Apostolic Succession - evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mijoy2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mijoy2

Guest
And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons… Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mark 3:14-15; Matthew 18:18)

My question is; where in the bible, or elsewhere (tradition) is there evidence that Christ intended to pass down, over time, powers that were authorized to the twelve apostles.

There is an understanding by some that a careful reading of the bible seems to indicate that in a very short period of time after Christ’s ascension the world would end (or 2nd coming would occur). This, of course would preclude any need for apostolic succession.

I am aware of the replacing of Judas to bring the number back to twelve. I am looking for possibly other evidence. That doesn’t seem to answer the question because we certainly have many more than 12 priests and bishops today.

So I ask, from where (bible or otherwise) does this teaching stem?

Thanks Much
 
In the Old Testament, the tradition of succession of ministry crops up multiple times: Moses to Aaron; Elijah to Elisha; Saul to David to Solomon; etc. I really could go on for a while. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament and He did not suddenly change how he did things. Even in the New Testament, the ministerial succession of the High Priest of the Temple still carried with it the power of prophecy as seen in the ruling of Gamaliel on the fate of the Apostles and the followers of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles. Now, if you are specifically looking for successors to the Apostles in the case of Bishops, not simply the replacing of Judas as an Apostle, this also has its roots in the Acts of the Apostles, although you must look closely at the Scriptures to find it. After James the Greater, brother of John, was beheaded, another man by the name of James was made bishop of Jerusalem. It is this James (identified as James the Lesser or James the Son of Alpheus) that Peter is sent to by the angel after his imprisonment, “Report this to James, and the brothers.” (Acts 12:17) Why was James the first person who needed to be informed, because he had succeeded James the Greater as Bishop of Jerusalem. Because there was no one elected to replace James the Greater as an Apostle, the succession of Bishop of Jerusalem moved independently of the office of Apostle. Again, James appears in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem (we know it is James the Lesser as James the Greater has already been martyred) and speaks about the dietary law and its application to the gentiles. Paul too makes reference to James in Jerusalem as the only other Apostle residing within the city apart from Peter. Why? Because he was the Bishop.

In Paul’s first Letter to Timothy, he lays out the qualifications for being a bishop. If the episcopate was simply passed from one Apostle to his successor, then no qualifications would need to be made public knowledge, as it would be under the direct authority of the Apostle to choose his successor

As for priests, there were already a number of priests in addition to the Twelve at the Council of Jerusalem. “Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” (Acts 15:22) “Presbyters” in this case meaning priests.
 
Last edited:
Thorough answer, my appreciation. I will read again and research your points. Thank you.
 
Mijoy2 said:
There is an understanding by some that a careful reading of the bible seems to indicate that in a very short period of time after Christ’s ascension the world would end (or 2nd coming would occur). This, of course would preclude any need for apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
And that is why simple logic alone proves that God intended for there to be successors to the Apostles through the ages.

If God intended to end the world within a generation (or so), then there would be no need for a succession.

If God intended to end the world far in the future, then a succession would be necessary.

We know which of those is true. That means that UNLESS God actually did intend for a long-term succession, then He would be abandoning us.
 
Fr.David96, I totally agree. If the world was going to end during the time of the Apostles there would not reason for here to be successors to the Apostles as God would have no reason to have that if He’s going to end the world. Since that did not happen as you have so stated then Christ wanted to be successors and Christ did appoint Peter to be the Rock on which Christ was going to build His Church on. Also to add to your point if the world was going to end during the time of the Apostles there would be no reason for Christ to tell peter he was going to build His Church on Peter.
 
Christ knows everything, correct?

Why would He limit the expansion of the Gospel to the limited lifetimes of the 11 martyrs? How were they supposed to reach the ends of the earth - ends which were known only to Christ?

Timothy. Titus. The laying on of hands.

Logic. Common sense.

Paul talked a lot. He bored poor Eutychus to death. He wrote a lot. The others talked, but wrote little to nothing. There is a better argument against Christianity here than against Apostolic succession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top