Jesus sent forth 12 apostles. He also sent forth 70 others traditionally called apostles in patristic writings and Eastern Orthodox circles.

In addition to the 12, there were others the New Testament referred to as an apostle. Paul is called an apostle. He did not consider himself to be one of the 12, because he wrote that Jesus appeared to the 12 before appearing to Him after the resurrection. Judas had died before the resurrection.

Barnabas and Paul are together refered to as 'the apostles' on their journey together in Acts 14:14. Timothy and Silas were also apostles of Christ (I Thesalonians 1:1, 2:6-7.)

Jesus commended one of the churches in Revelation for testing those who claimed to be apostles but were not. There may have been more apostles in the first century other than the ones specifically mentioned in scripture, travelling around, planting churches, and appointing leaders.

There is a traditional use of the word 'apostle' to refer to those sent forth on missions to preach the gospel and plant churches. The word 'missionary' coems from a Latin word used to translate the Greek word for 'apostle.'

Ephesians 4 tells us that apostles, as well as certain other ministries are given till we all come into the unity of the faith unto a perfect man, unto the full stature of the knowledge of Christ.

Paul wrote concerning his apostolic ministry that he was 'as one born out of due time.' In Greek, this indicates that he was like a premature baby, rather than a baby born too late.

If we are going to talk about Biblical patterns for chruch planting, it is important to talk about the role of the apostle. Apostles preached the gospel, laid foundations, and appointed elders.

So, let us discuss the role of apostles in the church.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Answers

Link,

I have a full day's work still to do and it's already afternoon, and Sunday is also coming up too quickly for comfort. So I don't have time to respond to all you said, but I'd like to make a few quick comments.

First, I agree with you that the word "apostle" is used, in the New Testament, to refer to a few other people in addition to "The Twelve". However, do you mean to suggest by this that ALL these "apostles" were of equal rank? Or would you not agree that "The Twelve" had a special status "superior", in a way -- probably several ways -- to the other Christians, other church leaders, and the others who are also called "apostles"?

It has been a few years (quite a few by now) since I studied this out thoroughly, so I may be a little fuzzy on some exact details. But what I noticed when I did study it (I looked up every occurence of the noun APOSTOLOS in the Greek New Testament) was: While there were a few places where others were clearly referred to as "apostles", and a few places where the use of the word was ambiguous and could mean either "The Twelve" (plus Matthias and Paul) or others (or them plus others), the vast majority of the places where the word occured seemed, to me, to very clearly indicate The Twelve plus Paul.

Regarding Paul's apostleship: it seems clear from the places where Paul defends his "apostleship", that he is claiming to be an "apostle" in some sense "greater" than Barnabas, Timothy, and a few others who also are referred to by this term, i.e. that he was equal in rank, status, or whatever, to "The Twelve." For convenience in teaching about this, I sometimes refer to the two groups as "apostles of Christ" (specially commissioned by Christ, i.e. "The Twelve" plus Paul) and "apostles of the churches" (equivalent to special ad hoc messengers in at least one case, "delegates", or what we would call "missionaries" today). (BTW, I think both of these terms are used in the N.T., though not side-by-side and in clear contrast with each other as I have put them here.) And I'm not sure that "apostles of the churches" was ever an actual "position". Rather, I think it was used more as a description of a fact -- that they had been sent out by churches, and sometimes in just an "ad hoc" capacity, e.g. to carry messages or money from one place to another.

Where, in Ephesians 4, do you get the idea that "apostles, as well as certain other ministries are given TILL" (i.e. UNTIL -- emphasis mine) "we all come into the unity of the faith unto a perfect man, unto the full stature of the knowledge of Christ"?

First, the gifts of leadership are given to START the process. The end result will be coming to unity and maturity in Christ, but there are a couple of intermediate steps first. The saints must be equipped, and they must then in turn do the "work of ministry". I wouldn't go this far myself, but the terms of what the verses actually say COULD be fulfilled by the "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers" writing down their teaching (in the New Testament) and leaving it behind for the continued "equipment of the saints" in future generations, and without ANY of these positions continuing past the first century.

Second, there is also especially nothing in what is said to require that all four of these positions/gifts of leadership continue UNTIL the end goal is accomplished.

I see these four positions as being four points on a two-way grid. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently proficient in HTML to show this here in this forum, but maybe you can follow my verbal description.

I see the two axes of the grid being "temporal" and "locational". On each axis you have two parts. Under "temporal", you have "temporary" and "permanent"; under "locational", you have "local" and "universal".

Under "temporary", I would put apostles and prophets, which I believe to have been for the first century church only. (And I believe that "apostles" here refers, as I believe it does most often in the N.T, to "The Twelve" plus Paul.)

Under "permanent", I would put evangelists and pastor/teachers, which I believe to be positions not only for the first century, but for all time until Christ comes again.

Under "universal", I would put apostles and evangelists. "The Twelve" and Paul, once the twelve finally got out of Jerusalem, did not confine their ministries to any one place, and their authority and responsibility was certainly never limited to one place. I likewise do not believe that evangelists today should be the same as the "located minister" (a position which I personally cannot find in the N.T., at least not as it is usually carried out). Instead, I would see this as having been more like a "church planter" or perhaps a "travelling evangelist" today, going from place to place as needed.

Under "local", I would put "prophets" and "pastor/teachers". There is no evidence that I could find that people in either of these roles in N.T. times ever exercised his/her* ministry outside of local congregations. (*There were women who prophesied.) Pastor, by the way, I believe to have been just another name for overseer, elder, etc.

So, to put my view on this all together from a different angle (since I can't show a grid here) --

"Apostles", in Eph. 4, referred to "The Twelve", who had a universal mandate, not confined to any given local church, but this was a temporary position that passed out of existence when the twelve (and Paul) themselves died.

"Prophets" referred to people who had a special gift of prophecy, given to instruct and guide the early church which had neither the written New Testament nor precedents and traditions of centuries of church history to guide them. (N.B. I do not need to interpret TELEIOS in I Cor. 13 to be the N.T. in order to still view "prophet" as a temporary position given for this purpose. I think there is enough other evidence concerning the purpose of the gift/position.) But the mandate of a prophet was apparently limited to the local congregation where he lived and carried on his work.

"Evangelists" held a mandate that was neither limited by time nor by location. Their work is to preach the gospel, to win the lost, and to equip the believers wherever they are needed. But in N.T. times they seldom stayed in one place for long, nor should their equivalent today. Also, not every church had an "evangelist-in-residence", nor should one be needed.

"Pastors/teachers" were the same position as "elders" or "overseers". There were (and should be) several in a given congregation, congregations then and now should normally have them, and this seems to be an ongoing position, needed then and now equally, but with a mandate limited to a specific local congregation.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I don't see Paul setting himself above Barnabas and theothers. In I Corinthian 9, one of the passages where he defends his ministry, he seems to include Barnabas in a category with himself 'or do only Barnabas and I have to work for a living' or something along those lines.

Timothy adn Silas should be included in the 'apostles of Christ' category.

I recall reading in _Evangelism in the early Church_ a second century, I think, document, about many saints that left what they had and traveled from place to place preaching the gospel, appointing men to oversee the flock, and moving on. this seems to fit with the notion of 'apostle' better than evangelist. The apostles that we read about seem to all do the work of evangelists. If there were avenn diagram, maybe a circle named apostle could be drawn within aa circle labeled evangelist.

I don't see any scriptural evidence that 'prophets' ceased in the first century, or apostles for that matter. Not all apostles wrote scripture. (Many think that all apostles or prophets for that matter had the right to contribute to scripture. There are plenty of prophets in the Bible whose utterances are not recorded in scripture.) Second century writings talk about prophets.

I see both prophets and teachers acting extra-locally in scripture. Barnabas was a teacher (and maybe a propeht considering his name) before he was sent out with Paul (perhaps as the senior man onthe trip.) Silas was one of the prophets that traveled to Antioch.

Prophets travelled in the late first and early second century. There were false prophets traveling around as well. the Didache mentions this issue.

I don't see that pastor-teacher equals elder. Elders are commanded to tend the flock of God, and are to be 'apt to teach.' But that doesn't mean that every sheep tender or teacher is an elder ina local church. Many young men who aren't married and don't have children may have a gift of pastor in them. I've seen people int he church who gather lambs around themselves and take care of them, but who are not elders. Later in life, they might make good candidates.

And there are many teachers who are not elders. An evangelist may also be a teacher, even if he does not hold 'church office' of elder ship in any church. In a Biblical church, we shoudl expect to find many men, as they mature, to be able to stand up and teach God's word inthe meeting. The author of Hebrews apparently expected that all of his readers should have been teachers by the time he wrote his letter. (Hebrews 5.) They were immature and didn't have enough 'exercise.'

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

one more comment, the Greek verb for 'to pastor' translated as 'tend' or 'feed' in the KJV is used for apostles as well. Jesus told Peter to pastor his sheep. Paul asked who pastored a flock and didnt' eat of the milk thereof as he defended his ministry.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Ben. Excellent job on putting it all together and colating the scriptural thoughts on the subject. Some discussion in this area was done on the "Evangelist" thread, but somehow when we got into the nity grities of scipture on it we are suddently on a different thread. No disrespect Link, But time and again I have seriously tried to respond to your manner of approaching the subject that is new to me, but showed a number of scriptures which were not responded to. :) Perhaps one of the matters missing in this equation is the fact that Yes the apostles were in a very real sense Evangelists, Pastors, teachers, deacons, etc. I dont see them feeling elevated above anyone else. Their main responsibility was bear witness to the resurrected Christ, and preach the good news about him, yet theY were the front runners in getting the church of christ off an running. They were enabled to lay hands on people and give them spiritual gifts to help the church grow and prosper. (Example Timothy) As the result also, Timothy was able to use these spiritual gifts. Unfortunately there are no Apostles left in the world with the Ability to give them to the Evangelists today. keep studing. Love ya, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Jack,

Maybe I missed something. Could you point out the scriptures that I have not addressed?

Btw, Paul, Timothy, Peter, etc. are not with us, but does that mean that there are no more apostles? Historically, many others have been recognized as apostles. I remember reading in a Congregational hymnbook a hymn about sneing out missionaries 'Make them apostles.' One man in Colonial history was known as 'the apostle to the Indians.'

I don't know what all thse men were Ephesians 4:11 apostles, but it goes to show that there is a wider use of 'apostle' in history than the twelve and Paul.

Jesus commended a church for having tested men calling themselves apostles, who were really false. If there were just 13 or even 20 apostles, all the churches would have to do was verify the ID of the person claiming to be an apostle. But apparently, they ahd to test the men to see _if the Lord had sent them as apostles._

Paul and Barnabas were sent forth as apostles without any mention of apostles sending them forth ont heir mission. Barnabas was 'sent' to Anitoch by the apostles, but there is no record of Paul ever being sent forth by the 12. Yet God made these men apostles. The Holy Spirit spoke, and they went out and preached according to the word the Lord spoke to them. Where is the neat line of apostolic succession in this story? We see the Lord directing His church, but it doesn't leave us with a nice pattern of apostolic succssion where one man makes another an apostle. God made men apostles. Christ sent men forth.

I believe God can send men forth like this, to plant churches and to build up His kingdom even today.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Words often have more than one meaning or application. One very common mistake in logic is to confuse one meaning or application with another. Because one group of apostles ("The Twelve" -- most often referred to as "The Twelve", but sometimes also simply referred to as "Apostles", with the context usually showing clearly that these are the ones being referred to) had certain powers, certain responsibilities, and certain authority, and because some others are also referred to as "apostles", you seem to be saying that ALL men who were called apostles had the same responsibilities, authority and powers. And you seem to be suggesting further that there are men today who have this identical position, with the same responsibilities, authority and powers.

If ALL apostles were the same, why go to the lengths they did to find a QUALIFIED person to replace Judas? (With qualifications that cannot be duplicated today.) If ALL apostles were the same, why did Paul go to the lengths he did to prove that he was an apostle of equal rank with Peter, etc.? And why, in doing so, did he lay such stress on having seen Christ himself after his resurrection (one of the qualifications laid down in Acts 1), and say nothing of having been commissioned ("sent") by the Antioch church?

We do have "apostles" today in the same sense as Timothy, Barnabas, etc. It is just that we refer to them as "missionaries" (same meaning, but from a Latin root rather than a Greek one), "evangelists", and "church planters", rather than "Apostles", to avoid the kind of confusion you seem to be suffering from.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Jack,

I agree with you about the apostles not being elevated above others. To be truly great, they had to be servants. We see Peter explaining his actions to other brethren, Paul submitting to the advice of James and the elders at Jerusalem, and Paul using persuasion, reason, and the word of God in his letters, rather than a heirarchical dominating style. Apostles are to be servants not 'mega-bishops' who come in and bosss everyone around and focus a lot of attention on themselves. Paul wrote of himself 'though I am nothing.'

In response to Benjamin,

Btw, Paul did not fit the requirements to be among the 12 listed by Peter, and did not number himself among the 12 in I Corrinthians 15.

