Is it really true that “there is no trace” of the doctrine of apostolic succession in the N.T.?
Introductory Note: if we search the texts of the New Testament for a passage that says, “Hereby I, Apostle N.N., declare so-and-so to be my successor,” we will certainly not find it. Of such an expression, “there is no trace.” Yet neither is a phrase of that sort necessary in order to uphold the doctrine of apostolic succession! It is enough to look at what the apostles in fact did to realize that they intended to establish successors, that is, men who would guide the local churches with authority received from the apostles. In other articles on this site one can see how the Fathers of the Church of the first four centuries and the magisterium of the Church have interpreted the Scriptures and taught on this point. For a brief exposition of the doctrine, and to learn what the expression “apostolic succession” refers to and what it does not refer to, see the article by A. Lang.
If we read the Scriptures attentively, and above all without prejudice, we shall see that the office which Jesus gives to the Apostles of ruling, teaching, and sanctifying the Church of God cannot end with their death. Jesus intended that the Church should endure even to the consummation of the world (Mt 28:20), that it should be preached to every creature (Mk 16:15; Mt 28:18), and that it should reach even to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8). This mission entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles is impossible to carry out if the office of ruling, teaching, and sanctifying is not extended in some manner even to the end of the ages and to the ends of the earth—something that cannot happen if that office ends with the Apostles, as is obvious.
Let us examine some particular texts in which it is confirmed that the Apostles, aware that they would die and that the Church had to endure until the end of the world, and that it was like “a city seated on a mountain” (that is… visible!), intended to institute men who, in their place, would govern the Church with authority, and who in turn would institute others in their place. This is what we call “apostolic succession.” Doubtless the Apostles did this not of their own will, but moved by the Holy Spirit, and most probably by precise instructions from Jesus himself, as Clement, bishop of Rome, states (see the article with the texts of the Fathers). In this way the authority which these successors of the apostles possessed is regarded as coming from God, and not as merely organizational, and much less “invisible,” since these successors occupy the place of the Apostles. (See the article on the magisterium of the Church and that of A. Lang for the distinction between what was transmissible in the apostolic office and what was not.) This will become clear after we analyze some passages.
The “Pastoral” Epistles
Thomas Aquinas rightly notes that the subject matter of these letters is “the instruction of those who rule the people of God” (Commentary on 1 Timothy, prologue). In these letters, both Timothy and Titus appear as:
- a) those who hold the place of Paul, that is, they act in his name, with his authority:
These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth… I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side.
(1 Tim 3:14f and 5:21)
He even confers upon them the authority to appoint others at the head of the church:
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee (Titus 1:5) Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste (1 Tim 5:22). And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also (2 Tim 2:2).
It is clear, then, that the Apostle entrusts them to act in his place, doing nothing except what he had told them, and even confers upon them the authority that until then was reserved to the Apostles alone, namely, to establish the guides of the church (see Acts 14:22-23).
Paul is instructing them, knowing that death is near to him (2 Tim 4:5-8); these are, then, instructions to be put into practice by the leaders of the churches after his death, and until the coming of the Lord (1 Tim 6:14), which is why we understand Paul’s concern that Titus and Timothy take special care in choosing those who are to succeed them (see the quotations above). It is clear that he is in fact leaving them as those responsible for the churches in his place.
- b) they are in charge of the churches placed under their care with full authority: To Timothy he entrusts the delicate mission of guarding the doctrine, a mission which, though shared by all believers, finds in Timothy its chief guardian:
These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto… These things command and teach… Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine… Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee… (1 Tim 4:6.11.13.16)
It is clear that Timothy’s office is exclusively his, in the sense that Paul leaves one man responsible for the community in what concerns teaching, and that man is Timothy. The others “hear” (1 Tim 4:16). Further on he continues in the same vein:
These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing… I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a good confession, that thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ… O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called… (1 Tim 6:3.13-14,20)
Then he adds with even greater force:
I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine (2 Tim 4:1f).
