Category Archives: Apostles and Prophets

Apostles and Prophets, Part 3

Posted on by

Lori Eldridge’s[1] argument “Why there are no Apostles today”[2] continued:

The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses:    

Acts 5:32, Peter and the other apostles stated, “We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Therefore, ALLLLLLL the apostles were eye witnesses to Christ and his Resurrection.

On the surface of it the structure of the sentence in Acts 5:32—we are…and so is—doesn’t sound like the kind of exclusive claim Ms. Eldridge wants to make of it.  But I want to address something else first; namely, the Holy Spirit whom God has given (ἔδωκεν, a form of δίδωμι) to those who obey him.”[3]  The note in the NET reads:  “Those who obey.  The implication, of course, is that the leadership is disobeying God.”  What I object to is the implication that the Holy Spirit has been given as a result of human “obedience.”  And I don’t think Peter was at fault here.

The Greek word translated obey (πειθαρχοῦσιν, a form of πειθαρχέω) is a combination of πείθω:

A primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty)

NET: 1) persuade 1a) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe 1b) to make friends of, to win one’s favour, gain one’s good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one 1c) to tranquillise 1d) to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something 2) be persuaded 2a) to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing 2a1) to believe 2a2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person 2b) to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with 3) to trust, have confidence, be confident

and ἄρχω:

A primary verb; to be first (in political rank or power)

NET: 1) to be chief, to lead, to rule.

It is a reference back to Peter’s response to the council and the high priest[4]: We must obey (πειθαρχεῖν, another form of πειθαρχέω) God rather than people.[5]  And he said this as he refused to heed or be persuaded by the highest religious authority in Israel: We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name.[6]  Had πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ been translated “we must trust God as leader” and πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ as “trust him as leader” we would have a better translation of Peter’s point without inducing him to propound a false concept.  And the Holy Spirit would be seen as the cause of human obedience rather than a reward for good behavior.

The structure of Ms. Eldridge’s argument is: The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses in Acts 5:32, therefore all the apostles were eye witnesses to Christ and his Resurrection (and none other than eye witnesses can be apostles).  This argument depends on equating eyewitnesses (αὐτόπται, a form of αὐτόπτης) with witnesses (μάρτυρες, a form of μάρτυς) of these things (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα; NET events).  These things (NIV) or events (NET) are specified: The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.[7]

Admittedly, translating ρημάτων as things or events makes the relationship to αὐτόπται seem strong, and makes μάρτυρες seem exclusive to that generation.  You killed the Originator (ἀρχηγὸν, a form of ἀρχηγός) of life, Peter said elsewhere, whom God raised (ἤγειρεν, a form of ἐγείρω) from the dead.  To this fact (οὗ, a form of ὅς) we are witnesses (μάρτυρες, a form of μάρτυς)![8]  The apostles saw Jesus seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.  If Peter meant raised from the dead by The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, the apostles certainly saw Jesus after his resurrection.    But if he meant God exalted him to his right hand as Leader  and Savior, was that something they saw with their eyes (Hebrews 2:6b-9 NET)?

“What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?  You made him lower than the angels for a little while.  You crowned him with glory and honor.  You put all things under his control.”  For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control.  At present we do not yet see (ὁρῶμεν, a form of ὁράω) all things under his control, but we see (βλέπομεν, a form of βλέπω) Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.

I don’t think we are meant to take we see Jesus as proof that the letter to the Hebrews was penned before Jesus’ ascension.  The apostles did see Jesus taken up[9] (ἀνελήμφθη, a form of ἀναλαμβάνω) into the sky: while they were watching (βλεπόντων, another form of βλέπω), he was lifted up (ἐπήρθη, a form of ἐπαίρω) and a cloud hid him from their sight[10] (ὀφθαλμῶν, a form of ὀφθαλμός) But only Stephen, as he was stoned to death, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently (ἀτενίσας, a form of ἀτενίζω) toward heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) and saw (εἶδεν, a form of εἴδω) the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.[11]  The others must have “seen” this in some other way, similar perhaps to the way they “saw” Jesus give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Actually, the word (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα) translated things or events in Acts 5:32 was translated words in: Then the women remembered his words[12] (ρημάτων), and If anyone hears my words (ρημάτων) and does not obey them, I do not judge him.[13]  Had Acts 5:32 been translated—And we are witnesses of these words—it would have been more obvious that the apostles became witnesses by believing what they heard rather than seeing with their eyes.  I could quote many instances of forms of ῥῆμα translated as word or words.  It will be more efficient to look into those which were translated differently.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter (ρῆμα, another form of ῥῆμα) may be established.[14]  (This is the third time I am coming to visit you.  By the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter (ρῆμα, another form of ῥῆμα) will be established.[15])  The differences in the various translations prompts the question: What is being established (NET, DNT, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, YLT, NAB), stood upon (DNT, YLT), clarified (TMSG), confirmed (ISVNT), verified (ISVNT, GWT), attested (MSNT), sustained (MSNT), proved true (CEV), upheld (TEV)?  Is it the word (ρῆμα) of the witnesses (μαρτύρων)?  Or is it the brother’s sin?[16]  Or is it both?

