[OBW]

I have considered the term “apostle” many times and can never seem to come to a clear conclusion as to its scope. At its simplest form it means one who is sent, yet in the NT context, some of the usage suggests a special sending from a select group of people.

The 11 were convinced that their number should be 12, and they limited the choices to those who had been with them and seen Jesus. So a disciple who had previously been unnamed became the new 12th disciple/apostle. This seems to place a rather strong limit on who is an apostle.

But in places like 1 Cor 12, Paul mentions apostles among the gifts and then asks “Are all apostles...?” While inconclusive, this infers less certainty about the exclusiveness of the apostles’ club. In 2 Cor 11 Paul mentions false apostles. This suggests that either the definition of who was in and who was out was less certain than some 12 guys plus Paul, or that there were people traveling around impersonating the actual apostles.

It is notable that in writing to the Corinthians, Paul is actually writing to Greeks — people who spoke the language in which the word that we transliterate into “apostles” originates. Is it possible that rather than having some special meaning, they understood the word quite naturally as part of their language, and that in their understanding, any traveling preacher of the gospel was effectively an apostle? Since Paul does not attack that particular angle, but has spent several verses comparing his gospel to the “different” Jesus that these others have preached, and then indicates that they are “false apostles” and have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, the exclusiveness of who is an apostle seems less certain.

As Roger has said, in terms of an exclusive club, Paul would have seemed to be preparing Timothy to take his place, yet there is no record (at least yet brought forth) that refers to Timothy as an apostle. In fact, I must ask whether the title was claimed by or about any after the NT closed and the next generation began to take over. I am not saying there is not, but that I have not studied this and if someone else has, it would be interesting to know what history records, especially with regard to the second generation.

So I ask out loud whether the term apostle legitimately has two definitions. The first is a somewhat exclusive group who actually saw Jesus (this would include Paul who saw Him in a most remarkable way on the road to Damascus), while the second is a more general use of the term and includes all who are sent out, much as are present-day missionaries.

The reason for this demarcation is that those original few, specially selected apostles are seen in scripture as having certain authority, more with regard to setting the spread of the church in motion (and in Paul’s case of explaining this belief system that has so many roots in a religion that was foreign to most of the world), while nothing special is said about the others besides being careful to discern who was and was not a true apostle.

While I have my own reservations on all sides related to what I have written above, if we start with it as a working definition, and are also rather generous with Lee as to his standing and motives before God, we might argue that he was among the potential multitude of “little a” apostles. And if we are not so generous, we is among those that Paul would say should be seen as false apostles.

But either way, no such apostle is “THE” apostle in any way, for any time. Such an apostle is to be scrutinized. His words are to be scrutinized against scripture. (Paul, one of the first-rank apostles welcomed this kind of scrutiny from the Bereans. Funny that Lee didn’t accept this from anyone.) Such an apostle is subject to a rather rag-tag group of Christians in Corinth second-guessing his motives and teachings and determining him to be a false apostle. That’s what Paul told them to do.

In this scenario, the only authority given to any such apostle is what the assembly permits. Authority is not vested from outside, but from within. Anyone who receives no “seal of approval” cannot then send someone else to be his deputy to wield power over those believers. In this regard, YP, like a broken record, keeps reminding us that teachings of “universal church” are the only way that Lee and the BBs gets away with the stuff they pull. “Universal church” is only a spiritual overlay. It can only be used to denote that all assemblies of believers, and the actual believers themselves, have a common faith in the one God who came to earth to save us from our sin. Beyond that, it is the assemblies, one by one, that stand. They were each admonished to beware of wolves.

They were not given a list of acceptable speakers, or acceptable books, or acceptable publishers. They were not told to send a letter to Paul, wherever he was, or to Jerusalem to check the credentials of the latest teacher coming through town. They were told to check them out for themselves. The authority for the latest “apostle” to arrive on the scene was vested in the Corinthians. Paul didn’t tell them to allow brother X and reject Brother Y. He said to put up a measuring stick of the gospel they had already heard. If it sound different, toss them out.

I must confess that after 14-1/2 years in the LC, and another 21 since, it was toward the end of that 21 years that I began to seriously analyze the teachings presented by the Apostle of the Age and have begun to find them wanting. Not entirely bad — no true Christian would simply begin to believe a set of teachings that were entirely wrong. But with the sufficient problems I now see, I cannot allow his teachings into my house again. I do not have the time to weed the leaven from the flour, so it is rejected in full.