He will command the same to Titus:
But speak thou the things that become sound doctrine… In all things show thyself an example of good works, in doctrine, in integrity, in gravity, the sound word that can not be blamed… These things speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee (Titus 2:1.7-8,15).
It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly, that they who believe in God may be careful to excel in good works (Titus 3:8).
It should be remembered that the office of teaching “with all authority” was the proper office of the Apostles, as is attested throughout all the Scriptures of the New Testament (see for example Acts 6:2-4).
Timothy is also instructed (1 Tim 2:1-11) as to how the worship of Christians ought to be, so that he may supervise it and not allow things to be done in any haphazard way.
On the other hand, Paul is careful to hand on to Timothy and Titus important matters concerning the government of the Church, such as the qualities that those who wish to serve as bishops, deacons, or presbyters must have; and not only that, but also how they are to be regarded if they are accused and brought to trial—all these being things which, by their very nature, pertain to persons who hold authority over the whole community (see 1 Tim 3:1-10; 5:15-20; 2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:5-9; 2:15ff). And he also entrusts to them the rest of the community: the elderly, the young, maidens, widows, adolescents, and slaves (1 Tim 5:1-16; Titus 2:2-10). And finally he teaches them how heretics are to be admonished and eventually anathematized:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment (Titus 3:10)
In a word, Titus and Timothy are established by Paul to govern the churches with full authority. An “invisible” church, as some theorize, without men of first and last name possessing apostolic authority—how could it apply the discipline of “excommunication,” or, as the text says, “avoid” one who causes divisions? For without doubt that one will find biblical passages which, according to him, confirm his doctrine! And who will be right?
- c) they are established with divine authority: in fact Timothy and Titus (and later the others) received their authority through the imposition of hands by the Apostle, which always brought with it the grace of God granted to them to carry forward the office they were receiving:
For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God, who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world… Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us (2 Tim 1:6-9.13-14).
Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood (1 Tim 4:14).
An office such as that of ruling the churches, which is given with signs of divine grace (“spirit,” “power of God,” “spiritual gift”), can come from none other than God himself, who alone is able to grant such graces.
On the other hand, those very men whom Paul had established “priests in every church” (Acts 14:23) were regarded by all as established by the Holy Spirit himself:
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
That is to say, those who have been placed at the head of the churches as their pastors through the imposition of hands (Timothy and Titus are the clearest examples in the whole New Testament) are regarded as placed in that office by the Holy Spirit himself; it is clear, then, that the authority which they possess comes to them as a charism from God. This charism, in favor of the faithful transmission of the gospel message until the end of the ages, is what we call “apostolic succession.”
The Acts of the Apostles
The whole book of Acts, as its very title declares, is the account of the first apostolic actions of the primitive Church, and in particular of Peter and Paul. It is a true delight, and we give thanks to God and to Luke, its author, for such a treasure. There we can see set forth—not by way of dogmatic definition, as the Church would later do to remove all doubt, but as an actual pastoral practice—the reality of men who hold supreme authority in the local churches, not of their own will, but by the disposition of God and of the Apostles. This authority we call “apostolic succession,” that is, the authority which the Apostles themselves wished those who were to preside over the Christian communities “until the end of the world” to possess, and whom the Christian must regard as occupying the place of the Apostles.
- a) James, the brother of the Lord
The figure who stands out most in this regard, and with great clarity, is James.
It must be understood that in the Scriptures of the New Testament several persons named “James” appear (gr: “Iakobus”). For what concerns us now, it is important to know that the James who appears at the council meeting of Jerusalem and in some of Paul’s letters is not one of the Twelve. One may consult, for example, these articles in “The Word Biblical Commentary” (edited by Protestant scholars) on the author of the canonical letter of James (in English), and above all “The Anchor Bible Dictionary” (also edited by Protestant authors) on the name “James” in the New Testament (in English) and on James, the brother of the Lord (already translated into Spanish). One may also consult any biblical commentary or dictionary.
