Does "Apostle" Mean "Missionary?"

[LeBuick]

BTW, I believe I noticed when reading through all the thread, the overlooking of the identifying of one, who is also named an apostle in the NT. He was not, as far as I can tell, "taught by Christ", from what I have read. (Nor was Epaphroditus, as far as I can tell, for that matter.) He is still, however, also of some "fair-to-middlin'" importance, I figure, in this list of Apostles. His name happens to be mentioned in Heb. 3:1. Perhaps, without looking it up, some of you may have even heard of this name, already.

His name is Christ Jesus.

Ed

I never noticed that before... :thumbs:

I recall pondering JOJ argument and reconsidered my stance on Apostleship...

 

[EdSutton]

I'm willing to go with two categories of apostle. In my OP I noted that the 12 (I include Matthias, since he was "numbered with the apostles") were special, since the 12 will judge the 12 tribes and have their names in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

Both categories are missionaries, though. I have a wonderful book entitled The Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William McBirnie, which gives the history of each individual apostle and how they did cross-cultural evangelism. Foxe's Book of Martyrs also does this some, to an extent.

IMO, The book by Dr. W. Stuart McBirnie, is a great little book! I have it, and very much enjoyed and learned from it, by reading it from cover to cover.

Another very informative book on this subject is the one written by Herbert Lockyear -
All The Apostles of The Bible.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

But you see, my point is not that it is one or the other, my point is that they are exactly the same!


I agree that it wasn't a divine requirement, and that strengthens my argument that there were more legitimate apostles than the twelve.


Note these direct statements (I'll let you look up the other passages yourself):

Acts 14:14--"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul...."

Rom. 16:7--"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles."

This brings to mind a semi-humorous episode from several years ago, in a "Church Training" class, that I taught, at that time, covering "Apostles", that particular evening. Although I do not recall "why" we were covering Apostles, particularly, unless it was in the literature we were using, I had a chalk board, and asked the class to name some apostles. As each was named, I would write it down, and also give the other names, such as when one said "Peter", I also wrote down "Simon" and "Cephas", and when one said "Matthew", I also wrote down "Levi", for example. I had two columns, one for "The Twelve" and the other for others who were not "of the twelve". FTR, to my own embarrassment, I did not have or put the Lord Jesus Christ as one of them, on my own list, however I did have Andronicus and Junia, and Epaphroditus on it.

One of our older deacons, whose name was 'James', and is now with the Lord, said this: "Well 'Brooks' says there ain't but 12 Apostles, with Paul being the 12th, in place of Judas." (Dr. Bobby Brooks, now retired, and incidentally, again a member of our church, had been our Pastor for 12 years, and had accepted a call to another church, about four years before this, but had built a home, and lives across the road from where the deacon lived.) I said, "Well, 'Brooks' ain't here and able to defend himself tonight, so we're not going to use him as any authority."

So they continued with the naming. After about eight or nine of the more obvious ones were named, we kind of hit a lull, when one of the younger deacons, at that time, named 'Ray', looked up, with a bright look of inspiration, and said, "Barnabas!". I wrote it down, and waited. The thoughts continued, and I believe I actually got one more name. Some looked at the board, including James, who spoke up and said, "Barnabas? Barnabas wasn't no apostle." I did not offer to correct him but merely said, "Hey! I'm just writing down the names you all are giving me."

And then it started. Rather than thinking further, James continued, "Now Ray, you know better than that." Two or three of others chimed in, and "poo-pooed" his suggestion (as opposed to thinking for themselves), and even his wife, joined in. (Thankfully, his father-in-law, the Church Training Director, at that time and also a deacon, did not say anything, even though I suspect he was close to agreeing with the general consensus.) Poor Ray's smile quickly faded, and he dropped his head, lower and lower, with each passing comment. After a couple of minutes or so of this, I said, "Well we seem to have hit a bit of a lull in remembering names, so let's look at a couple of verses. Ray, would you please read Acts 14:14, first, for us." Ray opened his Bible, found it and, with his head still down, read aloud: "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of,..." and that was as far as he got. I do not believe he ever finished reading the verse, if my memory is correct.

His head popped up, with a wide grin from ear to ear, that you could not have removed with sandpaper.

