Confused About Apostles

[Guest]

These are great questions Paidon, with which I can only contemplate and speculate through scripture. I am inclined to say the idea of modern day apostles isn’t Biblical. The Apostles (I am including Matthias, Paul and Barnabas) were given a heavy burden, one Jesus realized and is the reason why his short ministry was such an intense boot camp for them. They held the responsibility of defining, keeping and spreading the most important information the world would ever receive, and doing so against incredible opposition, as we have learned.

We don’t have any reference to my knowledge of anyone, after these men were martyred, who received the privilege and responsibility of Apostle. We also have a clear lineage of people who were handed down the gospel, in the Apostolic Fathers (or those taught by the Apostles) of the late first and early second century, and later the Apologist. None of their writings are in the cannon, they merely relayed the message and taught what had they had been told, not eye witnessed. So as Paul tells us in Corinthians they are third on down the line, as teachers, for their revelations came from men.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

[Guest]

It seems to me there is a clear distinction made between the twelve apostles plus Paul, and the others who are called apostles. When a replacement was sought for Judas, a qualification was stated; "one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection", Acts 1:22. These apostles could testify of having seen the risen Lord.

The Lord later appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:8, "Then last of all He was seen by me also....." seems to indicate Paul was the end of this type of apostle.

No early church father ever claimed the stature of these first apostles, contra that chuch headquartered in Rome.

[Guest]

Good post Homer. Btw you look very distinguished.

[Guest]

“It seems to me there is a clear distinction made between the twelve apostles plus Paul, and the others who are called apostles. When a replacement was sought for Judas, a qualification was stated; "one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection", Acts 1:22. These apostles could testify of having seen the risen Lord.

The Lord later appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:8, "Then last of all He was seen by me also....." seems to indicate Paul was the end of this type of apostle.

No early church father ever claimed the stature of these first apostles, contra that chuch headquartered in Rome.”


Homer

Just thought I would throw out some things to see what your take on them are.

If you look at the full verse from Act it seems to be more descriptive on the requirements for replacing the apostle Judas. So in context I don’t think this applies to Paul.

Acts 1:21-22

"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

God seems to have set Paul apart, because he did appear to him as a blinding light, but he doesn’t give him any special title. Perhaps this is what was needed to change the heart of such a man? We also don’t know that Barnabas didn’t see Jesus. He seems to have been apart of the early group and very may well have been apart of the five thousand for that matter.

It seems to me there is no distinction between Barnabas and Paul in respect to authority or stature. In Acts 13 they are both set apart by the Holy Spirit.


Acts 13:1-5

“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

[Guest]

This may explain some:
"Every apostle can clearly relate to Paul’s words when he said that he did not “deserve to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:9). They understand that apostleship is not based on works or talents. The ministry of an apostle cannot be earned; it is purely a gift of God’s grace."
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=146

[Guest]

For an exellent take an apostles see this fairly short article:
http://www.ntrf.org/apostles.html