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.
[1] John 3:3 (NET)
[3] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2229
[4] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html
[12] John 6:70, 71 (NET)
[17] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table