This is the lecture list for this term. I want to go to all of them!
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
apostles in portraiture
In a previous section I suggested that the concept of New Testament apostleship begins with Jesus’ sense of his own mission, with his sending of the Spirit, and His sending of the disciples, particularly the Twelve and the Seventy (or Seventy-Two). G.E. Ladd has shown that the Kingdom of God is a future reality as well as a past event. In the future it is ‘a mighty irruption into history inaugurating the perfect order of the age to come.’ [1] As regards the past, ‘God’s Kingdom, his reign, has already come into history in the person and mission of Jesus.’ [2] I would like to suggest that apostles can be seen as missionary pioneers of the Kingdom.
Various kinds of missionary pioneer
Apostles are entrusted with various tasks and this means that their apostleship is expressed in various ways - but in each case they are extending the Kingdom of God in a new way.
The Twelve
The Twelve are Kingdom pioneers in the sense that they were the first to be entrusted with the task of proclaiming the Kingdom. The Twelve are also primary in being entrusted with the task of bearing testimony to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in an authoritative way. In this sense, they lay the foundations of the church in all ages. Some - if not all - of the Twelve had a particular mission to Israel and this explains the fact that they were less mobile than Paul. [3]
Paul, missionary pioneer of the Kingdom
Paul is a Kingdom pioneer in his role as apostle to the Gentiles. [4] The missions of Son and Spirit were being expressed in a new way – much to the amazement of those in Jerusalem. [5] As a church planting pioneer, it is natural that Paul should have a paternal role (1 Corinthians 4:15). Similarly, it is natural that Paul should have an ongoing role of oversight because of his primary role in founding the churches. This is why Paul reminds the churches about his message and his way of life (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 11:2). In reminding the churches of his own life and message, Paul is calling them back to the primary, foundational values he nurtured. As a pioneer, however, Paul cannot be content to exercise oversight of the churches and this is not his primary focus. Rather, the Apostle Paul’s ambition is ‘to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation’ (Romans 15:20). After Jesus, Paul is the fullest portrait of apostleship in the New Testament. As a founding father of churches, he had an intense concern for them (2 Corinthians 11:28). However, Paul saw the church, the community of the Kingdom, [6] within an eschatological context. Paul saw the church not just as it was but as it was destined to be. This vision included ‘all the Gentiles’ (Romans 1:5) and that is why, as a primary agent of the Kingdom, his emphasis was always on pioneering.
Other pioneers known to Paul
As regards the other apostles acknowledged by Paul, I think we can also see them as Kingdom pioneers. In the case of 2 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25, I would like to follow Kirk in affirming that ‘apostles of the churches’ are no less apostolic. [7] Would we really want to affirm that church envoys had less to do with the missio dei because they are sent by the church? Rather, we need to acknowledge these envoys as sent by the Body of Christ with divine authority. Indeed, Paul exhorts the Philippians to honour such people as Epaphroditus, emphasising the cost of his ministry and the close link with his own (Philippians 2:29-30). As for the messengers of the church in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul says they are the ‘glory of Christ,’ pointing to their part in the divine plan. In both passages, Paul seems to take it for granted that these apostles’ ministry is in continuity with his own. This is not to say that the degree of apostleship is always the same. The 'apostles of the churches' were entrusted with unique tasks, and so can be considered missionary pioneers without implying that their deployment was as significant as Paul's. The fact that Andronicus and Junia were imprisoned with Paul suggests that theirs was no ‘behind-the-scenes’ ministry. Paul is clearly a senior apostle but this does not prevent him from describing others as apostles and clearly linking their ministry with his own. This is because the apostles were all involved in pioneer mission and no essential distinctions were necessary.
