paul had to correct Peter, because it was Peter's example that really mattered.
I also encourage you to read this article on Matthew's view of Church and why the church had to be visible and real.
God bless,
Jay
