Apostles

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

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. ... I wonder whether we understand apostles correctly at all.

Here are some comments about Jesus' and his immediate followers' "works of power".

Peter quoted in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know"

Hebrews 2:3,4 "...this great salvation that was first announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak? God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 "The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance"

Witness Lee said his function was as a "bible expositor", if I remember.

In the NT we have Jesus, those who saw Jesus and testified, and Paul's "apostle" all doing signs and wonders and miracles. Tough act to follow. Benny Hinn, where you at? Todd Bentley, please come back to Lakeland!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Here are some comments about Jesus' and his immediate followers' "works of power".

Peter quoted in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know"

Hebrews 2:3,4 "...this great salvation that was first announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak? God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 "The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance"

Witness Lee said his function was as a "bible expositor", if I remember.

In the NT we have Jesus, those who saw Jesus and testified, and Paul's "apostle" all doing signs and wonders and miracles. Tough act to follow. Benny Hinn, where you at? Todd Bentley, please come back to Lakeland!

And for the most part, it is these things that creates for me the general thought that apostles are something significant in establishing the church and are not a necessary thing on an ongoing basis. Moses laid out the law through divine contact. And God displayed himself to the Children of Israel in highly miraculous ways. But the miracles began to shrink. You can say that to have won certain battles was a miracle, but it was not always understood in the same light as the parting of the Red Sea or the River Jordan. Then came the prophets. They primarily spoke concerning the sorry state of affairs in Judah and Israel, with much less after the return from captivity, then 400 years of silence. There was the writing of the history, but no more prophecy. Seems that everything was set. The time was just not right.

Then came Jesus. He spoke for three plus years, giving many signs and miracles. This was to establish that he was, at a minimum, a major prophet of God. This was necessary because his words were different from what had been taught for some time. We argue that everything pointed to him. But the understanding was not for a savior who left you within the earthly bondage, but one that threw off the outward bonds of outside rulers. They needed a reason to understand the direction of scripture as something besides the recreation of and earthly kingdom.

And then he was killed. Now you could get 500 people to say they had seen a dead man walking around alive. But the signs and miracles once again established that there was more than earthly conspiracy to push some man-made thing as just an alternate way to live. A good way but no more real than any other. And for the Jews that underpinned the first churches, they knew that the only true miracles were from the one true God. So those were somewhat key to establishing that their God was the author of what those apostles were preaching.

On the day of Pentecost, the people did not hear a bunch of Galileans speaking gibberish. They heard their own languages and knew that these men did not know those languages. The same sign was given to the Samaritans and Gentiles, not so much for their sake as to show the Jews that theses outsiders were now insiders.

But once the truth is established, there is no more need for miracle to underscore truth that otherwise seems contrary to the old thinking (another religion, or even the OT expectation of a worldly savior). So, while there were miracles and tongues, it might be that their ceasing is not simply in the New J, but a gradual thing that is the result of the more general acceptance of the truth in the gospel of Christ (even where that acceptance is not to the level of tru belief).

Now I have heard of real miracles that are more than just a re diagnosis of cancer (or now lack of cancer). Some that were clearly seen by the people of distant native tribes who had never heard or believed the gospel. Those miracles were at the hand of missionaries that could hardly have expected such a miracle. But it caused those natives to become open to hear something new.

But in America it is almost unheard of that there are miracles that cannot be attributed to an unlikely probability that became the actual case. Cancer that goes away (or was thought of as misdiagnosed). Where are the cases of broken bones being healed as straight as new? Or eyes blind since Scarlet fever at childhood suddenly seeing again? I do not doubt that there is the hand of God in those less obvious miracles. But it mostly speaks to those who already believe, not those who do not.

I think it is a serious error to suggest that the reason for this is that we as Christians are so flawed that God cannot find anyone to do those miracles. (And I do not say you have suggested that.) I think it is that even the unbelievers in most of the civilized world are not unaware of the gospel at some level, and have no reason to simply disbelieve because there is no evidence of its truth. There is much evidence without miracles.

And, returning to apostles, there may be good cause to understand the term at two levels and see that there was — past tense — the place for the "special" case, along with the miracles. And while I'm sure that someone will find a reference to a miracle toward the end of the recorded accounts, I note that it was given as a significant thing in the early chapters of Acts, and it then diminished through the accounts.

