What are the thoughts of readers concerning issues of succession? It is a subject that for various reasons has come up frequently in discussion recently.
Executive Summary
Succession is a critical element in understanding religious authority and continuity within sacred traditions. The Bible presents several models of succession, each carrying distinct theological and institutional implications. The Levitical priesthood, grounded in tribal inheritance, emphasizes bloodline succession, while the Roman Catholic Church asserts an unbroken apostolic succession through ordination. In contrast, the biblical presentation of the Melchizedek priesthood, most clearly typified in Jesus Christ, offers a radically different view—one not based on genealogy, earthly institution, or continuous office, but on divine appointment, eternal life, and spiritual authority. This white paper explores the characteristics and implications of the Melchizedekian order, contrasting it with the Levitical and Roman Catholic paradigms to assess how authority, legitimacy, and continuity are framed within each system.
1. Introduction: The Problem of Succession
In both religious and political contexts, succession seeks to preserve authority, doctrine, and legitimacy across generations. Questions arise: Who inherits spiritual authority? On what basis is one considered a valid spiritual leader? How is the continuity of divine mission ensured? The biblical canon addresses these concerns in multiple ways, culminating in the theological prominence of the Melchizedek order of priesthood, which offers a timeless and non-institutional approach to succession.
2. The Levitical Priesthood: Genealogical and Temporal
The Levitical priesthood, instituted in the Mosaic covenant, is characterized by several key features of succession:
- Tribal lineage: Only male descendants of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi, could serve as priests (Exodus 28:1; Numbers 3:10).
- Sacrificial and ceremonial authority: Their role centered on offerings, temple service, and ritual purity (Leviticus 1–7).
- Covenantal continuity: Their authority was tied to the existence of the temple and covenantal law (Deuteronomy 18:1-5).
- Death-defined tenure: Priests served for life, with succession occurring upon death or disqualification (Numbers 20:28).
Succession under this model is visible, hereditary, and institutional. Its authority is mediated through external signs and ritual continuity. However, it is inherently limited by mortality and geographic centrality (i.e., Jerusalem’s temple).
3. The Roman Catholic View of Apostolic Succession
Roman Catholic ecclesiology sees succession not in terms of tribal inheritance but in the passing of episcopal authority through ordination in an unbroken chain dating back to the apostles. Key tenets include:
- Petrine primacy: The pope is seen as Peter’s successor (Matthew 16:18-19).
- Episcopal laying on of hands: Authority is transmitted through ordination by bishops (Acts 6:6; 1 Timothy 4:14).
- Doctrinal preservation: Succession is viewed as ensuring doctrinal unity and ecclesiastical legitimacy.
- Institutional centrality: Authority resides in the magisterium and is expressed hierarchically.
Unlike the Levitical model, apostolic succession is not hereditary but sacramental and institutional. It assumes a physical chain of ordinations maintaining visible church governance and unity across time.
4. The Melchizedek Priesthood: Eternal, Singular, and Spiritual
In striking contrast, the Melchizedekian model of priesthood is defined in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and Hebrews 5–7. This order is presented as transcending both genealogical and institutional succession:
- Non-genealogical: Melchizedek is “without father or mother, without genealogy” (Hebrews 7:3).
- Royal-priestly union: He is both “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Hebrews 7:2), combining civil and spiritual authority in one.
- Eternal tenure: He is described as having “neither beginning of days nor end of life,” a perpetual priest (Hebrews 7:3).
- Divine appointment: Jesus is made priest “by the power of an indestructible life,” not by the law of ancestry (Hebrews 7:16).
- One priest forever: Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:24 emphasize that Christ “holds his priesthood permanently” because He lives forever.
This model represents a discontinuity with prior systems. There is no succession after Jesus in the order of Melchizedek. He is the eternal high priest—unchanging, ever-living, and ever-interceding (Hebrews 7:25). His priesthood is singular and indivisible.
5. Theological and Institutional Implications of the Melchizedek Model
The implications of a Melchizedekian priesthood for succession are profound:
- No replacement priesthood: Unlike Levitical or Catholic models, the Melchizedek priesthood does not pass from one to another. There is one high priest—Jesus—who continues forever.
- Decentralization of institutional authority: Spiritual access and intercession are mediated directly through Christ, not through an ecclesiastical body (Hebrews 4:14–16).
- Universal priesthood of believers: Believers are invited into a priestly identity, not by succession but by participation in Christ (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6).
- Authority by calling and fruit, not office: Leadership in the New Testament is based on calling, gifting, and spiritual fruit (Ephesians 4:11-13), not ritual ordination or institutional succession.
- Transcendent legitimacy: The legitimacy of Jesus’ priesthood derives not from human ordination but from divine oath (Psalm 110:4), a model that challenges the centrality of ecclesiastical institutions.