Well then, this James, who, though not one of the Twelve, is nevertheless at the head of the community of Jerusalem, is seen by Paul and the Twelve as a successor of theirs in the government of that community, with all the authority that entails, in such a way that the faithful, and even the Apostles themselves, submit to his directions. Let us see what the Scriptures tell us.
But he (Peter), beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place. (Acts 12:17)
Note here the importance of James in the direction of the community, who must be informed of the extraordinary event of Peter’s liberation; the reason? Doubtless because he was the pastor of that community of Jerusalem, a pastor recognized by Peter.
We read concerning the council of Jerusalem:
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: AFTER THESE THINGS I WILL RETURN, AND WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, WHICH IS FALLEN DOWN; AND THE RUINS THEREOF I WILL REBUILD, AND I WILL SET IT UP: THAT THE RESIDUE OF MEN MAY SEEK AFTER THE LORD, AND ALL NATIONS UPON WHOM MY NAME IS INVOKED, SAITH THE LORD, WHO DOTH THESE THINGS. TO THE LORD WAS HIS OWN WORK KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted, but that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath. (Acts 15:13-21)
We know that this intervention of James is decisive in the council of Jerusalem, and it is a matter of deciding nothing less than what is necessary, and what is not, for salvation. What authority this man has, who is not an apostle and who is at the head of the Church in Jerusalem, no less! Then, in the letter which they send to the communities of Asia, it is said: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…” (15:28). These are words truly full of meaning: that “us” is not only the apostles, but also James and the elders, who had gathered to deliberate on that matter (15:6). So that we have, already in the apostolic age, certain men acting with authority over questions of faith and government, something which, of course, would continue as the Apostles passed away, as they died. That is what, in the Catholic Church, is known as “apostolic succession.”
Another text on the authority with which James and the other elders acted. Luke recounts:
And after those days, being prepared, we went up to Jerusalem. And there went also with us some of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing with them one Mnason a Cyprian, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following, Paul went in with us unto James; and all the ancients were assembled. Whom when he had saluted, he related particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. But they hearing it, glorified God, and said to him: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews that have believed: and they are all zealous for the law. Now they have heard of thee that thou teachest those Jews, who are among the Gentiles, to depart from Moses: saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor walk according to the custom. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men, who have a vow on them. Take these, and sanctify thyself with them: and bestow on them, that they may shave their heads: and all will know that the things which they have heard of thee, are false; but that thou thyself also walkest keeping the law. But as touching the Gentiles that believe, we have written, decreeing that they should only refrain themselves from that which has been offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day being purified with them, entered into the temple, giving notice of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for every one of them. (Acts 21:15-26)
Here we have Paul, he who was an Apostle not by human design, but by the direct and emphatic will of Jesus Christ, who had received the gospel directly from the Lord (see Gal 1:1); well then, this same Paul goes to see James!, with whom the elders were also present. To them he gives an account of what he is doing among the Gentiles, and after they had glorified God for what he had done through Paul’s preaching, they command him to fulfill precepts of the law that no longer had any value, but so as not to scandalize the Jews who were still scrupulous in this matter. What does Paul do? Well, without saying a single word, he goes and fulfills the rites they command of him! Why does he do this? Because James and the other elders HAD AUTHORITY, even though they were not Apostles. We may ask ourselves: was the government of the Church interrupted in the years that followed?
In Gal 2:9, Paul says that James, together with Peter and John, were regarded as “pillars” of the Church (on the identity of this James, who is not one of the Apostles, see a biblical commentary, for example Richard Longenecker, in “The Word Biblical Commentary,” volume 41, “Galatians,” 1990).
So that if the Apostles themselves recognized one who was not an Apostle, like James, and also the other elders (gr. “presbyteroi”) as valid pastors of the church in Jerusalem with all the authority we have seen (pillars!), what doubt can there be concerning apostolic succession? And if, as some say, it is not a matter of a succession of men in the office of heads of the community with authority to teach and to govern conferred by the Apostles—that is, of an “apostolic succession”—then what is it about?