If I were to divide apostles into categories, just based on my own understanding, I'd list the following categories:

1. Apostles of men v. apostles with a spiritual role to play.

The Greek word for 'apostle' could be used to refer to emissaries sent for speccific purposes, even in a non-Christian context.

2. Apostles of the church v. Ephesians 4 apostles (apostles of Christ.)

A church may send a man with a specific task, such as that of carrying money or supplies. I don't believe such an 'apostle' necessarily has the Ephesians 4:11 type of apostolic role to play.

It could be that an apostle may send an emissary as his own apostle as well. Maybe that should go under another category, but I see that it oculd be similar to an apostle of hte church.

3. The 12 v. other (Eph. 4:11) apostles.

In one category, there are the 12 apostles, often refered to as 'the Twelve.' We read that the names of the 12 apostles were on the foundations of the New Jerusalem in John's vision.

In the other category, we have Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, possibly Titus Andronichus and Junia, etc.

I'm not sure to put the 70. Traditionally, they avhe been called apostles (see the Greek word for 'sent' in Luke in the passage dealing with them.) I believe I've read that the two men put forth to replace Judas were, according to traditon, from among the 70, but tradition puts a lot of important figures in the 70 as well. Maybe it was a convenient way of explananing theological problems dealing with apostleship in later centuries.

A couple of issues releated to apostleship-

Have all Ephesians 4:11 apostles seen the Lord? I dont' know. I suppose it is possible that Timothy saw Christ in a vision, but scripture is silent on this matter. There is no reason to assume that he did see Christ. Yet he is called an apostle of Christ. Christ had already ascended before Paul saw Him, and had not come in His Second Coming.

Paul, when defending his right which he had waived to receive payment, asked am if he were not an apostle, if he were nto free, and if he had not seen the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't think this is 100% conclusive that all apostles had seen Christ. Again, there is a reference to Christ appearing to 'all the apostle's before the ascension, but this was before Paul or Timothy were sent forth as apostles as well, and Christ appeared again in history to John.

(Btw, I believe it is possible for someone to see a vision of Christ these days as well. The possibility of God giving visions is scritpural, after all.)

Another issue is the one of whether all Ephesians 4:11 apostles will do signs and wonders. Paul wrote that the works of an apostle were done among the Corinthians with signs wonders and mighty deeds. Somew translations render it to say that the signs of an apostle were signs wonders, and mighty deeds. I'm not sure on this one., It might even be ambiguous in Greek for all I know. Iv'e seen people argue different ways on this issue.

>referred to as "The Twelve", but sometimes also simply referred to as >"Apostles", with the context usually showing clearly that these are >the ones being referred to) had certain powers, certain >responsibilities, and certain authority, and because some others are >also referred to as "apostles", you seem to be saying that ALL men who >were called apostles had the same responsibilities, authority and >powers. And you seem to be suggesting further that there are men >today who have this identical position, with the same >responsibilities, authority and powers.

Paul was not one of the 12, yet he had certain responsibilities. I don't see the 12 appointing elders in scripture. Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus did that. So, as far as appointing elders is concerned, we see this as apostolic work from the lives of the apostles which were not a part of the 12.

There are certain responsibilities that seem to be held in common by those called apostles.

I appreciate Biblical patterns, but if there are elders in a chruch that were not appointed by apostles, I'm not going to say that is necessarily wrong. Apostles were sent out from Antioch without any other apostles being present, that are mentioned in the text. Jesus appeared to Paul before that and told him of the work he would do. Jesus didn't seem dependant on some theory of apostolic succession. If the Lord leads a church in a certain way, then it should follow.

>If ALL apostles were the same, why go to the lengths they did to find >a QUALIFIED person to replace Judas?

Again Paul and many of the other apostles mentioned did not meet the qualifications. (I think it highly unlikely, at least, that Paul was around Jesus from the time of John the Baptist.)

> If ALL apostles were the same, why did >Paul go to the lengths he did to prove that he was an apostle of equal >rank with Peter, etc.?

What passage are you refering to?

Btw, Paul's comments about his calling are important to this issue, since the Lord sent him, but he doesn't seem to have a neat line of apostolic succession with the Twelve sending him out.

> And why, in doing so, did he lay such stress >on having seen Christ himself after his resurrection (one of the >qualifications laid down in Acts 1),

The Acts 1 account lists much more stringent qualifications than that.

> and say nothing of having been >commissioned ("sent") by the Antioch church?

Christ had appeared to Paul beforehand, but this appears to be the time of his actually going out to begin that particular type of mission work. I was thinking more of Barnabas, though he had been sent out from the 12 to strengthen the Antioch church beforehand himself. It was in Antioch that the Spirit wsaid to separate them to the work to which they had called. Paul wrote that he had been sent not by men, but by God. The voice of the Spirit was an important factor in Acts 13.

>We do have "apostles" today in the same sense as Timothy, Barnabas, >etc. It is just that we refer to them as "missionaries" (same >meaning, but from a Latin root rather than a Greek one), >"evangelists", and "church planters", rather than "Apostles", to avoid >the kind of confusion you seem to be suffering from.

I don't feel I am suffering from confusion. A lot of hype has been built up around the word 'apostle.'

I believe we should use Biblical terminology to AVOID confusion. If everyone were used to using Biblical terminology in regard to apostles, then there might not be as much confusion on the issue of what to call them.

I don't think that all people called missionaries are apostles, btw, not Ephesians 4:11 apostles, anyway.

Btw, Watchman Nee wrote an interesting book which deals with the issue of apostleship among other things. The book presents some of the beliefs and practices of the 'Recovery Movement' in China before the Communists took over. _The Normal Christian CHURCH Life_ is the name of hte book (edited down from the original _Concerning Our Mission._) I may be able to find a web address for it online if anyone is interested.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I believe that the "title" or "position" of "apostle" in Ephesians 4 refers to the original 12, plus Matthias and Paul, with the very slight possibility that a tiny number of others in the first century MIGHT also have been included, though I think this is unlikely. This is the way the passage has usually been understood, and I will continue to take it that way until I see clear evidence to show that this is not the case. Strong assertions on your part don't count as evidence. Neither does showing that the same word is used for others in other contexts. Some (if not all) of these were only "apostles of the churches". In at least one case (I've forgotten the reference, and don't have time to look right now) they were only people delegated to carry money and/or messages from one church to another.

(Parenthetically, I would certainly agree with you that not all who are called "missionaries" today are "apostles" in the sense it is used in Eph. 4! In fact, I don't think any of them are, since I believe that passage refers only to "The Twelve" plus Matthias and Paul.)

I also believe that MOST of the New Testament references to "apostles" likewise refer to this very small and select group. This is the way most scholars through the ages have understood the word and the situation. Where it clearly refers to or includes other men, obviously they are included in the meaning in those places, but I don't see any reason to think that all these other men were included in the intended meaning of the other passages -- especially the passages that special authority or special responsibilities pertaining to apostles by virtue of their "apostleship".

I believe that ALL the places where "apostles" are credited with having special authority or special responsibilities by virtue of their "apostleship", are referring to this small select group. If you can offer PROOF that others who are are called apostles in other places also had the same special authority and special responsibilities as the more select group, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I see no reason to change my opinion on this.

Merely showing that some apostles had special responsibilities and/or special authority and that some who were not a part of "The Twelve" were also sometimes called "apostles" does not necessarily mean that all who were sometimes referred to by this title had the same authority and responsibilities.

I speak and write English. I was born in China and grew up in South Africa and Hong Kong.

You speak and write English.

Therefore you too must have been born in China and brought up in South Africa and Hong Kong.

Logical, yes?

Logical, NO!! Neither is what you have offered so far.

In general, I would agree with you that we should use Biblical terminology wherever possible, and that using Biblical terminology MAY sometimes reduce confusion. But remember that we are not using the same language as the one the New Testament was written in, and we are in a different cultural milieu.

For one thing, many Greek words may have more than one meaning. If so, what's wrong with using different English words to reflect the different meanings? For another thing, sometimes words acquire particular connotations which then make them imply more than the equivalent Greek word. (The word "perfect" in I Cor. 13 is a good example. The Greek word also means "complete", which I think fits the context better. Many interpretations of that chapter are affected by connotations of our English word "perfect" which go beyond what the original Greek word itself meant.) Since "apostle" is obviously used to refer to more than one situation, why not call some "apostles", some "missionaries" and some "messengers", depending on the context?

BTW, Paul probably didn't fit ALL the qualifications listed in Acts 1, which may be one reason why he found it necessary to defend his "apostleship" and the source of his apostleship.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Btw, the qualifications in Acts 1 have to do with replacing Judas as one of the Twelve, and are not given as a requirement for being an apostle per se.

>I believe that the "title" or "position" of "apostle" in Ephesians 4 >refers to the original 12, plus Matthias and Paul, with the very >slight possibility that a tiny number of others in the first >century MIGHT also have been included, though I think this is >unlikely.

Why do you believe that? I think it unlikely that Paul would ahve been thinking ohimself and the 12 only when he used the term 'apostles.' Some of the letters which refer to 'we apostles' were co-written by Timothy, also an apostle of Christ.

What evidence is there that the Ephesians 4:11 apostleship does not refer specifically to the Twelve.

It was given to the church AFTER the ascension. Jesus ascended on high, and gave gifts unto men, wherefore God has set forth in the church some apostles- study the preceding verses.

Paul as a post-ascension apostle. It is possible thathte Twelve were also men given as such, but the passage certainly doesn't give any indication that it refers to the 12 specifically. They were called apostles _before_ the death, resurrection, and ascesion, and these men were given after the ascension.

Neither does showing that the same word is used >for others in other contexts. Some (if not all) of these were only >"apostles of the churches". In at least one case (I've forgotten >the reference, and don't have time to look right now) they were only >people delegated to carry money and/or messages from one church to >another.

Timothy and Silas were apostles of Christ (I Thes. 1:1 and 2:6) not only apostles of the churches. Timothy seems to have been in charge of appointing elders. This is more responsibility than delivering money.

About your English in China analogy: Paul didn't even appoint elders and take on the same fatherly role in a church just becuase he was an apostle. He had that role in the churches where he laid the foundation- in Corinth but not in Jerusalem. He told the Corinthian church that htey were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord.

Apostles are apostles because the Lord has sent them forth as apostles. What an apostle is called to do will depend on what the Lord has called him to do. I do believe it is profitable to study Biblical patterns on apostleship to see what kind of things apostles did in scripture.

But let's turn your own analogy about speaking Enlgish and growing up in China on the RM (accapella CoC) view of the role of evangelists. Is that view any more consistent?

> If you >can offer PROOF that others who are are called apostles in other >places also had the same special authority and special >responsibilities as the more select group, I'd like to see it.

Barnabas Timothy had special responsibility and authority to appoint elders.

A major problem here is that the New Testament focuses on certain people to give us our patterns for ministry. It doesn't focus on everyone. God chose Paul for certain reasons. He didn't tell us much about the ministry of Barnabas after a certain point in time, except in relationship to Paul's ministry or the ministry of others focused on in the Bible.

Revelation commends a chruch for testing false apostles. Apparently, there was some way of knowing them other than counting to 13. When Paul wrote against fasle apostles, he wrote against their character and teachings. He did not say they weren't from among the 12 and they weren't himself,a dn therefore they were not apostles. The issue is whether or not Christ sent them. He said these men were false apostles and referred to them as messengers of Satan.

In one of the major passages where he defended his ministry, it was in conctrast to the false apostles, not to the 12.

Btw, some see Paul as calling Apollos an apostle in I Corinthians 3 and 4.

> >For one thing, many Greek words may have more than one meaning. If >so, what's wrong with using different English words to reflect the >different meanings? For another thing, sometimes words acquire >particular connotations which then make them imply more than the >equivalent Greek word. (The word "perfect" in I Cor. 13 is a good >example. The Greek word also means "complete", which I think fits the >context better.

'Apostle' is an example of a loaded word in English. It conjurs up a lot of ecclesiastical notions, and ideas of superhuman beings iwth the power to do miracles and write scripture. Originally, it must have been a less loaded word, like emissary.

Why don't we just say 'emmisaries of Christ.'

Since "apostle" is obviously used >to refer to more than one situation, why not call some "apostles", >some "missionaries" and some "messengers", depending on the context? Then you end up with people translating ambiguous passages according to their own opinion. It happens all the time though.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Link,

You said, "'Apostle' is an example of a loaded word in English. It conjurs up a lot of ecclesiastical notions, and ideas of superhuman beings iwth the power to do miracles and write scripture."

My point exactly. And those who (a) fail to make a clear distinction between passages that refer to "The Twelve" by this name, and who (b) want to start using the title of "Apostle" for people today almost always, sooner or later, start claiming for themselves (for their so-called "Apostles" today) authority and/or responsibilities that belonged in New Testament teaching only to "The Twelve", Paul, and perhaps two or three others.

You ask, "Why don't we just say 'emmisaries of Christ.'" Why don't we just say "missionaries"? No word is totally neutral, and this fits both the meaning and the "position" (of those apostles who were not in the special select group) better than any other.