A single witness (Septuagint: μάρτυς) may not testify (Septuagint: μαρτυρῆσαι[17]) against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits.  A matter (Hebrew: dâbâr; Septuagint: ῥῆμα) may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.[18]  In the context of the original verse Jesus’ quoted, it is fairly clear that the word of the witnesses was being legally established.  The words dâbâr or ῥῆμα might have been translated accusation, but I see no credible reason to translate them matter until I look at the larger context and its implications (Deuteronomy 19:16-19a NET).

If a false witness testifies against another person and accuses him of a crime [Table], then both parties to the controversy must stand before the Lord, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days [Table].  The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused [Table], you must do to him what he had intended to do to the accused [Table].

Those who malign the Lord (as I have done) for the law’s death penalty for very human offenses never mention this little gem.  The gossip who sees a man sneaking out of the widow’s house in the middle of the night must consider her own jeopardy before accusing them of a capital offense.  And as I begin to argue in my own mind that gossips would never be punished as severely as adulterers, I hear the law addressed directly to judges who would practice such injustice (Deuteronomy 19:19b-21 NET).

In this way you will purge evil from among you [Table].  The rest of the people will hear and become afraid to keep doing such evil [i.e., gossiping, becoming a false witness] among you [Table].  You must not show pity; the principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot [Table].

The judges had no discretion regarding the sentencing of false witnesses.  It truly is a beautiful law.  Deuteronomy 19:15-21 all but guarantees (as much as any law weakened through the flesh[19] can “guarantee” anything pertaining to human behavior) that only the most flagrant and egregious sins would ever come up for adjudication.  But none of this justifies the translation of dâbâr/ῥῆμα as matter in my mind until I ask, what triggers the investigation of the false witness?

I assume it is the same thing that triggers the procedural acceleration in Mathew 18:16, But if he does not listen (ἀκούσῃ, a form of ἀκούω).  If the accused hears the word of the witnesses, does not accuse them of lying, the matter is legally established…on the testimony of two or three witnesses as a matter of procedure.  The procedure is at its end.  In this sense I can barely justify translating dâbâr/ῥῆμα as matter, with the proviso that it hides the fact from the non-Hebrew-non-Greek-studying English-speaking world that the word of the witnesses was the primary focus and concern of the Word of God.

Given the time and place I came of age I can’t help but wonder if yehôvâh/Jesus, both in the law and in the Gospel of Matthew, hasn’t instituted the most virulent form of thought police ever conceived.  But let me take some of the things, events or words (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα) the apostles “saw” (or heard and believed) seriously (Acts 5:31 NET):

God exalted [Jesus] to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις) of sins.

The words do not say, God exalted [Jesus] to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to institute the most virulent form of thought police ever conceived.  Through hearing with faith I can stand up to the socially constructed reality of my upbringing and accept that what I may think was instituted as thought police was actually instituted to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  It transforms my outlook.

