[OBW]

I fear that the big problem is in what we mean by apostle. So, as ZNP has suggested, before tackling Igzy's list, we need a definition of apostle.

But even without a definition, I would suggest that our general thought concerning the apostles of the first generation of the church, despite the thought that all the men who saw Jesus after the resurrection were apostles, is something high and profound and probably not bestowed on that entire group. So whether it was actually true at the time of those men (including those we regard as The apostles, like John, Peter, Paul) we sort of create a tiering of apostles, creating a kind of uncertainty in the term. It causes us to equivocate — not in an intentional or underhanded way, but in a way in which we cause there to be some kind of differentiation that we are unable to define.

And so I wonder whether we understand apostles correctly at all. Let me take on three different approaches (and I have no idea which, if not another altogether, is correct):

First Alternative:

Is there something important to seeing the resurrected Jesus? Does that therefore limit the existence of true apostles in the sense used in scripture to those living at that time? If that is the case, is it possible that the gift of apostles to the church — even to this day — was the rapid spread of the truth into many people who could then spread it further? While scoffing at an RCC kind of apostolic succession, is there something to teaching what has been taught ultimately by the apostles? And are we aided to this day in knowing what that teaching is because some recorded things from the mouths of those men (whether officially penned by them or by those following them) and those writings were found to consistently reflect what the apostles as a group were teaching wherever they were? Even places that did not see those writings at first would realize a generation or two later that those writings were consistent with what they had been taught as handed down from whatever apostle first taught there?

This kind of apostle would have been a gift to the church. And would continue to be a gift to the church even though he (and all others) died generations ago. So Ephesians would still stand correct in its reference to the apostles that were given to the church for the work of ministry, the building up of the body, etc.

Second Alternative:

The second alternate is that, while we are not clear how to define it and identify it, there are continually apostles given to the church. We may not have the vision to identify them as such. But even with that, we are able to discern the false among them because, like any other teacher, they will display the signs that Paul identified. Or will teach in ways contrary to what has been handed down to us (in scripture?).

Third Alternative:

The third alternative is that there is something intentionally different in the use of the word "apostle" in certain places in scripture. If the raw definition of "apostle" is a "sent one," then after the lives of those special ones that we identify in the New Testament as apostles, there continues to be "sent ones." You know. Missionaries. People who bring the gospel where it has not been before. That is always a gift to the church. Is that the gift that was mentioned in Ephesians? I don't know. It is just a different way of thinking about it.

Igzy's list.

Now, having gone through all of that, I still have no idea how to define any on Igzy's list as an apostle, except for those who would have been classed as missionaries. They may or may not be. But even with that uncertainty, I believe that the only thing I could do is apply Paul's words of warning to suggest that Lee is not among those who might be. And despite my much softer stance concerning Nee, what I believe I have found enough error in his teachings to lead me to be wary of considering him with that great a status. And to think that in about March of 1973, I referred to both of them as apostles to someone at the church I had previously attended. I'm sure their eyes rolled when I said that. And they were probably right.