2. Does The Bible Teach Apostolic Succession?

There are two answers to this question. 'Yes' ! and 'No' !

'Yes' , the Bible does teach apostolic succession, but 'No', not really as it might be understood and taught today. The Mormons, Roman Catholics and many smaller "Apostolic' church groups teach that there are indeed apostles today, just as there were in Bible times. (The Charismatic believers seem a little lacking here, (to me) in not claiming all the gifts, which should include apostles. Cf. Eph. 4:11 By the same token, dispensationalists need to be well aware of the reasons why they do not believe apostles are with us today, as well as the many/any of the gifts and sign-gifts that are mentioned in Paul's writings.)

But, Biblically speaking, there was only one occurrence of this happening, as is found in the first chapter of Acts. In this case, we find the infamous Judas replaced after his apostasy and suicide. In spite of Judas' betrayal, he was a bona fide apostle.

The Lord chose twelve of His disciples to be 'sent ones'. Luke 6:13-16. Judas is listed as one of them. Cf. Matt. 10:2-6; Mark 3:13-19. Matthew 26:14 states "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot.." cf. Matt. 26:47; Mark 6:7; 14:10 & 17 & 43; Luke 22:3. The Lord said, 'Have not I chosen twelve, and one of you is a devil ?' He refers to Judas. Jn. 6:70-71

There are several reasons why the Lord chose Judas. There is the integrity of the scriptures. He chose Judas because the prophetic plan outlined the facts of a betrayal. Cf. Ps. 41:9; John 13:18-19; 17:12. It is worth our time and effort to study, know and believe the word. There is also the integrity of the living Word. Our Lord states that he chose Judas and then told the disciples of Judas' betrayal before it came to pass, so that when it did come to pass, they would have reason, evidence, memory and confidence to believe all that the Lord claimed to be and say, and find Him worthy of their loyalty, trust and dedication. Finally, we may deduce that it should give cause to reflect on our own loyalty, trust and dedication to Him.

Peter begins the process to select another to replace Judas. Acts 1:15-20.The qualifications for this replace- ment are given in 1:21-22. A1- must have been in company with the rest of the disciples/apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.A2- 'all this time' is defined as 'beginning with the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us. A3- out of such a group, must one be a witness with us of the resurrection of Him (the Lord).

The number 12 is important here. There were to be a witness of twelve voices to the nation of Israel, made up of the twelve tribes. There were twelve thrones for these twelve apostles. Matt. 19:28 The candidates were Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus and Matthias. In 1:24-25, they asked the Lord to show them whether of these two, he hast chosen, that would take part in the ministry and apostleship that Judas had fallen from in transgression.

In 1:26, there was the casting forth of lots, which fell on Matthias, who was numbered with the (other) eleven apostles (making now the number twelve.) cf. Acts 2:14, where Peter stands up with the eleven. Peter as one plus the other eleven makes twelve. Acts 6:2 mentions the twelve.

The last paragraph was due to the teachings of two great Bible teachers( in my estimation) :the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee and the late Dr. M. R. De Haan, who both taught that Peter (and all the others) were out of order when this selection/election took place.(See Pentecost And After Studies in the Book of Acts by DeHaan ) Their claim is that Paul was the Lord's choice.
These following reasons should be sufficient to demonstrate that these brethren made an error here:

a. Peter and the other Apostles were under the teachings of Christ from the time of John's baptism until the day the day he was taken up.
b. Christ promised them the Comforter, who would lead them into all truth. John 16:13
c. After Christ's resurrection, he breathed on them and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit' (John 20:22)
d. After Christ's resurrection, he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. Luke 24:45
e. After Christ's resurrection, he spent forty days with them, teaching (1:1) and giving commandments (1:3) speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (1:3)
f. After Christ's resurrection, he commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. If they were out of God's will by having an election, why would God
stillgive them the Holy Spirit on Pentecost ?
g. Why did not God ever bring this to their attention. There is no record that He was displeased with their action here.
h. This statement just does not seem to fit the facts : After Christ's ascension, he left in the hands of a bunch of incompetents, a few simple orders and within less than 10 days they were out of order.

William R. Newell in his book, Paul vs. Peter ( published by Bible Doctrines To Live By Publications Grand Rapids, MI) discusses this matter on Matthias and Paul. Paul always distinguishes himself as distinct from the twelve. In I Cor. 15, Paul mentions the 'twelve' 15:5, then he mentions 'all the apostles' 15:7, without a whimper that he was not accorded a place with them. He never intimates that the twelve stole his place or acted outside of honesty in their dealings with the matter of Judas and his replacement. Paul would have a problem with McGee and De Haan, but not with Peter amd Matthias.

There is a final consideration concerning James in Acts 12:2. He was killed, but never replaced. There was no council called for a new election. So, we find one case, and only one, of an election to replace an Apostle. But, just as James was killed and NOT replaced, so all the twelve passed on and their offices were NOT FILLED.

JERRY W. STERCHI

Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi