On Church—Part 2 (Apostolic Succession)

Since I have already written a series of posts on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday, I will continue my series on the church.

In the first century a variety of religious teachers existed: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, etc. but the early believers hung on the words of the apostles. Luke says, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching . . . ” (Acts 2:42). Why?

Apostolic Authority 

At the start of his ministry, Jesus called the apostles to himself and gave them authority to preach and drive out demons. Mark 3 says:

¹³ Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. ¹⁴ He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach ¹⁵ and to have authority to drive out demons. ¹⁶ These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), ¹⁷ James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), ¹⁸ Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot ¹⁹ and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (vv. 13-19)

The apostles also had authority to heal the sick: “Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” (Matt 10:1). So even before Jesus died, these twelve men must have been known as an impressive group. But they were only impressive because of their connection to Jesus. They taught and healed in his name.

After Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter explained the need to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve. He then listed the following qualifications for Judas’s replacement:

²¹ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, ²² beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)

The apostles had a special authority given to them by the Lord Jesus and they had a full experience of his ministry—with him from his baptism to his ascension. Hence, they were qualified to teach about his life, death, and resurrection. And, in particular, their stated job description was to be witnesses of Christ’s resurrection.

The story in Acts 1 continues with Matthias selected to replace Judas “so he was added to the eleven apostles” (1:26), restoring the number twelve, which is probably a reminder of the twelve tribes of Israel.

In the next chapter, “everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles” (2:43). The early believers had good reasons to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching: they were with Jesus from the beginning to the end of his earthly ministry, they declared Jesus’ resurrection, and they performed signs and wonders.

Apostolic Teaching

What does it mean to be devoted to a certain teaching? It means listening to it, trusting it, and sharing it with others. The first Christians didn’t listen to the apostles for five minutes then go and listen to other teachers. They were glued to the apostles.

What exactly were the apostles authorized to teach? After Jesus rose from the dead, he explained the Scriptures to his followers and said, “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [the Messiah’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk 24:47).

A few weeks later, Christ’s words were fulfilled: Peter preached to crowds of people in Jerusalem, telling them that God raised Jesus from the dead and urging them to repent and be baptized, “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Peter’s message was a success—about three thousand were added to the Christian community.

In short, the apostles were authorized to proclaim the good news of Christ, calling people to repent and promising forgiveness of sins in his name. As servants of the gospel, they were not authorized to teach another message. If Peter preached that salvation could be found in the Roman emperor or the high priest in Jerusalem his authority would instantly evaporate. Instead, he declared,

Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:11-12)

Thus, the initial believers were not committed to the apostles’ leadership or personalities or teaching on other topics. They were committed to the apostles’ teaching about Christ as the crucified, risen, ascended Messiah who offers forgiveness to the world.

The New Testament

All churches recognize the importance of the apostles because they were chosen by Christ to be his primary witnesses. But we are two thousand years removed from the apostles so how can we be devoted to their teaching? One way is by adhering to the New Testament. The New Testament books were recognized as inspired because of their connection to an apostle—either written by an apostle or influenced by an apostle. (For an overview on the New Testament canon, see chapters 5-6 of Why I Trust the Bible. For an overview on the authorship of the Gospels, see chapters 2-4 of The Case for Jesus.)

Apostolic Experience

Now for the controversial part. Churches apply apostolic authority in different ways. Some churches, such as Pentecostal or charismatic congregations, emphasize apostolic experience because they believe that shows their link to the first-century leaders. For example, they may encourage speaking in tongues, frequently talk about “signs and wonders,” pray for healing on a regular basis, and sometimes even have leaders who call themselves “apostles.”

Apostolic Succession

Other churches claim to have a succession in leadership that goes back to the apostles. In their view, the apostles appointed bishops, those bishops appointed other bishops, and the process continued down through the centuries, until we reach bishops today. Hence, an unbroken line of ordination exists through the laying on of hands from the apostles to bishops today. And since bishops ordain priests, priests carry apostolic authority as well. This means those outside this line of descent are not truly ordained.

Churches that claim to have apostolic succession include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Episcopal Church (known as the Anglican Church in England). However, there are differences between these churches. First, the Roman Catholic Church alone asserts that Peter was the first pope and his papacy was transferred through two millennia to Pope Francis today. Second, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the “holy orders” of the Anglican/Episcopal Church. “In 1896, Pope Leo XIII condemned Anglican orders” (White, 169). Apostolicae Curae says,

25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

There’s a lot to comment on here. Notice the emphasis on priestly language: “priestly ordination,” “sacred Ordel of priesthood” (I’m not sure what Ordel means; perhaps it should be “Order”?), along with its chief power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord in that sacrifice . . .” Are church leaders priests who offer a sacrifice? Where does this idea come from? More on this below.

