Leroy, Sorry if I misrepresented your ideas.

Elders, a New Testament function seem to be a carry-over from the Old Testament. They were just kind of their. I see elders in the OT as something similar to patriarchs in an extended family, except on the community level. Lots of cultures have had an elder system.

Christ is present when two or three are gathered in His name. christ taught that when he talked about the chruch disfellowshipping the unrepentant rbother. There is authority in Christ's assembly (not just ina few members thereof.)

The deacons, Philip and Stephen, evangelized and refuted those who spoke against the truth. Is that hte work of elders? Yes. But it is also 'brother work.' elders do the work that other brothers do. They are just community leaders. In fact, they are to be 'ensamples to the flock.' Elders teach, giving the flock a model for teaching. Other members of the flock teach as well. Elders evangelize, providing an example for others, etc.

Peter said for the younger to submit themselves unto the elder (hint at age of elders), and Paul said to submit to them that labor among you. Not all ministers in a local body are elders. Some young people who are gifts of pastor-teacher to the body may not be at the stage of life where they have a family, much less one that is well ruled. They aren't ready to be elders, but teach nonetheless.

James said to call for the elders of the church to annoint the sick with oil, and the prayer of faith would save the sick and if he had committed sins, the sins would be forgiven. The passage continues to tell the regular believers to confess their faults one to another and pray one for another that they may be healed. Here we see elders being used in healing and regular believers being used in healing.

Elders aren't to be the only ones doing ministry in the body. They are to be examples o flife and ministry to the flock. Elders must be good fathers, ruling their houses well so they can rule the house of God well. Elders are to be like fathers.

Think about a father a hundred years ago, back when people passed on family businesses to the next generation. The father in a family owns a store. He teaches his children how to run the store and do math. When they are smal, the children don't do the count the money. They may clean the floor. But as they mature, the learn to do more and more. Eventually, all the kids can count the money, and some of the children may be eventually qualified.

In a church situation, elders should train up other people to do the ministry they do. Evenytually, churches can produce elders.

Why are there no elders mentioned inthe Corinthian situation? I don't believe it is because the apostles set up different church government for each place. I believe a key truth here is that churches can be established without elders. Paul and Barnabas planted churches onthe first missioanry journey. Perhaps because it was the practice of the early church to have the congregation speak, not just one man, they could meet, and be the church. Regular disciples like Ananias could baptize. We know that Paul did not want novices in the faith appointed as elders. So when Paul and Barnabas returned after many months or a year or two, they appointed elders. The Lord had raised men up to be overseers in these churches.

There are no elders mentioned in the Antioch situation when Paul and Barnabas were there. I tmay be that htey worked together so well, that appointing elders was not a big necessity. I believe appointing elders was the pattern the apostles followed, but they weren't in a hurry to do it. You have to let fruit mature before you pick it off the vine. Churches can function without elders, provided they are led by the Spirit and learn to submit one to another.

Elders also need to realize that they are not to lord it over God's heritage. The congregation must be of one heart and one mind, as Paul writes.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Answers

Quotes from the evangelist thread: Link Some good thoughts. Thanks for the mental and Scriptural stimulation. If a church does not have Elders, how is it to be led and what is the Biblical model for that?

-- Leroy Thompson (lwvrmtho@FGI.NET), July 21, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

another thought just occurred. Quite honestly it's one that I had not thought of. If the only mention of the selection of Elders is Apostolic appointment why do we have congregational selection now? If the answer is based on Acts 6, why is that the case? That appears to be people whose task was to "Diakonein"

-- Leroy Thompson (lwvrmtho@FGI.NET), July 21, 2000.

Link's responses:

Some churches make decisions by consensus and members of the body take up responsibility when there are no elders.

As for appointing elders, where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, He is there inthe midst. One church sent forth apostles and there is no mention of apostles laying hands on them to send them out, or even elders. Just prophets and teachers. But the Holy Spirit spoke. timothy was given a gift through the laying on of hands of the elders accompanied by prophecy.