What if an avid student of the law had heard Jephthah’s thoughtless oath?[20]  If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me [Table], then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice [Table].[21]  Maybe the avid law student didn’t recognize it as a thoughtless oath until Jephthah came home to Mizpah, there was his daughter hurrying out to meet him, dancing to the rhythm of tambourines.[22]

Or perhaps the law didn’t come to his mind until Jephthah ripped his clothes and said, “Oh no!  My daughter!  You have completely ruined me!  You have brought me disaster!  I made an oath to the Lord, and I cannot break it.”[23]  Or if that didn’t do it maybe her answer jogged his memory, My father, since you made an oath to the Lord, do to me as you promised.  After all, the Lord vindicated you before your enemies, the Ammonites.[24]  Or if that fell on deaf ears, what if the law came to him any time during the two months Jephthah’s daughter wandered the hills with her friends to mourn her virginity?[25]

What if the avid law student came to Jephthah with two comrades who heard his oath? and said, “Jephthah, you have made a thoughtless oath in our hearing.  Now hear the word of the Lord (Leviticus 5:4-6 NET):

[W]hen a person swears an oath, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips, whether to do evil or to do good, with regard to anything which the individual might speak thoughtlessly in an oath, even if he did not realize it, but he himself has later come to know it and is guilty with regard to one of these oaths [Table]…he must confess how he has sinned [Table], and he must bring his penalty for guilt to the Lord for his sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, whether a female sheep or a female goat, for a sin offering.  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin [Table].

The risk for the witnesses, the avid law student and his two comrades, was a female sheep or a female goat (a piece, I assume, less if they were poor[26]).  The benefit for Jephthah was his daughter’s life.  It is in keeping with the beautiful law, and the intent of God the Father and Jesus the Leader and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Jephthah may have rejected the word of the witnesses anyway.  The religious mind is capable of atrocities ordinary sinners shrink from committing.  But if he had rejected the word of the witnesses Jephthah would have been a rebellious son of Israel rather than the tragic victim of a pious good: After two months she returned to her father, and [Jephthah] did to her as he had vowed.[27]

Standing up to the religious mind, one’s own as well as those of others, is part and parcel of following Christ.  For some of us it is the cross[28] we bear.  I’ll return to Ms. Eldridge’s argument and more instances of ῥῆμα in the next essay.  A table of the translation in various Bibles of dâbâr/ῥῆμα from the three verses considered above follows.

Translation of ρῆμα[29] Matthew 18:16 2 Corinthians 13:1 Deuteronomy 19:15
matter NET, DNT, NIV NET, DNT, TMSG,[30] NIV NET, DNT, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV
word ASV, ISVNT, KJV, MSNT, NKJV, YLT ASV, KJV, NKJV
charges CEV
charge MSNT NAB
complaint CEV
accusation GWT, TEV GWT, ISVNT, TEV
saying YLT
fact NAB NAB
a case TMSG

Back to Romans, Part 55

[1] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/statement.html

[2] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[3] Acts 5:32b (NET)

[4] Acts 5:27 (NET)

[5] Acts 5:29 (NET)

[6] Acts 5:28a (NET)

[7] Acts 5:30, 31 (NET)

[8] Acts 3:15 (NET)

[9] Acts 1:2 (NET)  The note in the NET reads: “The words ‘to heaven’ are not in the Greek text, but are supplied from v. 11.”  As they were still staring into the sky (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός)?  This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός).” (Acts 1:10, 11 NET)

[10] Acts 1:9 (NET)

[11] Acts 7:55 (NET)

[12] Luke 24:8 (NET)

[13] John 12:47a (NET)

[14] Matthew 18:16 (NET)

[15] 2 Corinthians 13:1 (NET)

[16] Matthew 18:15 (NET)

[17] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=marturh%3Dsai&la=greek&prior=moi (a form of μαρτυρέω)

[18] Deuteronomy 19:15 (NET) Table

[19] Romans 8:3-4 (NET)

[20] Leviticus 5:4 (NET)

[21] Judges 11:30b, 31 (NET)

[22] Judges 11:34a (NET) Table

[23] Judges 11:35 (NET) Table

[24] Judges 11:36 (NET) Table

[25] Judges 11:37, 38 (NET)

[26] Leviticus 5:7-13 (NET)

[27] Judges 11:39a (NET) Table

[28] Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27

[29] In Deuteronomy the word is dâbâr though ῥῆμα was used in the Septuagint.  The ISVNT and MSNT are New Testament only.  The CEV, GWT, and TEV are too paraphrased for me to tell which word is a translation of what.