ephesians 4 and 1 corinthians 12
Ephesians 4:11-16
Ernest Best writes, ‘2.20 and 3.5 imply strongly that those called apostles and prophets filled foundational roles and were not contemporary with the author and his readers.’ [1] I agree with Best about the likely meaning of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 - 2:20 seems to refer to the universal church while Ephesians 3:5 appears to speak of the apostles as the recipients of normative revelation. (In both cases, though, the possibility of other readings cannot be excluded). [2] Even if Best is right, we have already seen that different models of apostleship can operate within a single NT book and I submit that the immediate context of Ephesians 4:11 should determine its interpretation. Though he ultimately rejects a Restorationist reading, Clark admits that ongoing apostleship is ‘certainly the impression that the passage gives.’ [3] Kreitzer admits the possibility that the passage allows for ongoing apostleship. [4] According to Barth, ‘In 4:11 it is assumed that the church at all times needs the witness of ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’ … Ephesians 4 does not contain the faintest hint that the charismatic character of all church ministries was restricted to a certain period of church history and was later to die out.’ [5]
1 Corinthians 12:28
Similar debate surrounds 1 Corinthians 12:28. Garland believes that the apostles referred to here are ‘witnesses of the resurrection,’ [6] but he does not explain why apostles are grouped together with at least one ministry which clearly continues – that of teachers. [7] Fitzmyer’s reading seems more consistent: ‘In this passage the apostolic role is to be understood as a form of diakonia ‘ministry’ or ‘service’ (12:5), as are the next two.’ [8] Here no wedge is artificially driven between the ministries listed. Collins allows for a plurality of meanings in association with the term apostle. In this verse, however, ‘its presence at the head of the list and its specific enumeration seem to identify it as a most significant, that is, a foundational function. Those who are apostles in this sense are those who, having preached the gospel, are involved in the foundation of a Christian community.’ [9] Τhere is nothing in this interpretation which restricts apostleship to the early church. p160, cf. also R. Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), p.182
categories of apostle
In the previous section, I suggested that we should situate our understanding of apostleship within the missio dei - specifically the sending of the Son and the Spirit. In this section, I will review the various categories of apostle present in the New Testament.
The Son and the Spirit
Hebrews 3:1 describes Jesus as ‘the apostle and high priest of our confession’. Jesus clearly understood that he had been sent by God: the phrase ‘the one who sent me’ appears repeatedly in the synoptic Gospels (Luke 10:16; Mark 9:37; Matthew 10:40). The Gospel of John give us thirty-nine sayings which refer to the sending of Jesus by God. [1] This is a dominant theme in John’s Gospel and we clearly see the way in which Jesus’ mission is passed on to his disciples: ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ (John 20:21). The Holy Spirit is not described as an apostle in the New Testament but I argued in the previous section that we should use the verbs apostello and pempo as a framework for understanding apostleship. The Holy Spirit continues the apostolic ministry of Jesus Christ and can be described as apostolic.
The Twelve
Does the Apostolate consist in the Twelve? Mark 3:14 reads: ‘And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons.’ Revelation 21:14 clearly understands the apostles to be the Twelve: 'the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' However, the overall tone of this passage suggests that the Twelve here may have symbolic significance - representing Israel. In the first chapter of Acts, the disciples are faced with the task of finding a replacement for Judas Iscariot. Verses 21-22 seem to offer a fairly comprehensive definition of membership: 'one of the men who have accompanied us throughout 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 must become a witness with us to his resurrection.' While this appears to be a fairly clear list of requirements, it excludes some (see below) who are named as apostles in the New Testament. Furthermore, it is clear that not all those who meet these criteria are counted amongst the Twelve. In these verses final membership of this group is decided by casting lots(verse 26)!
The Seventy or the Seventy-Two
Can we include this wider group? Luke 10:1 uses the verb apostello and there is an argument for seeing these missionaries as apostles. There are problems concerning Luke 10:1, such as whether it should read ‘seventy’ or ‘seventy-two.’ Nolland has pointed out that the numbers seventy and seventy-two represent the tradition number of the nations of the world ( Genesis 10 – seventy in the Hebrew OT and seventy-two in the Greek OT). Luke appears to be indicating subtly that many will be invited to join the apostolic band as the mission of Jesus turns to the Gentiles. [2]
The Apostle Paul
From 1 Corinthians 15, it is clear that Paul recognised the Twelve as a separate category. He himself does not meet the criteria listed in Acts 1:21-22 because he was not a companion of Jesus. Paul is emphatic about his apostolic status and appeals to the fact that he had ‘seen’ the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1). Are apostles, therefore, limited to the Twelve plus those to whom the risen Christ has appeared and commissioned? It appears that Paul’s definition includes other kinds of apostle, too. Firstly, Paul does not just cite Jesus’ appearing to him in order to argue for his apostolic status. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul appeals to his role as founder of the Corinthian church in order to prove his apostolic status. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, Paul appeals to the miraculous signs and wonders he has performed as proof of apostleship. In 1 Corinthians 4:9-13 he links suffering to apostleship. So, Paul does not appear to base his own sense of apostleship solely on having seen the risen Christ. Secondly, a number of individuals are described as apostles without any reference to Jesus Christ having appeared to them. It is possible that they had, in fact, seen the risen Christ. It is not possible completely to exclude this possibility but we learn nothing of this from the New Testament itself. Given the importance Paul clearly attaches to his own theophany, this seems unusual and begs questions.
