When talking about the authority behind apostolic teaching, the first thing to consider is where it comes from.
It wasn’t from the Church.
It wasn’t from a council.
It wasn’t from tradition.
It came from Jesus Christ.
The apostles were not just great teachers or early church leaders. They were chosen and commissioned by Christ. They were eyewitnesses to what Christ said and did. They heard Him preach. They saw the miracles He performed. They were present during His crucifixion. And they were the ones who testified to His resurrection. Because of this, they had the responsibility of sharing Christ’s teachings with others. That is why their teaching was authoritative.
In Acts we see that the first followers of Christ “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.”¹ The phrase is quite simple; however, it is very important. The early Church was not based on changing opinions. It was founded upon the teachings of those whom Christ had authorized.
Paul affirms the same idea when he writes that the Church was established “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”² In construction terminology, a foundation is created at the start of the process. After a foundation is put in place, additional elements are constructed upon it. You don't continually lay new foundations throughout your building project.
Understanding this concept provides insight into the role of the apostles.
They were foundational.
They had exclusive authority.
They conveyed the message.
Later, the Church would be responsible for remaining loyal to what had been previously provided.
At times confusion occurs in discussions regarding apostolic teaching when individuals seem to imply that the only time the apostles communicated their teaching was through the written scripture.
This is obviously false.
The apostles taught orally.
They taught in homes.
They instructed local churches.
They prepared future church leaders.
They responded to questions and concerns.
They addressed error in their teaching.
Much of their communication occurred through spoken (oral) means.
Paul emphasizes this fact when he instructs the Thessalonian believers to “continue standing firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught…whether by word or our epistle.”³
Therefore, there is no basis to dispute that oral teaching from an apostle would carry apostolic authority. If Paul verbally taught a local church something, his verbal teaching held apostolic authority regardless of whether he spoke it or wrote it down.
However, another question arises.
What happened after Paul died?
What happened after Peter died?
And what happened when the last apostle departed?
That is truly at the center of this issue.
The question is not if authentic oral teaching existed.
Of course, it did exist.
The question is how that teaching could be maintained in an accurate manner and verified after the apostles left to assure that the teaching was consistent with what they had originally stated.
The Apostles Taught Through Written Means and Spoken Means
Some confusion often arises within discussions concerning apostolic teaching due to some people’s view that the apostles taught solely through written scripture.
As noted above, Paul specifically states to the Thessalonian believers to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught...whether by word or our epistle."³ Therefore, there is no reason to disallow that spoken apostolic teaching was authoritative. If Paul personally taught a local church something, his oral teaching would have held apostolic authority whether he spoke it or wrote it down.
Testing Tradition Against Its Source
The term “tradition” found in the New Testament merely denotes something that has been passed down.
Therefore, this means that tradition itself is neither inherently good nor bad.
Christ rebuked specific practices that were based on tradition because they originated with man and were being used in such a manner as to supersede divine commandments. On the other hand, Paul commended believers for maintaining certain teachings which originated from the apostles.
Thus, the real debate is not if something is considered a tradition. The debate revolves around its origin.
If it originates from Christ through the apostles, it carries authority from the apostles.
If it developed after the apostles' departure, it may still be beneficial. It may be wise. It may be old. It may have been practiced by Christians for many generations.
However, mere age does not equate to originating from an apostle. This is an essential distinction to make. We cannot simply examine a later practice, backtrack through history for multiple centuries, and then presume it came from an apostle. The assertion must be proven.
Paul Directed Timothy to Safeguard the Teaching He Had Received
One of the most explicit examples of how apostolic teaching would continue appears in Second Timothy.
Paul directed Timothy:
“Deliver these things — (teachings) — to trustworthy men who will also be qualified to teach others too.”⁵
Please observe what is occurring here. Paul teaches Timothy.
Timothy teaches faithful individuals.
These faithful individuals train others. Clearly, there is a line of succession.
However, what exactly is being passed down?
It is the teaching!
Paul never directs Timothy to inform those later teachers that they will now become new apostles. He never directs them to produce new revelations. He instructs Timothy to ensure that they pass along the exact same message.
That is the pattern.
Hold onto it.
Protect it.
Teach it. Pass it on!
Paul also instructs Timothy to "cling tightly to the standard [or model] of sound words" and to "protect [guard] the treasure [deposit]."⁶
Those statements reflect a person who expects to protect something that has already been delivered rather than continuing to add new elements to a developing faith system for each successive generation of followers.
Similarly, Jude expresses essentially the same sentiment when he describes "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints."⁷
Therefore, as such, the Church's obligation is not to develop new forms of faith for subsequent generations. Rather, its obligation is to adhere to that faith already delivered.
Why Writing Became Essential
This is where Scripture plays such an essential role.
Oral instruction functions extremely well while the instructor remains living and physically present.
You can ask Paul about what he intended to convey.
You can question Peter.
You can listen to him elaborate on a particular subject matter further.
Once the original apostles departed this life, however, this direct access ceased to exist.
Through writing, their instructional content took on enduring form.
Letters can travel where writers cannot travel.
Gospels can be read long after the original witnesses have died.
The instructional content of written sources can be duplicated, cross-checked against other duplicates, translated into different languages, studied extensively and read aloud publicly within churches.
John indicates that he wrote so that later generations would believe that Jesus is indeed Christ — The Son of God.⁸
Writing did not reduce the authority behind the apostolic teachings.
Instead, writing allowed for that authority to endure for generations.
That is perhaps one of the most significant aspects of this discussion.
Through written sources containing the teaching of the foundational witnesses, believers across each successive generation can receive and study this teaching independently of a potentially unreliable sequence of memories.