You can also probably guess the somewhat embarrassed reactions of the ones who had just been riding Ray for his suggestion.

It has now been over 20 years, and Ray is no longer a member of our church, having moved about 20 miles away, where they joined another church that is located only a mile or so from them, but we are still, and will always be good friends, and I still see him periodically, as he works in a wholesale florist place about halfway between our homes, that another long-time close friend of mine owns, and who allows me to come there to walk around in, for the exercise I am supposed to do, in inclement weather.

I can assure you that after 20 years, when the subject of apostles comes up, or were one to ask Ray to give the name of an apostle, the very first one that he would (and does) say is not Paul, not Peter, not James, or not John, but "Barnabas!" :thumbs:

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

Good posts, friends! Glad you guys are thinkers.

Ed, I loved your story! Seems like once a Baptist gets an idea fixed in his head it's hard to dislodge sometimes. :laugh:

And you are certainly right about Jesus Christ the Apostle. After all, He left his home in glory to come plant His church in a truly foreign place! :jesus:

 

[Allan]

Good posts, friends! Glad you guys are thinkers.

Ed, I loved your story! Seems like once a Baptist gets an idea fixed in his head it's hard to dislodge sometimes. :laugh:

And you are certainly right about Jesus Christ the Apostle. After all, He left his home in glory to come plant His church in a truly foreign place! :jesus:

Question I have, IF I may??

So am I understanding you correctly that a missionary is an apostle in it's fullest sense or that many of it's functions resemble that of an apostle?

The reason I ask is (1) for better clarification and (2) if you 'do' mean "a missionary is an apostle", I have another question in need of answering. Again, IF I may?

Do you hold, as Paul did, that you have the right to go back to those churches God used you to start (even though they have pastors and are fully functioning) to disciple people of that church when the church is not?

Do you hold, as Paul did, that wnen you come to those churches they must submit to your authority as an apostle and walk in whatever decision you give?? (even superceding the Pastor and other leaders God has now set there)

Of course I'm using both 1 and 2 Corinithians as my point in this. These questions obviously brings into question a heirarchy (of sorts - since we know only Apostles 'apparently' had this option) and places a delima on the current understanding of autonamy of the Local Church.

I also think that Eph 2:20 is speaking of a specific group of apostles and not a general sense that goes down through the ages when it speaks of them and the prophets being the foundation. It wouldn't be much of a foundation if it is not yet set, would it?

I am of the opinion that Missionaries are apostles in one sense but not in the whole. Much in the same manner that we are all called to preach the gospel but we are not all actually an Evangelist. Or that we are all commanded to proclaim the word but not all are Pastors. We are in once sense of the defintion an evangelist or preacher but not in the fullest measure of authority which the office ascribes. (at least IMO)

 

[John of Japan]

Question I have, IF I may??

So am I understanding you correctly that a missionary is an apostle in it's fullest sense or that many of it's functions resemble that of an apostle?

I believe in two kinds of apostles in the NT. The first kind is the 12, which were special in that they literally walked with Jesus, were will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, and will have their names engraved in the foundations of the New Jerusalem. While I believe these 12 were missionaries, I do not believe that modern missionaries are equal to them. We are the second kind of apostle, who might be called a local church apostle.

I also am pretty much of a cessessionist, and do not believe that modern missionaries have any miracle gifts.

The reason I ask is (1) for better clarification and (2) if you 'do' mean "a missionary is an apostle", I have another question in need of answering. Again, IF I may?

Do you hold, as Paul did, that you have the right to go back to those churches God used you to start (even though they have pastors and are fully functioning) to disciple people of that church when the church is not?

Do you hold, as Paul did, that wnen you come to those churches they must submit to your authority as an apostle and walk in whatever decision you give?? (even superceding the Pastor and other leaders God has now set there)

I do not see that Paul had any institutional authority over the churches he had planted. But he did have continuing relationships with his converts, and when he went back to a church he had planted they welcomed him and trusted his wisdom.

This type of relationship is natural and valuable even today. There is a house church in Tottori Prefecture where the pastor and his wife still take video courses from me, e-mail me and call me. If I were to show up unannounced he would immediately ask me to preach and teach them. But I would never usurp his institutional authority, given by God and recognized by the people.

