-----------------------
We have seen these sorts of claims regarding apostolic qualifications before. We are continually surprised when they resurface, because they are so inadequately documented. Don't people like Ms. Prata read their Bibles? It seems not.
Ms. Prata is telling us about some very specific doctrinal claims. Our reasonable requirement is that the proof texts must specifically document those claims.
In order to document these claims, the proof texts must
1. Speak to the actual claim (i.e., do the proof texts properly address the subject matter of the claim)2. Indicate an exclusivity (That is, does the text demonstrate that only the apostles are being discussed)3. If there are others who qualified under the three criteria, are they also called apostles?4. Are there others called apostles where these qualifications are not described?
She makes three claims about apostolic qualifications:
1. 1st person eye-witness of Jesus Christ2. Directly appointed by Christ
3. Ability to work miracles (signs) of the apostles
Let's see how Ms. Prata deals with our qualifications.
No. There aren’t modern apostles.
Below you will find a 14-minute collage of 3 clips. Speaking are Justin Peters, Paul Washer, and Gabe Hughes of WWUTT. In different ways, all three men explain from the Bible that modern Apostles don’t exist today. The Bible does talk about ‘apostle’, lower case ‘a’, which means “sent”. Anyone who is “sent” is technically an apostle, as in church planter, evangelist, missionary, etc. But the office of Apostle, capital ‘A’, as described in the Bible, is closed to newcomers. (The Bible doesn't employ this criteria of capitalization at all.)
When Apostle John died in 90AD, the final Apostle died, closing that office with it.
Below is a graphic from the video below that, by Justin Peters outlining the requirements to be an Apostle.
Below is a graphic from the video below that, by Justin Peters outlining the requirements to be an Apostle.
Let's deal with each in turn:
1. 1st person eye-witness of Jesus Christ:
a) Ac. 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.
(For some reason the first item (been with us the whole time) is never discussed by the likes of Ms. Prata. Probably because it disqualifies Paul. Paul was never with them in any sense, let alone from the beginning. But since we know Paul was indeed an apostle, we must determine what the Eleven were actually doing by making this requirement. It is our opinion that they were not creating an apostolic template, they were qualifying Judas Iscariot's replacement only.
Because this is the sole requirement. They wanted someone they knew and respected to serve along side them. That's it.
The second item (For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection) is terribly misrepresented. One doesn't BECOME a witness to, say, a crime. One IS a witness. So Ms. Prata is using the wrong definition of "witness," She thinks it means to personally observe some event. But Luke was not talking about the apostle candidates seeing something. This isn't a case of being required to have observed the risen Christ.
...become a witness with us of his resurrection... Luke was not telling us this is a qualification, but rather it is a mandate, a duty for the new apostle. This new apostle must become a witness with us to the resurrection, that is, to join with them, to take on the task of, to re-tell/testify/explain/witness about the importance of the resurrection.
And that is what they did:
Ac. 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Ac. 13:31 ...and for many days he was seen by those who had travelled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.
Ac. 22:15 You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
This is why we believe the Eleven only intended their one requirement to apply to one person. This of course means that Acts 1:21-22 does not demonstrate that there can be no more apostles.)
b) Ac. 10:39-41 We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen — by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
(The obvious questions are, does this describe an apostolic qualification? No. Does it describe an apostolic exclusivity? No. does it even mention apostles? No.
This completely fails as a proof text.)
c) 1Co. 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
(In order for this to be a proof text, it must demonstrate that Paul is making exclusive apostolic claims. That is, is being free an apostolic qualification? No. Is Paul's readers, the the result of his work, an apostolic qualification? No. Lastly, is seeing Jesus an apostolic qualification? No.)
d) 1Jn. 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
(This text does not tell us who "we" is. Apostles are not mentioned. This is not a text that deals with apostolic qualifications.)
2. Directly appointed by Christ:
a) Mk. 3:14 He appointed twelve — designating them apostles — that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach...
b) Lk. 6:13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles...
c) Ac. 1:2 ...until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
(That the Twelve were chosen by Jesus is not a matter anyone disputes. So this text does not address the claim at all.)
d) Ac. 10:41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen — by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
(Obvious question: Who did Jesus eat with after he rose from the dead? Just the apostles? The text doesn't say this. Remember, Peter is in a gentile house having been accompanied by six unidentified men from Joppa (Acts 10:23; 11:12), so it seems that Peter is referring to his companions and not the apostles.
Further, who not only saw Him but ate with Him? Did every apostle eat with Jesus? Were there non-apostles who ate with Him? Well, we don't know.
Only some saw Jesus. Who? Paul gave a list:
1Co. 15:5-8 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Who ate with the risen Lord? We know some who did:
Jn. 21:12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.
We don't have any accounts of others eating with Him after He rose. The silence of Scripture is not a proof. Therefore, this Scripture does not prove that apostles need to be appointed by Christ.
3. Ability to work miracles (signs) of the apostles:Further, if being directly appointed by Christ is really an apostolic qualification, then why didn't the apostles just ask Jesus about a who He wanted to choose? Jesus spent 40 days with them (Ac. 1:3) before His ascension, and two angels appeared to them as well (Ac. 1:11), so it wasn't like they were unfamiliar with supernatural communications.
But they didn't. If being chosen by Jesus was truly a crucial qualification then He could have easily settled the matter right there. But since He didn't, that can only mean that it wasn't crucial. Therefore, being chosen by Christ is not a criteria for apostleship.)
a) Mt. 10:1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
b) Ac. 1:5-8 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” 6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
c) Ac. 2:43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
d) Ac. 4:33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
e) Ac. 5:12 The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.
f) 2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.
(So the matter before us is, do these texts tell us only apostles could do signs and miracles? Obviously no. The mention of apostles doing these things does not create exclusivity.
In fact, Stephen was noted for performing miracles, but he was never described as an apostle. Same with Ananais, who performed a miracle with Paul's eyes. There were many prophets in the NT who were never described as apostles. We therefore conclude that doing signs and miracles is not an apostolic qualification.)
We could explore other questions about apostleship, like, did Barnabas see the risen Christ? Were Mark, Luke, or the writer of Hebrews apostles, since they wrote Scripture?
Really, how many apostles were there? Well, there were more than 12 apostles in the Bible. Yes of course, there were the original 12:
"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him." Mt. 10:2-4
Then Judas committed suicide and was replaced by Mathias (#13). Then according to the below verses, there were others:
Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas (#14) and Paul (#15) heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: `Men, why are you doing this?"'
Romans 16:7 "Greet Andranicus #16) and Junias (#17), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
Ph. 2:25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus (#18), my brother, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, who is also your messenger (apostolos), whom you sent to take care of my needs.
Ga. 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles — only James (#19), the Lord’s brother.
In addition, due to their prominent mention, we might suppose that others, unnamed, might have been apostles.
2Co. 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow-worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives (apostolos) of the churches and an honor to Christ.
2Pe. 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles (apostolos).
Bottom line, there were many apostles in the early church. There is no reason why there couldn't be apostles today.
No comments:
Post a Comment