You continued (quoting and then responding to me), "'Since 'apostle' is obviously used >to refer to more than one situation, why not call some "apostles", >some "missionaries" and some "messengers", depending on the context?' Then you end up with people translating ambiguous passages according to their own opinion. It happens all the time though."

Because languages are not identical, it is not possible to translate most words in any language with only a single equivalent in the language you are translating to. In another thread, we have discussed the meaning of "ANOTHEN". In some places it MUST mean "from above" and cannot mean "again". In one place it MUST mean "again" and CANNOT mean "from above." Which meaning does it have in John 3? Did he mean "from above" or "again" or was he making a pun, with both meanings intended? GUNI can mean either "wife" or "woman" (and there is no other word that I know of for either meaning). In most cases, the context shows clearly which is the correct meaning in the particular passage. Which should it be in I Tim. 3:11? Most modern translations choose "wives"; I personally think they are wrong and that here it should be "women." In James 1, the word usually translated "trials" in verses 2 and 12 is the same as the word usually translated "tempted" in verse 13 (or rather, one is the verb form and the other the noun form of the same basic word). Personally, I think we miss out on James's full meaning by using two different words, but if we used the same English word for both, which should we use? I'm afraid either word might be confusing to English readers who don't understand that the same word encompassed both meanings in Greek.

Sometimes the context makes clear which meaning a word should have, as I think it does in most places where APOSTOLOS is used; sometimes it doesn't, and the translator has to make the best decision he can, while knowing that his decision might be questioned by others.

In most places where Paul refers to "we apostles", I have usually taken it to mean Paul and "The Twelve" and NOT NECESSARILY his co-writer. I don't have time to check on all these references right now, but I've always understood it that way and never been struck by any inconsistency in doing so.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Link,

Another thing from your message.

You asked, "... let's turn your own analogy about speaking Enlgish and growing up in China on the RM (accapella CoC) view of the role of evangelists. Is that view any more consistent?"

What "RM (accapella [sic] CoC) view of the role of evangelists" are you talking about?

BTW, I'm curious about the source and extent of your knowledge of the Restoration Movement. You seem to know a lot about us, but your views are definitely not "standard" RM positions. I think you also said somewhere that this was NOT your own background -- though that hasn't stopped you from being quite critical of our positions. You seem to know a lot more about us than most "outsiders" who have come into this forum and criticised our positions, yet you also seem to assume that "our position" is more uniform and more monolithic than it really is. So what is your own background, and what is the source and extent of your contacts with the Restoration Movement? And with which branch(es) of the RM?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

'Missionary' is a term that comes from one of the Latin words used to translate the word 'apostle' or so I've read (probably when it did not refer ot the Twelve, Paul, etc.)

I think emissary might be better because it captures a bit of the meaning of someone sent. 'Missionary' focuses onthe fact that the person has a mission. the Greek word is derived from a word for 'send.'

There are also practical problems with the word 'missinary' in that it usually implies someone who moves to another country, and there can be domestic apostles. Here in Indonesia, there are a lot of unreached areas. Christians from the same country go to those areas. Sometimes they use 'misonaris' but I think it even sounds odd for them.

Another problem is that unless your translation uses 'emissary' or 'missionary' people don't connect these words used in church settings with the corresponding concepts in scripture. Maybe we should just educate people about the meaning of 'apostle.'

My contact with 'the RM'- When I was a Freshman in College, I was involved with Campus Christian Fellowship, which had close ties with an independant Chrisitan church in town. I met a lot of people from what used to be called the Boston movement and my former employer here in Indonesia is involved with conservative mainline independant Church of Christ. I got married about six months ago. I now have two cousins by marriage in the ICOC formerly Boston Movement.

I'm a Christian. Literally, I am a member of the church of Christ, the Christian church, the church of God. I like to discuss and learn about Biblical issues. I realize people from different backgrounds have sactred cows. I don't always try to keep those cows alive. I realize I may have some assumptions I'm not aware of myself. I've had a lot over the years.

Are you from a Christian Church or CoC background.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Link,

I agree, we should educate people to use and understand the correct biblical terminology.

Benjamin, don't we do this in other areas? Shouldn't we do this in all areas biblical?

Instead of being afraid of a term because others have misused it, we should teach correctly.

For example, the word "church". I think most in this forum realize that the church is not the building. I used to believe it was the building. If none had taught me correctly on what the church really is, I would not have known. People today believe "worship" to be that hour or two we spend on Sunday mornings. How will they know otherwise unless it is taught? It comes back to what you said on another thread Benjamin about people wanting biblical teaching, they need guidance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one motto of the RM to call biblical things by biblical names?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

You said, "'Apostle' is an example of a loaded word in English. It conjurs up a lot of ecclesiastical notions, and ideas of superhuman beings iwth the power to do miracles and write scripture."

My point exactly. And those who (a) fail to make a clear distinction between passages that refer to "The Twelve" by this name, and who (b) want to start using the title of "Apostle" for people today almost always, sooner or later, start claiming for themselves (for their so- called "Apostles" today) authority and/or responsibilities that belonged in New Testament teaching only to "The Twelve", Paul, and perhaps two or three others.

You ask, "Why don't we just say 'emmisaries of Christ.'" Why don't we just say "missionaries"? No word is totally neutral, and this fits both the meaning and the "position" (of those apostles who were not in the special select group) better than any other.

Benjamin, the above is from an earlier post of yours. I would like you to notice that baptism is an example of a loaded word in the English. It conjures up things that are in direct opposition to the teaching of our Lord on the matter, but does that mean that we should not use the word? No, we should teach correctly about baptism. For that matter, you could find many words that are loaded because of a particular spin so-called Christianity has put on them. Depending on whom you are talking to at the time the spin will be different. That is why it is so important to teach biblical terminology along with the correct biblical definitions.

Now after having said all thatLinkI do not believe you assessment of the term apostle is completely correct.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Btw, in what way do you disagree with my understanding of the term 'apostle.'

About 'worship'- what a lot of people don't know is that both the Greek and Herbew words commonly refered to as 'worship' actually refer to action of prostration- bowing down with one's head to the ground.

Greek Orthodox, who speak Greek, 'worship' or 'proskuneo' (sp?) in their meetings. No wonder, as some has pointed out, the Bible doesn't say we gather for 'worship.' That bit of information on worship clears up some passages like where John 'worshipped' the angel and where David says that he will worship towards the temple. The Samaritan bowed down and prostrated to Christ.

We may think of 'worship' as something internal or an external expression of something internal. This leads to a great deal of misunderstanding when reading the Bible. The NIV translates some occurances of 'worship' literally, such as the case in Revelation. But in other places, it leaves the word 'worship.' I think the main reason for this is that the translators are so stuck in a tradition of translation. Readers go into the Bible with a modern idea of 'worship' and are totally lost to the fact that it refers to prostration.

(My source for this is a retired Greek and Latin professor who is an elder in the church.)

Link.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I think I need to take a break from this thread for awhile, or at least from contributing so much. For one thing, contributing here and to a couple of other threads in this forum as much as I have been doing recently is taking too much of my time and I am getting behind on some other things. For another, I think I need to go back and research this subject again. I've been going mainly on my memory of past research quite a few years ago, and I've forgotten some things. Who knows, I might change my views on some points? -- though I don't think it's likely that I'll conclude that "apostle" is a position intended for the church today. I think that the Bible fills part of the function that apostles (specifically, "The Twelve") had in the first century church and that evangelists (and missionaries, whom I would classify as a sub-category of evangelist) fill the other functions. But I am going to re-study it all.

I would like to tie up a few loose ends first, however.

Going back a few messages to where Link said he does not think Ephesians 4:11 could be referring to "The Twelve" (whereas I think it refers exclusively to The Twelve, plus Paul, plus POSSIBLY one or two others), because this position is listed among the "gifts" Christ gave to the church after his ascension. I don't see any problem with this. Christ CHOSE the twelve before his death, and sent them out on certain limited missions, but before his ascension he told them to WAIT in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and had received "the gift my Father promised" (Acts 1:4). On the Day of Pentecost -- ten days AFTER the Ascension -- they received what had been promised and were released to fulfill the REAL mission for which they had earlier been chosen. They were chosen earlier, and had some limited work and some limited powers and authority earlier, but the REAL commissioning to be apostles for the church came on the Day of Pentecost!

Sister Muse,

Certainly, we should "call Biblical things by Biblical names," but the question is -- especially when translating from one language to another -- WHICH Biblical name? "Apostle" and "missionary" are IDENTICAL in their root meaning. Both come from roots meaning "to send". "Apostle" comes from a Greek root and therefore is the one actually used in the Greek New Testament; "missionary" comes from a Latin root but means the same thing -- "someone who is sent". ("Emissary", incidentally, comes from the same Latin root, but via different intermediary words and long ago acquired meanings and connotations that I think are foreign to the teachings about "apostles" in the N.T. And "messenger" is yet another word from the same Latin root. It might fit some places, but perhaps not others.)

Why not just transliterate, as we do with "baptism", and use the word based on the Greek? Probably in most cases we should, but the word "apostle" has acquired certain connotations in English that don't necessarily fit every use of the word in the Greek N.T. So why not translate those with another word that has the same basic MEANING, but without those connotations that don't fit? That's something that is done all of the time, and not necessarily out of dishonesty -- most times it is done out of necessity, and I've already given some examples of where translators have to choose, translating a word one way some places and another way in others.

By the way, "baptise" is probably a better example of the problem than it is an example of something we should do. An English dictionary will tell you that baptism is a religious rite that can be performed in several different ways. But in the original Greek it was a "common or garden variety" of word, used for such things as washing clothese, dying cloth, and ships sinking! It never meant to sprinkle or pour, but always to immerse. There would be a lot less confusion if English Bibles consistently TRANSLATED the word rather than TRANSLITERATING.

As another "by the way", consider the Greek word OINOS. Did Jesus turn water into wine or grape juice? Was Timothy to drink "wine" for his stomach's sake, or simply grape juice? The Greek word could mean either. Unfortunately, we don't have a neutral equivalent in English. Translators have to choose one or the other, according to which they think was more likely. I guess they could have just transliterated, using the word OINOS itself -- actually, it is the root for our English word "wine" -- but that would probably be more confusing yet.

Link,

You haven't yet answered one key question that I asked in the same message in which I asked about your church background. I quote:

You asked, "... let's turn your own analogy about speaking Enlgish and growing up in China on the RM (accapella CoC) view of the role of evangelists. Is that view any more consistent?"

What "RM (accapella [sic] CoC) view of the role of evangelists" are you talking about?

Regarding my own "religious heritage" and connections, it is too long a story to go into here. In brief, my main "heritage" is with the "centrist" Christian Churches / Churches of Christ (I personally prefer "Church of Christ" to "Christian Church", but most churches of this group in the U.S. go by the name of Christian Church). But I have "connections" with all three of the main "streams" of the R.M. (not counting recent additions like the Boston Movement), plus other "connections" that are quite ecumenical. My grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side were in the Salvation Army, as was my father himself until he was a teenager. (That was before my time, of course, but I grew up knowing quite a bit about the S.A. as a result.)

Link, perhaps you could help me in my research. You have quoted some early patristic writings as evidence that more than just "The Twelve" were called "apostles." What about after that? How long did the word continue to be used to refer to "apostles" contemoraneous with the writings, and when did it fall into disuse and/or come to have a more limited usage, referring primarily to a limited group in the past tense?

You might be interested to know that the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939 edition -- later editions were somewhat liberal) agrees with you that the N.T. and other early writings do refer to a considerable number of others apart from The Twelve. But the writers of the articles dealing with this and one or two related subjects also see "apostle" as only a temporary office, not "active" after the late first century or possibly early second century.

I TRY to be careful not to ascribe "guilt by association", but one thing that makes me leary of claims that we have apostles today is that all of the groups that I have run across that believe in "apostles" today have been either "fringe" groups or clearly heretical groups with other beliefs and practices that I believe are unscriptural. (The Mormons are one example.) And most or all have claimed, for their apostles, authority that I do not believe the Bible grants to anyone today. If I found clear Biblical teaching that "apostle" is a position granted to the church for all time, including today, I would accept that, no matter who else believed it. (The Mormons also immerse!) But I haven't seen it yet.

Well, "tying up loose ends" took longer than I'd planned. I really will need to take a break now. I hope what I've said will bring responses, though, sadly, I may have to wait awhile before I can respond to the responses myself. In the meantime, surely I am not the only one in this forum able to respond to Link's views.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

As usual, Benjamin makes some very good points. =) One of my biggest peeves are those people who insist we "call Bible things by Bible names", and by that they mean we should use the King James Bible names for things. For a lot of greek words there are probably half a dozen valid synonymous english words they could be translated into. There are also concepts in Scripture there just aren't any names for. For instance, the Trinity is Scriptural truth but there is no "Bible name" for it, as the concept itself was in its infancy when Scripture was being written. The closest the Bible comes is "Deity" (KJV: "Godhead"), which is wholly inadequate. And I also agree with Benjamin that it would be so much better if we translated rather than used transliterated terms (e.g. "immersion" instead of "baptism"). Thats my two cents worth. =)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Sorry to see you are dropping out for a while.

