WHAT DID THE APOSTLES PASS ON?
APOSTOLIC TEACHING — OR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
In our last study, we saw church organization becoming more complex.
In the New Testament, local churches had elders who were also called overseers or bishops.
Later, we find one bishop distinguished from the elders.
Still later, bishops of important cities gained recognized responsibilities in relation to other bishops.
But another idea became extremely important.
It is called:
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
The basic idea sounds reasonable.
Jesus chose the apostles.
The apostles taught others.
Those men taught another generation.
Christian teaching continued from one generation to the next.
Paul actually commanded that kind of continuity.
But another question must be asked:
What exactly was passed down?
Was it the apostles' teaching?
Was it also their office and authority?
Or were both involved?
Those questions are related, but they are not identical.
And we must be careful not to assume that every Christian who speaks of apostolic succession means exactly the same thing.
Let us begin with the New Testament.
1. BEGIN WITH THE APOSTLES
Jesus personally selected His apostles.
Luke tells us:
“He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.”
— Luke 6:13
The word apostle means one who is sent.
But the Twelve occupied a special place.
They had been with Jesus during His earthly ministry.
They were witnesses of His resurrection.
When Judas had to be replaced, Peter described the qualifications for the man who would take his place.
He had to have accompanied them during Jesus' ministry and become:
“a witness with us of his resurrection.”
— Acts 1:22
Matthias was chosen.
He replaced Judas.
That tells us something important.
The apostleship of the Twelve was not simply another local church office.
It was connected with their unique role as witnesses of Jesus Christ.
2. PAUL WAS ALSO AN APOSTLE
Paul did not accompany Jesus during His earthly ministry.
But Paul explains why he could nevertheless call himself an apostle.
He had seen the risen Christ.
“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?”
— 1 Corinthians 9:1
Again, when discussing the resurrection appearances of Christ, Paul says:
“And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:8
Paul describes himself as an apostle by the will of God (Ephesians 1:1).
His apostleship rested upon Christ's call.
It was not an office that another bishop handed to him.
This distinction matters.
The apostles were not merely the first men to hold an office that later Christians called bishop.
They had a particular commission from the risen Christ.
The question is whether—and in what sense—that commission continued through later church leaders.
3. WHAT DID PAUL TELL TIMOTHY TO PASS ON?
Here is one of the clearest passages about continuing the apostles' work.
Paul told Timothy:
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
— 2 Timothy 2:2
Look at the chain.
Paul → Timothy → faithful people → others.
That certainly is succession.
But succession of what?
Read the verse.
The things Timothy had heard from Paul.
The apostolic message was to be entrusted to faithful people who could teach it to others.
Paul does not say in this verse:
“Give them my apostleship.”
He does not say:
“Pass my unique commission as an eyewitness of the risen Christ to them.”
He says to pass on what Timothy had heard.
The message continues.
The truth continues.
The teaching continues.
Does that mean Paul had no concern for the appointment of leaders?
Of course not.
Paul gave instructions about elders and deacons. He also entrusted Timothy and Titus with responsibilities in the churches.
But we must distinguish those responsibilities from the unique commission of the apostles.
Second Timothy 2:2 explicitly teaches the continuation of apostolic teaching. Whether the apostles also established a continuing succession of office and authority must be examined from the other relevant passages.
4. TIMOTHY WAS TO GUARD SOMETHING
Paul repeatedly told Timothy to guard what had been entrusted to him.
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust.”
— 1 Timothy 6:20
Again:
“That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”
— 2 Timothy 1:14
What was Timothy protecting?
The surrounding passages speak about the gospel, sound words, sound teaching, and the truth he had received.
Paul tells him:
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.”
— 2 Timothy 1:13
The emphasis in these instructions is upon preserving the apostolic message.
That does not answer every question about church office.
But it does establish something essential:
Whatever responsibilities later church leaders possess, they are responsible for preserving the teaching entrusted to the church.
An office cannot make a departure from that teaching faithful.
5. THE APOSTLES EXPECTED FALSE TEACHERS TO APPEAR
This helps explain why later Christians became so concerned about continuity.
