Most Christians belong to a church that holds to some form of apostolic succession, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, and (in a sense) Lutherans. [1] In its strict sense, apostolic succession refers to the continuous chain of bishops ordained by laying on of hands stretching back to the apostles. The churches that claim apostolic succession typically believe that it is required to have valid (or at least assured) sacraments, and may or may not accept others’ claims to apostolic succession. For me, looking into these claims was one of the factors that ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Apostolic succession is somewhat unique among Christian claims in that it requires an unbroken historical line back to the first century. It’s fairly easy to challenge this claim by arguing that ‘apostolic succession’ is a development that arose later than the apostles themselves, even if as early as the second century. In this post, I’ll try to show that, although the ministries of the church and the details of apostolic succession have indeed developed over time, crystallizing around the fourth century, the basic concept does go back to the first century.
Apostolic Succession
First of all, what is apostolic succession? I want to define this term carefully so that I’m not trying to prove too much or too little. It seems to me that Protestants who oppose apostolic succession sometimes define it too narrowly, so that it’s impossible to find in the first few centuries of the Church. [2] Those who defend apostolic succession, on the other hand, sometimes define it so broadly that no one could possibly deny its existence in the New Testament, which makes the claim so weak that it’s almost meaningless.
With this in mind, the claim that I’ll try to defend here is that there is a succession of bishops ordained by laying on of hands going back to the apostles, and the assured Eucharist (hence the assured Church) is intimately tied to these bishops. This claim has three parts: (1) the office of bishop as an office derived from the apostles; (2) ordination to this office via laying on of hands by other bishops, going back to the apostles; (3) the intimate connection between this office, the Eucharist, and the Church. This basic definition does not include:
- The existence of other offices. Was the first century leadership of the Church “two tier” or “three tier”? Was presbyter always a distinct office from bishop? Although these questions are usually tied to the debate over apostolic succession, the claim itself only refers to the office of bishop, so to me they seem tangential.
- The specific form of ordination. Is a bishop ordained by one other bishop, or by two or three? Are other offices (e.g., presbyter) also involved in the ordination? And so on. These questions are not essential to apostolic succession and potentially subject to development.
- The exact manner in which bishop is tied to Eucharist and Church. Could other offices in the early Church preside over the Eucharist? Did this develop over time? That doesn’t necessarily affect the claim of apostolic succession.
- Whether Christian communities without apostolic succession have a true Eucharist or true Church. I won’t talk about “valid” or “invalid” sacraments, but following St Ignatius of Antioch, an “assured” Eucharist (hence an “assured” Church). Apostolic succession assures us of the sacraments without necessarily rejecting others.
First Century
Now that we’ve gotten definitions out of the way, let’s take a look at the historical evidence, starting with the first century. I will organize my thoughts according to the three parts of the claim of apostolic succession as I laid out above: the office of bishop, ordination to that office, and its role(s).
The offices of the first-century Church
Jesus Christ himself is the basis for every office in the Church. He is the original apostle (John 13:16; Heb 3:1), priest (Heb 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5-10; 7–10), prophet (Matt 21:11; John 6:14; Acts 3:20-23), teacher (Matt 23:8; John 3:2; 13:13), pastor (John 10:1-16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25), deacon (Matt 20:28; Luke 22:27; Rom 15:8), and bishop (1 Pet 2:25). [3] These offices, at least some of them, passed down to the apostles, who are referred to as prophets (Acts 13:1?), teachers (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11), pastors (John 21:15-17; 1 Cor 9:1-7), deacons (Acts 1:17; 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 6:4; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23-25), presbyters (1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1), and bishops (Acts 1:20).
In his letters, St Paul gives several lists of gifts or offices in the first-century Church. The gifts of grace that he mentions to the Romans are prophecy, ministry (diakonia), teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and showing mercy (Rom 12:6-8). He says to the Corinthians that God has appointed in the Church apostles, teachers, prophets, miracle workers, healers, helpers, administrators, and those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:28-31). Later he mentions five specific offices: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11-12). Paul doesn’t include deacons, presbyters and bishops among these charismatic offices, which suggests that they weren’t carefully distinguished at this stage. [4] However, he refers to Phoebe as a deaconess in Cenchrea (Rom 16:1), and addresses one of his letters to “all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil 1:1).