Of course I'm using both 1 and 2 Corinithians as my point in this. These questions obviously brings into question a heirarchy (of sorts - since we know only Apostles 'apparently' had this option) and places a delima on the current understanding of autonamy of the Local Church.

I don't see any hierarchy in the churches in Acts, under the apostles or not. Look at the language of the letter from the apostles in Jerusalem to the Gentiles in Acts 15:23-29. There are no imperative tenses in the Greek of the letter until the final greeting, "Fare ye well." It is all suggestions. So I believe the apostles did not exercise any control over the churches. Churches in the book of Acts were all autonomous.

I also think that Eph 2:20 is speaking of a specific group of apostles and not a general sense that goes down through the ages when it speaks of them and the prophets being the foundation. It wouldn't be much of a foundation if it is not yet set, would it?

Since Jesus is the chief cornerstone in that verse, I believe the apostles meant there are the 12, who were then the bricks finishing up the foundation. This foundation did not include the secondary apostles.

I am of the opinion that Missionaries are apostles in one sense but not in the whole. Much in the same manner that we are all called to preach the gospel but we are not all actually an Evangelist. Or that we are all commanded to proclaim the word but not all are Pastors. We are in once sense of the defintion an evangelist or preacher but not in the fullest measure of authority which the office ascribes. (at least IMO)

The authority of an apostle/missionary exists in the hearts of the people he leads to Christ (1 Cor. 9:2). There is a great Japanese word, onshi, meaning a teacher to whom one has a debt of gratitude from the past. In the present, the onshi does not have authority over the former student except in the heart. This is what an apostle/missionary becomes after planting a church. :type:

 

[Allan]

I believe in two kinds of apostles in the NT. The first kind is the 12, which were special in that they literally walked with Jesus, were will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, and will have their names engraved in the foundations of the New Jerusalem. While I believe these 12 were missionaries, I do not believe that modern missionaries are equal to them. We are the second kind of apostle, who might be called a local church apostle.

I agree with the above, but I think that is one of the reasons for 'not' using the term 'apostle' for missionaries because it would be either misleading to some or misunderstood. It is better to use the term missionary while explaining the 2ndary apostlitic aspect (or second kind of apostle), than to call oneself an apostle because of it's potential for misunderstanding. I guess that is why you still call yourself a missionary huh?? :laugh:

I do not see that Paul had any institutional authority over the churches he had planted. But he did have continuing relationships with his converts, and when he went back to a church he had planted they welcomed him and trusted his wisdom.

I don't recall Paul asking the Pastor nor it's elders if he could disipline those in the church. I recall Paul saying in 2 Cor that if comes again 'he' will not spare. I agree about the relationship with his converts but that does not equate to him dispencing disciple upon them without the Pastor nor elders and deacons involement. If his authority was not institutional by what right does he have to disciple members of that church while by-passing its leadership. I say by-passing because Paul never includes them but says "he" will not spare if he comes again to them. You say it was relational but I must ask, do you or any other missionary you know tell their old churches which have people in known sin, that if they have to come there they will bring a harsh discipline upon them. Now remember this isn't a personal letter but one to the church. And therefore since it was declared to the church publically the discipline would be done before the church publically. - at least as I understand it.

However, all that said, I'm still unsure of the above and an listening for your responce to see another perspective.

This type of relationship is natural and valuable even today. There is a house church in Tottori Prefecture where the pastor and his wife still take video courses from me, e-mail me and call me. If I were to show up unannounced he would immediately ask me to preach and teach them. But I would never usurp his institutional authority, given by God and recognized by the people.

Understood, but Paul did, unless the Corinithian church had no elders and deacons. Maybe I'm wrong, but it 'seems' Paul didn't like to use his authority over-bearingly but had no problem accerting it when the need arose. We see Paul doing this at various times (like with the church taking care of or providing for him)

I don't see any hierarchy in the churches in Acts, under the apostles or not. Look at the language of the letter from the apostles in Jerusalem to the Gentiles in Acts 15:23-29. There are no imperative tenses in the Greek of the letter until the final greeting, "Fare ye well." It is all suggestions. So I believe the apostles did not exercise any control over the churches. Churches in the book of Acts were all autonomous.