[30] If he won’t listen, take one or two others along so that the presence of witnesses will keep things honest, and try again (Matthew 18:16 TMSG).  I have no idea how ρῆμα was translated here.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 2

Posted on by

I want to see if ἐπισκοπὴν (translated office in the ASV) can signify an office of apostle established prior to (or, apart from) Peter’s questionable rule in Acts 1:21, 22 (NET).  The Hebrew word is peqûddâh in his quotation from Psalm 109:8b (ASV): And let another take his office (NIV: place of leadership; NET: job).  The first occurrence of peqûddâh is in Numbers: Now the head of all the Levitical leaders was Eleazar son of Aaron the priest.  He was appointed over (peqûddâh) those who were responsible for the sanctuary[1] (Septuagint: καθεσταμένος φυλάσσειν τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν ἁγίων; literally, “set down to keep watch [or, form into tribes] the watchers [or, those watching] of the holy [Acts 26:10 (NET) of the saints]).

The peqûddâh of Eleazer in Hebrew clearly referenced those who carried around, set up and tore down the items that made up the Tabernacle: The appointed (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἡ ἐπίσκεψις ἡ φυλακὴ) responsibilities of the Merarites included the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, its posts, its sockets, its utensils, plus all the service connected with these things, and the pillars of the courtyard all around, with their sockets, their pegs, and their ropes.[2]  The appointed responsibility (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἐπίσκοπος) of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest is for the oil for the light, and the spiced incense, and the daily grain offering, and the anointing oil; he also has the appointed responsibility (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἐπισκοπὴ) over all the tabernacle with all that is in it, over the sanctuary and over all its furnishings.[3]

Though the word ἐπισκοπὴν doesn’t occur in the Greek translation of Numbers 3:32 in the Septuagint, “a watcher of the watchers of the holy (or, saints)” sounds very much like what Ms. Eldridge feared a contemporary apostle would do.  This is especially true if I consider that in the New Testament φυλακὰς had a dual meaning.  There was the benign meaning: Now there were shepherds nearby living out in the field, keeping guard (φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς) over their flock at night.[4]  And there was a less benign meaning: they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons[5] (φυλακάς).  I persecuted this Way, Paul confessed, even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison[6] (φυλακὰς).

In 1 Timothy ἐπισκοπῆς was translated to the office of overseer (NET, but a footnote acknowledged that the Greek is “to oversight”).  This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer (ἐπισκοπῆς, another form of ἐπισκοπή), he desires a good work.”[7]  The word translated aspires is ὀρέγεται (a form of ὀρέγομαι) and desires is ἐπιθυμεῖ (a form of ἐπιθυμέω), but good is καλοῦ (a form of καλός).  It is a beautiful good work as opposed to a pious good work, the φυλακὰς of the beautiful shepherd as opposed to that of the prison guard.  What follows then is the legislation that creates the office of overseer (or, oversight), the qualifications of the ἐπίσκοπον (1 Timothy 3:2-7 NET).

The overseer (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.  He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity.  But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?  He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact.  And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.

If these men die the common death of all men, Moses said of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, or if they be visited (pâqad) after the visitation (peqûddâh) of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.[8]  The Greek word ἐπισκοπή also carries this idea of visitation.  If you had only known on this day, Jesus wept and prophesied over Jerusalem, even you, the things that make for peace!  But now they are hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side.  They will demolish you – you and your children within your walls – and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation (ἐπισκοπῆς, another form of ἐπισκοπή) from God.[9]  I urge you, Peter wrote, as foreigners and exiles to keep away from fleshly desires that do battle against the soul, and maintain good conduct among the non-Christians (ἔθνεσιν, a form of ἔθνος), so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when he appears (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, KJV and ASV, in the day of visitation).[10]

Taken together I would say that the itinerant ἀπόστολος is an ἐπίσκοπος, one who fills the ἐπισκοπῆς, the office of overseer clearly authorized by legislation in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.  What is not at all clear is that the ἐπίσκοπος is necessarily an ἀπόστολος.  Watch out for yourselves,  Paul said to the elders (πρεσβυτέρους, a form of πρεσβύτερος) of the church at Ephesus,[11] and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους, another form of ἐπίσκοπος), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.[12]  Does that sound like Paul was addressing fellow apostles?  Or was he functioning as a watcher of the watchers of the saints?  I’m prepared to say that a πρεσβύτερος is an ἐπίσκοπος, but is he an ἀπόστολος?

By the way, the word Son was added by the translators.  The Greek is διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘with his own blood’; Grk ‘with the blood of his own.’  The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning ‘his own blood’; or (2) as a possessive genitive, ‘with the blood of his own.’  In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.  See further C. F. DeVine, ‘The Blood of God,’ CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.”

A πρεσβύτερος is an ἐπίσκοπος who could be appointed by men like Titus (Titus 1:5-9 NET):

The reason I left you in Crete was to set in order the remaining matters and to appoint elders (πρεσβυτέρους, a form of πρεσβύτερος) in every town, as I directed you.  An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion.  For the overseer[13] (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain.  Instead he must be hospitable, devoted to what is good, sensible, upright, devout, and self-controlled (ἐγκρατῆ, a form of ἐγκρατής).  He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.

Yet Peter called the glorified Christ an ἐπίσκοπος: For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) of your souls.[14]  It would be handy to ignore the circumstances of Peter’s legislation and consider an ἀπόστολος a special class of ἐπίσκοπος as he described him (Acts 1:21, 22 NET):

…one of the men who have accompanied (συνελθόντων, a form of συνέρχομαι) us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us…

While I think that an ἀπόστολος is a special class of ἐπίσκοπος, I’m not convinced these words establish the class.  Paul was not one of the men who accompanied the disciples beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from them, but he clearly claimed to be an ἀπόστολος in his signature at the beginning of the letter to the Romans (Romans 1:1 NET): From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle (ἀπόστολος), set apart for the gospel of God.  Yet Paul admitted that his apostleship was questioned by some (1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 NET): Am I not free?  Am I not an apostle (ἀπόστολος)?  Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?  Are you not my work in the Lord?  If I am not an apostle (ἀπόστολος) to others, at least I am to you, for you are the confirming sign of my apostleship (ἀποστολῆς, a form of ἀποστολή) in the Lord.

It seems possible and even likely that Peter’s legislation was accepted as legitimate at the time.  So I’m left with a decision: Is Peter’s legislation in Scripture because it is legitimate?  Or is it there to show the folly of acting apart from the Holy Spirit?  I think it demonstrates the folly of acting apart from the Holy Spirit.  Ms. Eldridge seemed to assume that if it was spoken by an apostle and in the book of Acts it is legitimate.[15]

The following shows us the requirements of the replacement for Judas:
Acts 1:21-26, “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, 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.”

Have I not seen (ἑόρακα, a form of ὁράω) Jesus our Lord? Paul asked rhetorically.  Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to Cephas [Peter], Paul wrote to the Corinthians, then to the twelve [apparently accepting Matthias as one of them].  Then he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to me also.[16]

Could seeing the resurrected Lord Jesus distinguish an ἀπόστολος as a special class of ἐπίσκοπος?  I think this was Ms. Eldridige’s actual point.  She seemed to ignore the requirements Peter proposed to become a witness of his resurrection together with us, and highlighted A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION instead.  “The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses,” she continued.  I’ll pick that up in the next essay.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 3

[1] Numbers 3:32 (NET)

[2] Numbers 3:36, 37 (NET)

[3] Numbers 4:16 (NET)

[4] Luke 2:8 (NET)

[5] Luke 21:12a (NET)

[6] Acts 22:4 (NET)

[7] 1 Timothy 3:1 (NET)

[8] Numbers 16:29 (KJV)

[9] Luke 19:42-44 (NET)  The words from God were added by the translators.

[10] 1 Peter 2:11, 12 (NET)

[11] Acts 20:17 (NET)

[12] Acts 20:28 (NET)

[13] KJV and ASV, bishop

[14] 1 Peter 2:25 (NET)

[15] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[16] 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NET)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 1

Posted on by

As I considered the relationship of Moses the prophet and Aaron the priest in Numbers 16 it occurred to me that my religion all but outlaws apostles and prophets. I even wrote that in the essay.  But as I turned to Jesus’ response to the argument he walked down the mount of transfiguration into I thought better of taking on an argument over apostles and prophets in that essay.  Still, the urge to do so persisted.

I suppose that everyone who is called by God, born from above[1] and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit walks down from that experience into 2,000 years of theological arguments with the implicit task of choosing sides or adjudicating between them.  Generally, I try to avoid theological arguments.  Time to study the Bible is precious.  If I spend it on arguments, I am not led by the Holy Spirit but by the people who started the arguments.