We can try to do everything by 'Biblical patterns' and still miss it sometimes. There are some loopholes in Biblical patterns that can only be filled in by the leading of God's Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Linc. On the previous thread on "Evangelist" I responded carefully to the thought on Timothy being ordained by the Elders, but that Paul gave him this Charismata, which he spoke of twice, which you did not respond to. The setting aside of Elders in each local congregation was done by the Evangelist. They are not a self-perpetuating group. Naturally the congregation has their role in all of this. I do not mean to infer that they do not. All in all I see this as Gods call anyway, for they are men who possess the qualities that Paul set forth to Timothy and Titus to be on the watch for, and desire the work. Our current day clergy bird situation has been misleading to many young people who are considering being what the world calls a full time preacher. Many Evangelists do have to have tent making jobs often to make ends meet, or their wives have to wind up supporting them. Anyway. Let us pray the Lord will send more laborers into the field. Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2000

Jack, You wrote:

>> On the previous thread on "Evangelist" I responded carefully to the thought on Timothy being ordained by the Elders, but that Paul gave him this Charismata, which he spoke of twice, which you did not respond to.<<

I believe I did respond to it, but maybe the response was hard to find in my posts.

My response: What makes you think that the gift that Paul refers to, that was given to Timothy, was the gift to be an evangelist?

Timothy was an apostle who was to do the work of an evangelist.

Timothy received a gift with prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the elders. This is similar to Paul and Barnabas being sent out on an apostolic journey.

Neither text tells us what particular gift was bestowed on Timothy at that time, or what the prohpecy about him was.

From the rest of scripture, where is the evidence that the work of an evangelist was appointing elders. Appointing elders was the work of apostles. The evangelist we read about who was not also refered to in scripture as an apostle, Philip, did not appoint elders. He preached and left the follow-up to others.

So where is the Biblical pattern for evangelists appointing elders? I see a pattern for apostles appointing elders. Timothy fits this pattern well. I also see a pattern for apostles doign the work of evangleists, in addition to appointing elders and various other apostolic duties.

> The setting aside of Elders in each local congregation was done by the Evangelist.<

Where is the Biblical evidence for this. The one man called an evangelist did nto appoint elders as far as we know from scritpure. Timothy, an apostle, appointed elders, and also was to do the work of an evangelist.

There is no reason to think that appointing elders is the work of an evangelist or "proclaimer of the good news" unless we start from that presupposition.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Linc, I Tim.18 makes mention of the prophecies which had been given regarding Timothy. This is aluded to in I Tim.4:14. The gift that had been given him was done by the Apostle Paul which he carefully recorded for us in II Tim.l:6. The gift he had within him was given by the Apostle Paul through the laying on of his hands. The Apostles were endowed with the ability of the giving of spiritual gifts according to the direction of the Holy Spirit. The word is something like charismata. The Elders of the local congregations were the ones who laid their hands on the one to be an Evangelist, with no spiritual gift intended. They were set apart to that ministry.In the setting apart of the servants in Acts 6, notice it was the Apostles who did this evidently to pass to them spiritual gifts which is bore out in the life of Philip. Unfortunately there are not more Apostles left to give these charismata. But God still calls and the Elders still set apart Evangelists through the laying on of hands. Thanks for listening. Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

* Timothy received a gift by the laying on of Paul's hands. He also had a gift with prophecy and the laying on of the hands of the ELDERS. The verses you cited show this.

* The Bible does not clearly say what gift came through Paul's hands and what gift came through the elders. * We do not know that Timothy received an evangelistic gift through either Paul or the elders. * Scripture speaks of Timothy as an apostle of Christ. * Other scripture shows apostles appointing elders. * No other Bible verses shows evangelists who were not apostles appointing elders. * Scripture does not directly call Timothy an evangelist (at least not the KJV. If you know of a verse that does so in Greek, please tell me.) Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. * Scripture does not say Timothy could appoint elders because he was an evangelist, or even because he was an apostle. * The neat Bible pattern of elders appointing evangelists and evangelists appointing elders involves a bit of assumption.

About Philip- I see no evidence that the apostles laid hands on him so that he could do miracles or anything like that. The laying on of hands seemes to have had to do with his ministry as a deacon, tending to feeding widows. There is no mention of his gifting as evangelist- proclaimer of the good news- as being related to the apostles having laid hands on him.

God sets forth evangelists in the church, but sometimes 'Biblical patterns' aren't as airtight as some make them out to be if we examine them closely.

Scripture shows that charismata _COULD_ be given through the apostles hands. It also shows that these gifts can be given without the laying on of the apostles hands. See I Corinthians 14:13 for an example. I Corinthians 12 teaches that these gifts are given by the spirit.

Not to mention the unidentified gift that Timothy received by the laying on of hands of the elders.

I don't see where the Bible says that Christ could not send forth any more 'sent ones' either.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

linc. l. Relative to spiritual gifts being given by the Laying on of the Apostles hands. The Acts account shows that the Apostles laid hands on those men called by God to do the Tasks of serving needs in the Jerusalem church. I never said or aluded to the Idea that the Apostles laid hands on them at that time to set apart Philip to the work of an Evangelist. I was only trying to biblically illustrate that Philip did have spiritual gifts which you metioned previously, and we do have the account of the Apostles laying hands on Philip. Whether as an Evangelist or not he still had Spiritual gifts. I see this as carrying over into Gods call for him to be an Evangelist. 2. You are right, in that the bible does not CLEARLY SAY what gift came through Paul's hands. But the point I was trying to illucidate was that as we attempt to understand difficult passages, it is good to see if there is clarification in another portion of holy writ. Pauls declaration in I Tim. l:18 about the word "Prophecy" which is used in I Tim 4:14 explains clearly what that "Prophecy" was all about. The spiritual gift that was given to him and correlated with that prophecy in some manner is clarified by Paul in II Timothy 1:6. Textually it appears there is a break in thought, in I Timothy 1:18, and perhaps is an anacoluthan. Evidently someone had prophecied regarding the future of this young man in keeping with his capabilities. Evidently Timothy had to stir up this gift at times. If Timothy was called by God to do the work of an evangelist, then the Elders, as the scripture shows. set him apart to that work. 3. Where do you see a pattern for Apostles ordaining Elders? 4. Once again, I would like to point out, which I am sure you see, as I caught your Illusian to it, that the word "Apostle" was used as a generic catchall to describe the "sending forth" BUT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT from the special work of the 12 plus 1. I see scripture making a very distinct difference therein. What say you? 5. Titus 1:5 answers your question on authority for ordination of Elders by the Evangelist, as well as setting things in order.

Personal question: Are you a relation of Evangelist Hal Hudson

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

We can see in the New Testament that spiritual gifts _could_ be given thorughe laying on of hands of the apostles. But we see that they could be given without the laying on of hands of the apostles. God poured out gifts of Cornelius and the other Gentiles, and Peter watched. The Bible does teach that gifts come only thorugh the laying on of an apostles hands.

As far as separating people for ministry by the laying on of hands is concerned- we see in Acts 14 that Paul and Barnabas laid hands on the elders they had appointed. (Compare to the appointment of the 7, where the people put the men forward and the paosltes laid hands on them.) Then we see Timothy, also refered to as an apostle, appointing elders. Paul, an apostle, wanted him to do that.

But Paul and Barnabas were separated through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers. No elders were mentioned. Timothy had a gift in him through the laying on of hands of the paostle Paul. Scripture also says he had a gift in him given to him through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.

So we see prophets and teachers, apostles, and elders laying hands on others for them to receive a gift or be released into ministry.

I don't see any evidence that one has to be 'ordained' with the laying on of hands to be a teacher. I believe the same is true of the work of prophet. Paul wrote 'if any man consider himself to be a prophet or spiritual'- something highly unlikely if prophets had to be 'appointed' by the laying on of hands of elders or apostles.

Paul and Barnabas had both been previously called to ministry before they were spearated with the laying on of hands. But we do see here that the Spirit spoke while the prophets and teachers were ministering unto the Lord. He said to separate Paul and Barnabas to the work to which He had called them. They then laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.

Compare that to Timothy's situation. He had a gift in him through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.

In both cases, the Spirit spoke, and leaders of some sort laid hands on the one(s) prophesied about.

On the Timothy prophecy,

Paul speaks of 'prophecies' given about Timothy. it could be that he received prophecies on numerous occasions in different places. He may have had the experience Paul had where prophecies given about him in different places by different Christians said the same thing. (I've seen this happen in modern times.)

I don't see from any of these passages where we can really reconstruct exactly what the prophecy was. We know that Paul gave Timothy a charge _in accordance_ with prophecy. If you can present a good case for the content of the prophecy from these two epistles, I'd really like to see it.

Again, where do you get that the elders set Timothy apart to 'do the work of an evangelist.' Personally, I think it is likely that the 'gift' and prophecy refered to in the chapter had something to do with his apostolic work. But I don't know exactly what they prophesied from the text. They may have prophesied that he would be a great teacher, or that he would win many to Christ, or that he would be a teacher of men older than himself. We can only guess. But we shouldn't just read into the passage that the prophecy was that he was going to be an evangelist, or that they laid hands on him to be an evangelist.

I think it is more likely that one can be an evangelist without having hands laid on him. The gift of being able to preach the gospel with power can manifest in someone who holds no church office. I don't see where 'evangelist' or 'proclaimer of good news' is an office of chruch authority. Apostles had a position of authority and einfluence in churches they helped found, as we see from II Corinthians, and otherwise should be respected for their work when they visited areas where the work had already been done. Elders had a position of authority. I believe 'evangelist' and 'pastor' are organic gifts that could be found in various saints, whether they be apostles or elders, or not.

Paul's authority with the Corinthians was related to the fact that he had come to them with the gospel, according to II Corinthians 10-12. It was not just because he held the office of apostle or evangelist. But Paul's work of bringing the gospel was related to his call as an apostle. He was 'an apostle to the Corinthians' because of his work among them. He was a father to them in the gospel. Timothy may have been as well. That is not clear.

Timothy's authority to appoint elders, imo, was related either to the fact that he had played a part in laying the gospel foundation among them, or his association with Paul who laid the foundation, or both of these factors. Not just because he was a proclaimer of the good news. There may have been proclaimers of the good news (evangelists) among the confregation who held not "ecclesiastical title."

I have a question for you. Where does scripture refer to Titus as an evangelist? I don't think there is a reference. Is there is in Greek and not in English, please point it out. I think it likelyt hat Titus was an apostle. At the very least, he was a part of Paul's aposstolic team, and may have been acting on behalf of Paul, and appointing elders as an extension of Paul's ministry.

Btw, _Paul's Idea of Community_ is a good book to study that deals with a lot of these issues. It's a scholarly work. I haven't finished reading it, but it's good so far. It deals with Paul's work at the time, rather than with modern evangelists and apostles, but ti still would be a good read on this topic.

You wrote, >4. Once again, I would like to point out, which I am sure you see, as I caught your Illusian to it, that the word "Apostle" was used as a generic catchall to describe the "sending forth" BUT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT from the special work of the 12 plus 1. I see scripture making a very distinct difference therein. What say you?>

On the contrary, Paul's writings and other scripture seem to put him in the same category of Barnabas. Luke calls them both 'the apostles.' Paul seems to put himself, Cephas, and Barnabas all in the same category in I Corinthians 9.

If there is to be a distinction, then it should be the 12 plus the other apostles. With Paul in 'the other apostles' category with Barnabas. I think I wrote something on this in the apostles thread. Another way one might divide up the categories is to put Paul, Barnabas, and others (maybe James the Lord's brother) in one category, and the 12 in another.

Below this of course would be generic apostles, apostles of the church, sent to deliver money and such.

Paul refers to 'we apostles' refering to himself and his teammates like Timothy and Silas. He refers to himself, Timothy and Silas as 'apostles of Christ.'

Btw, I appreciate this conversation. You write your posts in a sincere, respectful tone, which is a good thing to see in this forum.

I don't know about the Hal Hudson thing. Probably if we went back far enough, a lot of us Hudson's would be related.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I wrote this a couple of days ago, expecting to post it to the "Apostles" thread, but the way things are developing, I think it probably now fits better with what is being said in this thread.

Link,

While trying to prove generally that there were other "apostles" in the early church, and that (therefore?) we can (should?) have apostles today, you seem to put particular emphasis on Timothy having been an apostle. Is this because for some reason you want to argue that ONLY apostles can appoint elders for churches? If so, the evidence seems slender, to say the least.

In the New Testament there is ONE example of elders (by that name or title) being appointed, and there it is Paul and Barnabas who do it. Paul was definitely an apostle in the fullest sense of the word. Barnabas is called an apostle in one place (2 verses, but in the same chapter and same story). But whether he was an apostle in the same sense as Paul was is inconclusive. He was "sent" by the church at Antioch, so may only have been an "apostle" in that sense.

There is only ONE place where anyone was told that he was supposed to appoint elders. This is Titus. But Titus isn't addressed by or called by any title, so we don't know what his "position" was. He was an associate of the Apostle Paul and seems to have done the same kind of work as Timothy, Silas, and a number of others, i.e. they sometimes accompanied Paul and worked alongside him and sometimes were either left behind by Paul or sent by Paul to do "follow-up" work in various places. Because of this, most people ASSUME that he had the same "position", "rank", or "title" that Timothy did. You assume this to be "Apostle", while most R.M. teachers who have given any thought to the matter assume that he was an "Evangelist" -- still others (mostly non-RM) assume that they were both "Pastors", even though the evidence for that is even more slender. But we ought not to build too important or too binding a teaching on such slender inference. Also, since Titus is told to appoint elders, and is given a list of qualifications of elders/overseers, and since Timothy is also given a list of qualifications for overseers, most people ASSUME that Timothy too was to appoint overseers (elders). But that is also an assumption, so it doesn't necessarily PROVE the case. It could be that he is only given the list of qualifications so that he can teach them to the congregation for them to use when they make their choice.

BTW, there is no uniform teaching, that I am aware of, in the R.M. about how elders/overseers are chosen and appointed. Most churches seem to allow some kind of participation by the congregation in the selection; most also seem to allow some kind of participation by an evangelist, "minister", or preacher in the actual "appointment" or "ordination" to the "office" or "work" of being an elder. But there are infinite variations as to how this is accomplished, with some leaning more toward one side and more toward the other, and a small minority eliminating one aspect or the other.

Many churches base the idea of congregational participation on the analogy of the choosing of "The Seven" in Acts 6. I think you, Link, rejected that on the basis that they were deacons and not elders. To this I would say two things. First, "The Seven" are never called "deacons", so we don't know that that's what they were. There are some scholars who believe that they may have been the first elders. In Acts 6 there seems to be two classes of church "officers" -- the Apostles (specifically, "The Twelve") and "The Seven." The Seven were especially entrusted with the job of distributing aid to the needy. In Acts 11:27-30, when the church at Antioch sent aid for famine relief to the church at Jerusalem, they sent it to (guess who?) -- the elders.

Second, I'm not sure that it is necessary for church "officers" (workers, leaders, whatever) to fall into exactly the same "slot" as The Seven, before we can take the procedure they used as a possible pattern to follow -- not necessarily a required pattern, but at least a possible one. There are few specific details, so we have great flexibility in applying it -- but there is still more detail here than anywhere else. What I see is that the congregation was told what the necessary qualifications were. The congregation then chose men that they knew to have these qualifications. The presented them to the other leaders who already existed (who happened to be the apostles, but in a newly planted church would probably be the "evangelist" or church planter, while in an existing church it might be the others who are already elders), who then "appointed" or "ordained" them for the job.

The evidence for Timothy being an apostle is also very slim. It is based entirely on a comparison of two verses, I Thess. 1:1, which says that the letter is from "Paul, Silas and Timothy" and I Thess. 2:6, which says that, "As apostles of Christ we [plural] could have been a burden to you ...."

As I said I would, I've been re-studying the question of who were/are apostles, which is one reason I wasn't posting as much for awhile as I had been previously. I started by looking up EVERY place where the Greek words APOSTOLOS (apostle) and APOSTOLI ("apostleship") are used in the Greek New Testament. This includes some where the translators have rendered it "messenger" in English, rather than "apostle". While I haven't yet come to final conclusions on all the issues, I'm afraid I DON'T think the overall evidence supports the idea that Timothy was an apostle -- at least not in the same sense that The Twelve, Paul, etc. were.

Paul wrote at least 13 letters. (Whether or not he wrote Hebrews is irrelevent to this discussion because I'm concerned with how he designated himself at the beginning of his letters, and the writer of Hebrews does not name its writer.) In 5 of these, he is the sole named writer/sender. In all 5 where he is the only author, he designates himself as "an apostle." The other 8 list others as co-authors or co-senders (including Galatians, which he says is from him "and all the brothers with me"). In 4 of the ones that are also from other people he doesn't mention that he is an apostle; in 4 he says that he is an apostle, but does not say that the others are apostles. All 4 in which he does not designate himself as an apostle include Timothy as one of the co-authors/co-senders. Two of these are I & II Thess., where Silas is also included; the other two are from Paul and Timothy alone. But Timothy is also the co-author/co-sender of two others in which Paul calls himself an apostle but designates Timothy simply as "our brother." In one of the ones from Paul and Timothy alone in which Paul does not mention his own apostleship, he does use a single designation to refer to both of them. Philippians is from "Paul and Timothy, servants." So, if Timothy, like Paul, was an apostle, why do we NEVER see, "Paul and Timothy, apostles"?

The way Paul designates himself and others in the opening of his letters seems pretty pointed. This, taken together with the fact that Timothy is NEVER DIRECTLY referred to as an "apostle" would seem conclusive to me -- Timothy was not an apostle -- if it were not for one verse: I Thess. 2:6 (or 7 in some Bibles). So I took a closer look at this verse, both in English and in Greek. What I found is that this verse may not be as conclusive as it appears on the surface.

Paul does not say "BECAUSE WE ARE apostles of Christ, we could have acted this way or that way or demanded this or that". He says (NIV), "AS apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you." Note the word "as", which I'll comment on in a minute. First, though, the word order is a little different in Greek than it is in the NIV. Since Greek grammar is different to English, that isn't always significant, but it sometimes is. A more word-for-word translation would go like this (starting with the beginning of verse 6), "Neither seeking praise/glory out of men, nor from you, nor from others, being able to be burdens as/like apostles of Jesus Christ, instead we became mild/gentle in the midst of you, as if (we were) a nurse/mother cherishing her own little children."

Secondly, the word "as" or "like" translates the Greek word "HOS" (pronounced like "hose", but with a soft ESS sound rather than ZED/ZEE). Like the English word "like", it does not necessarily mean that the situation which follows is an actual one. It may be suggesting a situation contrary to the actual fact. When combined with the word "E-AN" ("if"), as it is later in verse 7, it normally means that -- a hypothetical comparison, contrary to fact -- "AS IF we were nursing mothers cherishing our babies". Based just on the words used, Paul could be saying, "we could have demanded to be treated AS IF we were apostles (even though we actually are not)"!

The trouble with that suggestion is that of course Paul himself was an apostle. But does it necessarily have to mean that Timothy and Silas also were? If Paul could have demanded special treatment by virtue of being an apostle, surely he could have also demanded that his travelling companions and co-workers be treated in the same way even if they were not actually apostles themselves. And courtesy would have required that the Thessalonians do so. But, he says, we didn't demand special treatment "like" apostles. (Another way this could be interpreted is that "we didn't become burdens to you like apostles", with the implication that this is the way apostles normally act, but that would imply something negative about the other apostles which probably wasn't true.)

There is also the possibility that Paul might have been using the "editorial we" (also sometimes called the "royal we"). I think there are other places where he does this, though I couldn't find them quickly. If he does use it in other places, he could be doing so here. If so, then the "we" here would not mean "I, plus Timothy and Silas", but simply "I". It would be hard to prove one way or the other -- except that the preponderance of all other evidence seems to show that Timothy and Silas either were not considered to be apostles at all, or at least were not "apostles of Christ" in the sense that Paul was.

I looked in a number of commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, etc., both at definitions and explanations of "apostle", and at explanations of this verse. Some dictionaries (even when pointing out that the word "apostle" is also sometimes used of others besides the twelve) didn't even mention this verse or Timothy as one of the possible "other" apostles, and some commentaries on the verse didn't mention any idea of Timothy being an apostle. A few that did call attention to it seemed to feel that this showed that Timothy was an apostle in some sense -- though most felt it was in a different and lesser sense than Paul and The Twelve. But most said "may be" or "seems to imply" or something along that line, showing that the writer didn't consider the possibility as proven conclusively.

Personally, I think the greatest weight of evidence is against Timothy (or Silas or Titus) having been an apostle in any sense of the word. Even if he was, it could not have been in anything like the way that the word is normally used (i.e. to refer to Paul and The Twelve). Therefore it seems like a very flimsy basis for saying that we must have "apostles" today and/or that only "apostles" can appoint elders.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Benjamin,

Good post, btw. I've come to different conclusions based on the same information. I'd like to make a few points.

I dont' recall ever having said that a congregation could not be involved in selecting elders. I may have pointed out that the 7 were doing deacon work. At the least, a word related to deacon is used to describe their service. I believe God can reveal his will thorugh the body, and think it would be unwise for a 'gospel worker' whatever the title to just arbitrarily pick elders. These things should be done under the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit works in the whole body.

I once read on a web page, that the scriptures call elders 'deacons' or servants. Perhaps only the verb form is used. I've heard that the Eastern Orthodox still follow the pattern of having the congregation put forward the man from among htem to be their priest, and have the bishop lay hands on him. this may be a very old custom, but I don't know. The EO rely a lot on the patristics and old church customs.

I think there is an old church tradition that the Seven were dacons, but it doesn't directly suse the title for them.

I was reading in I Corinthians 4 where Paul writes about 'we apostles' and writes about their afflictions and being a spectacle and as the offscouring of all things. In the list was that they working with their own hands.

From chapter 9 we see that Cephas and the other apostles were supported by Christians. Paul and Barnabas had to work for a living.

So who were the aposltes in chgapter 4 that worked with their own hands? The other apostles were supported by the church, but Paul's apostolic team and Barnabas (and possibly his co-workers) supported themselves to do apostolic work. So how could the 'we apostles' that were put on spectacle be refering to Paul plus the 12. The Corinthians had, according to the letter, had some kind of contact with Cephas (Peter), but Paul indicates that Peter was support, and that he and Barnabas were the apostles that had to work for a living.

Why would Paul refer to apostles working with their own hands in the plural, here, if he were the only 'real' apostle that were laboring with their hands for a living?

Btw, I've read where someone argued that Apollos may have been considered an apostle, because Paul was talking about himself and Apollos before writing about 'we apostles.' I allow that that may be a possibility.

The I Corinthians 9 passage, imo, seems to put Barnabas work up there in the same category as Paul's work. After all, the Spirit had already called both Saul and Barnabas to the work before they were separated and went out. Barnabas and Paul are both called apostles in scripture. Scripture doesn't call Barnabas an 'evangelist' as far as I know. I think he probably was, since I believe that is an 'organic' gift of preaching the gospel, rather than a gift that empowers one to appoint elders.

Do I believe that elders can only be appointed by apoistles? No. I do see problems with the idea that there is a Biblical pattern: evangelist appoints elders, elders appoint evangelists, and as long as we follow this pattern everything is okay. It can be a little bit similar to the idea apostolic succession. I do believe it is profitable to study Biblical patterns. But the Bible shows us how to make decisions, recognize the power of Christ in the assembly, and teaches us abotu making decisions under the leading of the Spirit.

If we want to go with really strict Biblical patterns, elders were not appointed in scripture without apostles being involved. Even in Titus' case- Paul left him on Crete. Paul would send and leave members of his team. Titus' ministry was operating in conjunction with that of Paul, who was an apostle.

But we also see that God can raise men up to be apostles without that man receiving 'succession' from another apostle or elders. Jesus called Paul. Paul was later sent out after there was a word from the Spirit, and _prophets and teachers_ laid hands on him. We don't even read about them getting sent out by bishop-elders! Perhaps Antioch did not yet have a presbytry at this time.

If you think about it, everyone should acknowledge Timothy as being an apostle in some sense of the word. He was sent on official missions, at the very least, to do for Paul. Paul sent him to various churches. At the very least, he is an apostle in that limited sense of the word.

You wrote: "Even if he was, it could not have been in anything like the way that the word is normally used (i.e. to refer to Paul and The Twelve)."

Wait a minute here. I think you are making an assumption here. The word 'apostle' has nearly 2000 years of baggage attached to it. But what would the Chrisitans of the first century have thought of the word? An 'apostle of Christ' might have sounded to them like 'an emissary of Christ.' There were certain ministers who were 'sent ones' of Christ.

The gospels speak specially of Twelve men using 'the apostles' to describe them. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Twelve, then James and ALL THE APOSTLES, and then to Paul. There was a wider group of apostles even at that time. Traditionally, the 70 that were SENT out were called apostles.

Paul wrote that he had seen none of the other apostles, save James the Lrod's brother. So James was considered to have been an apostle.