6. Comparing the Three Models
| Feature | Levitical Priesthood | Apostolic Succession (Catholic) | Melchizedek Priesthood |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis of Authority | Bloodline (Levi/Aaron) | Institutional ordination | Divine oath and eternal life |
| Succession Mode | Hereditary | Laying on of hands | None (eternal office) |
| Number of High Priests | Many (due to death) | Many (pope/bishops) | One (Jesus only) |
| Centrality | Temple-based | Church-based | Christ-centered |
| Mediatory Role | Yes, temporary | Yes, continuing | Yes, singular and eternal |
| Endurance | Temporal | Continuous through institution | Permanent through resurrection |
7. Challenges and Controversies
Several theological and ecclesiological debates emerge:
- Protestant critique of apostolic succession: Many reformers argued that spiritual authority lies in fidelity to Scripture and spiritual fruit, not lineage or ordination. They appealed implicitly or explicitly to the Melchizedek model.
- Eastern Orthodox divergence: While holding to apostolic succession, Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes mystical participation in the divine more than juridical lineage.
- Charismatic movements: Many contemporary Christian movements claim Spirit-led authority akin to the Melchizedek model, rejecting institutionalism.
- Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism: Some groups emphasize the restoration of Melchizedekian order as superseding or fulfilling the Levitical system.
8. Conclusion: Succession Without Replacement
The Melchizedek priesthood does not propose a new line of successors but introduces a final and eternal priesthood in the person of Jesus Christ. In contrast to the Levitical system’s tribal inheritance and the Roman Catholic Church’s sacramental chain of office, the Melchizedekian model re-centers spiritual authority on the person and ongoing ministry of Christ. His resurrection guarantees continuity, not through institutional handover, but through unceasing intercession and divine permanence.
This theological model challenges both hereditary and institutional claims to exclusive authority. It elevates Christ as the unique mediator and opens access to God through faith rather than lineage or office. While the church continues to function with roles and teachers, these do not constitute successors to the Melchizedek order but rather servants within Christ’s singular priesthood. True succession, in this model, is found not in appointment or ordination, but in abiding in the living priesthood of Jesus Christ.
References (APA Format)
Bruce, F. F. (1990). The Epistle to the Hebrews (Rev. ed.). Eerdmans.
Lane, W. L. (1991). Hebrews 1–8 (Vol. 47A). Word Biblical Commentary. Thomas Nelson.
Owen, J. (2001). Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning. Banner of Truth.
Schreiner, T. R. (2015). Commentary on Hebrews. B&H Publishing.
Vos, G. (1954). Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Eerdmans.
Westcott, B. F. (1889). The Epistle to the Hebrews. Macmillan.
Wright, N. T. (2003). The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Very interesting article indeed! With permission, I would like to add it as an appendix in this article please.
LikeLike
The link isn’t working, so here it is https://www.friendsofsabbath.org/CW%20Articles,%20Notes,%20Charts/reader/Godhead/Study%20Notes%20on%20Melchizedek.pdf
LikeLike
Yes you have my permission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simply saying, “But the ministry isn’t a priesthood,” does not nullify the precedent value of Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 as a test of your ministry’s identity claim. The fact that your church and most churches of the Armstrong tradition have a ministerial SUCCESSION theory and system essentially identical to a self-acknowledged priesthood and using Levitical typology is what makes the “Levitical precedent,” as you termed it only a few weeks ago, applicable. Precedents apply in “same or similar circumstances.” The practical similarities (still) vastly outway any differences. What’s more, under your approach here, the ministry has a much harder time justifying using Third Tithe as they have in the past.
As I said in my writeup:
“Even attempting to deny the direct applicability of the scriptural example [Ezra/Nehemiah] (and thus losing much of the power and prestige in the ministry gained by the Levitical typology), the precedent sets the parallel in establishing the burden of proof for succession claims. Think about it. If a woman from your past claimed her child was the result of a union between the two of you, you would not simply accept her claim. You would demand affirmative proof that the child was yours. How much more important than the genealogy of a single individual is being sure that the doctrinal authority you believe you are bound to is the correct one?”
https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=0
—
And of course, it gets you no closer to defending the Armstrong church tradition’s ministerial succession claim upon which its “institutional claims to exclusive authority” as the “one True Church” are dependent. (Lose that succession, and you’re just another Christian church/faith tradition that has popped up over the past two millennia, not fundamentally different than Seventh Day Baptists or Presbyterians.) You still don’t even know who ordained Armstrong himself.
LikeLike
*outweigh
LikeLike
In 1931 Mr Armstrong was ordained an elder of the Church God (Seventh Day) (based in Stanberry, Missouri) by laying on of hands of the presbytery and members. He joined with the breakaway group based at Salem, West Virginia in 1933 and continued as an elder until his credentials were revoked in 1937 over two matters: holy day observance, and ‘British-Israelism’.