Btw, about preconcieved notions, consider the idea that you may be bringing some to teh text. Try to the read the New Testament without the preconceived idea that the term 'apostle' generally refers to the 12 plus Paul and maybe a few others. Look through a concodrance and see who all are called apostles. If the Bible calls other men apostles, without stipulating that they are apostles of the church, carrying money and such, then on what basis do you say that Ephesians 4:11 only applies to the 12 plus Paul?

If we look at the work of other men called apostles- Barnabas, Timothy, Silas- they did the type of work desribed in Ephesians 4:11. They were doing the same type of work that Paul was doing.

Btw, I didn't say that the 12 were not Ephesians 4:11 apostles. I thought I included something in an earlier post that they may well have received the Ephesians 4:11 gift after the ascesion. But the fact that the passage describes the gift as something given AFTER Christ ascended should make someone who thinks of 'apostle' as refering only to those who fit the Acts 1 qualifications rethink his views. Those were qualifications for being a part of the 12\, who would judge the 12 tribes of Israel one day.

Not all apostles fit that description. We must remember that when men were called apostles, they were being called 'sent ones.' They were emissaries of God.

I think people can go to far with 'Biblical patterns' and turn vague patterns or non-patterns into strict doctrine (like some who think we must meet on Sunday and that it is a sin to have Holy Communion on any day but Sunday.)

But if we want to talk about patterns, there is a good pattern for repetition of apostolic ministry. Jesus called the 12 aposltes when they were hear on the earth. But we see from Scripture, that He also called an apostles after His ascension, and later confirmed this calling by speaking to a group of brethren. The Spirit spoke to tehse men to Separate Saul and Barnabas to the work to which He had called them. Both Saul/Paul and Barnabas had already been called to this church-planting work.

Brethren in church ministry laid hands on Saul and Barnabas, and they left, being sent out by the Holy Ghost. Later, we read about Timothy, also refered to as an apostle, who had hands laid on him by the elders with prophecy, similar to the situation with Paul and Barnabas.

There is a pattern in scripture for apostles appointing elders. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches they had planted. Timothy appointed elders. Titus was one of Paul's fellow-laborers and he appointed elders, though I don't believe scrpture specifically calls Titus an apostle. He may well have been. He was a part of Paul's apostolic team.

Some may say that Timothy was made an apostle through Paul. (I Thesalonians 2 says apostles of Christ, btw.) But Paul himself was made an apostle without a nice neat line of apostolic succession.

The pattern of God raising up men and calling them to apostleship, confrirming it thorugh the church and sending them out is a pattern. Where does the Bible teach that apostleship was for the first century. Really consider the passages in Paul's letters where Paul talks about 'we' and 'apostles,' especially when he talks about the 'we' apostles being among his readers. Paul traveled with Silas and Timothy. We don't see him traveling around with Peter.

'Evangelist' is only mentioned twice in the NT. The plural form is mentioned once. One evangelist preached, did miracles, baptized and left. The other evangelist- the one who appointed elders- was also an apostle, and we see appointing elders in scripture was something done by other apostles. So there isn't much Biblical proof of a pattern for the title of 'evangelist' having much direct connection with appointing elders.

Someone said that one of the places where Paul calls himself a 'preacher' it is the word for evangelist. I don't know for sure, but if this is true, it should not be surprising. We see the paostles in scripture doing the work of evangelists. But not all evangelists did all the work of apostle as far as we see in scripture- like Philip who preached and left, leaving the follow-up to the apostles.

I think there is some validity to the idea expressed on here that 'evangelist' is a descriptive word for someone who proclaims the gospel, rather than an office. I think an evangelist is just a person in the church gifted to be a proclaimer of the gospel, whether he has hands laid on him or not. I see pastors as those gifted to tend sheep, whether they are elders or not. (Elders, though, should pastor, but there may be people caring for sheep who are not yet to the stage of life and maturity to be elders.)

The Bible has a lot to say about the ministry of apostle. 'Pastors' is mentioned once in Ephesians 4:11. Yet, much of the church has totally ignored the ministry of apostle in todays church, and focused on ministry titles glanced over in the New Testament, like pastor or evangelist.

When did 'apostle' come to be used in a limited sense? Patristic writings, at least Eusebius, considered the 70 to be apostles, and I think the Eastern Orthodox church, dependant on the patristics for their theology, still consider them apostles to this day. I saw the view that the 70 were apostles while scanning through the EO newsgroup one time. I didn't even spend much time on the group.

I read something from the patristic period- I'm not sure of the author, but I think it was in _Evangelism in the Early Church_ by Michael Green written about the activity in the church early on. It said that there were many who forsook all and went around preaching the gospel in new areas, appointing pastors to tend to the flock. That type of travelling apostle ministry used to be common int he church.

There were also traveling prophets in the late first-early second century. There were false prophets as well. The Didache talks about these things, though the book comes off as really legalistic in some places. Some early patristic writings from the decades after Revelation was written refer to prophets, btw.

The settled ministries began to differentiate themselves, calling one man among them 'bishop' and the rest 'elders' though the NT calls elders bishops. The bishops claimed that the apostles set up this system, and that bishops had the authority of apostles. The term 'apostle' came to be used, sometimes, for bishops and their authority. The importance of the monocharial bishop began to overshadow the traveling preaching ministry, though much traveling ministry still continued. This is the idea I get from Green's book and from what bits and pieces I've read of early church stuff. I'm no expert. Green's book is excellent. It's scholarly, but for me, not the least bit dry. I wish Bible college libraries didn't close for the summer around here!

> I think that the Bible fills part of >the function that apostles (specifically, "The Twelve") had in the >first century church and that evangelists

The view that the Gospels took the place of the apostles teaching the content of the Gospels was one repeated in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (one of those writings I've read a bit of, so I keep repeating it. It's a complation of historical writings and commendary on them.) But did the Bible replace everything? You have the Bible replacing spiritual gifts, and you have the NT replacing the apostles, too? The NT, in some sense, replaces the function of apostles teaching these doctrines. But the NT does not replace the for-the-moment and for-the-situation function of prophecy.

> What about after that? How long did the word >continue to be used to refer to "apostles" contemoraneous with the >writings, and when did it fall into disuse and/or come to have a more >limited usage, referring primarily to a limited group in the past >tense?

I don't really know. It would seem to be a matter of decades- fairly early on, like the splitting of the elde4rs into elder and bishop.

>I TRY to be careful not to ascribe "guilt by association", but one >thing that makes me leary of claims that we have apostles today is >that all of the groups that I have run across that believe in >"apostles" today have been either "fringe" groups or clearly heretical >groups with other beliefs and practices that I believe are >unscriptural. (The Mormons are one example.)

I can understand your reservations. Of course we should not let the teachigns of false groups cause us to believe in reactionary doctrine, rather than the teaching of scripture.

Historically, individuals who initially did ground breaking missions work were sometimes called apostles- Sundar Singh, the apostle to India they say, for example. Of course, he was Indian, so I don't know if 'missions' fits there. I think the Eastern Orthodox use it in a similar way for those who are bishops and do that type of work for their congregations as well. I'm not sure about the Roman Catholics, but I think they may use apostle this way, and occasionally also when refering to bishops, the pope, etc. because they believe these have the authority of the apostles.

There are many groups that believe in apostles other than these groups. Many Charismatics these days believe in apostles. The 'Little Flock' in China believed in apostles. Their view of apostle was someone sent by God to plant churches, and they saw Paul as a type for the post-ascension apostolate. It seemed to work in China. They were the second largest group, didn't get swallowed up by the government Three-Self Church, and still continue to this day underground. They were doing a lot of things house churches there are doing now- using homes to meet in and such. They also had a pluarlity of elders, and practiced open meetings and mutual ministry in meetings.

I think there are some Plymouth Brethren who believe in apostles. This group started at roughly the same time as the RM in the US, and focus a lot of Biblical patterns. The Little Flock movmeent in China was influenced by Darby's Bible exposition, and even were in contact with some Exclusive Brethren, but had a difference of opinion because they weren't as exclusive as the Exclusive Brethren.

There are also a lot of house church Christians who believe that 'apostle' is a ministry for today, and that apostles are servants who plant churches on the foundation fo Christ, and focus existing churches on Christ Jesus.

> And most or all have >claimed, for their apostles, authority that I do not believe the Bible >grants to anyone today.

The problem I see is that a lot of people who believe in apostles claim for themselves authority that the apostles DID NOT even claim for themselves. A lot of elders and professional pastors do the same. The apostles had to walk in mutual submission in the whole body. They were to be servants, not dictators. (I grew up in the South int he US, and I think the dictator-preacher phenomenon is stronger there than in most o ther places in the US.) Paul used persuasion to persuade people, and didn't say 'Do what I want because I am an apostle!'

I dealing with other people in the body on a regular basis, I don't see where apostles are supposed to have the authority to control and dominate other people. They had the authority to build people up. Even the Acts 15 decision seemed good not only to the apostles and elders, but also to the 'brethren' according to the letter from the church.

> If I found clear Biblical teaching that >"apostle" is a position granted to the church for all time, including >today, I would accept that, no matter who else believed it.

Where is the direct evidence that paostrs or evangelist would continue on past the death of John? (There are some cessationists that do not believe in the continution of the ministry of evangelist.) Where is the direct evidence that there should be elders past the death of John? If the Bible doesn't teach that these ministries will cease, should our 'default' understanding be that they will continue.

Strictly from Biblical patterns, we have a pattern for apostles being appointed without succession from another apostle (Paul) but do we have a good pattern for appointing elders without the aid of an apostle? Really think about that? I believe we need to be careful not to get too legalistic about patterns and to follow the leading of the Lord, btw.

I remember Jack responding to this, but I don't recall if you have. What is your view of Ephesians 4:11, where it says that God has set forth in the church apostles, prophets, evangelists...until we all come into the unity of the faith unto the full stature of the fullness of Christ. That is a pretty good argument for on-going ministry from apostles. There is no mention here of the apostolic ministry being replaced by the Bible here.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I have been continuing my research on N.T. use of the word "apostle." I began by looking up every verse that uses the Greek words for "apostle" (including some that English translations usually render as "messenger") or "apostleship". I haven't yet finished my study, but a couple of days ago I wrote up some of what I had found so far -- especially on the possibility of Timothy having been an apostle. I intended to post it here, but right now it seems more "timely" to post it in the "Elders" thread since it also has relevance to things being said there right now. So please go there to read it so I won't waste storage space by posting it twice.

Regarding Eph. 4, I have already given my views on that, at some length. You should be able to find it if you look. Basically, I said that I didn't think what the passage says necessarily requires that ALL FOUR of these "offices" survive until the church comes to full maturity, and that I saw two of them as continuing (evangelists and pastor-teachers), while two (apostles and prophets) were only temporary, given for the infancy of the church.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Of course, I disagree with your interpretation of Ephesians 4. The scripture says that apostles are given...until we all come into the unity of the faith...unto a perfect man.... Your interpretation, imo, seems to be a very 'loose' way of reading the passage.

If apostles and prophets were not in that list, would you agree with me that the verse is saying, based on wording and grammar, that evangelists, pastors and teachers, were set forth in the church until we all come into the unity of the faith. I t seems to me that you separate apostles and prophets off, not based on grammar, but based on your belief that these offices did not continue.

In II Corinthians 1-12, Paul addresses the situation of so called 'super-apostles', men who were actually false apostles. If the only apostles were the 12 and Paul, why didn't Paul say so? Why didnt' he explain to the Corinthians the limits of the term 'apostle.' The 12 and Paul were not the only apostles. Others are mentioned in scripture. Paul, knowing his own background, does not deny that God could cal someone else to this type of work.

On what grounds does Paul defend his apostolic authority to the Corinthians? On what grounds does he argue against these apostles of Satan. It was not based upon the number of apostles that would be sent forth for all time that he argued. He described the bad character of the false apostles, they who comparing themselves among themselves were not wise. Do defend his own authority among hte Corinthians, he wrote that 'we' came as far as you with the gospel fo Christ. Of course, he may have been refering to Timothy and other co-workers in that 'we.' The account in Acts doesn't seem consistent with the idea any of the 12 being with him.

Notice also that Paul wrote to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 9 that if he were not an apostle to others, he was an apostle to them. They were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord.

In church history, the term 'apostle' did not cease being used in the first century. Of course, monarchial bishops would use the term to refer to their own office, but the term was also used for people who did ground-breaking foundational work of opening up the gospel in new territories. Gregory the Illuminator was refered to as the apostle to the Armenians for bringing the message of Christ to that nation. In one generation, Armenia went from a pagan state, to a country of professing Christians. It was the first so-called 'Christian nation.'

I bleieve that the idea that 'apostle' should be limited to the 12 plus Paul does not come from the scriptures themselves, but from recent centuries of church tradition, and from hearing that idea thinking expressed in church for years.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Link,

You said,

"Of course, I disagree with your interpretation of Ephesians 4. The scripture says that apostles are given...until we all come into the unity of the faith...unto a perfect man.... Your interpretation, imo, seems to be a very 'loose' way of reading the passage.