Paul warned the Ephesian elders:
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”
— Acts 20:29
Then he added:
“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
— Acts 20:30
Merely being an elder did not guarantee that a man would continue teaching the truth.
A church leader could become a false teacher.
Paul therefore instructed the elders to remain watchful.
Then he said:
“And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace.”
— Acts 20:32
Notice where Paul directed them.
To God and to His word.
Their responsibility as leaders did not place them beyond the need to remain faithful to the message they had received.
6. JOHN GIVES THE SAME WARNING
John wrote:
“Even now are there many antichrists.”
— 1 John 2:18
False teaching was already present.
What was John's answer?
“Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning.”
— 1 John 2:24
Again, notice the standard.
What they had heard from the beginning.
John directed Christians back to the message they had received.
A later teacher's claims had to be considered in light of that message.
7. JUDE SAYS THE FAITH HAD BEEN DELIVERED
Jude urged Christians:
“that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
— Jude 3
That expression matters.
The faith had been delivered.
Christians were responsible for preserving it.
Their task was not to replace apostolic teaching with a different gospel.
It was to remain faithful to what had already been given.
The continuing church was responsible for guarding the faith it had received.
Now let us turn to the historical question.
How did Christians in the generations after the apostles understand that responsibility?
8. THEN CAME A SERIOUS HISTORICAL PROBLEM
Move into the second century.
The first generation of apostles had passed from the scene.
Christians encountered teachers who claimed to possess special knowledge unavailable to ordinary believers.
Some claimed that Jesus or the apostles had passed down secret teachings.
How could Christians answer such claims?
One response was to ask:
What did the churches associated with the apostles publicly receive and continue to teach?
What did those churches know about the supposed secret doctrines?
Could their leaders trace the teaching back to the apostles?
That is the setting in which succession became an important argument.
9. IRENAEUS USED SUCCESSION AGAINST CLAIMS OF SECRET TEACHING
Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies.
He argued that the teaching of the apostles was publicly known in the churches.
Christians could examine churches associated with the apostles and the succession of their leaders.
In Against Heresies 3.3, Irenaeus gave particular attention to Rome and listed a succession of its bishops.
His argument was that the churches' publicly preserved teaching could be compared with the claims of those who said they possessed secret apostolic doctrines.
Succession of leaders was being used as evidence of continuity with apostolic teaching.
Irenaeus also gives Rome special prominence. In the surviving Latin text he says that other churches must agree with Rome because of its “pre-eminent authority” or “preeminence.” The original Greek of this sentence has not survived, and its precise meaning is disputed. We should therefore acknowledge the statement without making it prove more than its uncertain wording establishes.
And we must represent Irenaeus carefully.
He did not speak only about a chain of teachers who happened to repeat the same ideas.
He appealed to recognized leaders and their succession in churches associated with the apostles.
For Irenaeus, the continuity of leadership and the continuity of teaching were connected.
That is more than simply saying, “Anyone who teaches the truth is an apostolic successor.”
At the same time, his argument did not mean that any statement made by a bishop became true merely because he held office.
The teaching being defended was the faith publicly received from the apostles.
So we need to keep both parts of his argument in view:
Continuity of leadership.
Continuity of apostolic teaching.
10. TERTULLIAN MADE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT
Around the beginning of the third century, Tertullian challenged teachers who claimed apostolic authority for their doctrines.
In Prescription Against Heretics, he called upon them to produce the records of their churches and show their connection with the apostles.
He pointed to churches such as Smyrna and Rome.
But he also discussed churches that had not been founded directly by apostles.
He regarded them as apostolic in their faith because they shared the teaching received from apostolic churches.
See Prescription Against Heretics 32 and 36.
That is important.
Tertullian appealed to the historical succession of church leaders.
But he also connected apostolic identity with agreement in teaching.
The historical line and the apostolic message were not separate concerns in his argument.
He understood succession as a way of defending the church's continuity with the apostles.
We should recognize that purpose even as we examine whether the New Testament establishes every claim later associated with apostolic succession.
11. THE BISHOP'S OFFICE BECAME CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH CHURCH UNITY
By the middle of the third century, Cyprian of Carthage spoke very strongly about the bishop and the unity of the church.
