Confused About Apostles

Post by **_Vern** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:26 pm

This question for the forum is admittedly a little rough around the edges. I am not well read with respect to the Bible. I would like thoughts and advice on what to be looking for and meditating on with respect to the apostles as I read throught the New Testament.

Please keep in mind that I think of an "apostle" as a person that has personally been given by Jesus Christ the absolute authority to speak as if Christ himself were speaking. I can't quite get my mind wrapped around what is bothering me, but here is a start:

* I don't really understand the need to select another apostle following the death of Judas. It appears to me as if Judas fell away and was never restored as an apostle prior to his death. Did we need 12 total apostles to die without going apostate in order to fulfill statements in the scriptures concerning the number of individuals ruling with Christ? Is this why a replacement was chosen? If so, why are there 17 or so individuals referred to as "apostles" in the New Testament? Did more of the original twelve apostles fall away and die apostate and thus need to be replaced as well?

*Following the ascension of Christ, why should we trust the claims of any individual (such as Paul) who comes forward and states that Christ appeared to them and granted them apostolic authority? (It seems as though I remember a teaching by Steve that seemed to indicate one of the reasons we should accept Paul as an apostle is because the other apostles accepted him. If this is so, is there no significance to needing exactly 12 apostles ruling with Christ)?

*What are the stories of the other 4 or so individuals (apart from the original 12 + 1 replacement + Paul) described as "apostles" in the Bible? Did Jesus appear to them and grant them this authority and responsibility? Would their words have been ascribed the same authority as Jesus Christ, just like the apostles selected by Jesus prior to His ascension? Why should we accept them as apostles?

I am very ignorant about this apostle issue. I must confess that it was just recently brought to my attention that the Bible speaks of more than the 12 original apostles. Any clarification of the above issues would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Vern

Post by **_chriscarani** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:44 pm

Where did you get 4 extra apostles? I don't have the time or a Bible, but you may be mistaking some of the apostles that have two names.

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:35 pm

I hope you don't mind if I answer Chriscarni's question, Vern.

Besides the 12 apostles listed in Matthew 10:2, 3, both Barnabus and Paul are called "apostles":

Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it...

Then we have Adronicus and Junias. Some say that the second was a woman, and that the name should be "Junia".

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:36 pm

Then we have Adronicus and Junias. Some say that the second was a woman, and that the name should be "Junia".

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

I don't see that text saying that they were Apostles, however I do know that some scholars have said such. But then again, scholars say alot of things.
I much rather stick with the text that says there were "notable" among the Apostles. Not that they "were".

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:58 pm

I much rather stick with the text that says there were "notable" among the Apostles.

Who is departing from that text???

Why does that text not indicate to you that they were apostles?

Notice it does not say that they were "noticed by the apostles". It says that they were notable among the apostles (literally in the apostles). If they were among the apostles, or in the apostles, they were apostles!

Recently Stephen Harper became notable among the politicians. Could it be that he is not a politician?

We use common sense interpretation when it comes to every day events.
It seems strange that so many people cook up unusual interpretations of scripture.

Post by **_djeaton** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:00 pm

Paidion wrote:Why does that text not indicate to you that they were apostles?

Notice it does not say that they were "noticed by the apostles". It says that they were notable among the apostles (literally in the apostles). If they were among the apostles, or in the apostles, they were apostles!

I agree that it can be interpreted that way, but don't see where it has to be. Can someone not be notable among a group to which they are not a member? I've been "in" a group of cops before. Didn't make me one. The ESV translates it "to the Apostles". This page gets into the Greek pretty deeply and comes to the conclusion that they were not disciples themselves. Matthew Henry said, ""They were of note among the apostles, not so much perhaps because they were persons of estate and quality in the world as because they were eminent for knowledge, and gifts, and graces, which made them famous among the apostles, who were competent judges of those things, and were endued with a spirit of discerning not only the sincerity, but the eminency, of Christians." Either way, it is an interesting passage that I have never considered before.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:42 pm

According to the KJV (Nelson) Better "well known to the apostles." The NT knows only the 12 apostles plus Matthias and Paul. Andronicus and Junia (a women) are not apostles but were well known to many of the apostles.

These are the comments of the editors which of course are not infallible but the NKJV by Macarthur has similar comments.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:07 am

STEVE7150 wrote:According to the KJV (Nelson) Better "well known to the apostles." The NT knows only the 12 apostles plus Matthias and Paul. Andronicus and Junia (a women) are not apostles but were well known to many of the apostles.

These are the comments of the editors which of course are not infallible but the NKJV by Macarthur has similar comments.

I have always understood the NT to speak of the 12 plus Matthius (who replaced Judas), Paul and <i>Barnabas</i> (Acts 14:4).

I have always wondered about this topic. I have never figured out why Barnabas was considered an apostle. Anyone know?

Post by **_chriscarani** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:54 am

Wow, looks like I am the ignorant one. You know I have read those verses a number of times, but I guess it didn’t dawn on me or strike me as odd.

Read the beginning of Acts to understand why they needed to choose another apostle, the scripture is clear on this issue. They even believed, as you will read, and probably have already read, that it was prophesied in Psalms. I don’t see 17 in the scripture myself. I think the Romans verse is questionable, the link djeaton provides takes an interesting look at it.
I think Steve is dead on. Barnabas and Paul are called beloved and are given authority by the apostles and James, with the guide of the Holy Spirit in the council at Jerusalem. I think this is good reason to accept them.

Numerous times in the New Testament we are given a number of the apostles or those who were specifically chosen by Jesus, The Twelve. It appears that there was a very plain attempt at separating these 12, and they are named, Mathew 10:2-3, Mathew 3:16 as well as Luke 6:12-16. The beginning of Luke gives the impression this was an important decision.

“It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:”

So I don’t think it is correct to assume Paul or anyone else will be ruling with Christ, as the chosen 12 will be. However I do think Paul and Barnabas were given an apostolic title by Luke because of Paul’s direct encounter with Christ and the approval of their teachings by the apostles. They were also separated by the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 13, and were sent to preach the Gospel. They had authority as an apostle would, but were not part of the 12, symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat May 06, 2006 10:25 am

Okay, I concede, DJ, that the understanding that Andronicus and Junias were apostles, is not the only possible interpretation. It could mean, that they were physically among the apostles, were notable by them, but yet were not of them. Also, I do not hold the view that the word Junian (accusitive case) is necessarily feminine. It could be either masculine or feminine. However, it is in the first declension (of which most nouns are feminine, but not all). I do think, think however, that the translation of the Greek preposition "en" as "to" would be erroneous. The preposition normally means "in".

Here is a passage that might throw some light on the matter of apostles:

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ... Ephesians 4:11-13

Have we (the church of Christ) yet attained the unity of the faith? Christ prayed that "they may be one, as you, Father, and I, are one." But with thousands of denominations and sects of Christianity, that unity is still far from reality. Does this mean that that the apostolic ministry must have continued right to this day? Are there modern apostles?

Or is the fact that that unity has not existed over the many centuries since primitive Christianity, indicate that the ministry of apostles, has ceased, but ought not to have ceased?