If apostles and prophets were not in that list, would you agree with me that the verse is saying, based on wording and grammar, that evangelists, pastors and teachers, were set forth in the church until we all come into the unity of the faith. It seems to me that you separate apostles and prophets off, not based on grammar, but based on your belief that these offices did not continue."

When the New Testament speaks of the church being "built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets", do you take that to include Judas? If not, why not?

For an example that would be more closely parallel, if I were preaching on Romans 13, I might say something like this, "Christ has appointed presidents, kings, czars, prime ministers, and sultans to serve as his servants here on earth, ruling over earthly matters UNTIL HE COMES AGAIN." If I did that, would you take it that I meant that every country and every era has all of these, i.e. presidents, kings, czars, prime ministers, and sultans? If not, why not?

Do you take the passage in Ephesians 4 to mean that each local congregation must have all four of these offices, i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers? (Perhaps you do. Most people wouldn't.) If not, why not?

There is nothing in the passage itself to require that any particular location or any particular era MUST have all four of these "positions" or "roles" until full maturity is reached. These are examples (perhaps not even the only examples) of various groups of people who were given "gifts of leadership" for the purpose of preparing "God's people to do works of service." As for which were "local", which were "general", which were "temporary", which were "permanent", or even what the specific role of each was is NOT specified. For information on aspects such as those, it is necessary to look at other scripture.

No scripture should be understood in a way that contradicts other scripture. When there is an apparent contradiction, you can be sure that your understanding of one or the other is in error. I believe that Ephesians 4 refers to the category of "apostles" that included The Twelve and Paul. I believe that one of the qualifications of this select group is clearly delineated in several places in Scripture as being that the person had to have seen Christ personally after Christ's Resurrection and received his commission to be an apostle directly from Christ. Since no one beyond the first generation of Christians could fulfill that requirement, that particular "gift" or "role", mentioned in Eph. 4, must be "temporary."

I also believe, for reasons I have gone into at great length elsewhere, that the gift of prophecy as also "passed away". Therefore, "prophets" too refers to a "temporary" position.

If there were evidence that every one of these positions were only temporary, then I might have cause to rethink my position on Eph. 4 and say, "Hey, wait a minute! Something's wrong here." But I don't see anything at all to indicate that the roles/positions/gifts of evangelist or pastor/teacher would "cease" (I Cor. 13:8) or that it would be impossible for later generations to fit the qualifications. Therefore, I see it, as I described at length previously, as two temporary positions, and two permanent positions, all given for the same purpose, but for different eras of the life of the church.

You may choose to believe that my position on this is "not based on grammar, but based on [my] belief that these offices did not continue." I choose to believe that my position is based on other scripture and on many centuries of church history. Your position, however, isn't based on grammar either -- since there is nothing to REQUIRE that all four of the positions continue until the church is fully mature. Rather it seems to be based on your belief that there still are apostles and prophets today. And you seem to be snatching at straws to try to PROVE it.

You also said, "Gregory the Illuminator was refered to as the apostle to the Armenians for bringing the message of Christ to that nation."

You have raised similar examples before. I haven't bothered to respond because I wasn't sure you were serious. The word "apostle" is often used figuratively. It is even used, sometimes, to refer to prominent spokesmen for non-Christian causes. David Brainerd is sometimes called the "apostle to the Indians". There was another man (I've forgotten his name right now) who was called the "apostle to the South Seas". I believe he was killed by cannibals. But how many who refer to them by these names actually think of them as "apostles of Christ" in the sense that Paul was? How many who refer to them by these names even believe that the New Testament position of "apostle" still existed when these men lived?

The figurative use of a title doesn't necessarily mean that a particular "rank" existed at that particular time. If you want to use the fact that certain prominent people were referred to as "apostles" to such-and-such a group, you would have a much more credible case if you would also produce evidence to show that those who called them by these titles were intending it in a literal rather than a figurative sense, and/or that there were also others, at the same time period, who were called by the same title.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Bejamin,

>When the New Testament speaks of the church being "built on the >foundation of the apostles and the prophets", do you take that to >include Judas? If not, why not?

I ws going to say that the 12 are on the foundations, and that Matthias replaceed Judas. But Paul (and others) are called apostles. Paul was involved in laying the foundation of Christ. But the verse also say that the church was built on the foundation of the prophets there in that verse, so the church is built on more than just htefoundation of the 12. As for whether 'the apostles' there includes Judas, I'd rather not speculate on such things. Matthias was chosen to take up the position that from which Judas by transgression fell.

>For an example that would be more closely parallel, if I were >preaching on Romans 13, I might say something like this, "Christ has >appointed presidents, kings, czars, prime ministers, and sultans to >serve as his servants here on earth, ruling over earthly matters UNTIL >HE COMES AGAIN." If I did that, would you take it that I meant that >every country and every era has all of these, i.e. presidents, kings, >czars, prime ministers, and sultans? If not, why not?

Well, Romans 13 does not say that. And it doesn't make sense to say that every country would have a czar. Some have had czars and other prime ministers.

I know what I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say that 'kings' in the verse only refered to 12 kings that were existence in Paul's day, and that the term did not refer to any other kings.

>Do you take the passage in Ephesians 4 to mean that each local >congregation must have all four of these offices, i.e. apostles, >prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers?

I don't think that most first century churches always had apostles in their midst, though individual congregations profitted from apostolic visits. Evangelists might be busy traveling as well, and so might not always have been in one church every week. Many apostles were mobile, and didn't always remain in the same church. From the New Testament, it would seem profitable for there to be prophets, pastors, and teachers.

I believe Paul is talking about the church universal here. He talks about one faith and one baptism earlier in the chapter. And the church is to become a perfect man.

Benjamin, I believe it is you who are taking the non-literal use of the word. I am interpreting the word literally here in Ephesians 4:11 to refer to 'sent ones.' like the 12, James and the other apostles Chirst appeared to before His ascension, Paul and Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, and maybe even Andronichus and Junia.

If those who call Gregory and these other folks apostles because they ebleive they were sent by God to take the gospel to new areas, they are using the term literally.

You are using a restricted meaning to say the word refers to the '12 plus 1' but where is the evidence for restricting the use of the term 'apostles' to 12 +1 from the scriptures? Paul uses it for certain members of his own company. The Bible calls Paul and Barnabas apostles.

I'm not wanting to see a lot of mini-popes called 'apostle's claiming to hear excathedra and walk on water instead of riding boats. In fact, I think that a lot of church leaders that take conventional titles like 'pastor' or 'elder' sometimes exercise more control and presume to have more authority than the apostles had. The apostles had to practice mutual submission and realize that 'all ye are brethren' as well. My view of what an apostle is is not all that far theological from some acapella CoC preacher's view of what an evangelist is. i think the wrong titles are being used.

Early in church history, the local, settled ministries began to squeeze various Biblical ministry into the concept of eldership. the ministries of apostle and evangelist began to be overlooked. Those who carried the gospel to other areas were ordained at times as 'bishops' instead of recognizing these other scriptural ministries. The 'work' and the 'church' some say have been mixed up, instead of being separate and working sybiotically with one another.

If you are going to so narrowly define the use of the term 'sent ones' you should have scriptural basis for it. It seems to me that you are reading 'the 12 plus 1' into a lot of verses that mention 'apostles,' in spite of scritural usage of the term. So, scripture does not limit the apostles to 12 plus 1, uses the term to include James, Barnabas (and I believe Timothy and Silas as well.) You seem to regard to reference to Barnabas as an exception. But on what basis do you consider it an exception? The 12+1 concept. But where is that conept in scripture. I know that it is a popular post- reformation understanding, but that doesn't mean that we should accept that as a filter through which to interpret scripture.

> I believe that one of the qualifications of this >select group is clearly delineated in several places in Scripture as >being that the person had to have seen Christ personally after >Christ's Resurrection and received his commission to be an apostle >directly from Christ. Since no one beyond the first generation of >Christians could fulfill that requirement, that particular "gift" or >"role", mentioned in Eph. 4, must be "temporary."

Let's discuss those specific scriptures. I don't think that conclusion is as obvious as you seem to.

Paul fulfilled the requirement after the ascension. Was Paul first generation or second generation? Paul is a good example of Jesus calling someone as an apostle without following roman catholic apostolic succesion. There were already 12 apostles, and other apostles that Christ sent. Then this man named Paul, who used to persecute the church, went around persecuting the church earlier, starts preaching and claims to have seen Christ. After some time, a group of ministering saints in the Antioch church where he'd been teaching got a word from the Spirit to send Paul out. Paul started preaching. Though he wasn't one of the 12, he said he was an apostle.

How did the church know this? They heard the voice of the Spirit. Peter and John saw that there was a gift in him, and gave him the right hand of fellowship. The Lord worked. The Lord raised him up as an apostle.

I see stories of such men as examples of how the Lord works, especially since other men who did the same type of work Paul was doing were also called apostles. (Barnabas, Silas and Timothy, co- workers mentioned in I Corinthaisn 4 who worked with their own hands and were included in the 'we' apostles.)

He might have been 10 to 20 years younger than Peter. Was Timothy a second generation Christian? How do you know that Jesus didn't appear to timothy or Silas and speak to them as he spoke to Ananias who baptized Paul? Scripture does call Silas a prophet. Many people in church history have reported seeing visions of Christ.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

John,

Notice that Paul himself did not fit the requirements Peter listed. At least, it is extreeeeeeeeemly unlikely to think Paul was with the Lord since the days of John the baptist, then persecuted the church probably decades later as a 'young man.'

Benjamin. Your reading into my posts some things I did not actually say. When you asked me to intepret the passage, I pointed out that premies had low survival rates back then. The word of God often is very deep. there may be something prophetic to the fact that Paul was prematurely born. I agree that the most straight-forward interpretation of the text seems to be that Paul seem to be that Paul was like a premature baby in that he was unlikely to make it, but he did survive.

After Paul was called, there were other apostolic teams going around doing the work of the ministry. Paul was not the last to see the Lord. John sawhim later. And he was not the only person other than the 12 to be refered to as an apostle. There are apostles other than Paul and the 12 mentioned in this very passage! Jesus appeared to 'all the apostles' after appearing to the 12 and before appearing to Paul.

The most straightforward way of interpetatin I Thesalonians 2:6-7 is to see Timothy and Silas as apostles. Unless you want to say that Paul, Silus, and Timothy were just 'like' apostles of Christ. Do you think they were just acting like apostles?

Paul wpoke of 'we' refering to apostles, and said that they worked with their own hands. In the same epistle, he mentions that he and Barnabas worked for a living, while other apostles received support. THe 12 probably all received support. Paul and Barnabas worked to support themselves as they traveled. So who are the 'we' apostles? IT is unlikely that it refered to the 12. Some say that it refers to Paul, Apollos, mentioned in the chapter. It may refer to Paul, Silas, and Timothy. After all, who else had the Corinthians met? Why would he refer to 'we apostles' about other apostles they had not met, who didn't fit the entire description in the passage (working with their own hands.)

Where is the definition of "12 + 1" for apostles in the Bible? Patristic writings at least acknowledged the 70 as apostles as well. The '12+1' may have even become popular inthe post-Reformation era. But where is the scriptural support for this category?

'The 12' get a category of their own. Paul, according to his own understanding in I Corinthains 15, was not one of the 12. There were apostles other than the 12 that Jesus appeared to before his ascension mentioned in that same chapter. Jesus appeared to Paul. Scripture also refers to Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and others. Barnabas traveled, preached, appoitned elders- apostolic work.

If you create a '12+1' category, what good does that do, since Barnabas did the same type of work?

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Link,

I said,

">For an example that would be more closely parallel, if I were >preaching on Romans 13, I might say something like this, "Christ has >appointed presidents, kings, czars, prime ministers, and sultans to >serve as his servants here on earth, ruling over earthly matters UNTIL >HE COMES AGAIN." If I did that, would you take it that I meant that >every country and every era has all of these, i.e. presidents, kings, >czars, prime ministers, and sultans? If not, why not?"

To which you responded,

"Well, Romans 13 does not say that. And it doesn't make sense to say that every country would have a czar. Some have had czars and other prime ministers."

You have confirmed my point. My point did not have to do with exactly what Romans 13 had. I could have chosen an example that had nothing to do with the Bible. My point is that saying that there will be certain kinds of leaders (and the list may not even be exhaustive -- it might only be some examples) -- from now until some time in the future (or from now until infinity) does not, in itself, mean that every kind of leader included in the list will be present in every situation and every time period. If other Scriptures show that certain "offices" in the list were only temporary (as I believe it does!), I would not use this passage to try to prove those other scriptures wrong. Instead I would amend my understanding of this passage and say, "Oh, I see! Two offices for the beginning of the church and only temporary; two that are permanent. Two offices that are "local"; two that are "general" in scope. It makes sense."

