Apostolic (pronounced “AP’ostolic”) succession is the belief that the original 12 Apostles that Jesus chose were either all succeeded by replacements (i.e., a total of 12 Apostles has always existed somewhere on earth since Christ), or, just Peter (the chief Apostle) was replaced through time.
Some also believe that Apostolic succession has been passed down through church elders (also called “bishops”).
But is Apostolic Succession Biblically factual, or is it just another one of the multitude of fabrications and religious traditions that Jesus so strongly condemned (in Mt. 15.1-9) when He taught that men’s traditions “nullify the Word of God” (other translations say: “BREAK the Word of God”).
Here are three reasons that together prove that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is false:
REASON #1—Because it is a total fabrication of men’s imaginations, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
Please consider the following disturbing statements which were among the final words that the Apostle Peter would leave for Biblical posterity. In 2 Peter 2.1,3 he said this:
2 Peter 2.1,3—But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies…
By covetousness [greed] they will exploit you with deceptive words [“fabricated stories”]; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber [sleep]; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.
Through time, God has made it clear to people of all ages—from the Old Testament to the New Testament—that men are not permitted to add to or take away from the Word of God. They are not permitted to manufacture false narratives that simply don’t exist in Scripture. Such narratives are often more than mere harmless additions, but contain spiritually destructive ramifications. Please consider the following Biblical warnings as examples:
Deuteronomy 4.2—You shall not add to the Word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
(Question: Do you think it’s logical to think that while it was wrong to add/subtract from the Law of Moses, it’s just fine to add/subtract to the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9.21)? Let’s read further.)
Rev 22.18-19—For I testify [warn] to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this Book;
and if anyone takes away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(This applies to Revelation, but the theme of “not tampering with the Word of God” is obvious.)
1 Cor 4.6 rsv—I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond [nkjv: “think beyond”] what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Matthew 4.4—Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
(More verses on the importance of not modifying God’s Word)
I have listed the above verses as a WARNING FROM THE WORD OF GOD.
As we unfold the the following logic, please pay particular attention to teachings that can’t be verified in the Word of God.
That’s because if they can’t be verified, they are illegitimate.
Which brings us back to our topic of Apostolic Succession. Where can it be found in Scripture?
The answer: nowhere.
REASON #2—The Replacement of Judas Iscariot fails to prove Apostolic Succession.
The best argument I’ve heard in support of the Apostles still being succeeded with other Apostles right up to the present day, is the argument that since Judas Iscariot (Jesus’ betrayer) was replaced by a new Apostle (Matthias) after Judas’ suicide—then wouldn’t that suggest that when other Apostles passed away, they would also be replaced?
Well, no.
First of all—and this is incredibly significant—the need to replace Judas with a new Apostle was prophesied to happen (Mt 1.20; Ps 109.8; 69.25).
Matthias, as we know, was the one chosen by God through the 11 Apostles to fulfill those prophecies and replace Judas, “who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus” (see Acts 1.16).
And the reasons Judas would need to be replaced are also obvious. For one thing, the Apostles would need reliable, sincere help from a true follower of Christ for the great mission before them (see Mt 28.18-20). When they were making the choice between Barsabbas and Matthias, Peter said that “one of these MUST BECOME a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1.22). Becoming a witness to the world of the resurrection of Jesus Christ would be an enormous job, since it was the infancy stage of the greatest kingdom to exist on earth: the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
So, while Judas Iscariot was prophesied to pay with his life for his unconscionable crimes, and was replaced with a true follower of Christ just prior to the opening day of the Kingdom, Matthias, ready to go to work from day one of the Kingdom…
…I know of no authentic Biblical or historical evidence anywhere that ANY of the other Apostles were ever replaced. Nor do I know of any Biblical promise, prophecy, or indication that “only 12 Apostles” would need to perpetually exist. Remember, Paul was also an Apostle (the 13th)—but not of the Jews, who already formerly had 12 tribes, and now 12 Apostles. Paul rather was sent to the Gentiles – Acts 9.15 – and was fully endorsed not only by Jesus Himself (Acts 9.1-31), the early Christian Church (Acts 15), but also by the chief Apostle, Peter, in 2 Peter 3.15-17).
THE NON-REPLACEMENT OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
And while we’re talking about it, in Acts 12.1-3, we read of the Apostle James being murdered by King Herod. (This James should not be confused with the writer of the Book of James, who was the half-brother of Jesus, and a key leader in the early church – See Acts 15.) So, upon the death of the Apostle James, what did the church do? Did they once again have a special meeting (as they did in Acts 1) to determine James’ replacement—in the same way that they had determined Judas’ replacement?
If so, such a significant account is strangely omitted. Isn’t it a bit odd that the account of the replacement of Judas—an evil man—was important enough to mention in Scripture, but the account of the “replacement” of James (a good man) would be entirely omitted in Scripture, and never recorded to have occurred anywhere in history? Furthermore, upon the deaths of the other Apostles, there was never any mention in Scripture or early history of anyone replacing them. Nor was there any prophecy that foretold of such a thing happening—except in the case of Judas, a fraud whose Apostolic replacement was prophesied.
Finally, the passing of the first century Apostles, without succession to “new Apostles” (and thus without the conferring of miraculous gifts to others, and thus the cessation of the miraculous gifts) is better understood when we realize that God promised miraculous gifts would also be ceasing (see 4 Facts That Prove Miracles Have Passed Away, REASON #2)). And when we understand why miraculous gifts existed and their importance in the early church, then we can also see why and when they would be terminating, which was when the Bible was completed in it’s entirely, meaning all prophecies had been confirmed and recorded in the Bible (again, for proof see: 4 Facts That Prove Miracles Have Passed Away).
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IS A MADE-UP STORY, LACKING ANY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. IT IS MERELY A TRADITION OF MEN.
So, again, please notice that it was prophesied that Jesus’ betrayer would be replaced, so he was. Please notice also that it was NOT prophesied that James (or ANY OF THE APOSTLES AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH ON PENTECOST) would be replaced, so they were not, per any Scriptural account.
And they were not for one simple reason: Because it was not God’s will that they should be.
REASON #3—God wanted to maintain the symbolic number 12 from the beginning of the Church
Another consideration is the possibility that God wanted to make sure that the symbolic number “12” (for the Jews) was maintained for the opening day of the church, recorded in Acts 2.
Having 12 Apostles for the beginning of the Kingdom maintained the Divine symbol of “12” (see Rev 12.1; 21.12-14,21; 22.2). Of course, there were 12 tribes of Israel (Mt 1.28; Acts 26.7). And the Church itself is called spiritual Israel, meaning that in totality, spiritually speaking, we would have 12 tribes also, so God determined to also have 12 Apostles. But just as the 12 tribal leaders passed away, and were not replaced with other designated tribal leaders, so the 12 Apostles also passed away, and were not replaced by 12 more Apostles, who were themselves replaced with others in continuous succession.
NOTE: All verses quoted from the NKJV unless otherwise indicated.
RECOMMENDED READING:
2 Reasons Why the Old Testament Law Has Passed Away
Here’s why First Century Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit have passed away
Here’s Why the Sabbath Day Isn’t Binding on Christians Today
VERSES–Not Adding to or Taking Away From the Word of God