But since I have quipped to friends that one way of viewing Evangelicalism is as a mutiny of pastors and teachers against apostles and prophets I have apparently chosen a side without serious thought or consideration. I’m obligated now to be led around by the nose for a time by those who defend the assertion that apostles and prophets are no longer necessary or authorized by God.

My starting position was: why would anyone hope to be church in a hostile environment without such marvelously gifted people? As usual, once I took the time to formulate a coherent question the Holy Spirit was ready with an answer (Jeremiah 31:33, 34 NET):

“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord.  “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.  I will be their God and they will be my people.  People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord.  “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” [Table].

I asked an older friend if these verses were the goal, aim, purpose, end (τέλος) of the church, the body of Christ. (My friend doesn’t care much for church as a translation of ἐκκλησία.)  The initial response was a qualified, “No, this is for the nation of Israel.”  But that position softened as Paul’s words came to mind: Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root…[2]  My own impression that these verses do serve as τέλος for the ἐκκλησία began to harden as I recalled Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:7, 11-13 NET):

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ….It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.

Prior to this approach I would have lined up the above verses right beside Paul’s mention of the same in his letter to the Corinthians as evidence of an ongoing role for both apostles and prophets (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28 NET):

Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.  And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues.

When I quipped about mutiny I had assumed that first, second and third were meant as a ranking of authority.  This time I could hear the possibility of a temporal ordering of arrival (and departure?) on the scene.  The net effect for me is not unlike voir dire.[3]

Many years ago I was impaneled for jury selection on a criminal case. As I sat across from the defendants in the courtroom there wasn’t a single doubt in my mind that they were guilty.  How else could they have gotten so far through the system?  After the defense attorneys in particular had a go at me during voir dire I didn’t have a clue whether the defendants were guilty or not.  I can only assume that the prosecutors had a similar impact on any who walked in assuming the defendants were innocent because the police and courts only exist to oppress and victimize black people. Voir dire is a very clever procedure for detecting and highlighting bias.

So I began this investigation with my biases exposed and confused. I typed “apostles no longer necessary” into Google and “No Prophets or Apostles Today”[4] by Lori Eldridge appeared at the top of the list.  The first step in her argument was to distinguish between gift and office.

Gift

Office
…the “gift” of prophecy (defending and speaking forth the ESTABLISHED Word of God)… …the “Office” of Prophet (speaking forth NEW revelations from God and establishing scripture).
The gift of prophecy is still in effect… …but not the office of Prophet…

The same can be said for the gift vs the office of Apostle…
…and the former to build new churches on that foundation already established. …the latter being for the purpose to lay the foundation for the Church…

The gift of apostle and prophet is fairly easy to find in the Bible. But to each one of us grace (χάρις) was given (ἐδόθη, a form of δίδωμι) according to the measure of the gift (δωρεᾶς, a form of δωρεά) of Christ.[5] It was he who gave (ἔδωκεν, another form of δίδωμι) some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers…[6]  The office of apostle and prophet is a bit more elusive.  But to say that there is no office of apostle and prophet in the Bible is not quite the same as saying that there was an office of apostle and prophet but it exists no longer.  So I’ll spend some time trying to track down the meaning of office of apostle or prophet.

And it came to pass, that while [a priest (ἱερεύς) named Zacharias[7]] executed the priest’s office (ἱερατεύειν, a form of ἱερατεύω) before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest’s office (ἱερατείας, a form of ἱερατεία), his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.[8]  The concept priest’s office is not two words in Greek but one: ἱερατεύειν in the first instance and ἱερατείας in the second.  I should point out that ἱερατεύειν was translated serving as priest in NKJV and ἱερατείας as of the priesthood.  There is a trend toward eliminating the word office over time.  Be that as it may the priest’s office helps clarify the meaning of office.

The requirements, duties, rights and privileges of priests were spelled out in great detail in the law. The law makes the office – official. And those of the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office (ἱερατείαν, another form of ἱερατεία) have authorization (ἐντολὴν, a form of ἐντολή) according to the law to collect a tithe from the people, that is, from their fellow countrymen, although they too are descendants of Abraham.[9] In the New Testament in Modern Speech (MSNT) Hebrews 5:1-4 is translated as follows:

For every High Priest is chosen from among men, and is appointed to act on behalf of men in matters relating to God, in order to offer both gifts and sin-offerings, and must be one who is able to bear patiently with the ignorant and erring, because he himself also is beset with infirmity.  And for this reason he is required to offer sin-offerings not only for the people but also for himself.  And no one takes this honorable office (τιμὴν, a form of τιμή) upon himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God, as Aaron was.