Titus and Epaphroditus
2 Corinthians 8:23 reads, ‘As for Titus, he is my partner and co-worker in your service; as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ.’ but the word translated ‘messengers’ here is a plural form of apostolos. Similarly, in Philippians 2:25, Paul writes, ‘I think it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus—my brother and co-worker and fellow soldier, your messenger and minister to my need.’ Here again ‘messenger’ is a form of apostolos. P. W. Barnett believes that this is a separate category of apostleship: ‘apostles of churches’ whose role is ‘practical and not directly religious,’ [3] but I think this is a specious distinction and I very much doubt that Paul would have seen practical missions as ‘not directly religious’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:1-5)
Paul's Co-Workers
A number of people are described as apostles in the context of their collaboration with Paul. Barnabas is clearly described as an apostle in Acts 14:4, 14 in the context of missionary work. Acts 15:22 describes how Judas and Silas are sent (pempo) to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The letter 1 Thessalonians is sent by ‘Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy’ and continues in 2:7: ‘we might have made demands as apostles of Christ’. This certainly seems to suggest that Paul regarded both Silvanus and Timothy as apostles. It is possible that Paul refers to Apollos as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4:9, though this is less certain. [4]
Andronicus and Junia(s)
They are described as being ‘prominent among the apostles’ (although ESV has ‘well known to the apostles’). [5] Clark has argued persuasively that Andronicus and Junia(s) were itinerant missionaries. [6] We will address ourselves later to the vexed question of the latter’s gender. Given that they shared in Paul’s imprisonment (Romans 16:7), it does not seem appropriate to classify them as ‘apostles of churches,’ even if we see merit in this category. Schnackenburg sees them as ‘Hellenists’ and deems it ‘highly improbable that they had seen the risen Lord.’ [7] He concludes that they ‘belonged to a group of ‘apostles’ who were early and recognized heralds of the gospel, without being able to lay claim to an appearance of the risen Lord.’ [8]
James and his apostles
In Galatians chapter two, Paul describes how he went up to Jerusalem (with Silas and Barnabas) in order to gain approval for his gospel and his mission to the uncircumcised. Paul compares his mission with Peter’s in verse 8: ‘for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles.’ In this context of apostolic ministry, it is noteworthy that the ‘pillars’ include James (not one of the Twelve): ‘when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised’ (verse 9). James appears in the context of apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 1:19 is more explicit still: ‘I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.’ In addition, we will note Galatians 2:12 where Paul reports that, ‘certain people came from James.’ This is not a clear instance of apostleship but it fits in with a wider pattern of sending delegates.
False Apostles
Paul refers to false apostles (pseudapostolos) in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and says that they have disguised themselves as apostles of Christ. They appear to have based their claims to apostolic status on rhetoric, boldness, missionary achievements, special revelations, and miracle-working. [9] There is no suggestion that they had seen, or claimed to have seen, the risen Lord. It is significant that Paul does not simply denounce them as lacking this one hallmark of apostleship. This suggests that Paul did not rule out apostleship in principle for those to whom Christ had not appeared.
The Last Apostle?