With the charismatic offices of prophet, teacher, etc., the two offices of the first-century local Church were bishop and deacon. The office of deacon was established when waiting on the communal tables became too much for the apostles, and they delegated “waiting tables” (diakonein trapezais) to six people who were chosen by the community (Acts 6:1-6). [5] Sts Barnabas and Paul “appointed presbyters in each church” on their mission through Asia Minor (Acts 14:23). Presbyter and bishop were co-referring terms in the first-century Church, as shown by, among other texts, Paul’s statement to the Ephesian presbyters that “the Holy Spirit has made you bishops” (Acts 20:17, 28). [6] Every first-century text that describes offices of the first-century local Church refers to bishops and deacons, but never the “three-tier” structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13; Didache 15.1; 1 Clem 42.4-5).
After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles choose someone to replace Judas, to succeed to his “apostleship,” “ministry” (diakonia, lit. “diaconate”), and, quoting Psalm 108/109:8, “office” (episkopē, lit. “episcopate”). They cast lots, and Matthias is chosen as the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:15-26). This passage, in fact, does not show apostolic succession as defined above: Matthias is appointed an apostle, not a bishop, there is no mention of laying on of hands, and no connection to the Eucharist. Furthermore, the main criterion for Matthias’ apostleship – that he served Jesus from the beginning (1:21-22) – isn’t possible beyond the first century. What it does show is that “episcopate” (and “diaconate”!) were included in apostleship, and it illustrates the principle of succession, which are important components of apostolic succession.
Ordination in the first-century Church
The first deacons and presbyters in the Church were ordained by the apostles themselves (Acts 6:1-6; 14:23). In the case of the deacons, they were chosen by the whole community, and the apostles “prayed and laid hands on them” (6:5-6). The Didache agrees that it is up to the congregation to “choose for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord” (15.1). It also provides criteria for discerning genuine teachers, apostles, and prophets, thereby subordinating these itinerant ministries to the local congregation (11–13). St Clement of Rome, in the later first century, says that bishops and deacons were initially appointed by the apostles, and “afterward by other reputable men with the consent of the whole Church” (1 Clem 42.4-5; 44.2).
St Paul tells St Timothy to “rekindle the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6), which also “was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim 4:14). [7] Timothy is given lists of qualifications for bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3:1-13), and told not to “lay hands on anyone hastily” (5:22; cf. Titus 1:5). We can conclude that presbyters and deacons were chosen by the whole local Church and ordained via prayer and laying on of hands by the apostles and/or other presbyters. Prayer and laying on of hands also took place for other purposes than ordination in the first century, such as confirmation after baptism (Acts 8:14-18; 19:1-7), sending on a specific mission (13:2-3), and anointing of the sick (Jas 5:14-15), which were also performed by apostles and/or other presbyters.
The role of the bishop in the first-century Church
The clearest descriptions of the roles of presbyter/bishop in the first century are found in the pastoral epistles. [8] St Timothy’s duties included commanding, teaching, exhorting, publicly reading Scripture (4:10-14), maintaining apostolic teaching (2 Tim 1:12-14) and passing it on to faithful people who will pass it on to others (2:1-2). St Titus was told to appoint presbyters in each town to exhort and teach sound doctrine (Titus 1:5-9; cf. 2:1). In the book of Acts, at the council of Jerusalem, the presbyters appear to be on equal footing with the apostles (15:1-29). Presbyters are supposed to anoint, pray over, and lay hands on sick believers (Jas 5:14-15). Furthermore, as we’ve already seen, ordination took place with laying on of hands by presbyters (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; cf. 1 Clem 44:1-2).
Public reading of Scripture, exhortation, and teaching would have happened at the communal gathering and meal of the early Christian community. Since this gathering was the central locus of Christian unity and activity (e.g., 1 Cor 10–14), the episkopoi would be “overseers” primarily of this banquet, although itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers could also lead the first-century Church gathering. [9] According to the Didache, the bishops and deacons “perform for you the service of prophets and teachers” (15.1-2), which included, alongside exhorting and teaching, praying the Eucharist (10.7; cf. 11.9).