- b) The presbyters of the community of Ephesus
There is a text, which we have already cited above, of great value when it comes to seeing the authority which the leaders of the post-apostolic community possessed. It is Paul’s discourse at Miletus, shortly before setting out for Rome, from which he would never return (something Paul knew—Acts 20:25). Remaining at Miletus, Paul sends a message to Ephesus asking them to come and see him, but curiously he does not summon the whole community of believers, but “the ancients of the church” (20:17). Why? It will be seen in the discourse he gives them (we cite only the passages most important to our theme):
And when they were come to him, and were together, he said to them: You know, from the first day that I came into Asia, in what manner I have been with you, for all the time, serving the Lord with all humility, and with tears, and temptations which befell me by the conspiracies of the Jews; how I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have preached it to you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ…
And now, behold, I know that all you, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to witness this day, that I am clear from the blood of all men; for I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears, to admonish every one of you night and day. And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, who is able to build up, and to give an inheritance among all the sanctified…
I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive. And when he had said these things, kneeling down, he prayed with them all. And there was much weeping among them all; and falling on the neck of Paul, they kissed him, being grieved most of all for the word which he had said, that they should see his face no more. And they brought him on his way to the ship. (Acts 20:18-38).
We point out only a few things:
– Paul summons the elders of Ephesus, since he wishes to entrust to them his last words, to encourage them, to warn them. Why to them and not to all the believers of Ephesus? Because Paul knew that, after him and the Twelve, THEY WOULD GOVERN THE CHURCH OF GOD. That is what we call “apostolic succession.” “Elders” is a technical term, and it refers to those who governed the churches; in other words, Paul did not summon the “old men,” but those responsible for the community, who would for the most part be of a certain age, no doubt, whence the word originates (which already existed in the Old Testament—Hebrew: “zaqen,” “elder”—and which also referred to those who presided over the people).
– These elders had heard from Paul (by oral tradition, the only way of transmitting the gospel then) a great many things related to the “counsel of God,” “for three years, night and day,” and “one by one,” as well as “publicly.” These things enabled the elders to govern the church according to God, and to distinguish sound doctrine from what was not, and consequently to exercise a true authority over the rest of the faithful.
– Paul commands them to “take heed” (gr. “proséjete”) to themselves and “to the whole flock” (gr. “panti to poimnío”) in which the Holy Spirit “hath placed you” (gr. “étheto”) to “rule” (gr. “poimánein”) “as bishops” (gr. “episkopous”) “of the Church of God” (gr. “ten ekklesían tou theoú”). So that the elders are placed as “bishops” by the Holy Spirit, to be pastors, and as we know no one can be a pastor unless he has authority for it. In other texts of the New Testament we find that elders and bishops are established “by the Apostles” through the “imposition of hands” (see for example 1 Tim 4:14), and the practice—common in some Christian denominations—whereby one who believed himself called to the episcopate stepped forward and installed himself as such did not exist. So that the Holy Spirit does not exclude the church’s election of the elders, nor does the church’s election of the elders exclude the election of the Holy Spirit: the latter works in the former, because it is a matter of “the Church of God.” There resounds in one’s ears that expression of the post-conciliar letter of Jerusalem: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…” (Acts 15:28), even though in reality there had been no extraordinary manifestation of the Spirit at that council, but rather the impassioned discussions of the apostles, elders, and the whole church (see Acts 15:2.7). Thus, in an “invisible” manner, the Spirit manifested himself very visibly through the “bishops” whom he himself had “established” to “shepherd” the Church of God.
