What I Believe

a. Apostles

[11/09/20]

In fairness, the topic of apostles really belongs more to the question of widescale governance.  But as I have not addressed it in any great degree there, I shall do so here, although I would refer readers elsewhere amongst my studies for a more thoroughgoing treatment of the matter.  Let’s start with a basic definition of the word, for it is not a strictly Christianese term.  At base, the term means a messenger, or one sent on a mission.  If we go back to pre-biblical use of the term it speaks of an expeditionary fleet, again with that sense of being sent on a mission.  We can take it as akin to our idea of an ambassador.

There are two ideas to take from this basic sense.  One is that the apostle does not go, do, or act of his own private volition, but at the behest of a sending authority.  Second, the apostle does not himself have authority beyond that which pertains to his assigned mission.  Jesus would inform His appointees, “Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him” (Jn 13:16).  Guess what?  The one who is sent here is apostolos, an apostle.  We are right there back at the basic definition of the term, and the point is made:  Your authority stops with My assignment.  If you step outside the bounds of your mission, you have no authority.

I am laboring this point just a little because we do have to deal with this matter of others besides the twelve plus Paul who are identified in Scripture as apostles.  The obvious example is Barnabas, whom we considered in the previous section.  Barnabas, together with Paul for whom he had vouched, and whom he had actively recruited into service at the church in Antioch, is identified as an apostle.  But observe closely the sending authority.  It is not, in this instance, Jesus Christ, but the church in Antioch.  They are sent as ambassadors of that church, for a mission determined by that church.  Yes, we find Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Father besides behind that mission, but this quite simply does not rise to the level of Apostle in the capital A sense of the term.

That requires something greater.  The capital A Apostle is appointed by Christ Himself directly.  I should perhaps stress that he is appointed by the Incarnate Christ Himself directly.  This is not something for which dreams and visions can suffice as qualification, because the prerequisites of office preclude it.  Recall the mission:  “You are witnesses of these things” (Lk 24:48).  What things would those be?  “that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk 24:46-47). 

I think it very telling that Luke, the companion of Paul, makes this bold declaration of the Apostolic mission and purpose in closing his record of the gospel account.  Paul was challenged to provide the requisite bone fides for office, as Luke was surely well aware.  Almost every letter Paul writes, particularly where significant correction is needed in the recipients, takes pains to establish his Apostolic authorization.  How could he be witness of ‘these things’ who had not been with Jesus during His years of ministry?  Well, he may not have been with team Jesus at the time, but he was almost certainly to be found in Jerusalem as events unfolded.  How else came he to be present for the stoning of Stephen?

But Luke is not alone in conveying this message about the Apostolic witness.  John also records the message.  “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (Jn 15:26-27).  Now that last clause obviously does not apply to Paul, but the commissioning is our key factor here.  Christ Jesus is the commissioning authority, and no other. To this, Paul assuredly could make claim.  Struck blind by a heavenly flash of light, Saul hears the Voice:  “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (Ac 9:4).  Asking who it was accused him thus, he hears, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,” and here comes the key bit, “but rise, enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do” (Ac 9:5-6).

This has to be held up against the consideration of the remaining eleven Apostles when it came time to replace Judas.  “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken from us – one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Ac 1:21-22).  It is here we find Matthias, or Matthew joining their number.  Okay, so if they were already back to their full contingent of twelve, and Paul, so far as we know, could not claim to have been there at John’s baptism (although we also don’t know that he wasn’t), what’s the reason for his inclusion?

Let me just say that had Paul indeed been present at John’s baptizing of Jesus, I think he would have noted that point.  I don’t think that would quite satisfy the intent of Peter’s thinking there, but he could at least claim to have been present and aware, if not involved for that period.  But he makes no such claim, and I think we could count that as reasonable grounds for concluding he had not been present on that occasion.

But he was appointed, and that quite visibly and with witnesses attesting.  They may not have understood the words Paul was hearing.  But Ananias of Damascus, a man known to the church, was sent by Christ in a vision to meet Saul and bring him around.  Hear the confirmation he received from Christ – I grant you, in a vision, yet confirmation nonetheless.  “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Ac 9:15-16).  I dare say, there’s a calling very few would wish to hear.