1 Clement, written shortly after the death of Sts Peter and Paul (5–6), provides an important window into the office of bishop in the immediate post-apostolic era. The church at Corinth had apparently removed some (or all) of their presbyters without due process (1.1ff; 44.5-47.7). St Clement writes that, in the old covenant, God commanded sacrifices to be done in an orderly manner, at fixed times, with the proper services being performed by the high priest, priests, and Levites; and those who controverted this order were punished by death (40.1-41.3). Likewise, the apostles were sent by Christ, who was sent by God, and they appointed bishops and deacons in every town, just as Moses had appointed the descendants of Aaron to be priests (42–43).
But the apostles knew that “there would be strife over the office of bishop” (44.1). Therefore, they arranged that “if they should die, other approved men should succeed in their service” (44.2). Now the Corinthians have unjustly removed “these, who were appointed by [the apostles] or by other reputable men with the consent of the whole Church” (44.3). [10] Clement tells them, “It is no light sin for us if we remove those who have offered the gifts of the episcopate blamelessly and in holiness” (44.4). This reference to “offering the gifts of the episcopate,” along with the analogy to Israelite priests that he gave earlier, shows that the office of bishop was closely tied to the sacrifice of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 10:16-21; Didache 14). Therefore, St Clement exhorts the church in Corinth to re-submit themselves to the presbyters that they removed (57.1-59.2).
Other considerations
According to the basic definition that I gave above, apostolic succession was definitely present in the first-century Church. There was indeed an office of bishop, which was derived from the authority of the apostles. People were ordained to this office by laying on of hands by the apostles, or by other bishops who were ordained by the apostles. This office was closely tied to the communal gathering and Eucharist, such that it was a great sin to unjustly remove a bishop. In the first century, this office was referred to as both “episcopate” and “presbytery,” and individuals in this office could be called “bishop” or “presbyter,” in contrast to the later distinction of two offices by these names.
It’s clear that first-century Church leadership was “two-tier” (i.e., bishops and deacons) rather than “three-tier” (i.e., bishops, presbyters, and deacons). Although there were other offices in the Church, such as prophets and teachers, we only find two offices that were connected to the local body, the bishops or presbyters and deacons. [11] In fact, the distinction between bishop and presbyter and the “two-tier” vs. “three-tier” structure of the Church are secondary to the central issue of apostolic succession, which deals only with the office of bishop. [12] Therefore, it’s perfectly consistent to accept both apostolic succession and the fact that the first-century Church had a “two-tier” structure.
At least in some cases, such as first-century Philippi and Ephesus, it’s clear that there were multiple bishops in a city (Acts 20:17, 28; Phil 1:1). The apostles appointed “presbyters in each church” (Acts 14:23), and St Titus was told to “appoint presbyters in each city” (Titus 1:5), which suggests but doesn’t require multiple presbyters per church and city. On the other hand, one bishop is mentioned alongside multiple deacons in the church (1 Tim 3). Given that there were at least some cities with multiple bishops, it’s unclear whether they each headed a different gathering, or they acted collectively as a council over one gathering, or one of them had authority over the others, or some combination of these. My own guess is that the structure of the first-century episcopate varied across time and place, and that there were probably multiple gatherings in many cities, since only a fairly small number of people could fit in the dining rooms where these gatherings were held.
I’d like to continue looking at the development of the offices of the Church, and the continuation of apostolic succession, across the first few centuries. However, this post is already getting too long! I’ll save the second (through fourth?) centuries for next time.
______________________________
[1] This makes up a little less than 75% of Christians worldwide based on online statistics. With regard to Lutheranism, the Church of Sweden claims episcopal apostolic succession, while other Lutherans hold to presbyterian succession.
[2] For example, this Anabaptist article includes the monarchical episcopate and even conciliar authority in its definition of apostolic succession! The claim defended here only includes (2) and (4) of the definition in the linked article, namely, that bishops are ordained by other bishops in a direct line from the apostles, and this is important because it assures valid ordination and the true Church. Other issues are tangential to this basic claim.