The KJV translated τιμὴν as honour.  The translators of the more recent translation added the concept office to that honour.  But I find no fault with the concept of a priestly office carefully delineated in law.  So the question comes to mind, what law authorizes the office of apostle?

Lori Eldridge began as follows:

The following shows us the requirements of the replacement for Judas:

Acts 1:21-26, “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, 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.”

This quotation is from the NIV. It is preceded by: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office (ἐπισκοπὴν, a form of ἐπισκοπή) let another take.[10]  At least that’s how ἐπισκοπὴν was translated in the ASV and the NKJV.  The KJV translated it bishopric, and the NIV place of leadership.  But if I am going to find a law authorizing an office of apostle, the word of an apostle seems a likely place to start—on the surface of it.  But watch what happens if I expand the context.

Jesus had told Peter, Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me.  For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.[11]  Instead, prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter took it upon himself to replace one of the Apostles Jesus had chosen[12] (Luke 6:12-16 NET).

Now it was during this time that Jesus went out to the mountain to pray, and he spent all night in prayer to God.  When morning came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles:  Simon (whom he named Peter), and his brother Andrew; and James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

So what did Jesus do? He made a personal appearance on the road to Damascus and chose Saul, a Pharisee who persecuted the early believers.  I can’t say that Jesus deliberately confounded Peter’s rule for apostle selection, because I believe that God’s prerogative—I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[13]—trumps all law.  I can say that Saul was not one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us, Peter’s stated prerequisite that Ms. Eldridge quoted but did not emphasize in all capital letters: For one of these (ἕνα τούτων) must become (γενέσθαι,a form of γίνομαι) A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.

In John’s vision on Patmos the wall of the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God[14] was described as having twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.[15]  I wonder if those who believe that Peter created (and limited) the office of Apostle as stated in Acts 1:21-26 also believe that Matthias will be the twelfth name on those foundations.  If it seems like I’m lobbying for Paul, I am not.

In the past I have lobbied for Paul. But now that I know him better and Jesus through his writing I hope that the twelfth name is Judas Iscariot.  I can’t imagine a more beautiful memorial to the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ.  And I think Paul would agree with me: so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling…[16] So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[17] For the gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα) and the call of God are irrevocable.[18]

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”[19]

But perhaps the office of Apostle precedes Peter’s questionable rule as ἐπισκοπὴν (translated office in the ASV) precedes it.  I’ll look into that in the next essay.  For now I want to wrap-up by saying that this is not an enjoyable pastime for me.

Lori Eldridge was “raised in a cult as a child,” and “saved through Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth.”[20]  It seems that she hears or reads sermons or religious writings and the Holy Spirit brings Scripture to mind that contradicts what the preacher preached or wrote.  Though her faith allows her to declare those the Holy Spirit contradicts false prophets and teachers[21] and mine does not, I might still be better served by trying to befriend her rather than by disputing with her.

People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me, the Lord promised through Jeremiah.  It seems fitting here to highlight the equalizing power of the Bible.  With it, led by the Holy Spirit, Lori Eldridge challenges prophets and teachers and declares them false.  With the Bible, led by the Holy Spirit, I can question the wisdom of Peter’s actions and whether his word established a rule for an office of apostle.  None of that changes if apostles and prophets are still active (and necessary) in the ἐκκλησία.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 2

[1] John 3:3 (NET)

[2] Romans 11:17 (NET)

[3] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2229

[4] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[5] Ephesians 4:7 (NET)

[6] Ephesians 4:11 (NET)

[7] Luke 1:5 (KJV)

[8] Luke 1:8, 9 (KJV)

[9] Hebrews 7:5 (NET)

[10] Acts 1:20 (ASV)

[11] Acts 1:4, 5 (NET)

[12] John 6:70, 71 (NET)

[13] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[14] Revelation 21:10 (NET)

[15] Revelation 21:14 (NET)

[16] Romans 9:11 (NET)

[17] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[18] Romans 11:29 (NET)

[19] Romans 11:26, 27 (NET)

[20] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/statement.html

[21] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/