Subject: What is an Apostle? |
Bible Note: Greetings Taleb and Tim Moran! Whew! What a day.. :-) Tim Moran: To bring you "up to date", I cited a reference from one of Ron Rhodes' books about "Apostles", and Taleb asked what about some other so called "apostles".. Since I was lazy, I asked Taleb if he had any Scripture references for those other "apostles." :-) Taleb: I apologize for the wait in getting back with you.. By no means am I "inflexible" on this issue, and I hope that you didn't take my post as such. I was simply asking for the Scripture references for those other "apostles" that you mentioned.. Now, let's look at it... Acts 14:14 "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out.." Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Yes, Scripture states that Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus were "apostles." So, Taleb, you are absolutely right, and I was wrong in my first post in saying that there were only 12. Now, I have to re-define what I wrote regarding what is meant by "apostle", and how an "apostle" is distinguished from a regular disciple of Christ, since we have no Scriptural record of Christ appearing to Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias or Epaphroditus, even though Scripture clearly refers to them as apostles also. I also agree that Timothy and Silas are not mentioned as "apostles" in Scripture. So, therefore, that is where I suggest we draw the line: that if a person is not explicitly described as an "apostle" in Scripture, then they did not hold that office. After reading 2 Cor. 8:23, I believe that this passage is much too vague to lend apostleship to Timothy.. With 2 books written from Paul to Timothy alone, you would think that there would at least be another verse or two that would confirm Timothy's apostleship if he actually held that office. So therefore, in my 4 points in my first post, we have to completely throw out point #1, since it is obvious that apostleship extends beyond the original Twelve. As for point #2, the "revelation" spoken of would then extend to Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus, since they are also considered as apostles. I have always believed that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, so I have no problem with extending this point to those who are specified as "apostles" in Scripture. But as for points #3 and #4, I believe that they still hold true, since the apostles were especially commissioned as such in order to 'lay down the foundation' for the church (point #3). Therefore, if we hold to this point, then there can be no "apostles" of the church today, since the foundation of the church has already been laid. As for point #4, that point would also hold true for all of the apostles (Barnabas, etc. included), since through them alone would there be miraculous signs performed. In that sense, we can only understand Revelation 21:14 in a sense that the verse would be referring to the original Twelve apostles, and not the other apostles that are seen in the rest of the New Testament, which I personally find a bit "odd." I do not believe that an apostle is the same office as that of the missionary. Interesting material! Blessings to you both, Makarios |