Now, here’s a further telling point, and it may actually have bearing on Paul’s inclusion, though I don’t recall ever having heard the idea put forward.  By the time Saul beings functioning as Paul the Apostle, James the Apostle has been taken from the scene, put to death by Herod.  Yet we do not find the remaining Apostles gathering once more to appoint a new number twelve.  No reason is given for this.  We might suggest it is because the Holy Spirit did not so move them, and that would certainly be a reasonable starting point.  But then, we might ask why it is that He moved them to replace Judas but not James?  Were they so quickly at an end of those qualified to join their ranks?  What about Joseph Barsabbas who had been suggested when Matthias was chosen?  Was he no longer available?  What of Silas who was sent off with Paul later on?  What of the rest of those 120 who had gathered in the aftermath of Jesus’ crucifixion?  Were there none in that number who had been with them from the outset, and whose faith was at least as certain as their own?

It seems as though that spot was being held for Paul when he should come to serve.  He would never sit as part of that council of Apostles in Jerusalem, but he quite clearly accounted himself their equal in authority.  He did not set himself in opposition to them, but sought to assure that his gospel and theirs were one, as they must be, coming from one Lord.  But his mission was a bit different.  He was sent primarily to the Gentiles while they, under Peter’s leadership, were primarily to the Jews.  This was not flat out mutually exclusive territory, but simply a matter of priorities.  Paul would always, as we see from the record of his efforts, speak first to the Jewish community when coming to new areas, only then turning to the Gentiles.  Peter, in his turn, ministers to the churches of Asia Minor, as does John.  But the number is again at twelve, and from that point onward no further Apostle is added to their ranks.

We have sufficient early history from the Church fathers, as well as the Apostles and their immediate companions, to have heard of any such additions.  But there is no record, no notice given of a new apostle.  Neither, as I have observed already, I think, are arrangements made to continue the office.  The requirements rather preclude that anyway, don’t they?  By the time John passes from the scene it’s been what, sixty years since Jesus died?  What do you suppose life expectancy was in that era?  John was something of an outlier for age, I should think, particularly amazing given the life he led.  My point is simply this, the pool of potential eye-witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ had surely dwindled to zero by that point.  There remained not a one who could fulfill the necessary qualifications to satisfy the whole purpose of that office.

[11/10/20]

So, what was the function of this temporary office?  Its significance cannot be overstated, for here was the chief earthly authority over the Church.  Indeed, I don’t think I would be wrong to say that here remains the chief earthly authority over the Church, though its every holder of office has long since passed from the scene.  How is this?  Well, we must first understand the nature of that authority.  It is not of a kind with civil authority.  It is, in fact, very much unlike that authority which is vested in kings and presidents and emperors, for it is an authority to give understanding more than an authority to make demands.  That is not to say the Apostles had no rule-giving authority.  They did.  But the chief purpose was that of a witness to events, and to the Truth.

For long ages, God had commanded His people.  “Obey My voice, I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you” (Jer 7:23).  He had spoken directly.  He had spoken through prophets.  He had spoken through men of high birth and low.  “Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil hear, and went backward and not forward” (Jer 7:24).  Now, the Son – the very Son of God – had come proclaiming a day for repentance and forgiveness.  Now, the kingdom had not only drawn near, but broken in on this world.  The King ‘came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him’ (Jn 1:11).  But all was not lost.  “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:12-13).