In one of his letters, he wrote:
“The bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop.”
Cyprian regarded communion with the legitimate bishop as closely connected with the unity of the church.
He did not understand the bishop merely as a convenient chairman.
The bishop held a recognized office with responsibilities for the church's teaching, worship, and unity.
That is important historical evidence.
But we should not assume that Cyprian believed every bishop was free to invent doctrine or that one bishop automatically possessed unlimited authority over every other bishop.
His writings must be read in their own setting.
Our question is more specific:
How does this understanding of the bishop's office compare with the leadership described in the New Testament?
We can recognize what Cyprian believed without assuming that his understanding either proves or disproves the biblical authority of the office.
That requires further examination.
12. CLEMENT HAD SPOKEN ABOUT SUCCESSORS MUCH EARLIER
We should remember something from Study 4.
Near the end of the first century, 1 Clement said that the apostles appointed ministers and made provision for other approved men to continue their ministry after they died.
See 1 Clement 42–44.
So the idea of replacing faithful church leaders was very early.
Clement also defended men who had served faithfully and had been wrongly removed from their ministry.
His discussion shows concern for orderly appointment, continuity, and the faithful service of recognized leaders.
But another question remains.
Does succeeding a church leader mean receiving the unique authority of an apostle?
That conclusion does not automatically follow.
We must ask what authority belonged to the original leader, what responsibilities were passed to his successor, and what the relevant text actually says.
13. REPLACEMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY SUCCESSION TO EVERY KIND OF AUTHORITY
Suppose a faithful elder dies.
Another qualified man becomes an elder.
He has succeeded the first elder.
He now carries the responsibilities of that office.
But that does not mean he inherits every personal qualification, experience, or responsibility the first man possessed.
This distinction becomes especially important when discussing the apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas.
But Acts does not record the churches continuing to replace every apostle, generation after generation.
James, the brother of John, was killed in Acts 12.
Acts does not record the appointment of another apostle to replace James.
That silence deserves attention, although silence alone cannot settle every question about the continuation of apostolic ministry.
The apostles had a unique historical role as witnesses and commissioned messengers of Christ.
The church certainly continued.
Teachers continued.
Elders continued.
Evangelists continued.
Deacons continued.
The gospel continued.
But we must still ask:
What parts of the apostles' responsibility were intended to continue through later leaders, and what parts belonged uniquely to the apostles themselves?
That is more precise than assuming either that every aspect of apostleship was passed down or that the apostles passed on no authority at all.
14. WHAT ABOUT THE LAYING ON OF HANDS?
This is often brought into the discussion.
Paul tells Timothy:
“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”
— 1 Timothy 4:14
Paul also reminds Timothy:
“Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.”
— 2 Timothy 1:6
And Timothy is warned:
“Lay hands suddenly on no man.”
— 1 Timothy 5:22
Clearly, laying on of hands was practiced.
It could accompany commissioning, appointment, blessing, or the giving of a gift, depending on the passage.
But we must not put more into a text than it says.
Laying on of hands does not automatically establish that the recipient received the unique office of an apostle.
Nor should we assume that the practice had no connection with the recognition or appointment of church leaders.
The question is what happened in each particular passage.
When later Christians appealed to ordination and succession, they understood those practices as part of the continuity of the church's ministry.
We should examine that understanding alongside the New Testament evidence rather than assume that every laying on of hands carried exactly the same meaning.
15. HERE IS THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION
The New Testament plainly teaches the continuation of apostolic teaching:
Paul → Timothy → faithful teachers → others.
Early Christian writers also describe continuity through recognized church leaders:
Apostles → appointed ministers → later leaders.
Those ideas can overlap.
A faithful bishop can preserve apostolic teaching.
A church may appoint qualified leaders to protect its teaching and care for its people.
But a succession of office and a succession of faithful teaching are not identical claims.
A man may occupy a recognized office and still teach something contrary to an apostle.
Paul warned that false teaching could arise even from among the elders (Acts 20:30).
And a Christian who cannot produce a documented chain of ordinations can still read the New Testament and accurately teach what the apostles taught.
That raises an important question.
How do we test a claim to apostolic teaching?
