Another View - Apostolic Succession

[Bruce S]

Someone asked me about deacons or elders in the Assembly of God, while looking I found this, thought you might find it interesting on how others define the Apostolic succession matter, for your reading pleasure....

Apostolic Succession

A crucial issue is whether the apostolic office is to be passed on as an institutionalized office of the church. It is clear from both Acts and the letters of the New Testament that certain offices were instituted and maintained. For example, the apostles led the church in the selection of seven men, often called “deacons” though that noun is not in the text, to administer the charitable ministries of the church (Acts 6:3). Early in the Acts record the Church, probably operating with familiar Jewish models, is observed to have elders who are functioning in leadership roles along with the apostles (Acts 11:30; 15:2; 16:4). As Paul and Silas established missionary churches, they were careful to appoint “elders” (presbyteros) for the leadership of those churches (Acts 14:23). Paul also summoned “elders” (presbyteros) of the church at Ephesus and then addressed them as “overseers” (episkopos) who were also to be “shepherds” (poimaino), or “pastors,” of the church of God (Acts 20:17,28).

The letter to the church at Philippi indicates the presence of “overseers” (episkopos) and “deacons” (diakonos) among them. The pastoral letters, usually assumed to have been written somewhat later, reveal great concern for the appointment of carefully qualified elders/overseers and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1­12; Titus 1:3­9). As can be seen, the names for the office are somewhat flexible and interchangeable. Nevertheless, it is certainly accurate to say the New Testament provides—by such names, qualifications, and selection—for the careful appointment and continuation in office of such leaders as overseers, elders, and deacons.

It is also clear that while the apostles (with the elders) were established leaders in the Early Church, there was no provision for their replacement or continuation. To be sure, with the defection of Judas from his apostolic office, the Eleven sought divine guidance to fill the gap. Other apostles also emerged, including Paul who in his first letter to the Corinthians gave insight into their selection. After Christ’s resurrection He appeared to the Twelve and later appeared to more than “five hundred of the brothers at the same time. . . . Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born” (1 Corinthians 15:6­8, emphasis added). Thus Paul seems to limit the office of apostle to those who had actually seen the risen Lord in the 40 days after His resurrection and to himself as having seen Him in a dramatic vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1­9). There is some uncertainty about the exact number and identity of the apostles. However, besides the Twelve, the New Testament text appears to clearly designate such persons as Paul, James the brother of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junias (probably a woman) who were “outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7).

It is instructive, however, that nowhere in the New Testament after the replacement of Judas is any attention given to a so-called apostolic succession. No attempt was made to replace James son of Zebedee (John’s brother), executed by Herod (Acts 12:2). Other than the original appointments by Christ himself, there is nothing concerning the appointment of apostles. And apart from the criteria set for the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:21­26) and the criteria implied in the actions of Jesus and the account of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3­11), there are no directions for making such an appointment. By contrast, there are clear qualifications and instructions for the appointment of elders/overseers and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1­13; Titus 1:5­9). It seems strange that apostles of Jesus Christ, concerned about faithful preservation of their message (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2), would provide for the appointment of overseers/elders while ignoring their own succession if such were indeed to be maintained.

In fact, there are certain exegetical hints the apostles of Jesus Christ are not to have successors. In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul listed all the Resurrection and post-Resurrection appearances of Christ and noted “last of all he appeared to me.” While some disagree, the statement is most commonly understood to mean Paul looked upon himself as the last apostle to whom Christ appeared.11 If this is the correct understanding, only the Twelve whom Jesus personally called and those He commissioned in His post-Resurrection appearances made up His original apostles. Apostles are named first among the offices of the church (1 Corinthians 12:28) and the ministry gifts of Ephesians 4:11 because they are foundational, not necessarily because they are continuous leaders in the church. The Ephesians 4:11 passage must be interpreted in the context of the Ephesians letter itself, wherein Paul had already described the church as “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20), and the form of leadership instituted by Paul in the Ephesian church itself and the other churches he founded (Acts 14:23). Writing to Timothy at Ephesus, Paul entrusts the oversight of the church to “elders” (synonymous with bishop or pastor or overseer) and deacons, not apostles and prophets. When he bids an emotional farewell to the leaders of the Ephesian church, which he himself had established, his meeting is with the elders (not apostles or prophets), to whom he entrusts the responsibility of bishop (or overseer) and pastor (or shepherd) (Acts 20:28).

It is difficult to escape the conclusion of Dietrich Müller: “One thing is certain. The N[ew] T[estament] never betrays any understanding of the apostolate as an institutionalized church office, capable of being passed on.”

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Bruce, it would be most helpful if you would kindly post your source for this information.

[Bruce S]

Source

I really didn't want to go again in defending this position, just thought that it was sort of a nice summary of another view that the readers here might find interesting.

Posted for informational purposes only.

[Jake Huether]

Source

I really didn't want to go again in defending this position, just thought that it was sort of a nice summary of another view that the readers here might find interesting.

Posted for informational purposes only.

It was interesting.

Made me think:

If they held strong to the succession of Judas (which has it's written account), then when James died they must have chosen a successor for him, but just weren't "inspired" to write it down in their accounts. This would serve to support the fact that there is much more than just the written accounts (inspired though they are).

[Bruce S]

If they held strong to the succession of Judas (which has it's written account), then when James died they must have chosen a successor for him, but just weren't "inspired" to write it down in their accounts. This would serve to support the fact that there is much more than just the written accounts (inspired though they are).