– Paul knows that they are men of clay, and that they may be shipwrecked in the faith: “from among yourselves ravening wolves shall arise,” etc. (29 and 30). So that he must also have known that it was not on the basis of personal wisdom, nor of holiness of life, that the “bishops” had been established by the Holy Spirit. IN SPITE of the fact that they were only men, it is THEY who continue to be regarded by Paul as the “pastors” of the flock, with divine authority (“the Holy Spirit hath placed you”). So as not to fall into doctrinal errors, Paul tells them to “watch” (gr. “gregoréite”), “keeping constantly in memory” (gr. “mnemonéuontes”) what he had taught them FOR THREE YEARS. (Since the present article is apologetic in character, we take the liberty of noting that, curiously, he does not tell them to hold to the sole authority of the Scriptures as an infallible weapon for shepherding the flock, which is the current doctrine of evangelicalism.) So that the ravening wolves will be those who teach the flock doctrines contrary to what he had transmitted to them “for three years, day and night,” “one by one and in public.” Elsewhere Paul, bearing in mind this same need to guard the deposit of the faith in its entirety, will say that we should hold fast “the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” (2 Thess 2:15), and Peter will say that in Paul’s writings, as in the other Scriptures, there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest… to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16), so that the doctrine of “the Bible alone” as the rule of faith not only does not appear in the Scriptures, but is contrary to them. In the history of Christianity of the first centuries, the ravening wolves will ALWAYS take their stand on biblical texts (each interpreted in his own way), and the truth of the gospel will ALWAYS be defended in the name of “what we have received from the apostles” and “is transmitted in the churches founded by them” (see the article on apostolic succession in the Fathers of the Church of the first centuries, for the texts). This, as we see from Acts, is not an invention of Constantine, but is the disposition that the Apostles left behind.
– Paul commends them “to God, and to the word of his grace,” which “is able to build up, and to give an inheritance among all the sanctified.” Some will see here, no doubt, the supposed doctrine of Paul’s “sola scriptura,” because he commends them to the “word” of his grace, which would be the Bible… We cannot dwell on every point, and moreover we are preparing an article on the meaning of “word of God” in the Scriptures, but it suffices to mention that:
- a) when Paul gave this discourse, there was no written “word” of the New Testament to which the elders would have had to go to “build themselves up,” and it was certainly not the writings of the Old Covenant, in which the doctrine of the New is not found except obscurely;
- b) the “word” of God, in Paul, is much more than the Bible, as it is in the other writers of the New Testament, beginning with John, who says that the Word “was God,” and that it “dwelt among us,” referring to Jesus;
- c) “word of his grace,” in this passage, is rather to be understood as “the whole revelation of God,” including his “grace,” his working, his presence, his help, his strength, etc. Paul is not telling them to “read the Scriptures,” but rather he “commends them to the grace of God,” which here is expressed with the beautiful phrase “word of his grace.” This very same expression appears in Acts 14:3, where it can in no way mean “the Bible,” but rather “gospel,” that is, the whole message of salvation in all its aspects. So that the strength of the elders (and we may say, of the leaders of the churches in times to come) resides in the grace of God, in his presence which builds up the church, a church IN WHICH ravening wolves will arise, but which the Lord will not allow them to destroy, as is obvious.
Let us say by way of conclusion that in Paul’s discourse to the elders of Ephesus it is seen that the Apostles (here Paul) wished that in the Church of God there should be authority, visible authority, that these are men chosen by the Holy Spirit as bishops to shepherd the people of God, and that this does not necessarily make them holy: there will be good pastors and there will be bad pastors, but the grace of God will be in his Church to govern it until the last day of its existence. After all, it is the same Spirit who chooses them, and therefore also provides to give them his grace.
The Apocalypse
In the book of the Apocalypse the “angels of the Churches” are mentioned, to whom Jesus speaks, whom he admonishes, encourages, etc. (chapters 2 and 3). According to the most common interpretation, these “angels” would be the bishops of the respective churches, who have the responsibility of leading them, and for that reason receive the reproach or the praise from Jesus.
In the extra-biblical literature contemporary with the book of the Apocalypse, we find an ecclesial organization strongly centered around the figure of the bishop, as St. Ignatius of Antioch repeatedly affirms in his letters, addressed for the most part to the communities of Asia Minor, the same geographical region where the “seven churches” that receive the apocalyptic messages are located. Although St. Ignatius does not use the name “angel” when he speaks of the bishop of a community (which is quite logical, since he did not intend to write a letter of symbolic character, as the Apocalypse is), nevertheless the high esteem in which the bishop was held as God’s representative in the community allows us to think that the author of the Apocalypse may be referring to them when he speaks of the “angels of the churches.”