This was something new, something marvelous.  This was something largely incomprehensible.  Indeed, it was pretty much unthinkable.  To the Jews, the message of hope was a stumbling block, too much perceived as a rejection of Moses rather than a fulfillment.  To the Gentiles, this message seemed utter nonsense (1Co 1:23).  And this, from a people given to fabricating the most capricious and nonsensical gods, and then making them matters for worship.  Those descriptions the prophets gave of the idolatrous ways of the surrounding nations were stinging in their exposure of the ridiculous nature of idol worship.  You take a piece of wood, from which you already took some for the fire, and you carve it.  Maybe you clad it in metalwork if you are able.  And you carefully prop it up, for it certainly has no power in itself by which to stand, let alone move.  And from this crass material, you fashion this idol which you will now bow down to, make offerings to, plead to in order that it might do you some good.  Yet it is clearly nothing but inert matter, the work of your own hands, which could readily accomplish more good for yourself than this bit of lumber will ever be able to manage.  It was clearly nonsense, if only you would stop and look.  So, too, the pantheon of Greece or Rome.  These were not gods to revere.  They were little more than amplified caricatures of humanity at her worst.  Oh, they were envisioned with power, but power held in capricious, self-serving hands, and guided by no evident wisdom.

Yet, news of man’s rescue by God come down and dying on his behalf?  In spite of all their sundry reborn gods, this was a step too far.  Gods simply don’t do that sort of thing for mere mortals.  They might bed them, but never die for them.  If gods die, it is by one another.  Yet, this was the course God, the One God, the only God, chose.  Indeed, this was the course He had set in motion from before the beginning.  And yet that nation to whom He had entrusted the knowledge of Himself, that nation which He had chosen from among all the nations of the earth to be His people, could not bring themselves to accept what God was doing.  For one, they would not hear of one who stood before them claiming to be God Himself.  That, at least, is understandable, if tragically wrong.  For a mere mortal to claim godhead ought rightly to bring charges of blasphemy even today.  But then, this was no mere mortal, though He was in mortal body.  This one had demonstrated, and repeatedly, that His claim was valid.  He pointed to the Scriptures which pointed to Himself, and demonstrated their accuracy, and by their accuracy, His divinity.  But His own would not receive it.

That He then turned and granted that the Gentiles might also be made His own was offense upon offense to the Jews.  Never mind that this had ever been the message entrusted to them. They had lost sight of that a long time ago, and now held their position as a privilege to be guarded against defilement by these heathen dogs.  And here came One, “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Php 2:6).  Here was one whose privilege and dignity was far and away above their own, and He had gladly set aside every prerogative that was His by right in order to serve and to save.  In this, I dare say, was a significant rebuke upon those ostensible children of Abraham who refused to share their God with the nations as they had been commanded.

Well, what has all this to do with the Apostolic office?  I honestly am not sure why my thoughts took that particular journey this morning, other than to make clear that the Gospel was a shock to all.  And now, the Son who had promulgated this Gospel and brought it to pass was gone from the stage of earthly life.  He was no longer there to make plain His teaching and His mission.  But He did not leave His mission to wither.  He left witnesses.  He left the Apostles, to whom He had said, “You are witnesses of these things” (Lk 24:48).

If you will for a moment set aside the knowledge that has come by faith, it’s not at all hard to see why witnesses would be needful.  What was the message?  God had come among us in the form of a man, living out the full course of life as a man.  He had died the most heinous death then conceivable (and perhaps still the most heinous conceivable).  But He had also risen from death.  Okay.  Right there we have moved into the stuff of fantasy.  People do not simply rise from death.  Even with all our medical advances, I don’t think you’d find that happening after multiple days in the grave.  For all that, people don’t, having been nailed to a cross, find in themselves the strength to first break free of the wrappings of the grave and then, having starved themselves for several days to boot, hop up and push a stone of sufficient size to seal a door uphill with no handhold.  The whole story is simply unbelievable, isn’t it?  Is it any wonder, really, that those to whom the Spirit has not come to give faith to believe find it impossible to do so?

The point is this:  Such a message was going to need serious support if it was to be heard at all.  Consider Paul’s difficulty in Athens.  It wasn’t received as much more than an entertainment.  Nobody there was going to lend credence to such a story.  After all, they had had plenty of mythology from their own local sources.  They had tales of those who had gone to Hades and returned.  They had their gods who died and came to life.  But they also, deep down, knew all of these were just that:  Tales.  For all their superstition and giving of offerings to every god in town, I think we must recognize that belief was not really all that strong.  The same must be said of Rome, I suspect.  A people who could accept the emperor’s claims of being a god had to have a pretty low view of what god is.