I'm not saying they weren't autonomous, but in the matter of Acts 15, the Apostles, Elders and the Church were still beginning to understand what God is doing in relation to the Gentiles. Thus they had a debate of sorts about how to respond to issue before them.
But we do know they had authority.
Since Jesus is the chief cornerstone in that verse, I believe the apostles meant there are the 12, who were then the bricks finishing up the foundation. This foundation did not include the secondary apostles.

The authority of an apostle/missionary exists in the hearts of the people he leads to Christ (1 Cor. 9:2). There is a great Japanese word, onshi, meaning a teacher to whom one has a debt of gratitude from the past. In the present, the onshi does not have authority over the former student except in the heart. This is what an apostle/missionary becomes after planting a church. :type:

Understood, but the NT writtings and the culture of it were not from Japan. Yes there are similarities but I find 2 Cor 13:2 to be hard pressed into the above since it was to the church regarding discipline and that it woud be 'he' who would be dispencing it.

Anyway - I'm not arguing but listening to your points while trying to explain how I see it at the same time. That way you know where I'm coming from as you form your answer. Thanks for your time John - God bless you and the people He has called to minister to.

 

[DHK]

Apostle from apostolos simply means "one sent with a message." In that respect every Christian ought to be a missionary, sent with the gospel message of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When the Greek word "apostolos" was translated into the Latin, the Latin word for Apostle is mittere, from whence comes our English word missionary, or, "one sent with a message."
So, yes, in a general sense an apostle is a missionary, or is it vice-versa?

 

[Allan]

Apostle from apostolos simply means "one sent with a message." In that respect every Christian ought to be a missionary, sent with the gospel message of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When the Greek word "apostolos" was translated into the Latin, the Latin word for Apostle is mittere, from whence comes our English word missionary, or, "one sent with a message."
So, yes, in a general sense an apostle is a missionary, or is it vice-versa?

I can't argue there, and therefore agree.

I actaully agree with John in a sense but need better clarification on some things.

 

[Jarthur001]

well.......

I have to disagree with most of what has been said.

Missionary are not apostles. There I said it....now put down those stones.

There has been a few verses taken out of context for support. Two week ago I preached on this very subject. I study all week taking tons of notes, and Sunday morning I lost my file and had to preach just by what I remembered. (I hate when that happens)

The text was Romans 1:5

By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

In one small way we ALL are apostles, just as DHK has said, if we go by the meaning of the word alone. We are all "sent ones"...sent to share the gospel. We are sent by the word of God. One passage is Romans 10.

However 1 Corinthians 12:29 will not allow this to be the true meaning of apostleship.

Also it should be "noted" ...Andronicus and Junia were probably not called apostles in Romans 16:7. Someone could be “of note” among the apostles without being an apostle. It could mean that the apostles had noted them as significant servants of the Lord.

Another passage to look at is 1Cor 15:8-9

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul's words are not false humility, but is based on the truth. Apostleship is not based on what we do, where we go, or the books we write, for Paul would be counted as the best hands down.

The qualifications of the apostles are given in Acts 1:21-22. They must have been with Jesus during His earthly ministry (v.21), been baptized by John the Baptist (v.22), and been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (v.22).

Only Paul was given an exemption to "with Christ" and therefore he is the least of the apostles for he did not have the qualifications as the others had.

This is another reason Paul took so much time in 2 Cor confirming his apostleship. If it was based on being sent, who would disagree with Paul and what would be the point of the long discourse on apostleship? All can tell he was out in other nations sharing the gospel.



In Christ...James

 

[Allan]

well.......

I have to disagree with most of what has been said.

Missionary are not apostles. There I said it....now put down those stones.

There has been a few verses taken out of context for support. Two week ago I preached on this very subject. I study all week taking tons of notes, and Sunday morning I lost my file and had to preach just by what I remembered. (I hate when that happens)

The text was Romans 1:5



In one small way we ALL are apostles, just as DHK has said, if we go by the meaning of the word alone. We are all "sent ones"...sent to share the gospel. We are sent by the word of God. One passage is Romans 10.

However 1 Corinthians 12:29 will not allow this to be the true meaning of apostleship.

Also it should be "noted" ...Andronicus and Junia were probably not called apostles in Romans 16:7. Someone could be “of note” among the apostles without being an apostle. It could mean that the apostles had noted them as significant servants of the Lord.