And just like observing that Paul addressed a church by the city's name, it may be no more than observation without clear meaning. But it does seem to follow the pattern seen in the OT. It took miracles to get the CofI to leave Egypt. It took miracles to keep them on the trail to Canaan. But the observable miracles in front of the entire congregation almost ceased after they ended the purging of the land. There were some small miracles in front of a few at the hands of a prophet. But no more pillars of fire. Or seas parting. Or firstborn dying overnight. They knew those things. They continually spoke of them. God was established.

"You come here to our town in Greece speaking of a god that we have never heard of and have no reason to want to hear of." Follow that with a lame man walking, or a blind man seeing. Something that they know is a miracle. They will accept that what you speak comes from a real god. Even The God. But while many have rejected truly accepting Jesus as savior, they accept him as "another god" or a prophet of the true God. Yes, a miracle might change their mind. But it is clear that God is not out to simply convert everyone because he wows them with miracles. Fills their pantry and refrigerator. Gives them a job on Wall Street (with only a 6th grade education). The miracles are the introduction. In worldly terms, it is the display of power and/or intellect that causes people to take note. After that, the report of seeing the power is enough. God wants people to believe by choice. He no longer needs them be wowed to even consider. Almost all do that at some level. They have virtually all heard of him. They have a basis to accept or reject. They might need a personal account of what God has done for one or more of us. But God is not simply unknown.

So there may be apostles now. But from what I can see, apostles of the kind who started the spread of the gospel in Acts are no more. We still have missionaries. There are still miracles. But those miracles are seen by the world as misdiagnosis, flukes of probability, the ability of the body to heal itself, etc. I believe. But I already believe. It might be that on a one-off basis there will be an individual who comes to believe because of them. But not major portions of small cities. The miracle is hidden.

And the missionaries continue to bring the gospel to the world. But as commissions and, for the most part, with the appearance of common man bringing stories of a strange god. Yet when some begin to believe, their gift to the church in that place is obvious. Without them, there is no church. Because of them, there is.

And, in the mean time, the demonstrations of showmanship in "healing meetings" says much to those who already believe, but virtually nothing to the world. They continually are unable to find anything of substance actually healed. Nothing that was clearly there before and now gone. No change to the physical structure of the human body that causes the lame to walk. Just the weak to take enough steps to get some ecstatic people to cry out "Hallelujah!" Enough adrenaline and endorphins to overcome the pain the the back for a short time.

Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously. That we deal with justice and not with greed and covetousness. Having an apostle will not cause any of that to be better. It will distract us to things that do not change our lives. To things that look good in meetings. We will need an apostle to tell us to get our act together. To throw out the open fornicator. To quit having a three-ring circus in our meetings. Corinth was the epitome of thinking about the status of teachers/evangelists/apostles. And of a kind of hierarchy of gifts of the Spirit, with the pinnacle being the miraculous.

And they were a mess.

Bless the little Lutheran church down the street in which the faithful believers come weekly with no expectation of miracles or visitation from an Apostle, then go to live their Christian faith in the workplace, marketplace, neighborhood, and the home. I fear that those flocking to showy meetings to see miracles and listen to a self-proclaimed apostle get what they deserve — a temporal rush of endorphins. And then that preacher leaves the church to go out to eat, dressed in his over-the-top garb, and treats the waiters like dirt, leaving no tip. And I'm not making this up.

[OBW]

And one short addendum.

It is true that Paul told the people to beware of false apostles. But that was written to people still living in the time of the original apostles. There is nothing in that charge that is automatically eternal on scope. It could be true. But it also could be relevant only to the era.

It is not stated. Reading it as if it was intended to be a charge to everyone in every time is a huge presumption.

And if there are or are not Apostles in that sense in this day, the fact is that they are not overtly demonstrated as they were in the first generation of the church. If we want to start a new "recovery" of the apostolic church, with the need for a modern apostle, then I sense an new LRC coming. I would suggest that despite the errors seen at various levels in various Christian groups, the church is, for the most part, exactly what it is meant to be. There is not some 2,000 year drought of apostleship. And no ones' recast of history will convince me that there are certain ones (almost all leading down a line to the exclusive Brethren and the LRC) that were apostles in some overt sense. It is just reheated leftovers from Lee. No more of that for me. The church is really in too good a shape to tolerate so much nay-saying.