But now comes this message.  There is one God.  All your mythologies have been tolerated to date, but no more.  Here is the only God.  Here is the answer to your philosopher’s pursuits.  Here is the reason for your being as well as ours.  Here is the singular, solitary hope of heaven, the only entrance into life that is truly Life.  If all you had to present was the story of some guy who knew a guy who had talked with a guy who said he was there, you’re not going to get very far.  You might gain a few listeners, but you’re not looking at the spread of the Gospel.

But that’s not what happened.  Instead, you had those who themselves had been eye-witness to events.  You had those who, like John, could say, “We heard Him.  We saw Him.  Our hands touched Him.”  And that, dear ones, was both before and after.  Think of the power of Thomas’ testimony.  He had his doubts, just like you hearing this.  But he had poked his fingers in the wounds of the risen Christ!  He had watched this dead companion of his, with Whom he had shared pretty much every moment of the last several years walk into a locked room and partake of a meal.  Phantasms might manage the locked door, but to eat?  Not likely.  Visions of the night don’t leave physical traces like the remnants on the plate.

[11/11/20]

Beyond even that, though, there was the issue of Truth.  Jesus came to declare the Truth of God, and to demonstrate it by His righteous life.  All that He said and did was as He had heard and seen of the Father in heaven.  All that He taught was what He was given to teach by the Father, and of all the Father gave Him to teach He left out not one word.  But it must be recognized that what He taught runs quite contrary to the ways of fallen man, and at least so far as fallen man perceived it, runs quite contrary to the tenets of the traditional understanding of the Jews as well.  It came across as being something new, even though He took such pains to demonstrate that what He taught was in fact of one accord with Moses.  It was not Moses who had departed from God’s Truth, but the traditions of following generations which had corrupted the purity of God’s Truth.

Now, the revelation of that Truth was restored to its original beauty.  Now, those things that had been hinted at in types and shadows was made more evident.  Much was fulfilled, although even with the fulfillment, it has to be said that for many, the fulfillment itself remained hidden from their understanding.  For many, it still does.  And there is our issue, or our need for the Apostolic authority.

Those who failed to see the reality of Jesus’ Person and His Truth would, by human standards, appear to have authority to pass judgment on His message.  They, after all, were the Jews’ Jews, if you will.  They were the officialdom of Jewish religion, the proponents of this very God of Whom Jesus claimed to teach.  If they said He was no prophet and certainly not God, those words had to carry weight.  If they taught that this new sect was teaching falsehoods, who could counter their message?  If they claimed the disciples of Jesus spread tales and lies, who could gainsay them?

Now, let us add in those from the surrounding nations, nations steeped in mysticism, in magical beliefs, and in idolatrous worship that in point of fact exalted demons as gods.  Here were philosophies in abundance, with mystical rites suggesting heavenly impartations of knowledge and divine inspiration.  They looked upon the encroaching arrival of this new sect of Christians as alternately a threat and an opportunity.  They were a threat in that, unlike so many pagan religions, they did not leave room for other gods, but claimed exclusive knowledge of the exclusive God of all.  This was, needless to say, a threat to the livelihoods of those whose income was made by serving pagan worshipers.  Alternately, many such religions and philosophies saw in Christianity a means to expand their own influence by infiltrating the nascent Church and melding its tenets and practices together with their various ideas.

This should not surprise.  It should not surprise us that we see the same insidious and explicit assaults on the Church right into our own day.  After all, what is happening in the Church, which is the body of Christ, is but a continuation of that war in the heavens which has been ongoing, so far as I can discern, throughout the course of history.  We can, at some other time, debate whether Satan’s fall came before the dawn of Creation or at some point after the establishing of Eden, but I tend to lean toward the former opinion.  The bigger point here is that Satan as always, or as near to always as makes no difference, been at war with the work of redemption which has been God’s purpose from the outset. The servant, as Jesus observed, is not greater than his master, nor the student than his teacher.  Neither is the body greater than its Head.  What was done to the Head, we can expect will be done to the body.

