WHAT DID THE APOSTLES PASS ON?
APOSTOLIC TEACHING — OR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
In our last study we saw church organization becoming more complex.
The New Testament began with local churches having elders who were also called overseers or bishops.
Later we find one bishop distinguished from the elders.
Still later, bishops of important cities gained influence over other bishops.
But another development 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.
No serious Bible student should object to that.
Paul actually commanded it.
But another question must be asked:
What exactly was passed down?
Was it the apostles' teaching?
Or was it also the apostles' authority and office?
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
1. BEGIN WITH THE APOSTLES
Jesus personally selected His apostles.
Luke tells us:
“He called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles.”
— Luke 6:13
The word apostle means one who is sent.
But the Twelve occupied a special place.
They were witnesses of Jesus.
They had been with Him.
They witnessed His resurrection.
When Judas had to be replaced, Peter gave qualifications for his replacement.
The man had to have accompanied them during Jesus' ministry and become:
“a witness with us of his resurrection.”
— Acts 1:21–22
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? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
— 1 Corinthians 9:1
Again he says concerning Christ's resurrection appearances:
“Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:8
Paul therefore describes himself as:
“an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God.”
— Ephesians 1:1
His apostleship rested upon Christ's call.
It was not an office another bishop handed to him.
3. WHAT DID PAUL TELL TIMOTHY TO PASS ON?
Here is one of the clearest succession passages in the New Testament.
Paul told Timothy:
“What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will 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.
Teaching.
Paul does not say:
“Give them my apostleship.”
He does not say:
“Pass my apostolic authority to them.”
He says:
Pass on what you heard from me.
The message continues.
The truth continues.
The teaching continues.
4. TIMOTHY WAS TO GUARD SOMETHING
Paul repeatedly tells Timothy to guard what had been entrusted to him.
“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you.”
— 1 Timothy 6:20
Again:
“Guard the good deposit entrusted to you.”
— 2 Timothy 1:14
What was Timothy protecting?
The context repeatedly concerns the gospel, sound words, sound teaching, and the truth Timothy had received.
Paul even tells him:
“Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me.”
— 2 Timothy 1:13
The emphasis is not upon preserving Paul's position.
It is upon preserving Paul's message.
5. THE APOSTLES EXPECTED FALSE TEACHERS TO APPEAR
This helps explain why later Christians became so concerned about continuity.
Paul warned the Ephesian elders:
“After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.”
— Acts 20:29
Even worse:
“From among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things.”
— Acts 20:30
So merely being an elder did not guarantee truth.
A church leader could become a false teacher.
Paul therefore did not tell the Ephesians:
Follow whoever succeeds us in office.
He said:
“I commend you to God and to the word of his grace.”
— Acts 20:32
That is significant.
The safeguard was ultimately God's truth.
6. JOHN GIVES THE SAME WARNING
John wrote:
“Many antichrists have come.”
— 1 John 2:18
False teaching was already present.
What was John's answer?
“Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you.”
— 1 John 2:24
Again, notice the standard.
What you heard from the beginning.
The test is the apostolic message.
7. JUDE SAYS THE FAITH HAD BEEN DELIVERED
Jude urged Christians:
“to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
— Jude 3
That expression matters.
The faith had been delivered.
Christians were responsible for preserving it.
The task was not to create new revelation.
It was not to improve apostolic teaching.
It was to remain faithful to what had already been given.
8. THEN CAME A SERIOUS HISTORICAL PROBLEM
Move into the second century.
The apostles were dead.
False teachers were everywhere.
Some Gnostic teachers claimed that Jesus or the apostles had passed down secret teachings unavailable to ordinary Christians.
How could Christians answer that?
One answer was powerful and practical:
Look at the churches the apostles actually established.
What are those churches teaching?
Look at the men who followed the apostles.
Did they know anything about this supposed secret doctrine?
That is the setting in which succession became an important argument.
9. IRENAEUS USED SUCCESSION AGAINST THE GNOSTICS
Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies.
His opponents claimed access to hidden knowledge.
Irenaeus answered that the teaching of the apostles was publicly known in the churches.
He said Christians could look at churches founded by apostles and trace the succession of their leaders.
He especially discussed Rome and listed a succession of bishops there.
His argument was powerful:
If the apostles had secretly taught these Gnostic doctrines, surely the leaders of the churches established by the apostles would know about them.
But they did not.
Instead, those churches continued teaching the faith publicly received from the apostles. (New Advent)
That is an important historical argument.
But notice what is proving what.
The succession of leaders was being used as evidence that the apostolic teaching had been preserved.
The truth of the gospel did not become true merely because a bishop occupied an office.
10. TERTULLIAN MADE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT
Around the beginning of the third century, Tertullian challenged heretical groups to produce the records of their churches.
Could they trace their bishops back to apostles or men associated with apostles?
He pointed to churches such as Smyrna and Rome.
But Tertullian also said something especially useful for our study.
He recognized churches that were not directly founded by apostles but were nevertheless considered apostolic because they shared the same faith.
That is important.
Their apostolic character depended upon agreement with apostolic teaching.