Another passage to look at is 1Cor 15:8-9



Paul's words are not false humility, but is based on the truth. Apostleship is not based on what we do, where we go, or the books we write, for Paul would be counted as the best hands down.

The qualifications of the apostles are given in Acts 1:21-22. They must have been with Jesus during His earthly ministry (v.21), been baptized by John the Baptist (v.22), and been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (v.22).

Only Paul was given an exemption to "with Christ" and therefore he is the least of the apostles for he did not have the qualifications as the others had.

This is another reason Paul took so much time in 2 Cor confirming his apostleship. If it was based on being sent, who would disagree with Paul and what would be the point of the long discourse on apostleship? All can tell he was out in other nations sharing the gospel.



In Christ...James

I don't disagree with anything in the above, James. Good points.
I was going to respond in the same manner regarding Rom 16:7 but lost track of the thought later on. I agree with you there to.. :thumbs:

These are some of the reasons I said earlier:

I am of the opinion that Missionaries are apostles in one sense but not in the whole. Much in the same manner that we are all called to preach the gospel but we are not all actually an Evangelist. Or that we are all commanded to proclaim the word but not all are Pastors. We are in once sense of the defintion an evangelist or preacher but not in the fullest measure of authority which the office ascribes. (at least IMO)

 

[John of Japan]

I agree with the above, but I think that is one of the reasons for 'not' using the term 'apostle' for missionaries because it would be either misleading to some or misunderstood. It is better to use the term missionary while explaining the 2ndary apostlitic aspect (or second kind of apostle), than to call oneself an apostle because of it's potential for misunderstanding. I guess that is why you still call yourself a missionary huh??

Exactly! :thumbs: The Charismatics really like this word, and of course I want no identification with them. I remember an "Apostolic Church" here in Japan that gave out huge bottles of beer to all comers to their new building dedication!

People get all bent out of shape when they hear the word "apostle," as if they were some kind of super Christians. They put their pants on--well, their robes on--just like we do!

I don't recall Paul asking the Pastor nor it's elders if he could disipline those in the church. I recall Paul saying in 2 Cor that if comes again 'he' will not spare. I agree about the relationship with his converts but that does not equate to him dispencing disciple upon them without the Pastor nor elders and deacons involement. If his authority was not institutional by what right does he have to disciple members of that church while by-passing its leadership. I say by-passing because Paul never includes them but says "he" will not spare if he comes again to them. You say it was relational but I must ask, do you or any other missionary you know tell their old churches which have people in known sin, that if they have to come there they will bring a harsh discipline upon them. Now remember this isn't a personal letter but one to the church. And therefore since it was declared to the church publically the discipline would be done before the church publically. - at least as I understand it.

Understood, but Paul did, unless the Corinithian church had no elders and deacons. Maybe I'm wrong, but it 'seems' Paul didn't like to use his authority over-bearingly but had no problem accerting it when the need arose. We see Paul doing this at various times (like with the church taking care of or providing for him)

Your point is taken that Paul spoke to the Corinthians as one with authority. However, I think it is entirely possible as you say that the church at Corinth had no elders or deacons yet. Paul sometimes spent only a short time in a place, saw a bunch of people saved, said "I'll be back" and moved on. Remember that he told Titus to "ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5). Thus there were no elders in that area yet, though Paul had evangelized it. It seems evident that Paul saw a people movement in that area, and could barely keep up with what God was doing.

I'm currently reading about a similar situation in the story of the life of J. O. Fraser. He saw a people movement begin among the Lisu tribes people in China, established a number of fellowships and preaching points (usually just the home of a believer), and tried to make the rounds when he could. And of course in the early going there were no Lisu who were qualified to be elders. In fact, his first Lisu evanglist, Ah Do, had to be disciplined for adultery.

I'm not saying they weren't autonomous, but in the matter of Acts 15, the Apostles, Elders and the Church were still beginning to understand what God is doing in relation to the Gentiles. Thus they had a debate of sorts about how to respond to issue before them.
But we do know they had authority.

My point still stands that there were no imperatives, no commands in their cyclical letter in Acts 15 until the final greeting. Reading that letter in the original (and we revised it recently in our NT translation effort) it just seems amazingly gracious, going out of the way to avoid exerting authority, seeing how often the imperative usually occurs in Greek. In fact in v. 31 we find out that the letter was actually a consolation to them!