Throughout the pages of the Old Testament we see evidence of this spiritual battle playing out in the lives of mankind.  What was the deal with Cain and Abel?  This wasn’t sibling rivalry gone a step too far.  This was Satan at war with God, and seeking to thwart His plan of redemption.  What was the whole life story of Joseph?  Again, this wasn’t tribal jealousy playing out.  This was Satan at war with God, and seeking to thwart His plan of redemption.  Perhaps he could kill Joseph outright, or cause him so much suffering and sorrow that he would turn on God.  Well, he was wrong, as of course, he must be wrong, but that didn’t stop him trying.  What was Moses’ angry outburst in the desert, when he struck the rock unbidden?  Was it just a frustrated old man finally pushed to his breaking point by a noisome and difficult people?  No.  While it hardly relieves him of responsibility for his actions, this was Satan at war with God, and seeking to thwart His plan of redemption.  If he could take down the man, perhaps he could take down the plan.  But he couldn’t.  I could go on through the prophets and the kings, but the point is made, I think. 

And then we come to the cross, and the point is made in stark relief to ensure nobody misses it.  Here at last was his master stroke.  He’d taken down messengers to no avail, but now he could take down the Son Himself.  Surely, this would put an end to this whole redemption business, and he could then continue unbothered in his usurped throne over mankind.  But it didn’t work.  Death could not hold the Son, and Life prevailed.  Truth won out, and Satan and his minions are left a defeated, if still dangerous foe.

Satan didn’t just pack up and depart.  For one, there is really no place he could depart to is there?  Heaven is sealed off to him and earth is no longer his to rule either.  But he takes up the tactics of guerilla warfare.  He seeks to waylay and mislead those whom God has called His own.  He knows, I should think, that this must ultimately prove futile.  He’s not stupid after all.  But he would cause as much grief and misery to God and God’s children as he may in the time he has.  Yes, it’s perverse.  But it’s hardly unknown to us in the ways of man which are, after all, largely the ways of the devil in our fallen state.

Into this situation comes the Church, a new religion for all intents and purposes, though it is, in reality, a restoration and amplification of the Ancient Way revealed to Israel ages ago.  There is a target for Satan’s wrath, a foil for his machinations.  If he can no longer strike the Son, he can at least harass the Son’s bride.  He can, perhaps, cause her to shift course just a little this way or that.  He can introduce ideas that seem innocuous enough but in fact result in the Church letting go of Truth and accepting a lie.  It’s really not so different from that first assault in Eden, is it?  Don’t reject outright the Truth of God.  That would be too obvious.  Rather, suggest different memories of what He said.  Suggest maybe the meaning is a shade different than His people recalled, or the implications and applications a tad more refined and up to date than what was being passed down to them.

But God had, to no great surprise, already taken this into account.  He has already taken all things into account.  You would think His enemy and ours might have clued in by now, but he tries just the same.  So he went into overdrive, seeking to insert all manner of heresies and arguments and pagan practices into the life of the Church.  It’s easy to see this as nothing more than the natural effect of bringing Christianity into a pagan culture.  Of course, they’re going to be bringing their cultural baggage with them.  Of course, they’re going to refashion the rites and details just a bit to fit this religion into their worldview.  But that’s not how God works.  God will not be fit into our worldview.  His intent is to form our worldview in accordance with His Truth.  Satan’s efforts are to see that this doesn’t succeed.  The Apostles, then, come to be the chief instruments in God’s hands, ensuring that Satan’s efforts do not succeed.

That, I have to say, is a rather lengthy introduction to my point, but it feels necessary to establish.  The reason we had the Apostles, live and on the scene, was to provide ready and authoritative counter to these incursions.  As I taught the book of Colossians last year, I had the pleasure of being introduced to an old commentary by a Dr. Ironside.  He made the point that I make here, and thanks for it.  God had seen to it that the Apostles were there to lay out the Truth wherever these falsehoods made entrance.  If we observe carefully in these Epistles left to guide the Church, we will find evidence of all the major heresies that have beset the Church through the ages.  Honestly, for all his cleverness, Satan is not all that creative.  He’s had no particular need to be.  He just repackages the same lies over and over again, confident in the forgetfulness of man.  Historically, it would seem he has reason for that confidence, as we are forever failing to properly appreciate the lessons of history.