Again we see the connection:
Apostolic succession mattered because apostolic truth mattered. (New Advent)
11. BUT THE IDEA WAS BECOMING STRONGER
We should not pretend that nothing changed.
By the third century the bishop's office had become far more important than the local overseer we first encountered in the New Testament.
Cyprian of Carthage, writing in the middle of the third century, spoke very strongly about the bishop and the unity of the church.
He could describe the bishop as the ruler and pastor of the church and say that:
“the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop.”
For Cyprian, separation from the legitimate bishop threatened separation from the unity of the church itself. (New Advent)
That is considerably stronger language than anything we read in Acts 20 or Titus 1.
The office has continued to develop.
12. CLEMENT HAD SPOKEN ABOUT SUCCESSORS EARLIER
We should also remember something from Page 4.
Near the end of the first century, 1 Clement said that the apostles appointed ministers and provided that, when those men died, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
So the idea of replacing faithful leaders was very early.
But Clement also says these men served the flock of Christ, and his discussion concerns men serving faithfully in the episcopate who had been wrongly removed.
There is still an important question:
Does replacing a church leader mean that the replacement receives the unique authority of an apostle?
That conclusion does not automatically follow. (New Advent)
13. REPLACEMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS SUCCESSION OF AUTHORITY
Suppose a faithful elder dies.
Another qualified man becomes an elder.
He has succeeded the first elder.
But has he inherited everything the first man possessed?
Not necessarily.
This becomes especially important with apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas.
But where do we read that churches continued replacing 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.
The apostles had a unique historical role.
The church certainly continued.
Teachers continued.
Elders continued.
Evangelists continued.
Deacons continued.
The gospel continued.
But where does Scripture say that the apostolic office itself continued through an endless succession?
That is the question.
14. WHAT ABOUT THE LAYING ON OF HANDS?
This is often brought into the discussion.
Paul tells Timothy:
“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.”
— 1 Timothy 4:14
Paul also reminds Timothy:
“fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
— 2 Timothy 1:6
And Timothy is warned:
“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands.”
— 1 Timothy 5:22
Clearly, laying on of hands was practiced.
But again we must not put more into a passage than it says.
Laying on of hands does not automatically mean transmission of apostolic office.
Hands could be laid on people for appointment, blessing, commissioning, or the impartation of gifts in particular circumstances.
The text must tell us what is happening.
We cannot simply assume that every laying on of hands creates another link in a chain carrying apostolic authority.
15. HERE IS THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION
The New Testament plainly teaches a continuing chain of:
apostolic teaching → faithful teachers → other faithful teachers.
The historical church increasingly developed a chain of:
apostles → bishops → succeeding bishops.
Those ideas can overlap.
A faithful bishop can certainly preserve apostolic teaching.
But they are not identical.
A man can stand in a historical line of office holders and teach something contrary to an apostle.
And a man who cannot produce a documented chain of ordinations back to Peter can still open the New Testament and teach exactly what Peter taught.
So which one determines whether the teaching is apostolic?
The chain?
Or:
The teaching?
16. PAUL GIVES US A REMARKABLE TEST
Galatians gives us perhaps the strongest answer.
Paul said:
“Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
— Galatians 1:8
Think about that.
Paul does not say:
Accept the teaching because of the authority of the teacher.
He says, in effect:
Test the teacher by the gospel already delivered.
Even Paul himself places the previously delivered gospel above the credentials of the messenger.
That is an extraordinary safeguard.
17. THE MESSAGE JUDGES THE MESSENGER
That principle runs 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 told Christians:
“Test everything; hold fast what 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.
Truth remains the test.
PUT THE TWO IDEAS SIDE BY SIDE
SUCCESSION OF TEACHING
Paul teaches Timothy.
Timothy teaches faithful people.
They teach others.
Each generation is tested by whether it remains faithful to the apostolic message.
2 Timothy 2:2
SUCCESSION OF OFFICE
Apostles appoint leaders.
Those leaders are succeeded by later bishops.
The historical line of bishops becomes evidence of continuity with the apostles.
By the second and third centuries this argument becomes increasingly important. (New Advent)
The historical question is not whether succession existed.
Clearly, it did.
The deeper question is:
WHAT WAS SUCCESSION SUPPOSED TO GUARANTEE?
Was it supposed to guarantee that faithful men would continue teaching what the apostles taught?
Or did possession of the office itself eventually become a source of authority?
That difference is enormous.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Luke 6:12–16
Acts 1:15–26
Acts 20:17–32
1 Corinthians 9:1
1 Corinthians 15:1–11
Galatians 1:6–9
1 Timothy 4:14
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:
1 Clement 42–44
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32 and 36
Cyprian, Letters
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 answers:
the gospel,
the faith,
the sound words,
the truth,
the apostolic teaching.
A chain of teachers is valuable only as long as it preserves what was entrusted to it.
And that brings us to another important development.
If the bishop became the recognized guardian of apostolic truth, and communion with the bishop increasingly defined communion with the church:
What happened to baptism and the Lord's Supper?
Could the bishop decide who was inside and who was outside?
That is where we go next.