At the end, you said, "If you create a '12+1' category, what good does that do, since Barnabas did the same type of work?" To what extent are you saying that Barnabas "did the same type of work" as Paul? To a certain extent, the ordinary Christians from Jerusalem did "the same type of work" as Barnabas when they were "scattered abroad" in Acts 8. Yes, Barnabas did do some more than this, but our actual knowledge of what he did is quite limited. Did he do EVERYTHING that Paul did? Did he do everything that Paul asserted he had a right to do BECAUSE HE (PAUL) WAS AN APOSTLE?

Did Barnabas write epistles instructing the churches, as Paul did? Remember that when the canon was debated later, one of the criteria used was whether or not the person was an apostle or had a close association with an apostle. Do you seriously believe that when they were debating that they understood the term "apostle" as loosely as you are trying to use it?

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

It doesn't stand to reason taht if the church universal has all five ministries, that each individual congregation necessarly has them all. But the most straightfoward way of interpretating 'God has set forth in the church, apostles, prophets, evangelists...till we all come into the unity of the faith'

Is that these ministries will be around until that time.

You wrote, > If other Scriptures show that >certain "offices" in the list were only temporary (as I believe it >does!), I would not use this passage to try to prove those other >scriptures wrong.

Do the scriptures teach this? Could you show me clearly where you get this. This view seems to be built on the idea that certain gifts would cease by _assuming_ that 'the perfect' is the completed canon in I Corinthians 13. (Correct me if this is not a step in your reasoning.) But if we have a passage like Ephesians 4, that should be taken into consideration when we interpret I Corinthians 13 as well.

Another step in the reasoning seems to be that there cannot by apostles because they cannot personally meet Christ. Paul met Christ after the ascesion. The idea that men cannot meet Christ now as Paul did, seems to be based on the theological assumption about I Corinthians 13 mentioned above.

The idea that one HAD to have seen Jesus to be an apostle is something we need to discuss anyway. I am not convinced of it.

>At the end, you said, "If you create a '12+1' category, what good does >that do, since Barnabas did the same type of work?" To what extent >are you saying that Barnabas "did the same type of work" as Paul? To >a certain extent, the ordinary Christians from Jerusalem did "the same >type of work" as Barnabas when they were "scattered abroad" in Acts 8.

Paul planted churches and appointed elders as Barnabas did. Acts calls them both apostles (Acts 15:15.) Paul writes in I Corinthians 9:1-6

"Am I not an apostle?...If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless i am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord...Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas, Or I only and Barnabas have not we power to forbear working?"

Notice how Paul puts himself and the other apostles in the same category with Barnabas. Scripture calls Barnabas an apostle, so on what basis do you put him in a lower category than Paul.

>Did he do everything that Paul asserted he had a right to do BECAUSE >HE (PAUL) WAS AN APOSTLE? > >Did Barnabas write epistles instructing the churches, as Paul did?

Barnabas may have. But it was not included in the canon. God did not have all the paostles writings included in the canon. Most of the 12 do not have writings included inthe canon. Being an apostle did not mean one's writings would be included in the canon.

There is an epistle attributed to Barnabas.

>Remember that when the canon was debated later, one of the criteria >used was whether or not the person was an apostle or had a close >association with an apostle. Do you seriously believe that when they >were debating that they understood the term "apostle" as loosely as >you are trying to use it?

Many of the bishops at that time, if Eusebius is a good representation, would have thought that there were other apostles besides the 12 and Paul. Mark traveled with other apostles, and his gospel was included- perhaps an account of Peter's if that tradition is right.

Byt he time the canon was formed, the bishops started using 'apostle' to refer to their own authority, and aw things in terms of the traditional settled ministries that developed of bishop, elder, and deacon. Traveling ministries and prophets were not given the same attention in the then-current church that they were in the scriptures.

Some 7th day Adventists interpret the word "Law' in one place to refer to the 10 commandments, and in another to refer to the whole OT. There isn't much basis for which word they choose in places, except that it yields a favorable interpretation for their position. What is the basis for redefining the word 'apostle' when it refers to Barnabas or others besides Paul and the 12?

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

You said,

"Do the scriptures teach this? Could you show me clearly where you get this. This view seems to be built on the idea that certain gifts would cease by _assuming_ that 'the perfect' is the completed canon in I Corinthians 13. (Correct me if this is not a step in your reasoning.)"

O.K.! I'm correcting you. The argument about "the complete" in I Cor. 13 is one bit of supporting evidence with regard to "prophets" (but by no means the whole of my reasons for believing this). It has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on the position of "apostle" (in the sense that Paul was an apostle) having ceased.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

At some point in the past you mentioned that Watchman Nee believed that the position of "apostle" was still valid for today. I ran across the following in the course of my research on the "Boston Movement" or "International Church of Christ" --

"A third root of the authoritarian approach to discipling can be found in the writings and influence of Watchman Nee. He is the favorite theologian of many modern charismatics. Nee is a somewhat heroic figure because he suffered a long imprisonment by the Chinese Communists. In his early career, he went through a brief association with the Plymouth Brethren and came under the influence of Pietism. In later years, he advocated very forcefully a strong role for those with 'delegated authority.' As Russell T. Hitt reported,

"'Watchman Nee, a prolific writer and leader of the indigenous Chinese church movement known as the Little Flock, makes a strong plea for the need for Christians to obey delegated authority in the church. "The church is a place not only for fellowship of brothers and sisters," says Nee, "but also for the manifestation of authority." 3'

"Nee's writings on spiritual authority and on the normal church life reflect the kind of Asian authoritarianism that prevailed before World War II. According to Bob Buess, Nee required blanket obedience regardless of morals or righteousness simply for the sake of obedience .4

"Nee taught that each person must have a "covering" in the Lord. He used that term for a person who has delegated authority, who must be obeyed unconditionally, and who must be imitated. He also taught that Christians must confess their sins to the person who is their 'covering.' Jerram Barrs explained that the doctrine of 'covering' means that ideas, decisions, and lifestyle must be covered by someone higher in the chain of command; thus the 'covering' gives instructions on many secular matters and not just on matters of faith.5 This, of course, is what the discipling churches such as the Boston Church of Christ call a 'discipler.'

"Nee had another doctrine that has been picked up by the Boston Church of Christ. He taught that there should be only one congregation in each city. Juan Carlos Ortiz later advocated the same thing. When Nee's 'Little Flock' moved into a city, they proclaimed themselves as the only church (and the only local congregation) approved by God in that city. Study the writings of Watchman Nee and you will find that the discipling movement did not begin with the Boston Church of Christ or the Crossroads Church of Christ. It did not begin with Kip McKean or Chuck Lucas. It did not begin in churches of Christ at all."

With views like these, it is no wonder that Watchman Nee would find the idea of modern-day "apostles" attractive!!

How does this fit with your views that the apostles in the New Testament, including The Twelve, practiced mutual accountability between themselves and the rest of the Christians and were NOT authoritarian in their approach?

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

You asked, "Some 7th day Adventists interpret the word "Law' in one place to refer to the 10 commandments, and in another to refer to the whole OT. There isn't much basis for which word they choose in places, except that it yields a favorable interpretation for their position. What is the basis for redefining the word 'apostle' when it refers to Barnabas or others besides Paul and the 12?"

Let me ask you in return -- what is the basis for saying that the "shepherds" who left their sheep to go see the baby Jesus the night he was born were not the "pastors" of churches? Or do you believe that they were?

Almost all of the words used of "positions" of church leadership had more than one meaning -- a common meaning and a more specialised meaning. Just because a word meant something in one place doesn't mean you can "plug in" the same meaning another place where the same word is used.

How do we know which meaning was intended in which place? A combination of factors -- first of all, the context, second, common sense in looking at the context, third, the light that other scriptures throw on the passage and its context, fourth, the light of church history.

I don't have time right now to argue case by case, person by person, ministry by ministry, but when all the factors (context, common sense, other scriptures, church history, etc.) are put together, I think it is obvious that The Twelve and Paul were regarded as apostles in a different sense than most, if not all, of the others who are described as apostles.

What about Barnabas? I don't think the evidence is strong enough to be dogmatic on either side. Personally, I doubt if his "apostleship" was of the same kind as Paul's. But even if it was, that would not prove that ANY of the other exampes you have thrown out came into the same category. Each would have to be established individually. And it CERTAINLY does not prove that the position of apostle (in the sense that Paul was an "Apostle of Christ") continued beyond the first century.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

Going back to an earlier message from you, you said,

"he word of God often is very deep. there may be something prophetic to the fact that Paul was prematurely born."

If you are meaning what you seem to be meaning about this, which is something I wondered when you first brought it up, i.e. that Paul being "prematurely born" was somehow "prophetic" of other apostles to follow after him, I think you are really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g. As I mentioned previously, the emphasis in the original is not on TIME, i.e. not on the birth being "ahead of time", but on its being not fully or properly developed, of its lacking something in its development.

In the same message, you also said, "The most straightforward way of interpetating I Thesalonians 2:6-7 is to see Timothy and Silas as apostles. Unless you want to say that Paul, Silus, and Timothy were just 'like' apostles of Christ. Do you think they were just acting like apostles?"

I've already explained, quite clearly and fully, what I think are some other likely possibilities -- more likely, I think, than seeing Silas and Timothy as "apostles" in the sense Paul was, since the weight of other evidence is strongly against that interpretation. If you are sincere in wanting to know my opinion on this, go back and re-read what I've already written, rather than asking me to take time to say it all again. In the debate on "the complete" in I Cor. 13, there were some things I explained three or four times, only to have you say again ... and again ... and again, "show me where you get ....", with no reference to what I'd already written!!

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Sorry if I don't make reference to future posts. I often ask again if a previous post has not satisfied me concerning what I was asking.

For example, I would like to see some clear scriptural guidelines for not taking the word apostle 'literally' in some places.

About your questions concerning the use of the term 'pastor.'

I would think the basic meaning of the term refers to one who tends sheep. I think you are asking the wrong question. The question should probably be, how do I know that 'pastor' in Ephesians 4:11 does not refer to literal tenders of sheep rather than to tenders of churchmembers. The Luke 2 shepherds were _literal_ shepherds.

It is pretty clear from context that the pastors in Ephesians are 'set forth in the church.' The matephor of 'pastoring' the church of God is found in other New Testament writings.

I believe your categories for apostles come first from church tradition (a certain variety of it) rather than from teh text. I think the text should come before tradition. I think we should come to the text without the preconcieved idea that Paul was in a special category.

The term apostle means 'sent one.' It might be healpful to sub that phrase in when reading the word in english. We read about people called 'sent ones who preached the gsopel, planted churches, appointed elders, etc. Paul did this type of work. So did Timothy, and Barnabas. Barnabas and Paul are directly called 'apostles.' What scriptural justification is there for saying this does not really mean real apostles? I know I've asked that, but I'd like you to clarify what things in scripture cause you to create different categories. I think you are reading some of your categories into scritpure.

I see three categories, just based on the descriptions we have in scripture. 'Apostles' is used in places to designate the 12. Then it has a wider usage in I Corinthians 15 for the 12 plus others that Christ sent. So those are apostles, too. Later, Paul is caleld an apostle. Christ appeared to Him and told him of his future work. Later, the Holy Spirit spoke while some saints were minsitering to the Lord and told them to separate Paul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them. These two men were 'sent forth' (different word similar concept.)

The scritpure later calls these men 'apostles.' The term apostles is used in connection with Timothy and Silas. Timothy traveled with Paul, preached, evangelized, and had something to do with appointing elders. Silas was a co-laborer of Paul as well. So when I see that they were on the same team doing that work together, and I see that they are called 'apostles' or 'sent ones' that makes sense. Paul uses 'we' when talking about going to certain groups.

Paul and Timothy write concerning their authority, "2 Corinthians 10:13-15 13 But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. 14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ: 15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, "

This is in a discussion about the false apostles. Yet Paul talks about 'we' not just himself. Timothy had authority as well. He had come to the Corinthians as well.

Also, Timothy had received prophecy and had hands laid on him by the elders- compare to Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13.

About Watchman Nee, I'll post more on the Boston movement thread. The book I refered to was probably written during the first half of his ministry. I think it was written in the 30's. He seems to have been more authoratarian about elders than apostles. They considered him to be an apostle. An apostle, in his view, didn't have authority over a church when apostles were appointed, at least that was a view of his early on.

I dont consider the man to have been perfect. He did have some good ideas to right. Many feel he had a too authoratarian view of things, though I never heard that he himself was a dictator type. I think he may have suffered a bit from controlling elders who didn't like the fact he did secular work to support himself on the side.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

One quote above disturbed me a little. Because I know that so few will search out and read source materials, it bothers me the way that Watchman Nee's and Juan Carlos Ortiz's names are being bantered around with doctrines which I do not think they would agree with.

I think that there are contexts in which ideas must be placed. This is certainly true with Watchman Nee. His ideas are/were rather radical at times. When you read his writings, he appears to be a rather intense man. But, most of the writings which appeared after his death were not actually written by him. They are collections of notes or collections of sermons which were edited by others. For example, from the book "The Ministry of God's Word" by Watchman Nee (copyright 1971): "The contents of this volume comprise a series of messages which were delivered in Chinese by the author during a training period for workers held in Kuling, Foochow, China, in 1948." A message delivered in Chinese in 1948 is translated into Englash and printed in 1971 for a totally different audience than the original. Can you follow me here? While what is in these books may not be "wrong" technically, they may not be what Nee would have had in mind if he put the book together himself.

