Pete said...
Friday, October 8, 2010
Who are apostles
I am making this a new thread as some may be interested in this.
Pete said...
Mr. Lee and others . . . a question came up in our staff devotions this morning. First, how would we define the role "Apostle". Secondly, Paul addressed himself as an Apostle (i.e. Gel' 1:1). He was even obligated to defend his role to other leaders in the church (i.e. Gal 2:7-9) " . . . as Peter is an Apostle to the Jews I am to the Jews etc." How, was he qualified to claim that role? How could/would one claim that role today? Peter
Pete said...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The traditional churches have used the passage from Acts 1:21-26. Here it says that the person to be an apostle needed to have been with Jesus from his baptism till his resurrection. Based on this they said that after the 1st century AD there are no apostles.
ReplyDeleteThe term apostles in the Gospels and the beginning of Acts appear to have meant the 12, however Luke 11:49 is not that clear. But in Acts 14 Barnabas is included amongst the apostles, indicating that the number of the apostles had been increased by including others. II Corinthians 11:13 speaks of false apostles as well as false prophets. Paul also refers to himself as an apostle.
II Corinthians 12:12 speaks of the signs of an apostle as being signs and wonders.
So what do we make of this? Firstly I would say that the assumption of the traditional church does not appear to be correct. The term apostle means an ambassador or delegate and in this sense anyone could be an apostle. But it is meant in a special way in Christianity where it is meant to be an ambassador of Christ with a special commission which appeared to include signs and wonders.
Paul claimed that role in II Corinthians 12:12 on the basis of the signs of an apostle in his life – signs and wonders. Based on this, for a person to claim to be an apostle he would need to show the signs of an apostle – signs and wonders.
But ultimately a person who assumes a title does not deserve it, These titles should be given by the community and by others.
Rom 16:7 is usually understood to use the term apostle as a messenger or delegate without the special meaning of the office of an apostle. However others take it as in the same sense and to make Junia - a woman - into an apostle like Peter and Paul, showing that women were permitted to be apostles. I personally go with the meaning delegate or representative of Christ without any special meaning.
ReplyDeleteBesides being a delegate or representative, I think he/she should have a calling. When we choose people in our community to be representatives what characteristics are we looking at? Is it by a leading of the Holy Spirit... like how Samuel sought out David? In the case of Paul he was chosen by God. If we are ambassadors / representatives of God.. shouldn't our walk be Christ like?
ReplyDeleteThe call is usually two-fold - one to the person and one through the community. The apostle as a delegate is called by the community. Does he need to have a sense of call personally from God apart from this? I feel that it is not necessary. It is the reverse - where I sense a call, that I have to wait for the confirmation from the community. But there are exceptions.
ReplyDelete