What Is an Apostle? - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

This is simply bad Bible teaching. There's no other way to describe it. The author doesn't get a single thing correct. He misreads Scripture, overlooks critical concepts, and simply misrepresents what the Bible says.

--------------------

Answering the question, “What is an apostle” is an important one for two reasons: first, some claim that apostles exist today. Teachers like Lou Engle, Todd White, Bill Johnson, and C. Peter Wagner all claim to be apostles. Even Sovereign Grace Ministries claimed their leaders were apostles until they changed their position in 2010.

Second, many people expect God to work in their lives today in the same way he worked in the lives of the New Testament apostles, not recognizing the unique function these men served. You will find people quoting John 16:13, for example, and claiming that this is a promise to all Christians, or referencing experiences of Peter and Paul as defense of extraordinary experiences today.

So what is an apostle?

A key place to begin is in Acts 1:21–26, where the disciples were choosing a replacement for Judas after his suicide. In making that decision, Peter articulates a key requirement for this replacement.

An Apostle Was an Eyewitness of the Resurrected Christ

First, Peter asserts that the replacement apostle must be someone who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ:

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. Acts 1:21–22

(Waaaait. This verse does not tell us that the replacement apostle needed to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. It says, ...become with us a witness... "Become." One does not "become" a witness to anything. Either someone is a witness to an event or isn't. 

"With us." The new apostle was actually someone joining with the Eleven. In actual fact, the apostles were describing a duty for the new apostle, not a qualification. The new apostle would need to become a witness [a person who testifies, not a person who saw something] with them, joining in telling of the resurrected Christ.)

The apostles were the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), and so it was important that they had been with Jesus himself and, in particular, seen him resurrected from the dead.

Even the apostle Paul met this criterion, though in a unique fashion. Paul affirms this qualification when he states in 1 Corinthians 9:1,

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

(We have just noted that seeing the resurrected Jesus is not an apostolic qualification. Which means that Paul's appeal to seeing Jesus is for some other reason. Paul makes three observations:

• He's free
• He's an apostle
• He had a powerful encounter with Jesus

Why did he do this? We find hints early on in his letter to the Corinthian church: 

1Co. 3:3-7 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

The Corinthian church was divided over the men they claimed they followed. They were boasting over which apostle was their apostle [1Co. 3:21-22]. The whole basis of Paul's argument beginning in chapter 9 was regarding their criticisms of Paul. This was very a specific thing happening in the Corinthian church.

Paul was not defending his status as an apostle or listing the qualifications for apostles. He was defending his position in the Corinthian church as their apostle [1Co. 9:2]. They complained about him. He was considered a sub-standard apostle [2Co. 11:5].

Therefore, the author is incorrect about every part of this so far.)

Paul defended his apostleship on the very basis of the qualification that he had personally seen the resurrected Christ. Of course, his eyewitness of Christ was unique—he saw the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–9), and thus he described his apostleship as “untimely” since unlike the other apostles, Paul saw Jesus after he had already ascended into heaven. Notice how Paul affirms this qualification of apostleship in 1 Corinthians 15:7–8:

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

(Sigh again. Let's quote more of the passage:

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.

If this is Paul listing a qualification for apostleship, then he must have been claiming that more than 500 people were also apostles.)

An Apostle Was Directly Called by Christ

A second requirement for an apostle is that he be directly appointed by Jesus himself. (The author will never cite any verse that an apostle must be called by Christ. He makes the claim but does not reference it.)

The original apostles were, of course, directly chosen by Jesus:

Mark 3:13–19 (ESV)

And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. He appointed the twelve.Mark 3:13–16

Even Matthias was appointed by Christ, indicated by the fact that after the apostles prayed, they cast lots as a means by which Christ could indicate his choice (Acts 1:23–26). Thus Matthias was “numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26) and included among the full number of the twelve (Acts 6:2).

Likewise, the apostle Paul was directly called and appointed by Christ himself. On the road to Damascus, Christ called to Paul, “But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what to do” (Acts 9:6), and Paul received those instructions from Christ through Ananias in Damascus. Christ told Ananias, “he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15).

Paul later confirms his calling in several places:

Romans 1:1 – “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.”

Romans 1:5 – “. . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations.”

Galatians 1:1–2 – “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”

1 Timothy 2:7 – “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

This calling of apostles then continued and manifested itself in additional revelation given to them for the purpose of founding the church. To those whom he appointed Christ gave revelation by his Spirit to be passed on to the churches, eventually inscripturated in the books of the New Testament. This is precisely what Jesus meant when he said to his apostles in John 16:13,

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.John 16:13

This was not a promise given to all Christians—it was a promise given specifically to the apostles. (This is false. 

1Jn. 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit — just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Is there any real difference between "all things" and "all truth?"

Further, we know Paul acknowledged his lack:

1Co. 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

How is it possible for Paul as an apostle to have all truth and yet only know in part?) 

Jesus promised that the Spirit would continue to give his apostles the truth necessary to found the church, truth that was inscripturated in the inspired Word. In this promise, Jesus was preauthenticating the apostles’ writing in the New Testament Scriptures. (Luke wasn't an apostle. Jude wasn't an apostle. Mark wasn't an apostle.)