But even if I were to grant that the 12 apostles had authority over the churches, what kind of authority was it, spiritual or institutional? It goes completely against the Baptist and Biblical distinctive of the autonomy of the local church to say it was institutional. And I'm a Baptist all the way, as I trust you are!

Understood, but the NT writtings and the culture of it were not from Japan. Yes there are similarities but I find 2 Cor 13:2 to be hard pressed into the above since it was to the church regarding discipline and that it woud be 'he' who would be dispencing it.

See above about the possibility that Corinth had no elders. In fact, I just did a quick search, and the term "elder" does not appear in either Corinthian epistle, nor does "shepherd."

Anyway - I'm not arguing but listening to your points while trying to explain how I see it at the same time. That way you know where I'm coming from as you form your answer. Thanks for your time John - God bless you and the people He has called to minister to.

I'm just happy if I can get people to ponder this issue. No one needs to agree completely with me. Most seem afraid of the subject, as if the apostles were "manifest sons of God," as Charismatic doctrine has it, instead of normal human beings. By the way, for a scholarly look at this, check out the original ISBE article if you have it somewhere, like in your Bible software.

 

[John of Japan]

Apostle from apostolos simply means "one sent with a message." In that respect every Christian ought to be a missionary, sent with the gospel message of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When the Greek word "apostolos" was translated into the Latin, the Latin word for Apostle is mittere, from whence comes our English word missionary, or, "one sent with a message."
So, yes, in a general sense an apostle is a missionary, or is it vice-versa?

Well said. But of course I go further.

Have you considered the linguistic data for my position? For example, the Didache, usually dated from the end of the 1st century, has apostoloi traveling around to the churches much like missionaries on deputation do nowadays.

 

[John of Japan]

well.......

I have to disagree with most of what has been said.

Missionary are not apostles. There I said it....now put down those stones.

I like boldness.

There has been a few verses taken out of context for support. Two week ago I preached on this very subject. I study all week taking tons of notes, and Sunday morning I lost my file and had to preach just by what I remembered. (I hate when that happens)

The text was Romans 1:5

In one small way we ALL are apostles, just as DHK has said, if we go by the meaning of the word alone. We are all "sent ones"...sent to share the gospel. We are sent by the word of God. One passage is Romans 10.

By all means, tell me what verses I took out of context and I'll stick them back in.

However 1 Corinthians 12:29 will not allow this to be the true meaning of apostleship.

How so? Don't leave me hanging.

Also it should be "noted" ...Andronicus and Junia were probably not called apostles in Romans 16:7. Someone could be “of note” among the apostles without being an apostle. It could mean that the apostles had noted them as significant servants of the Lord.

This is true. The point about Andronicus and Junia is arguable. But it doesn't diminish at all the argument that there were many more apostles besides the 12 and Paul.

Another passage to look at is 1Cor 15:8-9

Paul's words are not false humility, but is based on the truth. Apostleship is not based on what we do, where we go, or the books we write, for Paul would be counted as the best hands down.

The qualifications of the apostles are given in Acts 1:21-22. They must have been with Jesus during His earthly ministry (v.21), been baptized by John the Baptist (v.22), and been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (v.22).

No, these qualifications were not for all apostles, but only for one to replace Judas. Now it is you who are forgetting the context.

Only Paul was given an exemption to "with Christ" and therefore he is the least of the apostles for he did not have the qualifications as the others had.

Where does the Bible say Paul was granted an exemption?

What do you do about Barnabas being an apostle in Acts 13? Did he get some kind of special exemption, too? James the brother of Jesus in Gal. 1:19? James evidently did not even believe in Jesus until after the resurrection. What about the "messengers" (apostles) of the churches in 2 Cor. 8:23?

This is another reason Paul took so much time in 2 Cor confirming his apostleship. If it was based on being sent, who would disagree with Paul and what would be the point of the long discourse on apostleship? All can tell he was out in other nations sharing the gospel.

In Christ...James

So then, let me get this straight. You believe that "sent ones" were not apostles by virtue of their being sent? I don't understand your point.

