Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?
|
It seems that only with a few exceptions was it ever necessary to claim the title of apostleship. Paul, of course, was the most obvious. The reason was also obvious. He was commissioned to go to the Gentiles. Jesus was sent to the house of Israel and his struggles, excluding the work of redemption, were enormous just facing the Jewish leaders. Paul took on additional conflicts by taking the gospel to the uncircumcised.
How many of the other apostles killed the Christians, striking fear in their hearts? (
Acts 9.13-14) How many of the other apostles saw the heavenly Jesus, went to the third heaven, and to paradise, hearing unspeakable words? (
2 Cor 12.1-4) How many of the other apostles were martyred and returned from the dead? (
Acts 14.19-20) How many of the other apostles were even called directly by revelation of the ascended Head, while many others were still arguing about who had spent time with the earthly Jesus. (Galatians 1) Many Apostles did great work for the kingdom, but Paul pioneered the gospel outside of Israel. Every Gentile in history is indebted to him.