The point, however, is that the Anglican Church used defective ordination words for a century so there was no one left with the power of ordaining in the Anglican Church even after the words were changed. In my opinion, this seems superstitious. If the exact words aren’t used every time, the ordination is invalid. Really? Where does that idea come from?

That thinking corresponds to what we find in The Apostolic Tradition, written around 215 AD by Hippolytus, bishop of Rome. In this work, Hippolytus is not saying anything new. Instead he is conveying the traditions followed by the church in Rome, the most influential church in the empire. Hippolytus writes,

Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

This passage, along with the rest of the book, shows that a highly formalized liturgy had been established as early as the late second century, if not earlier. Hippolytus is telling other churches, “This is how you should ordain bishops and this is the prayer you should use when you do so.” This presumes that there is one right way to do things—the Roman way.

Again, we have priestly language applied to a church leader. The new bishop is called “thy high priest” because he offers God “the gifts of thy holy church.” We do not find this kind of language in the New Testament applied specifically to church leaders. Rather, all of God’s people are called his “holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5). But it does show a 1,700 year link between The Apostolic Tradition and Apostolicae Curae in calling church leaders priests.

Criticism of Apostolic Succession

Churches that claim to have apostolic succession believe apostolic succession is a key component to being devoted to the apostles’ teaching. The New Testament, however, does not include any teaching on this topic. In his book, What on Earth Is the Church?, Kevin Giles makes a key observation on the apostles,

Except for their involvement in the appointment of the seven in Acts 6.1–6, we have no indications that they were at all concerned with the ordering of the leadership of the early church. At no point do we find them appointing bishops. (9)

After the seven were presented to the apostles, the apostles “prayed and laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:6). The seven were intended to assist not replace the apostles. Giles also notes, “Luke does not envisage successors to the apostles, for eyewitnesses cannot pass on their ministry to others” (75). Likewise, if Peter was the first “pope,” Christ didn’t say Peter could pass on his unique authority to someone else.

What other data do we have in the New Testament?

We have a reference to Paul and Barnabas appointing elders or presbyters:

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23)

This shows the necessity for each church to have elders and the importance of choosing the right men for the job. Likewise, Paul tells Titus:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. (1:5)

Paul believed every church in every town on the island of Crete needed elders.

Additionally, Paul encouraged Timothy with these words: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6). Paul gives Timothy a similar encouragement in his first letter: “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim 4:14).

So we have Paul and the body of elders laying their hands on Timothy, resulting in Timothy receiving a “gift of God.” Was Paul thinking of one occasion, where both he and the body of elders laid their hands on Timothy or was he thinking of two occasions? We can’t say for certain. Also, in 1 Timothy, Paul says, “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure” (1 Tim 5:22). This seems to imply that Paul expected Timothy to appoint elders as he told Titus to do and it aligns with Timothy entrusting Paul’s teaching to “reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim 2:2).

There is some intriguing data here about passing on the gift through the imposition of hands, but none of these three men were part of the twelve apostles. Yes, Paul viewed himself as an apostle, but the typical claim of apostolic succession begins with Peter and the eleven not Paul and his fellow travelers.

Origins of Apostolic Succession

So where does the idea of apostolic succession come from?

Depending on the list you consult, Clement, bishop of Rome (died ~100 AD), is either Peter’s first, second, or third successor. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement writes,

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. (44:1-2)

Some believe this is the earliest reference to what came to be called apostolic succession. Clement explains how the apostles “provided a continuance” and if the successors died, “other approved men should succeed to their ministration.” In this letter, Clement is reprimanding the Corinthians because they have “unjustly thrust out from their ministration” “men of repute.”

Earlier he says,

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe. (42:1-4)

According to Clement, in the course of their travels and preaching, the apostles “appointed . . . bishops and deacons.” Since Paul and Barnabas followed the same pattern and Titus was instructed to do the same, it makes sense that the apostles went out and preached and appointed church leaders.

But did those people carry apostolic authority? Not fully. As we have seen, qualifications had to be met to become an apostle. And one of the qualifications required living in the first century and witnessing Jesus’ entire ministry.

Writing early in the second century, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, declares,

Let the bishop preside in God’s place, and the presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons (my special favorites) be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ who was with the Father from eternity and appeared at the end [of the world]. (Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 6)

He also instructs,

But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.

Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure. (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

These statements assert that presbyters should take “the place of the apostolic council” and believers should “follow the presbyters as the apostles.” This gets us closer to the idea of apostolic succession. We also see the importance of the bishop’s presence and approval. At this time most people were illiterate, Bibles were scarce, and false teachings were proliferating. In other words, a follow-your-leader approach was essential to preserving the faith. Also, note the three-tiered leadership structure: bishops, presbyters (priests), and deacons. In the New Testament, however, the Greek terms for bishop (episkopos) and presbyter/elder (presbuteros) are used interchangeably. (See Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7.)

Around 175-185 AD, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, writes:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. (Against Heresies 4:26:2)

In our search for apostolic succession, this is probably the most significant statement because it affirms, “presbyters . . . possess the succession from the apostles then adds presbyters possess this succession “together with the succession of the episcopate,” meaning bishops. This statement concludes by saying that those “who depart from the primitive succession” are either heretics, schismatics, or hypocrites.

In a statement from the International Theological Commission (1973), the Vatican highlights the importance of Irenaeus to the development of the doctrine of apostolic succession:

In spite of a difference in their appreciation of the office of Peter, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, and the other churches that have retained the reality of apostolic succession are at one in sharing a basic understanding of the sacramentality of the Church, which developed from the New Testament and through the Fathers, notably through Irenaeus. These churches hold that the sacramental entry into the ministry comes about through the imposition of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and that this is the indispensable form for the transmission of the apostolic succession, which alone enables the Church to remain constant in its doctrine and communion. It is this unanimity concerning the unbroken coherence of Scripture, Tradition, and sacrament that explains why communion between these churches and the Catholic Church has never completely ceased and could today be revived.

Note churches must retain “the reality of apostolic succession . . . which developed from the New Testament and through the Fathers, notably through Irenaeus.” And entry into this ministry is the result of laying on of hands and calling on the Holy Spirit.

Writing around 200 AD, Tertullian says:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. (Prescription Against Heretics, 32)

In this passage, Tertullian reveals the practical significance of the doctrine of apostolic succession—to refute heresy. Since only apostolic churches recorded their roll of bishops running down to apostles or “apostolic men,” he challenges heretics to “produce the original records of their churches.” In other words, Tertullian is asking the heretics, “Where did you come from?” With all the heresies swirling around, I understand how this could have been a helpful tactic to preserve the true faith.

Strangely, while Tertullian suggests that Clement succeeded Peter, Irenaeus says Linus succeeded Peter so even in these early centuries we have differing opinions about the actual line of succession. How much more so now that we are 1,800 years later? Can the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church really trace every current bishop back to an apostle? Can we see the lists? If so, how many lists exist and what differences do they have?

The Reformation

A lot has happened since the early centuries of Christianity, including the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054 and the Reformation starting in 1517. Let me highlight the beginning of the Reformation. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk, university teacher, and preacher in Germany in the 1500s. “He found that the member of his congregation were buying indulgences” (Bainton, 130). An indulgence is

the remission of temporal punishment for sin, given in certain conditions by the Church to Christians. Whereas eternal punishment involves consequences of sin in hell, temporal punishment has to do with the process of being purified from sin, which happens in this life and potentially in purgatory. Indulgences are possible because of the treasury of merit, the supposed infinite storehouse of the merits of Christ, Mary, and the saints that the church can apply to Christian on earth or in purgatory. (Ortlund, 40).

In sum, the Church has access to heavenly bonus points or extra credit earned by Christ or the saints which she can dispense to Christians as she wishes. Indulgences do not apply to eternal punishment for unbelievers. Luther probably didn’t know all of this at the time, but this sale of indulgences was permitted by the pope with half of the money going to pay off Albert of Brandenburg’s debt in buying his third post as bishop and half going to the building of St. Peter’s in Rome.

Luther objected to the sale of indulgences, mentioning them 45 times in his 95 Theses, including, “Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters” and “The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.” But he was still fairly conservative in his views, stating: “Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.” Luther had no intention of breaking away from Rome; he wanted to purify it from a harmful practice because he believed that practice was diverging from the gospel. After the newly invented printing press began churning out Luther’s Theses, Luther was excommunicated, and the Protestant church was born. Following the split, was it necessary to continue tracing succession through the church that gave the excommunication? Think of it: If a church says, “you are excommunicated,” would you feel a need to show your connection to it? Perhaps this is why some Lutheran churches today consider apostolic succession a matter of indifference.

Back to the ITC

Regarding Protestant churches, Rome’s International Theological Commission says,

The communities that emerged from the sixteenth-century Reformation differ among themselves to such an extent that a description of their relationship to the Catholic Church has to take account of the many individual cases. However, some general lines are beginning to emerge. In general it was a feature of the Reformation to deny the link between Scripture and Tradition and to advocate the view that Scripture alone was normative. Even if later on some sort of place for Tradition is recognized, it is never given the same position and dignity as in the ancient Church. But since the sacrament of orders is the indispensable sacramental expression of communion in the Tradition, the proclamation of sola scriptura led inevitably to an obscuring of the older idea of the Church and its priesthood.

According to the ITC, by advocating Scripture alone, the Reformation broke the link between Scripture and Tradition. We have seen statements from early church fathers that seem to support Rome’s claims. The idea that the apostles had successors, in the form of presbyters or bishops, is in the Tradition. The Vatican believes using Scripture alone obscures this key idea in the Tradition. Also, “the sacrament of orders is the indispensable sacramental expression of communion in the Tradition.” In other words, if you want to have communion in our Tradition, you must follow our pattern of ordination. Regarding Protestant churches, the statement continues,

Thus through the centuries, the imposition of hands either by men already ordained or by others was often in practice abandoned. Where it did take place, it did not have the same meaning as in the Church of Tradition. This divergence in the mode of entry into the ministry and its interpretation is only the most noteworthy symptom of the different understandings of Church and Tradition. There have already been a number of promising contacts that have sought to reestablish links with the Tradition, although the break has so far not been successfully overcome.

Rome remains hopeful and open to further dialogue. However, since Protestants often abandon the practice of ordaining using “the imposition of hands by men already ordained or by others” and since where it is practiced it doesn’t carry the same meaning, the statement proceeds,

In such circumstances, intercommunion remains impossible for the time being, because sacramental continuity in apostolic succession from the beginning is an indispensable element of ecclesial communion for both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches.

Note the important phrase, “sacramental continuity in apostolic succession from the beginning” so the way into apostolic succession is to follow the sacramental or ordination process. We are back to Hippolytus here with the idea that there is one way to do things.

Surprisingly, things end on a positive note with the ITC recognizing that Protestant churches contain “elements that certainly belong to the apostolicity of the unique Church of Christ.”

To say this is not to say that the ecclesial and spiritual qualities of the Protestant ministers and communities are thereby negligible. Their ministers have edified and nourished their communities. By baptism, by the study and the preaching of the word, by their prayer together and celebration of the Last Supper, and by their zeal they have guided men toward faith in the Lord and thus helped them to find the way of salvation. There are thus in such communities elements that certainly belong to the apostolicity of the unique Church of Christ.

Hence, the Catholic Church affirms the following elements as marks of apostolicity: baptism, study and preaching of the word, corporate prayer, celebration of the Last Supper, and evangelism. But don’t misunderstand Rome: this is not an either-or matter. The Vatican believes the church can and should have historical succession from the apostles and the marks of apostolicity.

Back to the New Testament

Apostolic succession became a major theme in church history, but the New Testament is focused on apostolic doctrine. The early believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” We must adhere to the message of the apostles not loyalty to them as leaders or loyalty to their successors. Listen to Paul’s words in Galatians 1:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (vv. 6-9)

The key is faithfulness to the gospel not to a specific individual or group of individuals. Paul is calling down a curse on himself if he preaches another gospel. Keep in mind that Paul was not just preaching his own private revelation. His message was approved by the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Likewise, in Galatians, Paul writes, “James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me” (2:9). So Paul, James, Peter, and John had no authority to deviate from the gospel they received. Just as we have authorized retailers who can only sell one product, they were only authorized to share one message.

Concluding Thoughts

• The doctrine of apostolic succession has ancient roots, but we can’t say it has New Testament roots. This conclusion should serve as a challenge to both Catholics and Protestants.
• In the early centuries, the idea of church leaders taking the place of the apostles played an important role in preserving the faith.
• In general, knowing the line of descent is helpful. A pop-up church on the corner may raise suspicion. Who are they related to? Where did they come from? What are their views? Independent churches should consider how their disconnectedness from history may hinder their mission. I prefer to attend a church that has deeper historical roots, but this is not a primary issue.
• It is not easy to have certainty about each generation of successors, especially now that we are two thousand years removed. And the reality is that one generation of “priests” can go astray from the gospel so how much does historical succession matter? Historical succession without doctrinal succession is useless.
• Protestants should consider how ordination connects people to the apostles. This doesn’t mean it gives pastors the same authority as the apostles, but it does link them to the apostles in a unique way. Protestants will probably never get to the point of giving ordination “the same meaning as in the Church of Tradition,” because that meaning is specifically priestly, but some movement is possible here.
• I have a problem with the Tradition identifying church leaders as priests, but I must admit that this occurred early in the church’s history.
• The primary issue is being devoted to apostolic doctrine not apostolic succession.