As for Paul defending his apostleship, your point here is weak. I can argue just the opposite, that Paul had to write so carefully about apostleship because people did not want to grant it to anyone but the 12. So Paul was arguing for all future apostles, not just himself. :type:

 

[twomontes]

This has been a very interesting and thought provoking thread.IMHO there probably is/was two classes of apostles.however the use of the title apostle
provokes a picture in most minds of one able to heal the sick,raise the dead and be able to do all things God gave them gift to do.you are not necessarily wrong in the use of the title for God sent us all.but most people feel that missionary is the most appropriate title. God be with you in your efforts in the fields.

 

[John of Japan]

This has been a very interesting and thought provoking thread.IMHO there probably is/was two classes of apostles.however the use of the title apostle
provokes a picture in most minds of one able to heal the sick,raise the dead and be able to do all things God gave them gift to do.you are not necessarily wrong in the use of the title for God sent us all.but most people feel that missionary is the most appropriate title.

Hi, twomontes.

I agree with the two classes of disciples. We might call them big "A" and little "a" apostles. The 12 Apostles were special, were foundational to the entire church age (as opposed to founding individual churches like a church planting missionary). Hence the term apostolic. (I do not consider modern missionaries to be "apostolic.") They also had miracle gifts to validate their apostleship.

Concerning miracles, Paul said in 2 Cor. 2:12, "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." This is the problem passage for my position, since it appears to show that an apostle must have the power to do miracles. However, the grammar of the phrase "in all patience, in signs..." in the Greek can by instrumental, thus: "by means of all patience, by means of signs, by means of wonders and mighty deeds." So miracles were just one way Paul proved he was an apostle.

Modern missionaries have no need to do miracles as Paul did, seeing they are not opening the door to reaching the entire world of Gentiles as Paul did.

God be with you in your efforts in the fields.

Thank you and God bless you! :wavey:

 

[saved and sure]

The qualifications of the apostles are given in Acts 1:21-22. They must have been with Jesus during His earthly ministry (v.21), been baptized by John the Baptist (v.22), and been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (v.22).

Only Paul was given an exemption to "with Christ" and therefore he is the least of the apostles for he did not have the qualifications as the others had.

This is another reason Paul took so much time in 2 Cor confirming his apostleship. If it was based on being sent, who would disagree with Paul and what would be the point of the long discourse on apostleship? All can tell he was out in other nations sharing the gospel.



In Christ...James

There are several qualificaions to be an Apostle of which being an eyewitness of the resurrected Lord and being endowed with miraculous powers of miracles are a few.

But being baptized by John the Baptist is not one of them. If that was the case there would not be 12 Apostles.

I do not believe it is supported by scripture. Acts 1:22 does not. An Apostle had to be personally called by Jesus Christ Himself. Paul fits that catagory, Matthius certainly does not. Jesus said to do nothing until the Holy Spirit came at Penticost. Appointing an Apostle would be a very important thing to do. Without the Helper, how could they effectively "vote"?

An Apostle is not "voted" in, he is chosen by Jesus Christ personally.

Dave

 

[TCGreek]

Hi John, I believe Acts is a missionary book from start to finish--from Pentecost onwards is seen as an unpacking of 1:8, Wouldn't you say?

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John, I believe Acts is a missionary book from start to finish--from Pentecost onwards is seen as an unpacking of 1:8, Wouldn't you say?

I agree with you 100%!! :thumbs:

Any interpretation of the book that doesn't your point into account will be wrong. I once took a 4 credit seminary course on Acts while on furlough, There I was, a real live missionary fresh from the field and full of questions, and not much missiology was discussed, let me tell you. However, as I recall he took several days on the north and south Galatian theories. He was a good man and a good teacher, but I was really disappointed.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree with you 100%!! :thumbs:

Any interpretation of the book that doesn't your point into account will be wrong. I once took a 4 credit seminary course on Acts while on furlough, There I was, a real live missionary fresh from the field and full of questions, and not much missiology was discussed, let me tell you. However, as I recall he took several days on the north and south Galatian theories. He was a good man and a good teacher, but I was really disappointed.

As you know, the real learning comes on the field not a classroom.

I've discovered the same since being out of seminary. Sometimes instructors get distracted with academic stuff.

I see Acts 1:8 as the hub of the book and rest of the book would be meaningless with taken it into consideration.

I see it as a missionary apologetic historical narrative.