And this is exactly what the apostolic authors of Scripture claim throughout the New Testament. The apostle Peter says that the apostles “made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:16)—the phrase “made known” is a technical word that refers to imparting new divine revelation from the Lord (cf. Luke 2:15). Peter places apostolic teaching right alongside Old Testament Scripture when he states,

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets [OT Scripture] and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles [NT Scripture].2 Peter 3:1–2

Later in 2 Peter 3, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (3:15–16). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul refers to Luke’s writings as Scripture. Paul calls his own writings “a command of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37-38) and “the Word of God” (1 Thess 2:13).

Apostles called and appointed by Christ spoke his authoritative truth on his behalf and inscripturated it in the New Testament. To obey the apostles is to obey Christ, and to ignore them is to ignore their Master. Now that the canon of Scripture is closed and the church has been founded, direct apostolic revelation has ceased. (There is no such thing as direct apostolic revelation. This is simply a neologism.)

An Apostle Demonstrated “Signs of a True Apostle.”

A third qualification for an apostle was that he demonstrated what Paul calls in 2 Corinthians 12:12 “signs of a true apostle.”

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.2 Corinthians 12:12

As is true of all miracles in Scripture, these “mighty works” were signs that confirmed and accredited the ministry of those whom God called to be his representatives. (There is no verse in the NT that tells us miracles were performed to confirm and accredit the apostles. There is no instance of a church or person demanding a sign or miracle from an apostle to prove who he was. There is no example anywhere in the NT that shows an apostle performing a miracle because someone doubted.

This is an egregiously false claim with no scriptural backing at all.

As we noted, the Corinthian church thought Paul was an inferior apostle. So he didn't walk in to their church and perform a miracle to prove himself. Rather, he told them he had already done enough to prove he was an apostle.

Further, he did not say that ONLY apostles could do these things. Rather, a person who claimed to be an super-apostle but could not do these things would be an inferior apostle. But doing these things does not make one an apostle. These are two separate things.)

In the Old Testament, this was true of Moses and the prophets, the final example of this being John the Baptist as he paved the way for Christ, Jesus himself was confirmed by miraculous signs, and this was also true of the apostles. As the author of Hebrews states,

How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.Heb 2:3–4

(Ho-boy. We are beginning to suspect the author is not qualified to teach. Or, he's lying to us. We can clearly see here that apostles are not being authenticated in this passage. "It" is not the apostles, "it" is "this great salvation.")

We see many examples of these signs in the book of Acts. The miracles did not exist for their own sake; rather, they were for the purpose of confirming the ministry of the apostles as they delivered the teachings of Christ during the foundational period of the church: (The author keeps making this claim, but has yet to demonstrate it with Scripture.)

Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles.Acts 5:12 (The Book of Acts of the Apostles is about the apostles, so it should not surprise us that it focuses on the acts of the Apostles. But what about Stephen [Ac. 6:8], a man who did miracles? And Ananias [Ac. 9:10]? Or even this man in Mk. 9:38?)

It is important to recognize this specific function of miracles in confirming apostleship—this was the purpose of miracles during this period and why they no longer continued after the foundation of the church and death of the apostles. Like with the gift of direct revelation from Christ, miracles ceased once the complete canon of Scripture was finished, the church had been founded, and the apostles died. (The author has demonstrated none of these claims, and hasn't even discussed some of them.)

Who Are Apostles?

On the basis of these biblical qualifications, then, who are apostles?

Certainly the Twelve (including Matthias; Acts 1:26) and Paul were apostles, as we have seen, and there is a case to be made that these alone were apostles. However, a few more candidates in the NT may present themselves as meeting these qualifications, including Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James (Gal 1:19), Timothy, and Silas (1 Thess 2:6).

However, what the qualifications listed above clearly indicate is that no one is an apostle today. No one today can claim to have been personally appointed by Christ, to have seen the risen Christ, and to have performed the confirming works of an apostle. (What about Paul? He hadn't "been with us the whole time?" The author hasn't even discussed this. Paul was not a part of their group ...beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us... Paul fails this test.

In fact, the author will completely ignore this key component.

We must assume that the apostles in Acts 2 were concerned only with obtaining a replacement for Judas. They were not providing criteria for the selection of all apostles.)

And as also stated above, we must be clear that all of these qualifications go together; in other words, just as there is no one today who meets all of the qualifications of an apostle, so there is no one today who continues to be “guided into all truth” as the apostles were, and there is no one today who performs the signs of an apostle. Direct revelation and healings were for the purpose of confirming apostolic authority as Christ’s representatives, and once the New Testament was completed, these gifts ceased. (The author has completely failed to demonstrate these things.)

Today we do not need apostles, we do not need further apostolic revelation, and we do not need confirming signs because we have something more sure (2 Peter 1:19), the inscripturated Word of God. (Sigh yet again. Let's quote the verse:

2Pe. 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Did the author even read this Scripture? Peter is making the claim that his experience at the transfiguration confirms all the prophetic utterances regarding the coming Christ. His experience made the prophets more sure. 

This verse isn't even talking about Scripture.

Wow. What a mess.)