[3] The Greek term diakonos refers to a servant or minister, presbyteros to an elder, and episkopos to an overseer. From the first century, these terms came to be used in the Church to refer to specific ecclesial ministries, but without losing their original meaning. The English words “deacon,” “presbyter,” and “bishop” which refer to these specific ministries are transliterations of the Greek words. To make matters more confusing, the English word “priest” is a shortened version of “presbyter,” but it corresponds to a different word in Greek (hiereus) which wasn’t used to refer to any Church ministry in the first century. “Priest” was later used for bishops, and only in the fourth century came to be used for presbyters when this ministry came to be closely associated with the offering of the Eucharist in the local parish.
In this post, I will use “deacon,” “presbyter,” and “bishop” respectively to translate these Greek words (and cognates), in order to emphasize the continuity with the official ministries of the Church in the second century and beyond. However, it’s still important to recognize that diakonos and episkopos can apply (in a less technical sense) to every office, and indeed every believer, since we all – especially our leaders – are called to be servants of one another (Matt 20:25-28; John 12:26; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 1 Tim 4:6) and overseers of our own salvation (Gal 6:1; Phil 2:4).
[4] It’s possible that diakonia in Romans 12:7 refers specifically to the office of deacon, but this seems unlikely to me; given the context, Paul is likely referring to ministry in general.
[5] Tradition regards these six men, including St Stephen, as the first deacons. Note that their ministry is referred to as diakonia twice in this passage, and one of the primary meanings of diakonos is one who waits tables (cf. John 2:5, 9), so the identification of these six as the first deacons is self-evident.
[6] The modern consensus that “presbyter” and “bishop” were the same office in the first century was established by J. B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry (Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1901). This is clear not only from Acts 20:17-38 but also Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-2; and 1 Clement 42ff.
[7] “The laying on of hands of the presbytery” might mean that the presbyters laid hands on St Timothy, or that this laying on of hands (by Paul alone?) ordained him to the presbytery. Either way, 1 Tim 4:14 and 5:22 together indicate that presbyters ordained others by laying on hands.
[8] Whether the pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) were written by St Paul or someone else under his name, the “two tier” view of Church leadership described there is more primitive than the “three tier” leadership found later. Since the “three tier” model is attested by St Ignatius of Antioch as being prevalent in Asia Minor already at the beginning of the second century, the fact that the pastoral epistles describe a “two tier” model in Ephesus implies that they date to the first century.
[9] Valeriy A. Aliykin, The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries (Brill, 2010), 69-72.
[10] The grammar of this passage isn’t perfectly clear. “If they should die” could refer to the apostles, in which case this shows that there was an office that succeeded from the apostles (presumably bishop), or it could refer to the bishops and deacons, in which case it only shows a continuation of those offices. If the “other reputable men” are the same as the “other approved men,” then St Clement indicates that bishops and deacons were ordained by other bishops who succeeded from the apostles. Due to the ambiguity, the only thing that this passage says for sure is, as I will show, that the office of bishop was intimately tied with the Eucharist.
[11] A handful of scholars have argued for a “three-tier” structure in the first-century Church, such as Felix L. Cirlot, Apostolic Succession: Is It True? (1949). Cirlot admits that “bishop” and “presbyter” referred to the same people in the first-century, but argues that there was a third office in addition to bishop and deacon, which alone had the ability to ordain (including Sts Timothy and Titus and the “other approved men” of 1 Clement 44), and later “bishop” came to refer to this office. This has been rejected by most scholars, and to me it seems very implausible that this extremely important office of the earliest Church would be given no title (Cirlot refers to them as “deutero-Apostles”).
[12] Against, e.g., Gavin Ortlund, “apostolic succession usually involves four tenets: (1) the office of bishop is distinct from the office of presbyter/elder jure divino (by divine right), with those in the former office specifically designated as the successors of the apostles; (2) bishops exercise regional jurisdiction in an overarching hierarchical unity; (3) valid episcopal succession subsists via the laying on of hands from one bishop to another; (4) apart from valid apostolic succession, there is normally no valid ordained ministry (holy orders) and thus no efficacious sacraments (with baptism as the frequent exception),” Twitter, January 31, 2024, 10:36pm, https://x.com/gavinortlund/status/1752898727231070373.
No comments:
Post a Comment