Does a leader's office settle the question by itself?
Or must his teaching also be examined?
Paul gives us a remarkable answer.
16. PAUL GIVES US A REMARKABLE TEST
In Galatians, Paul writes:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
— Galatians 1:8
Think about that.
Paul does not say:
“Accept a different gospel if the person teaching it has impressive credentials.”
He says that even if Paul himself or an angel preached a different gospel, that message must be rejected.
The gospel already delivered was the standard.
That is an extraordinary safeguard.
The identity of the messenger does not make a different gospel true.
This does not answer every question about how church leaders are appointed or what responsibilities they possess.
But it does answer one essential question:
No claim to authority gives a person permission to replace the apostolic gospel with another gospel.
17. THE MESSAGE MUST BE TESTED
That principle appears throughout the New Testament.
The Bereans examined Paul's teaching by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).
John told Christians to test the spirits (1 John 4:1).
Paul instructed Christians:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Jesus warned about false prophets (Matthew 7:15).
An office does not make false teaching true.
A title does not make false teaching true.
A long historical pedigree does not make false teaching true.
Faithfulness to the apostolic message remains essential.
Christians who affirm apostolic succession may agree with that statement while also maintaining that Christ established a continuing ministry through the apostles and their successors.
The disagreement, then, is not necessarily between people who value truth and people who value office.
The question is whether Scripture establishes a continuing succession of office with the authority later claimed for it—and how that authority is to be understood and exercised.
That is the question we must examine.
PUT THE TWO IDEAS SIDE BY SIDE
SUCCESSION OF TEACHING
Paul teaches Timothy.
Timothy teaches faithful people.
They teach others.
Each generation is responsible for preserving what it has received.
2 Timothy 2:2
SUCCESSION OF OFFICE
The apostles appoint leaders.
Those leaders are succeeded by later ministers.
Early Christian writers appeal to recognized succession as evidence of continuity with the apostles.
By the second and third centuries, the succession of bishops becomes an important part of arguments about the church's teaching and unity.
1 Clement 42–44; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3; Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32
These two forms of continuity are not necessarily in conflict.
But they are not the same claim.
A documented succession of leaders is a historical question.
Faithfulness to apostolic teaching is a doctrinal question.
Whether a particular office carries authority passed down from the apostles is a question of biblical interpretation and historical evidence.
We should not assume that proving one of these claims automatically proves all the others.
WHAT WAS SUCCESSION SUPPOSED TO PRESERVE?
Was succession intended to ensure that faithful people continued teaching what the apostles taught?
Was it also intended to preserve a continuing office responsible for guarding that teaching and maintaining the church's unity?
If so, what authority belonged to that office?
And where do the apostles describe it?
Those are the questions we should carry into the rest of this series.
We do not need to question the faith or sincerity of Christians who understand succession differently.
We need to read the passages and the historical documents carefully.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with these New Testament passages:
Luke 6:12–16
Acts 1:15–26
Acts 12:1–2
Acts 20:17–32
1 Corinthians 9:1
1 Corinthians 15:1–11
Galatians 1:6–9
1 Timothy 4:14
1 Timothy 5:22
1 Timothy 6:20
2 Timothy 1:6, 13–14
2 Timothy 2:2
1 John 2:18–24
1 John 4:1
Jude 3
Then compare these early Christian writings:
1 Clement 42–44
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32 and 36
Cyprian, Letters, especially Letter 66
Do not begin by asking:
“Which church has the oldest chain?”
Begin with an earlier question:
What did Jesus and the apostles say must be preserved?
The New Testament repeatedly directs us to:
The gospel.
The faith.
The sound words.
The truth.
The apostolic teaching.
Then ask what responsibilities the apostles gave to the people entrusted with preserving that message.
That brings us to another important development.
If the bishop became the recognized guardian of apostolic teaching, and communion with the bishop became closely connected with communion in the church, what happened to two central practices of Christian life?
Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
What authority did bishops claim over them?
What did the New Testament say?
And how did those practices become connected with the developing office of bishop?
That is where we go next.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: One Church, So Many Divisions
NEXT STUDY: WHO CONTROLLED BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER?