In the last month or so the subject of modern apostles has arisen. In one conversation a friend of mine equated today’s missionaries as those who function as apostles. As he understood it an apostle is someone who brings the gospel into uncharted territory. The second time this subject arose was following a phone conversation a friend of mine had with a woman who actually claimed apostolic status for herself. While these two approaches are different both have the same assumption: apostles exists today.
I contend that this is not so. While missionaries do something similar to apostles functionally there is a major difference. It seems to me that “apostles” were people directly commissioned by the risen Christ. Even the title “apostle” means something like one sent. It is the title of a royal emissary. This would mean that the King himself (Jesus) would need to be the direct sender. I cannot think of an single apostle in the early church that lacked this distinctive and those that are not explicitly said to have seen the risen Christ can be assumed to have done so.
One friend of mine expressed concern that this is essentially the same line of thinking as that of cessationist. In other words, I am arguing the apostles ceased because that era has come to an end. This ignores the premise of my argument. I am not saying any such thing. Rather, I am saying that by nature an apostle is commissioned by Christ and since Christ has ascended this commissioning is no longer possible.
What do you think? Do you agree or do you think there is sufficient reason for considering some people to be modern day apostles?
August 3, 2010 at 11:19 am
I think your definition of an Apostle is correct, but I’d like to elaborate further.
Areas that cause controversy are the “Seventy Apostles” that Jesus sends out.
Paul is an asterick Apostle, and he contends this many times when defending his qualifications.
Matthias, replacing Judas, was elected an Apostle by casting lots, not by being called by Jesus. This is the strongest evidence Roman Catholics use to justify Apostolic Succession.
Barnabas is called an Apostle.
Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16:7 are referred to as “apostles”
Silas is referred to as an apostle in 1 Thes 1:1 and 2:6. (Timothy as well)
Apollos seems included in 1 Cor 4:9
Where this leaves us is a distinction between the Primary Apostles, those commissioned by Jesus himself (Paul the exception, and more to be said about that), and those who fulfilled the meaning of the word “apostle” by function.
We don’t have any instructions on choosing “Apostles” in the church. There are some for elders, deacons, overseers, etc. But not “apostles.” This tells me the role, with the authority of the Twelve, was not one to be succeeded.
August 3, 2010 at 11:26 am
No, and it’s always “irked” me when I hear or read someone using a religious title…
With the exception being people who fit the description you gave…
To me it’s like glorifying yourself when the glory belongs to God. I’m just really turned off by peoples fixation with their own self-importance.
August 3, 2010 at 11:37 am
Well your argument does stop just short of the cessationist idea that apostles were for the establishment of the church and so were the “sign gifts” that accompanied them.
However, I sort of wonder what the motive for being a self-proclaimed apostle today is.
A person can ignore the NT indication that face to face experience with Jesus seemed to be a prerequisite for the Biblical designation of apostle, and just go with the broad definition of ‘sent one’ or ‘emissary.’
That would basically qualify every believer.
But if we are only concerned with being sent out to spread Jesus message and build up His church, why would be we concerned with garnering the title ‘apostle.’ Smells fishy to me…
August 3, 2010 at 11:49 am
In discussing who would replace Judas, this is what they laid out as the requirement for being an apostle: “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22 TNIV)”
However, Paul does not exactly fit this description as he was not one of the original members that had been with them the whole time the Lord Jesus was among them. But it is very clear that Paul was chosen to be an apostle, I doubt that anyone would dispute that.
I don’t personally think that this office, or position is still around. However, I do think that a person can lead their groups in a similar way. Today we just call them pastors, they are the church leaders and some pastors, are even pastors over other pastors, they’ll plant new churches, go to areas where the gospel has not been proclaimed, that is similar to an apostle. So I think that there are similarities but not uniquely apostles as we read in the New Testament.
I don’t think that there apostles today in the sense of what Peter, & Paul were and the sort of authority that they had.
August 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
James
The seventy and Jesus don’t cause problems because Jesus sent them. I may clarify that I think an apostle can be sent by Jesus pre-resurrection as well. I may have been misleading.
Of course, Paul saw the resurrected Christ. He was directly commissioned. He even speaks of himself in terminology that some interpret to mean he was the final apostle.
As to Andronicus and Junia it has been argued by folk like Ben Witherington that Junia is simply the Greek version of Hebrew name Joanna in Lk. 23.10. If so, this would make Junia one of the first eye witnesses of the resurrection and Andronicus was likely her husband. Speculation, yes, but a possible explanation.
While I see the connection between 1 Thes. 1.1 and 2.6 I am not so sure we must necessarily read this as called Silas, Silvanus, and Timothy “apostles”. In Silvanus case he came from the Jerusalem church from James so he may very well have been one of those who saw the resurrected Christ. The same could be said of 1 Cor 4.9. Paul’s generalization of the title “apostles” does not necessarily have to include his immediate co-workers named in the epistle. At least I don’t gain that with a cursory reading.
Alton: It is a bit a odd when someone claims such a thing. Even in the possible cases noted by James above there is an connection with a “primary” apostle. Modern people have no such thing.
Crystal: True, if we use etymology alone we are all apostles!
August 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm
It seems that this discussion hinges too much on an either/or that should be a both/and (such is biblical studies).
The problem is that the Bible seems to use apostolos in two ways, a general sense found in all literature of the time, and as a technical term for a specific subset of apostoloi. Basically, the difference between “lower-case” and “upper-case” apostles.
In terms of ho apostoloi, the Apostles, they were specifically commissioned by Christ and served a foundational role. However, there still exists apostles in the general sense, those who are sent. In a sense, we are all “sent-ones,” charged as ambassadors of the Gospel, sent out as the Father sent the Son, but in another sense there are those particularly sent out, whether church planters or missionaries, etc.
August 3, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I would also argue for a “dual meanings” for apostle. There are those who were directly commisioned by Jesus and who witnessed his earthly ministry. (the 12, some others). This requirement is laid out in Acts 1. Then there are those who don’t quite fit this definition, like Paul (and a few others in Acts). Paul’s experience was different than the others and I think that opens the door a bit for how we define the term. If Paul could see Jesus like he did, then so could someone else (though Paul does retain a special place of course) Note also that the Didache gives instructions for receiving itenerant apostles, which suggests that the word was a bit broader circa 100.
That’s my theology anyways. In practice, I cringe whenever I hear someone call themselves an apostle, especially with other titles. “Hello, I’m Apostle Prophet Reverend Bishop Johnny.” ahh!
August 3, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Bryan and Alex: What would be the characteristics of these modern apostles? Would you see them as modern missionaries?
August 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Brian,
I agree with you that there apostles no longer exist as an office (with the authority carried by Jesus’ apostles), but they continue to exist in some fashion in function (preaching the gospel in new areas).
I am not so sure of your criterion of having been personally commissioned by Jesus. There are others besides Paul and The Twelve who are called apostles in the NT, but we have no reason to believe they were ever commissioned directly by Jesus. Consider when Luke wrote, “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of….” Barnabas is grouped with Paul, and the plural form of apostle is used to describe both. In 1 Corinthians Paul asked, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and of Cephas?” (9:5). The “we” is apparently referring to Paul and Silas (1:1). This statement may also imply that Jesus’ brothers are apostles. The fact that they are listed separately does not automatically mean they are being distinguished from the group of apostles since Peter is also listed separately and his apostleship is not in question. James, at least, is called an apostle elsewhere (Galatians 1:19). Of course, it is likely that Jesus’ brothers could have been commissioned directly by Him. Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 2:6 Paul reminded the church that when he and his ministerial co-workers were among them, they were not “burdensome, as the apostles of Christ” as they could have been. Who were the apostles among them? Paul’s traveling companions, most likely Silas and Timothy (1:1).
August 3, 2010 at 2:36 pm
See Bryan’s thoughts as a reflection of my own.
August 3, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Jason,
You are correct that it may be that I have provided a strict definition. James suggested something similar above though, as I responded to him, I am not sure if the references provides by the two of you prove the other side of things as well (that there are non-Christ commissioned apostles).
Assuming that there are what some of you have suggested to be second-level apostles, what would characterize these offices?
Pingback: Tweets that mention Modern Apostles? | Near Emmaus -- Topsy.com
August 3, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Brian,
Are you suggesting that if Barnabas, Silas, et al are to be considered apostles that they are only “second-level” apostles, or by “second-level” apostles are you referring to modern-day Christians?
August 3, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Jason,
I mean apostles not commissioned by Christ personally. Maybe “second-generation” would be better terminology. Even then what would be the nature of their apostleship as well as any apostles today?
August 3, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Brian
Primarily their sent-ness. I’m away from my books, unfortunately, until tomorrow, but Alan Hirsch usually has some good discussion on the idea of apostolicness in ministry today.
Yes, I’m pretty sure I just made that word up.
August 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Bryan,
What kind of “sent-ness” though? If we pray for someone in our church to go to the near by town to start a church is this an apostolic commission? I am a bit confused.
Pingback: A Figurative Adam in Second Temple Literature? | Near Emmaus
August 3, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Why think they were a second class of apostles, so that we have “Apostles,” and then “apostles”? The same word is used to describe both. Only if you presuppose that a “real” apostle is one commissioned directly by Jesus would this two-tiered distinction hold. I think the fact that Scripture can use the term “apostle” in a single breath to describe both Paul and someone who apparently was not commissioned directly by Jesus argues against the two-tiered view of apostles. Of course, the question remains as to whether there could be apostles beyond the first generation of Christians.
August 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Jason,
I have 1 Cor. 15. 7-9 in mind. In that passage he seems to say that he is the last apostle being the last to see the resurrected Jesus. If people like Timothy are consider “apostles” then this must mean something different then what Paul describes there. The commissioning would not come from Christ but from those commissioned by Christ. We may say “second-generation”.
Unless of course you think 1 Cor. 15.7-9 is not insinuating this?
August 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Brian,
Paul says he is the “least” of the apostles, not the “last” of the apostles. He only seems to be saying he is the last to see the resurrected Jesus. In the context he is listing (apparently in chronological order) the individuals to whom Christ appeared. Unlike the others who saw the resurrected Jesus before His ascension, Paul saw Him after His ascension (out of due time).
What makes Paul the “least” of the apostles — in Paul’s estimation — is the fact that he persecuted the church.
BTW, notice how Paul says Jesus appeared to “the twelve” and then later he says Jesus appeared to “all the apostles.” While he could just be referring to a second appearance to the twelve, it seems strange that he would refer to them in a different manner. By saying “all” of the apostles, he seems to have a broader group of apostles in mind than The Twelve.
August 3, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Jason,
Your argument is sound. ὁ ἐλάχιστος would not refer to “the last” but “the least”. And the “last” in the previous verse does have to do with chronology.
August 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Brian.
I think we are saying much the same thing, but from different vantage points. But, as the church commissions people to go, so Christ is commissioning through his body. I'm perfectly ok with the phraseology "second-generation," but we must recognize that the church, expressed locally, is carrying out the mission of Christ and functioning as Christ on earth (don't take that too far, of course).
I don't mean that church planters and missionaries are acting as Apostles, but instead that they are doing apostolic work, and thus the label applies.
August 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Bryan,
What distinguishes the “apostolic work” from an Apostle like Peter, or Paul, or James?
August 3, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Brian: I disagree. Apostles are still around. There was always a difference between the 12 and other apostles (like Barnabas) and there still is (as others have stated). There’s plenty of Barnabas and Junia type apostles roaming the earth today. I’d also challenge the notion that Jesus is not still directly commissioning apostles. Is Jesus no longer capable of speaking directly to his people? And I’d say one of the main characteristics of an apostle is establishing local churches. Many missionaries exhibit this characteristic.
Alex: I don’t mind when someone calls themselves “apostle” or “prophet” as long as it’s true.
August 3, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Nick: When you say “apostle” do you mean on par with someone like Paul and Peter? I know some have argued along a similar line but have said it means something different, like a missionary. Is this similar to what you are suggesting?
August 3, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I am with Nick – modern day apostles plant many churches, like Paul did, and oversee the set up of local leadership, like Paul did, and function as a general spiritual fathers/mothers to the congregations, like Paul did (read 1 Thess before getting too nervous about the father/mother role). I also see Eph 4:11 not as offices so much as they are spiritual giftings empowered by the Holy Spirit for the building up and equipping of the body.
Consider too that the primary evangelist in much of the Muslim world, the chief Apostle of the faith himself, Jesus Christ – he shows up in dreams and visions to many muslims. Whose to say in these situations Christ is not commissioning many muslims to build his church in their area of the world?
August 3, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Brian,
I think you are the first to suggest what we may mean by a modern apostle! Thanks. My follow up question is simple: What is the difference between this type of apostle and someone like Paul and Peter (if any)?
August 3, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I would agree with the Modern-Day Apostles definition put forward by Brain#2. I think the main difference between the Modern and the First Generation Apostles is who they can say their theology comes from. Its not just that they had a dream or vision of Jesus telling them he is God, which is what happens many times to Muslims. The first generation Apostles made the claim that what they are saying is what Jesus himself had given them to say.
I’m not willing to make the claim that this is impossible today, but i do believe that if it happens, it is very really and in extreme cases (ie no witness of Jesus somewhere, especially no access to Bibles in a language yet…). I think most people, possibly all who try to use this title today are more than likely not Apostles. Every person i have meet or heard speak that claims to be an Apostle has had visible pride in their lives. I cannot put a proud spirit and the title apostle together and come up with anything but the following word: fake…
August 3, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Joseph,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Since Paul’s authority came from seeing the resurrected Jesus whom he never knew in his earthly life do you think that someone with a similar experience today could have such authority (like Paul)?
August 3, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Brian
Mostly that the Apostles like Peter, James, and John were selected pre- or post-resurrection by Jesus* and were eyewitnesses, served in a foundational role for the church (Eph 2.20) and that performed the signs which “accompanied” the apostles (2 Cor. 12.12, Hebrews 2.4).
*Debate on Matthias aside, as the Apostles appointed him as an act of being Apostles, and therefore, we can assume, with Christ’s authority.
August 3, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Bryan,
Oddly, I am comfortable with your suggestion of some sort of apostolic succession. This would explain the other who may be referenced as apostles (e.g. Apollos) who never saw Christ. It would coincide with the testimony of the early church as well (Bishops becoming the authority). But I wonder if this indicts all of us who are “free church”. Can we hold to such succession while avoiding the authority of any such bishop?
August 3, 2010 at 9:36 pm
First off, I do not believe Paul’s authority came sole form the vision on the road to Damascus. He directly implies that he not only had that vision, but also that his “doctrine” was not mans doctrine… not “of flesh and blood”. In Galatians 1&2 He is basically saying “i got my doctrine directly from Jesus not from anyone else” and “nobody (at least not anyone influential) added anything to it… If a person can claim to have not only received a vision from Jesus Christ, but also to have received the core doctrines laid out in the New Testament without it being from ever previously reading the NT then we might have a case… otherwise i think we will have to say that form of Apostleship is out of reach.
I think the title apostle should be used sparingly today, and that it is most appropriate when referring to a great men or woman of God who had a modern day apostolic ministry an has passed now away. I see no good reason for a “modern day apostle” to ever refer to himself/herself as such, nor for others to attempt to do so while they live. As stated before, I think the title has a lot of potential pride warped up in it.
August 3, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Joseph,
The first part of your argument is sound. I can see where a difference can be made and substantiated. But it seems that the second part is a bit of the same hesitance that I have. Those who were apostles were apostles and used the title. In this case Nick is more consistent in my opinion because he believes that there are apostles and that if the title applies it should be used.
August 3, 2010 at 10:18 pm
What i said does look sort of inconsistent… let me try to clarify if i can.. I am saying i think there is clear difference between the First Gen Apostles and the “modern day” ones, hence my reservation on using the title. I guess the real issue might be that there has been a long period of time where no one but the Catholic church used the temonlogy to refere to anyone. To pull the title back out looks like we are trying to be “pretenders to the title”… If there were a way to let people know there are different forms or maybe even generation of apostles, then the title might be less taboo.
Look at it form this perspective, most reading this agree that Modern translations of the bible are essential due to the changes in language (even if KJV had had “the best MS” and could have benefited form other modern translating techniques, it would still be archaic today). using the word Apostle today is loaded with preconceived ideas… It is no longer just a word… it is full of meaning and imagery to millions of people. Its hard to overcome such things, and a wise person would avoid having to do so.
Eph 2:2o shows us that we are built up on the foundation of the Apostles… in my opinion no one can come in now and add themselves to that foundation… it was cast once and has be cured for a while. If we use the title and those we serve think we are putting our selves alongside Peter and Paul, we are either going to be on an great ego trip or have a lot of explaining to do.
August 3, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Brian
That is the question, isn’t it?
I think we can. If the Apostles were foundational, then it is the apostolic tradition (=gospel and doctrine) that is authoritatively passed through succession. In other words, those who have an apostolic gift (for lack of a better word) find their authority in the foundation laid down by the Apostles. That foundation is given to us in the word of God inscripturate (and of course, the word of God incarnate, the ultimate authority. The charge of bibliolotry is a nice little straw-man some people like to throw around).
Paul’s call on Timothy was to promote and defend true doctrine, particularly in the church he was an elder in. Each church were to recognize and call their own elders, as opposed to some outside body of authority. The primary relationship between churches seemed to be cooperation with one another rather than heirarchical.
But, I don’t think the “free church” is entirely without indictment. Most of what goes on in the name of “free church” is really baptized individualism. Particularly, most people seem to act as if the church universal consists of the first and twenty-first century, and pay no attention to the 2000 years in-between.
Church polity is a messier issue than most people want to allow. But that’s getting off-topic
August 3, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Hmm. I should add that I don’t typically use the word “apostle” to label planters and missionaries. What I’ve said thus far is a way of seeing the apparent two usages of it in the Bible.
August 3, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Brian, did the authority of the early apostles belong solely to them, or did it flow directly from the throne of God. And Joseph, you claim “If a person can claim to have not only received a vision from Jesus Christ, but also to have received the core doctrines laid out in the New Testament without it being from ever previously reading the NT then we might have a case… otherwise i think we will have to say that form of Apostleship is out of reach.” as though the early apostles hadn’t walked and talked with Jesus before being sent. They had been with Jesus, they knew Him before He sent them, surely we can liken physically walking with Jesus to reading the new testament today?
I guess my real question is, why try to negate apostleship today? I think the challenge isn’t determining what qualifies one to have authority, but knowing who all authority belongs to. I’m of the view that anyone who Jesus reveals Himself to and consequently sends is an apostle, and I’d think of them as one even if they didn’t call themselves one. Because to me that word focuses on the sender; i.e. it stipulates that one has been with the Lord and is not pursuing their own agenda, but doing His work.
May I just clarify that I don’t think someone is an apostle just because they call themselves one. I’m reminded of how Paul was always reminding the churches he wrote to examine his ministry, the things that he did and went through testified of who was doing the work in him and who had authority in his life. So to me, being an apostle is about Jesus revealing Himself to you, being sent to preach in places where no one knows Him, bearing persecution and loss and even physically suffering because of Him. There are so many people like that in this day and age. I guess I look at it as the humility of a little child making one the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
August 4, 2010 at 2:09 am
Apostles did not just plant new churches; they had the power to tell the rest of the church what the doctrine of Christ was. While I am prepared to recognize some individuals as apostles in that they perform the evangelistic function of the ancient apostles, I wouldn’t trust most to exegete their way through a geneology, yet alone to determine for the rest of the church what is right doctrine! That’s why I accept the present-day existence of apostolic ministry (church planters, missionaries), but not present-day apostolic authority.
August 4, 2010 at 8:11 am
Joseph: I must say that each response sounds closer and closer to my own position. I think you are correct when you note that Catholic claims of apostolic succession. To ignore those and propose our own “free church” version seems a bit odd to me. Of course, I still think Nick is the most consistent here (even though I disagree) because he essentially proposes a Pneumatological-Apostolic succession (not by passing along tradition, but my the calling of Christ through the Spirit). What you are saying sounds similar to what Bryan is saying–there are people who do the “apostolic work” but there is a discontinuation as regards the role of “apostle”.
Bryan: What you say about there being some sort of “apostolic” activity doesn’t bother me. But it does sound like you are very close to my own position in that you don’t want to give someone the same title/honor we would give Peter, Paul, et cetera.
I agree with you that we “free church” folk walk on thin ice. If there is any apostolic succession I think we must return to a high ecclesiology because Bishops would be those called to continue the apostolic role as regards authority and we would be dishonoring that calling if there are modern apostles in this sense.
Wildflower: While I understand what you are saying I think what we are discussing here is the reality that the NT doesn’t describe everyone “sent” as “apostles”. This may be part of the “apostolic” mission but it does not equate with the calling of an apostle. Several comments have leaned this direction and I am fine with saying many people do an “apostolic” work, but I am not comfortable saying they hold the role of an apostle.
Likewise, it seems the early church understood that the apostles were a special group of people. As Jospeh notes in Ephesians the church is built on the foundation of the apostles. The early father sought to remain in their tradition. But there is little talk of apostles still functioning.
Jason: This clears things up a lot and I don’t think I disagree. As I have said before, I don’t mind saying someone does an apostolic work or has some sort of apostolic calling, but I think this is a far cry from saying they are an actual apostle.
August 4, 2010 at 9:32 am
I think the Scriptures definitely made a clear distinction and emphasis on The Twelve and on Paul.
I’m not a fan of Apostolic succession in the Twelve/Pauline sense, only in the “gifting to the church” sense.
This discussion invariable takes us to Ephesians 4:11, a Text that has been the thesis of many a paper. I have always read Eph 4 with Eph 2:20 in view (“the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself the chief cornerstone). This means, though there are prophetic and apostolic gifts (speaking and sending), the foundation of the Church has already been laid. With Jesus as the cornerstone, the work must have been completed. The cornerstone work of the apostles and prophets is complete. The ongoing work of apostles and prophets is manifested in the Holy Spirit speaking through and teaching us. In that sense, the “five-fold ministry” is still active.
Like the word “Gospel” and so many others (and as others have alluded), I’m thinking the term “apostle” was one commonly used in the Church. But the distinction of primary offices (contrary to Jason’s view) is also quite apparent. A view otherwise has a difficult time not arguing for Apostolic succession, and for one to be called, appointed and to speak ex cathedra, or to be canonized (similar to the RCC).
August 4, 2010 at 9:43 am
It seems to me that most people here agree that there is a difference between the apostles like Paul and Peter and some sort of “apostolic” calling. James, what would this secondary apostleship look like? Do we see it in today’s missionaries? Denomination leaders?
August 4, 2010 at 11:16 am
Brian: Wow! Lot’s of stuff since last night. I haven’t read through it all so forgive me if I repeat what others have already said. I’d echo Brian Fulthorp. I’d also make a distinction between the 12 apostles and all others (including Paul). The 12 were special in a way that all the rest were not (i.e., walking with Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry right through to the end). Paul was also unique in that his calling was unlike any other that we have on record (in witnessing the resurrected Christ after he had ascended to heaven). I’d place all modern apostles in the same category as Silas, Barnabas, Junia, Andronicus, etc.
August 4, 2010 at 11:27 am
Nick,
What would you say is the functional difference between the Twelve + Paul and these others?
August 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Brian: The 12 laid the foundation that the church was built on. The others built upon it. Paul was foundational in his Gentile mission. The others simply followed suit. Some of the 12 and Paul wrote Scripture. The others did not. Stuff like that. It’s really a matter of timing. The 12 did things the others couldn’t do because they were the first (plus they were around Jesus more than anyone else and drew from him in ways that the others did not).
August 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Nick,
Makes sense. Would you limit the difference to chronology alone or is there any qualitative difference (besides being closer to Jesus)?
August 4, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Brian: I think the qualitative difference is tied to chronology and proximity to Jesus. In other words, their being the first and also sitting directly at Jesus’ feet, is what places them on a plane above all the other apostles. It’s what gave them the foundational role that they had.
And this is completely unrelated, but again, I have to tell you how much I really love that header image! It’s just so dang nice!
August 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Thanks! I made it with Picasa, the free photo software from Google!
August 5, 2010 at 8:12 am
Brian -
Even your definition allows for apostles to exist today.
1) Why cannot Christ still commission and send out people today? Eph 4:7 says – But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Then vs11 goes on to say – And he gave… I’m thinking Christ is still the one who gifts and sends out apostles.
2) I think we heavily misunderstand passages like Acts 1:21-22 and 1 Cor 15:3-9.
3) What about all the apostles that never were physically commissioned by Christ? Even Paul is part of that group. We can try and dance around it, but Paul does not fit into those physically commissioned by Christ before His ascension. What about Barnabas? What about James? What about Silas and Timothy (I believe 1 Thess shows their apostolic ministry)? What about Apollos (I believe the early chapters of 1 Corinthians show his apostolic ministry)? What about others? They weren’t just general messengers, but had apostolic ministries.
4) Think of it this way: Christ was the greatest apostle. He sent the Spirit to continue all of the work of Christ. The Spirit is the apostolic Spirit. And the Spirit empowers the body of Christ to be apostolic, of which some are specifically gifted as apostles. They are the ones who help equip the body to be apostolic, just as prophets are given to help equip the body to be prophetic. All this is in Eph 4:11-13. Christ desires us to be the full Christ, included apostolic and prophetic. And Eph 4:11-13 tells us all five (or four) gifts were given until we reach unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God. We are headed that way, but are not there. We need them to be the full stature of Christ in all the earth.
I’ve done a series at my blog (a longer series), but still have a couple of articles to write to finish it off. You can see the articles below. Sorry there are so many, but I had been wanting to post a very in depth series as an apologetic for apostles post-first century and the practical reality of why this ministry is important.
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8
Article 9
Article 10
Article 11
Article 12
Article 13
Article 14
Article 15
August 5, 2010 at 8:26 am
Scott,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Let me try to engage you point-by-point:
(1) Christ can commission is he so pleases. I am not denying ability. Rather, I don’t see this taking place. Even if someone told me that Christ had visited to commission them as an apostle you’d have to forgive me but I wouldn’t believe them.
(2) We may have misunderstood those passages, but I think that the reading that supports an apostolic “age” is sound. At least it seems like a clearer reading than the alternatives.
(3) We know James did see the resurrected Christ so he would not count. We don’t know enough about Barnabus to say he was not one of the witnesses of the resurrection and the same can be said from Silas who came from the Jerusalem area. As concerns Timothy and Apollos I am not convinced that they are referred to as apostles though I do see how it could be read to include them. At best, this tells me that we have some sort of “apostolic succession” where apostles can commission apostles because they were commissioned by Christ.
(4) This is probably the strongest argument you make and it is one that seems to be shared by Nick above. I still have serious questions about this. What role does the church play? How do we verify apostolic authority? Do these people have the same authority as the founding apostles?
Your reading of Eph. 4.11-13 is plausible as well but I don’t think it prevents us from understanding that the apostles were necessary but this doesn’t mean the apostles must continue or at least continue in the same form as the beginning. At best, it would be like what many others here have said about having some sort of “apostolic” calling. As with others I would like to know what you see a modern apostles doing and what would characterize his/her ministry?
August 5, 2010 at 9:32 am
Brian -
Thanks for the interaction. This is good stuff. Important stuff for me.
Again, we have to see in Scripture where it says Christ must appear to someone and commission them to be an apostle. We can try and say Acts 1:3; 1:21-22; and 1 Cor 15:3-9 teach usch. But I am convinced we misread these passages, as I address these particular passages in my series.
An apostolic age seems more a work of art after reading Scripture than what Scripture actually teaches, at least as I would see it. It’s somewhat like when cessationists piece together 1 Cor 13; Heb 2; 2 Cor 12:12 and a few others to show that God had designed that certain gifts would cease once the first apostles died out and we had the witness of Scripture. It’s just not there, but has to be worked at hard to create the theology. I find no compelling evidence in Scripture, even from a systematizing all passages on apostles, that teach us that apostles would cease. If Christ was one, if His Spirit is also one, and the Spirit was sent to continue the exact work of Christ, well I can only see the necessity of such. To sever the apostolic arm is to rid ourselves of a very vital ministry to help the body reach maturity.
Again, we have to show proof that a ‘pre-requisite’ of having an apostolic ministry is intrinsically connected to physically seeing Christ. Well, I actually could argue that apostles have seen Christ. Apostles have seen the risen Christ in some form or another. But I cannot buy the path that says all apostles physically saw Christ. If it is so important, you would think the first ones would have made more of a point about it. Instead, we are left piecing together a handful of passages that I don’t think teach what we try and say they teach.
Apostolic gifting is confirmed by those around. There is no seven step process, just as there is no such process in verifying prophetic utterances or tongues or any other ministry or gift. We would love it because it would make it easier for us all. But even first century apostles had hard times ‘proving’ their ministry. i.e. Paul. Now, having said that, I believe apostles will be recognised by other leaders (other Eph 4 ministries and local elders). Some other characteristics are that they are ‘sent’ with a specific mission. They have a heart for the nations. They are accountable. They seem to function in the miraculous, though I would not legalistically tie that in. They are shepherds to shepherds. They initiate new things (so they are not intrinsically ‘church planters’, since the great apostle Jesus wasn’t such in the more reductionistic view of modern day church planting; but planting churches might be the fruit of apostolic initiation of new things in God). And much more could be said. In the end, any apostle must emulate the apostolic nature of Christ.
Do they have the same authority as the first apostles? To be honest, I don’t think it’s a healthy question, because it entraps us into so much analysation of the ministry gift. Remember this is a ministry (serving) gift, not an institution, not something that authorises one to ‘write Scripture’, not something that is a badge. It’s a ministry gift. So an apostle is an apostle is an apostle. And people have authority over whom God gives them authority. Not every apostle is an apostle to every person. The apostles I work with have been given a grace ministry over the churches we work with. I would expect the Spirit to resonate in other people with regards to their ministry when these people teach, preach, minister, etc. But I only expect apostles to have a ministry over those whom God has given to them, though, I would obviously expect others to recognise and respect their ministry as relationships form across varying circles. Paul or Peter or John didn’t have apostolic ministry over everyone. Only particular people/churches. I know we could argue that their writing of Scripture gives them such over everyone, and I understand what you are saying. But the practicality does not work itself out like that.
I answered above, but some characteristics would be: They are ‘sent’ with a specific mission. They will be recognised by other leaders (i.e. other Eph 4 ministries and local elders). They seem to function in the miraculous, though I would not legalistically tie that in. They have a heart for the nations. They are accountable to other leaders. They are shepherds to shepherds. They initiate new things (which involved extending out with planting of new works of God).
August 5, 2010 at 10:14 am
Scott,
(1) If Christ does not need to appear to someone it seems to me that the only other plausible form of being designated an apostle would be succession. While the Spirit does continue the work of Christ this does not mean that (a) anyone who has the Spirit can declare to be called an apostle without a broader verification and (b) that the Spirit does not work through the Christian community. Since I understand an “apostle” to be one sent as a royal emissary this would mean that either the King (Jesus) or one of his commissioned (first-generation apostles) has the authority to commission.
If we speak of being an “apostle” in a general sense of being sent this seems to take one small aspect of apostleship as the definition. This would mean all missionaries, church planters, and so forth are suddenly possibly qualified to be designated as apostles. So at best I am comfortable with the Spirit working through those commissioned by Christ to recommission but this sides with the doctrine of apostolic succession rather than a vague Pneumatological-Apostolic succession.
(2) There may not be compelling evidence that apostleship would cease but there does not appear to be evidence against such an assertion either. As a continuationist concerning the gifts I think there is strong argument for the gifts of the Spirit being actively given to the church by the Spirit today. We see a strong witness of this in the early theology of the church and though there was a period where the cessationist position was stronger there was never a period where there was not some people whom fellow Christian understood to be endowed with special gifts even if they were understood to be extraordinary.
On the other hand, as regards the calling/ministry/role/office of the church it seems very evident that there was a consensus that the Bishop was the one who continued on the apostolic role while acknowledging subordination to those called apostles who came before them. So Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Clement, and others were in the line of the apostles but as I understand it did not see it appropriate to use such a title. They understood the function to be similar providing the church with those needed for her maturity, but not one and the same.
(3) I think I addressed in (1).
(4) I think was addressed in (2) though I want to clarify that I don’t see the writing of Scripture as necessarily being an apostolic thing. It could be argued association with an apostle is needed (e.g. author of Hebrews, Luke) but I don’t know if I am convinced.
August 7, 2010 at 2:22 am
Brian -
Sorry for 2 comments in a row. The first one I forgot to close a bold statement and left a large chunk bolded. So here is the comment re-stated.
I would expect an ‘appearance’ of Christ for apostles, but again, I would argue we have no Scriptural foundation that He must have physically appeared to someone to commission them. It’s just not hard-line in Scripture, outside of, again, misunderstanding Acts 1:2; 1:21-22; and 1 Cor 15:8. These three articles at my blog look at those passages: article 1, article 2, article 3.
But I do agree that Christ, as the great apostle, is the one who commissions people into such a ministry role. Just as Christ, the great prophet, does the same for prophets. And Christ as the great evangelist, shepherd and teacher is the one who gifts and commissions those who fulfil those ministry roles.
I, too, am not up for just any ol’ person claiming apostolic ministry just because they have the Spirit. Some do that and it isn’t healthy. They like the title, but don’t understand the ministry. My point was to say 1) Jesus was the great apostle, 2) He sent His Spirit to continue the same apostolic work, and 3) that the body of Christ as a whole are an apostolic people (Acts 1:8 is the apostolic commission of all). But, with regards to specific apostles, they are given to help equip the whole apostolic body to be apostolic. They know how best to function apostolically, since that is their ministry gift. This is what Eph 4:11-13 seems to point to. So, while the body is apostolic, just as they are a prophetic, evangelistic, shepherding and didactic community, this does not mean all are apostles, or all are prophets, or evangelists, or shepherds or teachers.
While we might say there are ‘general messengers’, I am not using that as a definition to establish the true ministry of an apostle. I do not believe all church planters or missionaries are apostles. They might be engaging in an apostolic characteristic in such activity. But they might function more in an evangelist or shepherd or teacher or prophet role. I have engaged in apostolic endeavours, but I function more as a teacher.
We should not embrace simply some vague pneumatological appointing, though the apostolic Spirit does anoint people for such a ministry, i.e., we see this very well in Acts 13:1-4. I believe apostles are commissioned by Christ and will be recognised by other apostles and other Eph 4 ministries. Our churches work with an apostolic company – many gifted ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. It is not just about the apostle. Apostles are accountable within a company of gifted ministries. So we have a team of people that work with our churches, not just one guy. And I think that is how Paul functioned as we read Acts and his letters. He had a wide apostolic team, though only a handful might have been apostles.
I suppose I wouldn’t need to point out that a few things in church history kind of fell to the wayside at various times. Not to be over evangelical and be down on church history in, say, the middle ages (500-1500 AD). And I am definitely not one who says, ‘Bible only and no tradition!’ But I suppose some things fell by the wayside at times, things that we needed a fresh understanding of, one being all Spirit-gifts. Also, I cannot get around the reality of what I alluded to earlier – that 1) Jesus was the greatest apostle, 2) He sent His own Spirit to continue His exact same work, 3) that Spirit empowers the body of Christ in the varying ministries of Christ so that they can continue in the exact same work of their Head. And Eph 4:11-13 says we need all five of these ministries until we reach unity in the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. I cannot get around how important this ministry is. Sure, it’s dangerous to recognise such a ministry today, just as it is so with prophets. I’ve seen abuses. It opens the door for more misuse. But I am interested in doing this thing correctly and healthily, in accordance with the great apostle as outlined in what we have in Scripture. Misuse and abuse should not push us away, but simply towards walking this out faithfully.
A bishop is an elder as an elder is a bishop. I know that the 2 roles began to separate not to far down the line into the 2nd century. But, from a Scriptural look, elder and bishop/overseer are the same role. I think plenty of bishops function more as apostles than as local church elders.
August 7, 2010 at 9:00 am
Scott,
This is a lot to respond to so forgive me if I miss something.
(1) While you are not convinced that the Scriptures demand an appearance of Christ (physically, in a vision, or other wise) I am not convinced that there is any hint that someone can be an apostle unless (a) commissioned this way by Christ himself or (b) commissioned by another apostle. Yes, there is silence but it works both ways.
(2) In continuation with the above thought even the apostles of the four-fold (I think the conjunctions lean toward four, not five) ministry are not guaranteed to be for all places and all times. The very reality that the early church felt there was a gap that the Bishops assumed says something interesting to me. I know the Fathers are not canonical writers but they shaped much of our thought and they were the earliest interpreters and creators/discoverers of the canon. They had no problem seeing the church mature while realizing the “apostle” part was for the founding of the church that would continue to grow and mature until Christ returns.
(3) One problem with your response that other gifted ministers acknowledge apostleship is that many of us Christians do no such thing. I cannot think of one person I would call an apostle today. Not one. Does that mean s/he has jurisdiction only in areas where s/he is acknowledged? Would I be wrong if an “apostle” told me something and I ignored him/her?
(4) Between the Pauline epistles, Acts, and so forth I am not so sure we have a very clear cut leadership structure. I think it evolved and I am fairly convinced it continued to evolve into the second century. Sure, a “Bishop” and a local pastor were one and the same early on but as the church expanded this changed. The Bishop served a role similar to the apostle while acknowledging that he was not an apostle. I am not one who is convinced that Paul used the four-fold ministry as a “all place, all times” designation just like I don’t think the list of charismatic gifts that I wrote was exhaustive.
August 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Brian -
1) Yes, I believe apostles are commissioned by Jesus. All I said is that it is hard to pin a physical appearance as THE requirement.
2) I understand church history and the second & third century father’s seeing the rise of what we now recognise as bishops (though, as I said, I do believe elder and bishop-overseer are the same role in Scripture). And, in the end, whether we want to recognise the specific ministry of apostle or not, those who are apostles will get on being apostolic empowered by the Spirit in such a ministry.
3) I suppose we do not recognise apostolic ministry because we don’t have a healthy understanding of this ministry. Just as some don’t like prophetic ministry because they have a very bad view of it. I know you have said you understand that the apostolic ministry is not simply connected to Scripture writing, though many have that view. But I would ask what you think an apostle is that keeps you from recognising such a ministry post-John?
I know I keep leaving you links, so I don’t expect you to read them all, but here are two teaching videos that give pretty healthy teaching on what apostolic ministry looks like: video 1 and video 2.
Thanks for the continued interaction.
August 7, 2010 at 11:07 am
Scott,
(1) True, but as I have been saying I don’t see anyone who is an apostle who (a) was not commissioned this way or (b) was not commissioned by someone commissioned this way.
(2) I think we will agree to disagree on modern apostles. I am not against high church authority. It just seems to me that there was an agreed upon change in the early church. If I am going to begin affirming someone with such authority I will likely be baptized into Catholicism or Orthodoxy first because I see these Bishops as more plausible successors.
(3) Again, you indicate that we don’t have a healthy understanding but I don’t think this is so. Maybe with prophets but I think that is changing. Apostles? I think there is a plausible option and an implausible one and I think if we have anything that “continues” the ministry of an apostle it would be a bishop. That is a big “if” though.
August 7, 2010 at 11:29 am
I think why I’m so reluctant to negate modern apostleship is because my experience with Christianity has been quite global. In some parts of the world, where individuals don’t have the advantage of a seminary education or even a neighbourhood church of any kind, Jesus is still directly revealing Himself and commissioning them much like He did in the early church. They too play the role of receiving doctrine first hand and teaching others. I know a few people in earlier comments talked about people in Muslim countries experiencing conversion experiences like Paul’s, but I just want to give a few examples of people who I think of as modern apostles.
Like Sadhu Sundar Singh, who lived in India at the turn of the 20 century. Also commonly known as ‘the apostle of the bleeding feet,’ he often met with the Lord Jesus in forests and caves as he prayed. His doctrine wasn’t taught to him by men, it came from direct revelation and he subsequently went around the world with only the saffron robe he wore (no shoes) and an Urdu New Testament, preaching and teaching Jesus. I’ve read a few of his writings, and I can testify that Jesus told him some great spiritual truths in those caves, and many have been blessed by his ministry.
Then there’s a young pastor I know who lives in the eastern part of India right now. This area has been referred to as ‘a grave for missionaries’ throughout history due to the heavy opposition Christians face from Hindu fundamentalists. To this day, believers in Christ there are harassed, imprisoned and have their homes and places of worship burned down. Whenever this man gives himself to prayer and fasting, the angels of God visit him and teach him deep mysteries of God’s kingdom in his own language. They’ve even explained many of Jesus’ parables to him in all their fullness and he’s currently compiling these teachings into a book. Remember, these angels don’t have any authority of their own, and I’ve heard this pastor teach enough times to not have any doubt in my spirit where the revelation he receives and shares comes from.
August 7, 2010 at 11:43 am
Thanks for the interaction, Brian. I guess if you ever have time, you can read more of my thoughts in the series, or watch the 2 videos I posted links to. I appreciate your deep thinking about all things.
August 7, 2010 at 11:49 am
Wildflower,
Those testimonies are powerful. One thing I’d be interested in hearing is your opinion on whether or not the gospel these men have received agree with the gospel given to the early apostles. One key for us as regards Paul is even though his gospel came from the Lord it was confirmed by those who knew Jesus during his “earthly” ministry. I would want to hear the same of these “apostles” as well.
Scott,
I hope to make it over to your blog. It is such a huge subject and I am not at all writing off your view. At this point I would need to review my position and see if there is anything in regards to what you said that may seriously challenge it. Reading your blog post may help.
August 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Brian: I think you’ve set your position up so that it can’t seriously be challenged. E.g., your definition of apostle is something like, “one commissioned directly by Jesus or a first generation apostle.” You’ve stated that post-ascension (except in Paul’s case) Jesus doesn’t directly commission apostles anymore, and if you heard a testimony that he did appear directly to commission an apostle, you wouldn’t believe it. So you’ve already written off the possibility of one of your major criteria (and I recognize that you said you’re not denying Christ’s ability in the matter—but you followed it by saying that you wouldn’t believe it—so it’s six in one hand, half-dozen in the other).
The first generation apostles are no longer around to commission apostles but the lack of this term and the profusion of the term “bishop” in post-second century writings leads you to believe that there never was any such apostolic commissioning (via succession) and that the “office” ceased with the early apostles. You do however admit that if you’re going to see any successor then it’s going to be the bishop. Ambrosiaster, commenting on 1Cor. 12:28 said, “They [= apostles] may be identified with bishops, as Peter said of Judas, Let another take his bishopric,” so you’re not that far off. But, it seems that your non-Catholicity gives you warrant to dismiss this apostolic authority handed over via apostolic succession, so you have an out for once again denying (in some way) the “office.”
And finally, the NT silence* concerning your criteria doesn’t bother you because silence “works both ways.” I don’t personally find your position persuasive but you seem to have insulated it enough that it’s beyond any refutation you’d personally accept. I’m curious about what kind of data you’d think could challenge your current position.
* I have in mind the absence of any kind of prescription rather than description of what you see as how apostles are made. I’d also note that even the descriptive aspect we find in the NT only exists for the 12. There’s nothing indicating how others called apostles became apostles.
August 7, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Nick: I agree with your criticisms but thus far let me say I lean closer toward seeing the Orthodox/Catholic approach as being most sensible while wrestling with the implications of such a decision. The most coherant thing for me to do would be to convert to a Bishop led branch of Christianity (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian). I am not sure if I have a logical reason for not doing so. Thus far it is more of a “making-it-happen” problem. Maybe I will live with this tension!
As far as persuasive data is concerned I think two things would be helpful (1) examples of apostles in the early church that do not seem to match my criteria of being commissioned by Jesus or an immediate apostle of Jesus (I am still not sure if I know of any water proof examples of the latter) and (2) some examples from the early, early church that suggest that anyone understood the apostolic office to continue in any sense other than in the rise of the Bishops.
August 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Brian, I find that not only does the gospel these men I mentioned preach agree with the gospel given to the early apostles, a lot of the revelation that’s been given to them also helps people in this day and age better understand Jesus’ teachings. For example, I had drawn a question mark in my bible next to Exodus 4:22-26 because I didn’t understand how the threat of death to the Egyptian’s firstborn sons led to a threat on Moses’ son’s life and subsequently his circumcision! Until that pastor I mentioned taught about circumcision as a symbol of the old covenant likening it to water baptism as a symbol of the new covenant.
An angel actually explained to him how the Lord would have killed Moses’ son just like He promised to do the Egyptian’s sons because as long as that boy wasn’t circumcised, He was outside the covenant. Imagine, even before instructing them to apply blood to their doors, God showed them what would happen if they weren’t in covenant with Him; death! I’d never gotten that until this modern apostle taught it to me. Anyway, I have lots of other examples like this, but my point is that these men’s teachings bring people into fellowship with Christ. Isn’t that the whole purpose of apostleship?