And as was somewhat recently sung, "It's getting better all the time."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously.

My current "apostolic baseline" is what I quoted earlier from Acts 2, Hebrews 2, and 2 Corinthians 12.

Signs

Wonders

Miracles

Now, 2 caveats quickly spring to mind. First, doing anything in a showy way, to display something before others, is verboten. The devil is to crafty and insinuating.

No, work in a hidden way. Like Jesus, who would often drive the crowds away (and even most of the 12) and work with just a few. Work before God.

Second, I relate "Signs, wonders, and miracles" to the word "power", as in, "You have a little power and have not denied my name." That power must be evident in the believer, and will be amplified in God's special "sent ones", whether we term them messengers or apostles or prophets or whatnot.

This power need not be to lengthen someone's leg, or straighten someone's features (though it may), or to cause it not to rain for three years (though it may), but rather the power to change people's lives. Those who wept will be comforted, those who sighed will rejoice. Those in the darkness of despair will sense light and hope, and those in the prison of "me, me, me" will sense how much God loves everybody else (imagine that!). There are great works of power waiting to be done by us all, which in our own small way may be "signs, wonders, and miracles".

Lee was, at heart, a "bible expositor", not a prophet or apostle. He liked to talk about the Bible. That is my impression. And he arguably changed lives, including mine.

But again, two caveats come to mind for "Lee the Bible expositor". First, his expositions were riddled with subjectivity, partiality, bias, error, and cant (as are most, if not all of our efforts). He was no all-seeing "oracle". To paint him (or anyone) as such quickly evokes the great scene in the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain!"

Second, Lee should probably disqualified from any "higher office" in our estimation, like an apostle or prophet, by the fact that he did, in fact, covet people's gold and silver (Acts 20:33). I am thinking specifically of the Daystar fiasco. There may be other instances, but Daystar alone is enough. We have enough evidence here to try the claims of those who claim "Lee the apostle", and find them to be false.

[OBW]

One factor in the discussion on apostles that has been in my mind but not brought up is Paul's comment about how "all of Asia" had left him.

I somehow sense that much of the discussion here would assume that he should start excommunicating those who lead in those churches. But he doesn't even suggest that their charters be rejected, or that someone else go and start new churches there so that Paul's newly appointed elders could reign.

This seems to put a different status on the apostles. They were gifts to the establishment of the churches. They were not authoritarian leaders of those churches or "super elders." Even Paul's letter to Corinth in which he directs them concerning the man having an affair with his stepmother does not insist that they do it "or else." He says they should. He says if he were there he would. But he is not and all he can do is give advice.

It is a gift to them. They are free to leave the package unopened. Bad choice, but an option.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.

Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.

Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.

Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.

Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

Great point about calling any man "The ......."

In church history, Rome latched onto Peter as "The" first great apostle. Probably in reaction to this, Protestants favored Paul, with the exclusive wing extolling Paul as "The Apostle," and "The MOTA." What somewhat sounded benign concerning Peter and Paul actually laid the groundwork for modern day leaders to fill their shoes. WL elevated Paul by accentuating Peter's failures. Since Luke wrote Acts, early church history is biased in Paul's favor.

Paul told us plainly that he was "less than the least," and constantly pointed the church to Christ the Head. I believe Christians on their own reading the Bible would not elevate one minister over another, and Corinth was a constant warning regarding this. It was WL and his loyal lackeys who thrust these teachings upon the LC's, with the motives of grandeur and power. Things the Bible constantly warned us against.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.
Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.
Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

That was my point when I recently quoted Hebrews chapter one. Jesus is the High Priest; Jesus is the Mouthpiece of God; Jesus is God's Oracle; Jesus is God's Deputy Authority; Jesus is the Apostle of the Age; Jesus is the Minister of the New Covenant. God has spoken in many ways in the past, and today He is speaking to us in His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, and through whom He has made all things.

Anyone who becomes the subject of our attention as the conduit of God's speaking has arguably diverted us from our path. There is only one (speaking) Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. And every single one of us is, or can be, His speaking "deputies". Some of us have more capacity and so forth, but if their gifts (i.e. "ministries") become our focus then we have mis-aimed.