I have read Juan Carlos Ortiz's book "A Call to Discipleship" (which I highly recommend) and in it you will not find any of the ideas which are found in shepherding. His idea of "one church in one city" was not that there was only "one true church" in a city. His idea was that denominational barriers should be overcome and all churches work together for the common good of an area. I'm going to double check my facts, but his tactic was to see other churches/denominations as fellow laborers rather than competitors. His model was actually fairly New Testament in practice. Discipling was a means to promote spiritual maturity, not control.

Witness Lee, on the other hand, takes a whole different approach. His teachings to me are cultic, because it centers on him and his teachings (a cult of personality), and it insists that only those in that group are saved, without exception.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

You said,

"Sorry if I don't make reference to future* posts. I often ask again if a previous post has not satisfied me concerning what I was asking."

(* By "future posts", did you mean "previous posts"?)

If a previous post has not satisfied you completely, it would help if you would ask specific questions, referring to the previous post, about the specific point that hasn't satisfied you, rather than asking essentially the same question over .... and over .... and over .... again! There are some questions from you that I have answered at least three times, only to have you come back with the same question as you asked at the beginning.

BTW, your own posts are long on assertions and "proof texts" and rather short on logical explanations and logical fitting together of the different aspects of the various situations. They are especially lacking on logical answers to the points and arguments I and others have brought up. Your standard answer in most cases seems to be "I don't think it fits ..." (subjective opinion of Link Hudson), "I don't see how you can get that" (even when it has been very carefully and logically explained), etc.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Benjamin,

"I don't see how this fits" is my style of writing. Maybe I should be more assertive and less diplomatic.

Some of the things you write, from my perspective, are based on assumptions. I feel like a lot of my points are not being answered.

For various reasons, i don't like to print out conversations like this. It's easy to loose points in a pile of text when you have to scroll up to find it.

I have asked for your critera for the different classes of apostles or sent ones you find in the scriptures. What I'm really looking for is actual texts, not just some commentary. Maybe we should sicuss the texts if we are to proceed with the conversation.

On Watchman Nee,

I've heard that about him not writing some texts. I read a book attributed to him made from sermon notes. It contained really sloppy circular logic- unlike Nee's writings. Of course, if this was a sermon, he might have been less logical than in his books.

Living Streams ministries puts out these books reconstructed from notes, and they are an arm of the Local Church Movement.

I don't think Witness Lee was as exclusive as the poster above seems to think. His followers, at least, accepts others as Christians. They think their church includes other saints in a city and is represenntative of them, or something like that. I thinkt hey ahve developed a lot of dogma about that since Watchman Nee.

Witness Lee wrote about there being a 'special apostle' in a generation. He considered Nee to have been the previous generation, and himself to be the next. This is totally different from Watchman Nee's idea of an apostle, a servant who preaches to unbeleivers, sets up churches, turns them over to elders, and then moves on. It sounds like elders in Nee's view of things, have the potential to exercise mroe control than apostles.

Others who have written genuine Nee writings consider them to have tones of thje authoratarianism found in traditional Christianity. That house church commentary from those on the egalitarian end of the spectrum on the issue.

Watchman Nee's __The Normal Christian Church Life_ is somewhere on the web. If someone knows his Bible well and can sort through books like this, it is a good read. It's interesting for those interested in studying Chinnese house churches as well. I don't see to have the address on this computer. maybe I can post it later if someone is interested.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Dr. Jon,

May I suggest that you go to the URL I posted, which is where I got the quotation about Watchman Nee. I'll post it again here: http://www.vcnet.com/measures/TDD.01.html. Go to this page, which is the table of contents and Chapter 1 of a book, reprinted on the internet. Click on Chapter 8 in the table of contents, and you will be at the page where I got this. Read it the whole thing, in context, including more about the influence of Juan Carlos Ortiz -- not so much what he taught himself, but of what grew out or has the potential to grow out of his teachings and influence. Then see what you think of the overall treatment.

To answer a question someone -- Link, I think (Hmm! Does this make me a poet?) -- asked somewhere, possibly in another thread --

The quotation about Watchman Nee says this is "a third root" of the authoritarian approach to discipling and shepherding. Someone (Link?) asked what the other two roots are. Actually, this is the third root of a total of five. They are: (1) Roman Catholic Spiritual Directors from the 5th century onward; (2) Pietism/Wesleyanism (in its earlier forms -- it moderated later); (3) Watchman Nee; (4) Parachurch Organizations (e.g. Navigators and Campus Crusade); (5) the modern Charismatic Movement, esp. the "Shepherds of Fort Lauderdale" (who later apologised for the effects of their earlier teaching), Ortiz, modern Roman Catholic Charismatics, etc.

BTW, calling these the "roots" of the authoritarian discipling movement does not NECESSARILY mean that they went to quite the extreme that Kip McKean has done -- only that their teachings and practices led in this direction and in some cases had some historical connection with what later developed.

The document is copiously footnoted, so besides reading the "book" itself, you can easily track down the author's sources.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link,

My question about why you would not think that the shepherds who went to see Jesus on the night he was born was rhetorical -- to make a point about the use of words -- rather than actual. But your answer suggests that the example was even more apt than I thought.

You are right. The real question should be, why do we understand "pastors" in Ephesians 4 to have referred to a position of church leadership rather than tenders of literal sheep? Answer, because the context demands it.

When a word that is normally used in a general sense is used in the Bible in both a general sense and also in a specialised sense, we ought to take it as being used in the general sense EXCEPT WHEN THERE IS COMPELLING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SPECIALISED SENSE.

Another example is the word "disciple". There are places where this too is used as being synonymous with "The Twelve". So does this mean that everyone else who is called a "disciple of Christ" in the New Testament also had the same function and responsibilities as The Twelve. Obviously not! The word must be taken in the general sense except when there is a compelling reason to believe that the writer intended it in the specialised sense!

This, I believe, is where your mistake lies.

I take most of the uses of the word apostle to be general, meaning "messenger" or "representative" or "missionary" (in the way we use the word today) or something like that. ONLY when the context DEMANDS that it be referring to a more specialised usage do I take it has having that more specialised meaning.

There are places where "The Twelve" are called apostles, and references to "The Twelve Apostles", and there it seems to me to have a VERY specialised meaning. Paul claims to have had the authority of an apostle and goes to great lengths to prove that he was an apostle and no less of an apostle than Peter himself! When he does this, it seems obvious that he is using it in a specialised sense!

The case of Barnabas is "borderline". Since I see no other evidence, other than POSSIBLY the few references you have cited, that he was considered an apostle in the specialised sense, since those references are not absolutely conclusive, and since all the other references where it is clearly used in a specialised sense refer to either The Twelve of to Paul, my own inclination is to see him as an apostle in the general sense ("one sent with a mission") but not in the specialised sense. But I can't PROVE it 100%.

The case of Timothy and Titus MIGHT be another borderline case IF there were ANY other evidence, outside of the one verse you cite, that they were ever called "apostles" in ANY sense, but as I have shown before, the evidence is strongly against that, rather than for.

You have been calling on me to produce evidence that these others who were called "apostles" were NOT apostles in the sense that Paul was. Given the way that most of these words that have both a general and a specialised meaning are used in Scripture, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that they WERE apostles in the specialised sense. The Twelve obviously were. Paul is very clear about his claims that his apostleship was "equal" to that of Peter's. The others? I'd say we must put them ALL in the "general" category until PROVEN otherwise, case by case. Merely proving that they were CALLED "apostles" doesn't "cut it".

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

OOPS! I meant Timothy and Silas, rather than Timothy and Titus -- though you (Link) did seem to be also putting Titus in the same category by analogy.

(Last week I could have corrected that myself rather than posting a separate message, but Duane seems to have changed the "admin" password again, so I'm shut out of correcting my typos directly, until/unless I get it again.)

Anticipating a question or objection that might arise out of my last posting -- does Eph. 4 refer to "apostles" in the general sense or the specialised sense? The context -- of Christ giving "gifts" to the church for the purpose of training Christians for works of service so that the body can grow toward maturity -- seems to me to strongly indicate the specialised usage. If it meant the more general usage, what would the role of these other "general" apostles have been in building up the church? The uses of the term were quite broad and included some who were merely "messengers" carrying messages and/or money.

And to anticipate another objection, I don't see any justification for seeing a three or four "tier" position of "apostles" with a "general" usage of the word, a "more specialised" usage of the word, and a "most specialised" usage of the word. I'd have to see pretty convincing evidence to accept that.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Link, you said,

"'I don't see how this fits' is my style of writing. Maybe I should be more assertive and less diplomatic."

I didn't have in mind how assertive or how diplomatic you were, but how much proof and rational argument you used.

I usually TRY to back up what I say with reasoned argument based on concrete facts and scripture, although I have to admit that I've gotten a little sloppy about this recently in the various "debates" with you. It has been frustrating to give pages of carefully reasoned argument and then have it answered with only "I don't see it like that" and a repeat of the same original question.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

>When a word that is normally used in a general sense is used in the >Bible in both a general sense and also in a specialised sense, we >ought to take it as being used in the general sense EXCEPT WHEN THERE >IS COMPELLING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE UNDERSTOOD >IN THE SPECIALISED SENSE.

I don't think it is reasonable to have this as a hermenutical rule.

The use of 'apostle' or 'sent one' to refer to special messengers is the _typical_use of the term in the NT.

The term occurs elsewhere with qualifiers. 'Apostles of the churches.' But when the term is used to refer to people in a church context with no qualifiers, it generally is used to refer to those wo are generally called apostles- the 12 and Paul. The buke of material in the NT which mentions apostles deals with these men. But there are other references to apostles.

Why were the 12 called apostles? What was the significance of the term? In Matthew 10, we see that Jesus chose 12 men, designated them apostles, and then sent them out on a preaching mission to the cities and towns He would later go into. After that, the 12 were refered to as 'apostles.' they traveled around with Jesus as His close disciples.

Later, in Acts we see that Matthias was chosen by the church (or what would become the church) with the casting of lots. Later, Jesus appeared to a man named Saul and told him of his calling. Years later, Saul and Barnabas are sent forth, and we see Paul introduced as an 'apostle' not by himself, but together with Barnabas. These men were also sent out through the church. Acts 14:14 calls them both apostles.

Let us look at some pertinent verses:

Acts 13:1-4 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

So we see that Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the Holy Ghost. Later, these two men were called 'apostles.'

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Notice that both men are called apostles.

Keep in mind that those who received one copy of a NT epistle in the early days did not have the whole Bible. Luke writes about these two men being setn out and then calls them apostles. The one he was writing to had probably heard of apostles. Wouldn't it make sense for Luke to explain that Barnabas was not a 'real' apostle in the generally use of hte word as a religious emissary in this passage?

What makes a real apostle different from a mere messenger? What common link did the'apostles' have? What were they sent to do? Jesus sent forth the 12. The Holy Ghost spoke, and Paul and Barnabas were sent forth. The 12 went forth to preach. Paul and Barnabas went forth to preach.

Paul and Barnabas jointly did apostolic work. They both preached. They appointed elders together. Some think that Barnabas took Paul under his wing up until they split. He was probably older and seems to have been used by the Lord to help Paul get put in the right place in ministry for him in Antioch.

Later, both Paul and Barnabas go back through and encourage brethren in the churches they planted.

keep in mind that the Greek word for 'apostle' didn't have all thereligious connotations of 2000 years of history when it as first used of the 12. A lot of baggage has gotten attached to it. Just read 'sent one' when you come across that word. The 12 were called sent ones after they were sent out on a preaching commission. then we see Paul adn Barnabas being called sent ones. Paul's epistles are full of claims of being called a 'sent one' sent to preach to the Gentiles. We see 'sent on' of Christ (or 'one sent of Christ') used in reference to Silas and Timothy who were working with Paul as co- laborers later on.

Then the Bible talks about 'sent ones' of the churches (or 'ones sent of the churches. These men were carrying money and things like that. We don't see them out planting churches in the few verses they appear in. I see a big difference between the money carrying sent ones andthe preaching sent ones.

But in terms of function adn ministry, Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, and the 12 seem to have had a lot in common. They were 'sent' preachers, who proclaimed the good news to unbeleivers and established churches. Timothy in particular worked under Paul's guidance as Titus did.

>Another example is the word "disciple". There are places where this >too is used as being synonymous with "The Twelve".

Maybe you could show some inter-gospel comparisons to demosntrate this. In general, when I see disciples, I think it is inconclusive. It could refer to the 12 plus others, like the women who followed Jesus, or only some of the 12. I think seeing 'disciples' as refering to the 12 may be a common mistake in Bible intepretation. I haven't gone through with a concordance yet, though.

>The word must be taken in the general sense >except when there is a compelling reason to believe that the writer >intended it in the specialised sense!