But God.  I could just leave it there:  Two of the most glorious words in Scripture.  God already had the antidote for this.  He caused the Apostles to not only bring the correct teaching to the Church, and to reinforce it as needed when these incursions came.  He caused them also to write down for the ages what was the true doctrine of God, and in so doing, to point out those errors that were causing grief to His people.  This is not just Paul jealous that his teaching should have prominence.  Peter supports Paul explicitly, and teaches the same thing.  John, in his epistles, addresses the same sorts of issues in the same group of churches.  All of this comes as provision of an inoculation, if you will, against the wiles of the devil.  Here is Truth.  There is fiction.  It has been set side by side for you in order that you can perceive the distinctions and tell one from the other.  Whatever disguise the fiction takes in this age, it will be seen through by comparison to the Truth.

That Truth has been written, under the guiding, supervising oversight of the Holy Spirit, by those few, select men appointed by Christ to the task of establishing the Church on firm foundation.  They alone had (or have) authority to proclaim definitive Truth on God’s behalf.  Having been taught by Christ – and yes, this applies to Paul as well as the Eleven – they were empowered by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to not only relay His words accurately, but to offer explanation and application, that those who had not heard Him in life could hear Him accurately and with understanding in His absence.  They were empowered to correct the lies of the enemy, and by so doing, to safeguard the purity of the teaching, which is the foundation and framework of the Church.

To this written record we may appeal, even today, to discern false doctrine from true.  To this written record alone we may appeal, for the Apostolic authority rests not in man, since the last Apostle passed from this life into heaven.  The Apostolic authority rests, as it has always rested, in Christ alone.  But He has taken pains to provide us with the written record of His Word – and make no mistake, the epistles are no less His Word than the Gospels.  The red letters don’t make those verses more valid, more trustworthy than other verses.  The direct, revealed, inspiration of God to and through His chosen witnesses, makes the whole trustworthy.

I would find it acceptable to suggest that, the whole of the written record desired by God having been written, and the Church thereby set upon firm foundation, God saw fit to bring the Apostolic age to a close.  His purpose in that office was completed, and the officers who had supplied the office could not come home to their rest, to rejoice in their God and to rejoice in the results of His work through them.  Can you imagine the joy that must be theirs?  Not only are they able to reside in the immediate presence of the Lord and King forever, enjoying the pure and rarified worship that fills the heavenly realms, but they are able to look out upon the fruit of their labors.  Oh, I’m sure they have no particular joy in seeing the setbacks that beset the Church in various seasons.  I can’t imagine they were all that thrilled with things like the Crusades or the Inquisition.  Neither is it to be supposed that they take pleasure in the various denominations that have gone a-whoring after the world.  But there remains the Church, the True Church, the remnant, still growing, still strong, still producing by its tenacious grip on God’s Truth a pure and spotless bride.

This, I think, suffices to treat the topic for my purposes here.  I can find no place for a modern-day Apostolic claim, and as for any lower-case claim, I should think that claim belongs more with the missionaries who are sent out than with those who stay home making claim to fancy titles.  If the claim is made on no more than one’s own sense of self-importance, however spiritually expressed, the claim is no more than vanity and wind.  Where is the sending authority if you send yourself?  Where is the definition of mission and message if you’re just pulling things out of vapors of the night?  But the missionary?  Here is one sent, and sent with a mission and a message.  Here is one who knows both his purpose and his limits, and presents the Gospel pure and unaltered, rather than gassy visions and philosophies.  Let them have use of the title, if you like, but leave the authority where it belongs, with those eye-witnesses appointed by Christ directly, taught by Christ directly, and authorized to speak His definitive Truth unquestioned.