It is as you note, this very point in time when Apostolic succession, or Papal succession falls apart.

No one THEN agreed upon the primacy of the first two or three successors and in fact, most sort of agree that there were competing centers all claiming to have the right to primacy.

As for Apostles being in a succession line, I'm not aware of them being voted in with newer ones as the living ones were killed, not even when John died, and we know where he spent his last living years, is it reliably recorded that a successor to him as an elected replacement was not made, certainly as a new Apostle.

Just interesting, so oral tradition, superimposed at a much later date, tried to make this lack historically, more historic, after the fact.

Retroactive rewriting of history, it would seem to me.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[Jake Huether]

It is as you note, this very point in time when Apostolic succession, or Papal succession falls apart.

No one THEN agreed upon the primacy of the first two or three successors and in fact, most sort of agree that there were competing centers all claiming to have the right to primacy.

K, I fail to see how I "note"d that? But there was certainly not a dissagreement. I don't know where you get this from.

As for Apostles being in a succession line, I'm not aware of them being voted in with newer ones as the living ones were killed, not even when John died, and we know where he spent his last living years, is it reliably recorded that a successor to him as an elected replacement was not made, certainly as a new Apostle.

As we note: Paul was added to the 12 as an Apostle. So Apostolic succession doesn't mean that one must die for another to succede. Paul was a successor, because he succeeded the original Apostles and taught what they taught. Since the Pope is the leader of the Aposltes, then yes, indeed his possition must be filled when he dies. But the Bishops surrounding him may be added to or subtracted from (by death), according to what the Holy Spirit wishes.

Just interesting, so oral tradition, superimposed at a much later date, tried to make this lack historically, more historic, after the fact.

Retroactive rewriting of history, it would seem to me.

What???

You are set on believing that the Church "retroactivly rewrites history". Yet you don't supply sources or proof. Is that your favorite word, "retroactive".

If you can't prove it, don't say it.

[Bruce S]

You are set on believing that the Church "retroactivly rewrites history". Yet you don't supply sources or proof. Is that your favorite word, "retroactive".

If you can't prove it, don't say it.

OK. Agreed.

I will use "Magisterium Revisionism" or MR for shorthand.

That is where things that WERE agreed upon, but only but people that SEEMED to be in authority, but now are SAID not to HAVE HAD the authority, to issue, say, or decree what they did, are NOW in error.

MR.

[Jake Huether]

OK. Agreed.

I will use "Magisterium Revisionism" or MR for shorthand.

That is where things that WERE agreed upon, but only but people that SEEMED to be in authority, but now are SAID not to HAVE HAD the authority, to issue, say, or decree what they did, are NOW in error.

MR.

Prove it, or don't say it.

[Bruce S]

What, that church leaders agreed, then disagreed later? Or that Papal pronouncements were later replaced with more "in tune" pronouncements?

How many will allow me to continue with MR as the new shorthand for that practice?

[Jake Huether]

How many will allow me to continue with MR as the new shorthand for that practice?

None. Unless you can prove that it occured.

What, that church leaders agreed, then disagreed later? Or that Papal pronouncements were later replaced with more "in tune" pronouncements?

Take your pick. As long as it is really an official document, and doesn't just "look" real.

Source it and show it, and then I will leave this Church for yours.

[Circle_Master]

I'll post this over here..

So based on the logic of you having Apostles today...

Acts 1:12-26

1) They take the place of one of the twelve (v20)

2) They have been a witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (v22)

3) They perform mighty wonders and works and signs (2 Cor 12:12)

Correct?

[Aloysius]

I'll post this over here..

So based on the logic of you having Apostles today...

Acts 1:12-26

1) They take the place of one of the twelve (v20)

2) They have been a witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (v22)

3) They perform mighty wonders and works and signs (2 Cor 12:12)

Correct?

1> sure, they could be traced back to one of the twelve. a bunch take the place of each one. except the Pope, he's the only one directly taking the place of Peter.

2> At the Mass, all Catholics are witness to the death and Ressurection of Christ

3>well, all priest perform mighty wonders such as the Miracle of the Eucharist, and many priests and Bishops out there that heal ppl and perform all sorts of works and signs. but even the ones that don't do, by the power of Christ like any other wonder work or sign, change bread and wine into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of CHrist Jesus.

:cool:

[Circle_Master]

2 and 3 are the lamest thing I have ever heard

You know that is not what it is talking about. The Apostle signs and wonders consisted of mass healings, speaking in tongues, etc.

[-I---Love]

Well if you want healings and tongues Priests do it everyday all over the world - including my own parish.

And not to get off topic, but the Eucharist IS a sacrament of healing.

[Aloysius]

also, i'll admit that the 12 and their direct first successors did hold a higher office than that of current bishops. you can the first and second century Church in the Didache difined their leadership a lil different, but it developed into the bishops and stuff when those who lived with Christ on earth had passed away and the 'overseer', or bishop, would be the closest link they had to the Apostles. however, the Pope is still in the higher office of Apostle that existed in the 1st century, but not necessarily (depending on his holiness (no pun intended, his as a possessive adjective and holiness as something he posseses so i meant how holy he is)) as great of a wonder-worker performing as great of signs.

and i hold to number two, all Catholics have witnessed His Ressurection, the way He intended it :P