In the book of the Apocalypse Jesus addresses the churches through the “angels” of those communities, who can hardly be taken as the “angels” of the heavenly world, since some are harshly judged by Jesus on account of their sins, something impossible in an “angel” in the strict sense. Thus we find, for example, these reproaches addressed to the “angels” of the churches: “thou art neither cold, nor hot… I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (3:15-16), “I know thy works, that thou hast the name of being alive: and thou art dead” (3:1), etc. It would be difficult—not to say impossible—to apply these expressions to an angel of the heavenly court; rather it would seem that under the symbolic name of “angel of the church” the author of the book—wholly symbolic as it is—wishes to refer to a human being, who, unlike the angel, is capable of sin, such as the bishop would be, the figure placed at the head of a community of believers (Church).
Another point to bear in mind is that these “angels,” always according to the book of the Apocalypse, fulfill the function that precisely a bishop would fulfill: to teach with authority and to organize the communities, applying the due internal discipline. This is what is clearly seen in 2:12-16, where the message to the “angel of the church of Pergamus” appears, who, after an initial praise, also receives a reproach “because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam… So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaites. In like manner do penance: if not, I will come to thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” Evidently this is a community of persons, or rather the guide of that community (the second person singular is used) who has not known how to order that assembly fittingly, allowing the false Nicolaite teachers to enter. It is clearly a matter of an office of government, which, as we know, was in the hands of the “epískopos” or “bishop.”
Can we find in the Old Testament, whose milieu is fundamental for understanding the New, allusions to the leaders of the assemblies by the name of “angels”? Yes. In Mal 2:7 the priest, to whom one must go to receive instruction and wisdom, is called in Hebrew “mal’aj yhwh tsevaot” (in the LXX: “angelos kuriou pantokratoros”), which is usually translated as “messenger of the Lord of hosts,” but which can also be translated as “angel of the Lord of hosts.” However it is translated, what matters for our case is that it is the same word (gr: “angelos”) that is used in the Apocalypse.
Moreover, in Apoc 1:20 the “angels of the churches” are also called “stars”; it is common in the Jewish milieu to designate those who preside over a community by the name of “stars” (see for example Daniel 12:3). In other words, to the Hebrew ears that heard the text of the Apocalypse, both “angels” and “stars” had a familiar connotation: they were the religious leaders of the people. If to this we add, as we have seen, that they cannot have been angels in the sense of heavenly beings, it is clear that the messages of the Son of man to the “angels of the churches” are addressed to the leaders of those churches, who in the New Testament are the “episkopoi” (bishops) and “presbyteroi” (elders or presbyters).
With respect to the number seven, according to apocalyptic arithmetic, it represents totality, so that in the “seven churches” we would have represented all the churches, and with them also the “angels of the seven churches.”
Conclusion
As we said at the beginning, the attentive reading of the Scriptures, particularly of the later texts which show us what was the development of the Church’s discipline in the last apostolic years and at the beginning of the post-apostolic era, shows that the Apostles established the bishops, presbyters, and deacons as their successors, in differentiated degrees, for the good government of the Church (on the particular matter of the “degrees” of the ministry, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 1536 to 1600); to this end they imposed hands on select men so that, with authority, they might govern the flock, teach the doctrine, and administer worship; in a word, so that they might “take heed to the flock, wherein the Holy Ghost had placed them bishops, to rule the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Without any need to seek the expression “apostolic succession” in the Scriptures—which certainly does not appear, just as the word Trinity does not appear, without our being thereby unable to believe in the trinitarian doctrine—we can be certain that the Apostles intended, and in fact did, to establish in the various churches “successors,” who in turn were to take care to appoint others (Titus 1:5-9), until the Lord should return in glory. This is the manner in which the Holy Spirit does not allow the gospel of God to be corrupted with the passage of time, human weakness, and the rapacity of the wolves disguised as sheep.
Author: Fr. Juan Carlos Sack