The idea of 'the apostles' refering to 'the 12 plus Paul' comes from tradition and church teaching, and not the scriptures. When Scripture refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles, many think 'Well, Barnabas is not a real apostle, like Paul and the 12 were.'

But where do they get the idea that Paul and the 12 are in one category together as 'real apostles?' Not from the scriptures. It is an idea carried in from the outside, an idea through which the scriptures are filtered.

What would a first century Christian have thought about apostleship. Surely, if he knew the gospel story well, he would have heard of the 12. He might have known of other men referred to as apostles- Barnabas, Paul and the team traveling with him, and maybe even Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16, thought that seems ambiguiously worded), or other sent ones not mentioned by name in the scritpures. Would such a person have any reason to believe that 'apostles' meant 'the 12 plus Paul? I don't think so.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

The previous discussion generated another thought I had forgotten about l. Wasnt Christ an Apostle (one sent forth) from God, 2. Wasnt the twelve plus Paul Apostles of Christ? 3. As we look a little more closely at this we see that the Apostle Paul, who was already an Apostle of Christ became an Apostle of the Churches along with Barnabus. There appears to be the three fold thread unfolded herein, What say you? Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Barnabas an apostle of the churches?

The other reference to apostles of churches I can think of is in regard to men sent on a more limited mission of delivering money or something like that.

Acts 13 says that the Spirit said to separate these men _unto the work the Holy SPirit had called them._

Tyhe Spirit had called these men.

Then the passage says these men were sent out by the Spirit.

Paul later refers to Barnabas' ministry which, imo, seems positive and makes it sound like Barnabas was doing the same work that he was in I Corinthians 9.

Do you think apostles of churches can have the authority to do the same wort of work that Barnabas did?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

How about that. The Apostle Paul was an Apostle of Christ and also an apostle (one sent forth) by the Church with Barnabus.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Barnabas did the same type of work that Paul did. Scripture says that they were sent forth by the Spirit. I see Barnabas as in a 'higher' rank of apostle, in terms of gifting, than someone just sent forth by the church to deliver money.

Paul made that 'apostles of Christ' comment about himself, Silas, and timothy. Timothy was commended by brethren, and at some time had hands laid on him by elders. Silas was sent out with Paul when he left Antioch on his second missionary journey. They were doing church-planting work alon giwth Paul.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Linc, Bingo. Part of that is what I have been saying. The Holy Spirit gave the dictate, but the Churches sent them forth (ApostleA), But that was different than "The Apostles of Christ" (Namely the 12 to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles) With the generic use of the word Apostle, Paul could be both an apostle of Christ and of the Church, as dictated by the Holy Spirit. I do not understand why it is so hard to understand how the Holy Spirit utilizes the same word with different nuances according to the needs at the time.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

(Maybe we can move this to the apostle thread.)

So do you think we could have 'apostles' today in the sense that Barnabas was apostles? Called by the Lord and sent out on a mission through the church.

I don't think we are that far apart on this. Here are some areas where I think our views are different:

1. I see 'the work of an evangelist' as preaching the gospel, not necessarily appointing elders. Apostles like Timothy were to 'do the work of an evangelist' in addition to appointing elders and teaching existing believers. You seem to view the work of evangelist as invcluding appointing elders.

2. Paul, Timothy, and Silas, wrote that they were among the Thesalonians 'as apostles of Christ.' I believe that the apostles in Paul's company, including Barnabas were in the 'apostles of Christ' category. I don't know if we should use the term, at least int he same sense, of someone sent from the church to deliver money or supplies.

The 12 apostles, and possibly the 70 (maybe they were among the 'all the apostles' that Jesus appeared to after appearing to the 12 and before appearing to Paul) were chosen by Christ before the ascension. Paul and Barnabas were called by the Lord, and later sent out on a mission through the church.

Paul may have a dramatic 'call narrative' about himself in scripture. I don't think that makes him more of an apostle than Barnabas. Both were sent to the Gentiles to preach. Paul outlaboreded the other apostles, and was a good example. God had a lot of information included about him in scripture.

Paul was called by the Lord, and later sent out to do church-planting work through the church. Barnabas, according to Acts 13, had already been called to the work. He also was sent out by the church. Timothy was sent on with Paul with the commendation of the brethren. At some point he received prophecies and laying on of hands related to a certain gift.

Link

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000