The general sense for 'apostle' in the New Testament is of the traveling proclaimer of the gospel variety, not one carrying money, sent out froma church on a limited task.

>There are places where "The Twelve" are called apostles, and >references to "The Twelve Apostles", and there it seems to me to have >a VERY specialised meaning. Paul claims to have had the authority of >an apostle and goes to great lengths to prove that he was an apostle >and no less of an apostle than Peter himself! When he does this, it >seems obvious that he is using it in a specialised sense!

'The apostles' is used to refer to the 12 in places in the Gospels. So one use of the term is for the 12.

Another use of the term is the way Paul uses it. "Sent ones' and not just that special group of sent ones, the 12, but all of them. this includes 'all of the apostles' that Paul refers to in I Corinthians 15, apparently a wider group than the 12. it also includes James the Lord's brother, refered to in the same passage and in Galatians.

Let's examine the passage in Galatians: Galatians 1:18-19 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

James was an apostle, even though he was not one of the 12. What was barnabas doing talking in the meeting of apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Since Luke identifies him as an apostle, then it is likely that they recognized him as an apostle.

And don't forget what Paul wrote abotu Barnabas:

1 Corinthians 9:5-6 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

>The case of Barnabas is "borderline". Since I see no other evidence, >other than POSSIBLY the few references you have cited, that he was >considered an apostle in the specialised sense, since those references >are not absolutely conclusive, and since all the other references >where it is clearly used in a specialised sense refer to either

Wher eis your evidence for a 'specialized sense' of the term. What is your vriteria for the 'senses' of apostleship?

>The case of Timothy and Titus MIGHT be another borderline case IF >there were ANY other evidence, outside of the one verse you cite, that >they were ever called "apostles" in ANY sense, but as I have shown >before, the evidence is strongly against that, rather than for.

Which piece of evidence that you have shown are you refering to. I've seen you make a lot of statements. I don't recall any strong evidence to this effect.

I don't see any evidence in the scriptures actually arguing AGAINST the idea that Timothy was an apostle. I have seen you write why you think the verses on the issue were not conclusive.

I Thessalonians was written by Paul, Silas, and Timothy. I Thessalonians 2:6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.

Let's look at another passage: 1 Corinthians 4:9, 12 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.... And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

Who are the 'us the apostles' Paul is writing about here. Look at verse 12. Paul worked with his own hands. Did the 12 work with their own hands in addition to ministry? Paul, Silas, and Timothy did not make themselves burdensome among the Thesalonians. It is likely that they worked with their own hands. Barnabas apparently did.

It is likely that Paul didn't have the 12 inmind when he wrote of 'us the apostles' working with their own hands. Instead, he probably had the apostles, plural, in mind that the Corinthians had actually seen among them ministering- himself and the other 'apostles of Christ' who were with him.

I don't see why this ideais so contraversial. I think it is contraversial just because 'apostle' is a loaded word, full of tradition. But if a first century Christian who saw 'sent ones' instead of 'apostle' in those passages read them, i think he would think that Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silas were all considered apostles.

Here is another one to mull over:

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

>You have been calling on me to produce evidence that these others who >were called "apostles" were NOT apostles in the sense that Paul was.

How about if we just use 'apostles' for the Greek equivilent, recognizing money deliverers as a sort of 'apostle' of the churches.

>Given the way that most of these words that have both a general and a >specialised meaning are used in Scripture, I think the burden of proof >is on you to show that they WERE apostles in the specialised sense.

I think your jumping the gun here. Let's define our senses first. Let's start at square one. Where do you get the idea that there are different senses of apostleship? What are the senses?

Link

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Link,

I wrote,

>The case of Timothy and Titus MIGHT be another borderline case IF >there were ANY other evidence, outside of the one verse you cite, that >they were ever called "apostles" in ANY sense, but as I have shown >before, the evidence is strongly against that, rather than for.

To which you responded:

"Which piece of evidence that you have shown are you refering to. I've seen you make a lot of statements. I don't recall any strong evidence to this effect."

I showed (a) that if it were not for this one verse, the evidence would be strongly AGAINST Timothy and Silas having been considered "apostles", and (b) that this verse itself is far from conclusive that he was. Therefore, even with this verse, the bulk of the evidence, in my opinion, points toward him NOT having been an apostle.

As for the evidence I gave to back up those two points, scroll back until you find it and re-read what I wrote before. (At the time you called it a "good posting.") I am getting tired of having to repeat myself so often.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Link, you said,

"The use of 'apostle' or 'sent one' to refer to special messengers is the _typical_use of the term in the NT."

That's obviously what you are wanting us to believe, but I don't think you have proven it.

Do as I've done. Look up EVERY occurence of the GREEK words for "apostle" and "apostleship" (some won't show up in an English concordance because few, if any, English translations render them this way).

Most uses of the word "apostle" appear in the gospels, where it refers exclusively to The Twelve. But in the rest of the N.T. you will find a mixture of references to The Twelve and Paul (and POSSIBLY a LIMITED number of others), to those who could not possibly have been apostles in the sense that Paul was (otherwise, why did he find it necessary to spend so much time defending his "apostleship" if it was such a common position?), and to some which are borderline and for which the reader will have to make the best decision he can according to his own understanding of the situation. (And your understanding and mine are so different we may never agree on this -- though I hope an OBJECTIVE look at ALL the facts will lead you to moderate your stand some.)

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Benjamin, you wrote, >>>>>I showed (a) that if it were not for this one verse, the evidence would be strongly AGAINST Timothy and Silas having been considered "apostles", and (b) that this verse itself is far from conclusive that he was. Therefore, even with this verse, the bulk of the evidence, in my opinion, points toward him NOT having been an apostle. <<<<

You made a good point in the post before, that the word 'as' is used in I Thessalonians 2:6-7. I felt that it was a good post because it dealt directly with issues in the texts of scripture.

As for this with other scripture being strong evidence AGAINST Timothy and Silas being considered apostles, I don't agree with that point. If we start from a nuetral point of view, without the idea that the gift of apostle was limited to the 12 and Paul, the discusson of the word 'as' is not evidence against Timothy being considered an apostle. Paul refered to apostles working with their own hands in I Corinthians 4. Who was he referring to? (I would like an answer to some of these specific points I've brought up.

You wrote:

>>>>Do as I've done. Look up EVERY occurence of the GREEK words for "apostle" and "apostleship" (some won't show up in an English concordance because few, if any, English translations render them this way). <<<<

I believe I did that several months back. I did it again yesterday, running a string like 'apostol' through the Greek transliterated Bible I have on my PC. I found that the overwhelming number of references to apostles referred to peple doing the preacher/church-planting type of apostolic work. There were the references to Timothy and Silas, the verse abotu Andronichus and Junia, as well. Beyond that, the other references to 'apostle's who may not have been the goundation laying type were 'messengers' or 'apostles' of the chuches sent to bring supplies or money to Paul. One man was an 'apostle' sent from Paul if I remember correctly. There is a reference to false apostles and those claiming to be apostles but who were not.

Just based on the number of references, the typical use of the term 'apostle' in the New Testament is to a type of gospel minister. There are a few other uses of the term- but with clarifications which show us the limited sense. For example, apostles of hte churches.

>>>to those who could not possibly have been apostles in the sense that Paul was (otherwise, why did he find it necessary to spend so much time defending his "apostleship" if it was such a common position?),<<<<

The defenses of Paul's apostleship are some of the strongest pieces of evidence that there were more than 13 apostles. For example, the reference to Barnabas.

Paul deals with the problem of false apostles toward the end of I Corinthians. These men measured themselves among themselves. Paul, on the otherhand, did not boast in other peole's labors. These false apostles may have been Jews who claimed to have known Jesus or claimed some other qualifications as apostle. (I'm speculating here.) They went the existing church at Corinth, which had started through Paul's preaching.

Look at (II Cor. 10:15-16.)

Paul and a few other co-laborers had worked to establish this church. When Paul defends his authority, in contrast to the false apostles who did not boast within their own labors, he wrote of his own authority. But he wrote not of 'my' authority and 'my' work. He wrote of 'we' and 'us.' Here is a descripton of the reasoning behind Paul's authority in the Corinthain church- authority to build up. Paul and his companions had brought the gospel to them. They had done the work together, and their sphere of authority extended to the Corinthians because of htis. Compare this to the beginning of I Corinthians 9, where we see that the Corinthians were the seal of Paul's apostleship in the Lord. They were the proof of his calling.

If there were only 13 apostles, why didn't Paul argue against the false apostles by explaining that there were only 12+1 apostles, and they didn't fit these qualifications? Instead, he points to their character. When he offers proofs of his own ministry, he writes about his sufferings for Christ's sake, and writes that he signs of an apostle were done among them with signs, a wonders, and mighty deeds. Which of Why does Paul argue for true apostleship and against false apostleship based on the operation of God's grace, and on issues of character, if the term 'apostle' only referred to a such a limited number of ministers of the gospel?

The scritpures plainly call both Paul and Barnabas apostles. It is a direct statement in Acts. Is there any reason not to consider him to be an apostle? The only reason I could see would be a predisposition brought to scripture, to think that there were only 12 +1 apostles. If we arrive at our understanding of what an apostle is just by reading the scriptures, then the scriptures calling both Paul and Barnabas apostles will be taken into consideration in coming up with the definition.

I think it is beneficial to read 'sent one' whenever the term 'apostle' shows up, and keep in mind that Paul and others were sent by Christ to do the work.

I believe the scriptures have patterns for us for church planting and setting up new churches in unreached area. There are local ministers inteh scriptures. But the Bible shows us that the Spirit can call a man like Barnabas to go out and preach the gospel and plant churches. Other hsaints can hear the Spirit's call and respond to it. Timothy also had a gift in him given with prophecy through the laying on of hands of the elders. The Bible shows us ways in which God can send for laborers to preach the gospel and start new churches. (I live in a part of the world where most people don't even claim to be Christians, and this issue is one that is important here.) The Bible shows us church planting by apostles, preaching by an evangelist, with follow-up being done by leaders from a chruch in another city, and regular believers being scattered and starting new churches by meeting together.

The Bible shows us that God can raise up a man like Paul. Though Christ had already ascended, he still appeared to Paul. Christ told Paul that He was going to send Paul to the Gentiles after Paul fell into a trance in prayer. After Paul had ministered for some time, some saints heard the Spirit's call to separate Paul and Barnabas. They went forth in response to the call of the Spirit. Even though Christ had been raised from the dead, He will still able to call a man as an apostle, and even appear to Him. [I don't know that all apostles had to have seen Christ, btw.]

We can come up with our own techniques and models for planting new chruches, but there are some for us already in the Bible.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

I could continue trying to answer your specific points -- many of which I have already dealt with previously, and I'm not sure that any new explanations would be any more satisfactory to your than the previous ones have been, since it is all dealing with the same basic material in the Bible.

I hope eventually to present a general overview of all the passages that use the Greek words for "apostle" and "apostleship", but that is taking time to think through and prepare, and taking too much time out to deal with side issues only delays that.

In the meantime, however, I have begun to wonder about your motives. Why is it so important to you to spend so much time and effort convincing us that the position of "apostle of Christ" is one for today?

If you are taking the word in a fairly general sense, to mean primarily someone who is "sent", who preaches the gospel, who plants churches, and who appoints elders to those churches, "we" in the R.M. already have people like that. We call them (depending on the situation) "missionaries", "evangelists", and "church planters."

While I agree, in general, that we should "call Bible things by Bible names", there are sometimes differences of opinion on EXACTLY what was meant by certain Biblical names, and/or what certain people who are clearly doing Biblical work should most appropriately be called, Biblically. This seems to be one of them. As long as the work is being done, why not rejoice in that and quit quibbling over what "title" we should use for the person who is doing it?

On the other hand, if you are trying to establish somehow that there are people today who have the authority and the miraculous powers that the apostle Paul had, you have chosen an awfully circuitous route to that end, and one that in the end won't "prove" that case in the least.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

Benjamin,

At the beginning of the evangelist's thread, I said that my concern might be largely an issue of semantics. I believe that the gospel work can go on even if people use the wrong titles.

Onthe ohter hand, not understanding proper titles and ministries can lead to misunderstandign scripture, overlooking scriptural patterns and teachings, and trying to read the current system into passages of scripture. So understanding these titles is important for interpreting the Bible and learning how God operates in the church.

As for apostles that do miracles and have the authority that Paul had- I believe that regular believers can do miralces if God gives that sort of gifting to them. And I certainly believe that God can give the gift of miracles to those out preaching the gospel on the frontiers of the gospel, including apostles and evangelists. As for authority, I don't believe there are apostles that have the authority to add to the New Testmaent cannon. Not many of the 12 were even chosen to do that. But as far as Paul's otehr authority in regard to churches he planted, he seemed to have the concept that 'all ye are brethren' rather than being a dictator. He did have authority as a spiritual father int he gospel. I beleive that it is possible for osmone who brings the gospel in a new area to have that sort of authoirty and responsibility to new believers.

Link

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000