The tradition in the 1920s and 1930s was for both elders and members together laying hands on the person being ordained. This occurred with Mr Armstrong at that time:
“It was decided by the officers of the Conference that on the next all-day meeting I was to be ordained. I shall never forget that moment of my ordination. The meeting was being held outdoors. I do not remember where–except it was in the general rural area of Jefferson. I do not remember other circumstances. But I do remember the ordination itself. It was one of those once-in-a-lifetime experiences like being married, and being baptized. Only this seemed to me to be the most momentous event of my entire life. All the brethren–as many as could get their hands through to my head–laid their hands on me–on my head, my shoulders, my chest and my back.” (Autobiography of Herbert W Armstrong (1986 edition), pp. 426-427). [emphasis mine]
LikeLike
True.
LikeLike
Mike, I hope you will share my writeup at the link in my comment with people who would find this of interest. Thank you.
LikeLike
In the twentieth century Herbert Armstrong continued in the great tradition of men that God raised up to revive His Work. He was ordained the 40th of 70 elders. Mr Armstrong explained in his Autobiography that he received his ordination certificate signed by O J Runcorn and I E Curtis (2nd March 1931) (refer to chapter 24 of Armstrong’s Autobiography for further details):
“I have in my old files my Ministerial License Certificate, which is reproduced in this autobiography, dated March 2, 1932, and signed by O. J. Runcorn as President, and Mrs. I. E. Curtis as Secretary. This was almost a year after I was ordained — probably my second certificate.”
The certificate states: “This official document is to certify that H.W. Armstrong is a recognized licensed minister, and apostle of the true primitive faith, that he has labored for Jesus, and among this people for the required period before being recognized in this capacity…”
LikeLike
Previous attempt to reply did not show. Splitting it into two parts.
Part 1
1. His 40 of 70 appointment was a selection by lots, not an ordination.
2. The certificate does not state who actually laid hands on him. In my blogged writeup, I link to his 1960 article where he says LOOH is essential to being a “true” minister.
3. “Laying on of hands by the presbytery” is simply his claim – bearing witness of himself. Plus, given the limits of the still-developing Duggerite “True Church” concept at that time, it is not frankly guaranteed by that statement that the “presbytery“ involved was CG7, or even Sabbatarian. Limiting the pool of possible “true Christians” to Sabbatarians did not really begin until the 1950s. It took Armstrong’s development of his John 6:44, et al, selective “calling” doctrine to justify writing off so many Christian-professing people. And CG7 never did adopt that doctrine. (Correct me if wrong.)
4. Note the 1973 and 1986 versions of the Autobiography make no mention whatsoever of ministry even being there. Thus, it is possible, given that CG7-Oregon had NO ministry there full-time (as Armstrong often emphasized) and CG7 practice of the time, according to you, ShareGive, involved lay members taking such a part, that it was lay members only involved.
5. Despite Point 4, I will throw you a bone. While those two versions describe it that way, the original PT serial version and the 1967 codex version do mention ministers! Elder Taylor, the former SDA minister hired by Oregon Conference to do preaching for them (but apparently never CG7-ordained, given Armstrong’s statement that the conference had no regular ministers), along with “one or two other ministers.” Nothing is said identifying those ministers. And given the non-exclusivity of Dugger’s theory at the time (the extent to which it was accepted in the church being debatable – Dugger was not the doctrinal tyrant which Armstrong would later be), they could theoretically have been visiting Protestant ministers. (I’ve long wondered if maybe one was the Baptist minister who baptized Armstrong. Just a theory.) Armstrong also changed the story behind his ordination from Taylor being his champion for it to Taylor having Armstrong pushed upon him by the Conference board. This is all quite suspicious, omitting reference to the key personnel of the ordinational event.
6. Thus, it is entirely possible that Armstrong’s ordination did not involve CG7 ministers at all. It is possible that given Armstrong’s development of the importance of succession by the time he was riding his autobiography, he decided to, shall we say, fabricate the presence of at least the “one or two other ministers.” He couldn’t rely on Taylor as a source of “true succession,” because that would put the “True Church” succession extending into SDA well into the 20th century. That would throw a big wrench into the machinery of his exclusive “True Church” claim. (Compare Hoeh claiming that ministers who joined the Seventh Day Baptist lost their ability to pass on the succession at that moment.)
https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
LikeLike
1.Yes, but those selected were later ordained.
2. Yes, that makes no difference. They did not ordain without an elder being involved with the laying on of hands.
3. Not so, because in those days both elders and members were involved in laying on of hands for ordination.
4, 5, 6, 7. They sent elders for preaching on the Sabbaths all over. They were on a circuit including Oregon.
9. As have stressed for many years, a new Work or era does not have to have major links, if any, to a previous era. God can raise up new Works without these different eras connecting. History is too flimsy to prove continuous ordinations over the centuries. That does not mean that there weren’t any. But in the end, so what?
Best to give your theories a rest as they don’t disprove the doctrines and truths of the WCG and subsequent groups.
LikeLike
Interesting article. I hadn’t considered it to that degree, but it is consistent with my praxis.
LikeLike