In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul refers to his own apostolic status: ‘Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me’. In Barnett’s view, Paul’s ‘careful words … serve to show that while there were apostles before him, there were no apostles after him.’ [10] If this is true, the passages we have considered cannot refer to an ongoing office of apostle. Should we understand Paul’s phrase ‘last of all’ in a chronological sense? A number of scholars agree with Barnett that it should be taken chronologically. [11] For Fitzmyer, the expression, ‘is best understood as an expression of humility ...’ [12] Collins suggests that it could carry a sense of completion or convey humility. [13] The chronological interpretation, then, is far from certain. Even if Paul is understood to be speaking chronologically, though, I think we still need to make room for more than one kind of apostleship. It is possible that Paul meets two definitions of apostleship: those who received a special appearance of Jesus and those who pioneered Christian communities. It is quite possible for Paul to be the last to receive a special appearance of the risen Lord but not the last to exercise apostleship in a more general sense. [4] cf. A. C. Clark Apostleship: Evidence From the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Vox Evangelica 19 (1989), p.58
[6] A. C. Clark Apostleship: Evidence From the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Vox Evangelica 19 (1989), p.59
[7] R. Schnackenburg, Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time in W. W. Gasque et al (ed.), Apostolic History and the Gospel, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), p.294
[11] F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971), p.142; D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003)
p.690
[13] R. F. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 7, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1999) p.537
origins of the apostle concept
The Traditional View and the shaliah
It has been traditional to trace the concept of apostleship back to Jesus' ministry, referring particularly to Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13. What lay behind Jesus' use of the term apostle in these verses? Rengstorf postulates that the word ‘apostle’ in the New Testament has its linguistic and functional roots in the institution of the shaliah [1] - envoys within Rabbinic Judaism. This view is not without its attractive features but it is attended by some difficulties. The institution of shaliah is only found in first century rabbinic Judaism. [2] Schmithals has given further reasons to doubt Rengstorf’s theory, including the lack of proof for attributing a religious rather than just an official character to the shaliah. [3] In sum, opinion is divided on the usefulness of the shaliah for our understanding of apostleship in the New Testament. [4] The lack of early documentary evidence means that any theory would need to be tentative at best. We must look elsewhere to establish a solid basis for the origins of New Testament apostleship.
Apostleship a late import?
It has been observed that the word apostolos is distributed rather unevenly in the New Testament. [5] In an attempt to explain this, a number of scholars (eg A. Fridrischsen, E. Lohse, J. Munck, G. Klein, W. Schmithals) [6] have suggested that the term apostle was only applied to the Twelve at a later date. It is not possible to review this theory in detail here but I will note several reasons why I find it unconvincing in the form advanced by Schmithals. Firstly, this account does not explain why the other apostles lost their status after the term was applied to the Twelve. [7] The presence of apostles in the primitive Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:17 and 1 Corinthians 15:7) is not explained. [8] Finally, I think we should be wary of asserting that a theologian of Paul's stature was unaware of gnosticism's influence on him.
Luke versus the other evangelists and Paul?
If there are problems with Schmithals' theory, we still need to address the general difference between Luke's use of the term apostolos and that of the other evangelists and that of Paul. Colin Brown has observed that, although Luke uses ‘apostle’ more than the other evangelists, there does not seem to be a substantial functional difference in his understanding. [9] Luke only uses the term on five occasions where it is not used by the others. [10] With respect to Paul, while Luke only refers to him as an apostle in 14:4, Paul dominates the account from chapter 13 onwards. Parallels between Peter and Paul have been noted and this would clearly reinforce Paul’s claim to apostleship. [11] Indeed, Acts presents such a positive portrayal of Paul that the book has been seen as an apology for him. [12] It is important to take note of Luke’s use of the term ‘apostle’ but it is equally important to avoid over-emphasising this use and drawing the wrong conclusions.
The 'sending' concept as a starting point
Some scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13 which both feature the phrase 'whom he also named apostles.' Kruse asserts that the former is not well attested and that the latter is consequently undermined. [13] However, even if we share Kruse's misgivings on this point, I think we can locate our understanding of apostolos within the broader framework of 'sending' in the Gospels. While apostolos is rare in the Gospels, the verb forms apostello and pempo are relatively common. [14] It is possible to cite a number of sayings which have a strong claim to reflecting authentic Jesus tradition. [15] Examples of the use of apostello would be Matthew 15:24 ; Luke 4:18; Luke 22:35. D. Müller has suggested that the verb apostello provides 'a starting point for a solution. Already in secular Greek 'to send' was used as a technical term for a divine authorization, and its sub. was used, admittedly very rarely, with the meaning 'messenger.'' [16] Müller notes that this verb is used for the mission of the prophets. As we discuss below, Müller believes the term to have been applied to the Twelve later. As I have said, I believe the Gospel verses cited above to reflect authentic Jesus tradition but Müller helps us see how a 'sending' concept from the Old Testament may lie behind Jesus' usage.
Trinitarian Apostleship
If we root our definition of apostleship in the Greek verb apostello, I think we will understand the concept in terms of the Holy Spirit's as well as Jesus Christ's mission. Jesus' reference to his own and his disciples' mission in John 20:21 is immediately followed by the breathing out of the Spirit in verse 22. This verse should be seen in the light of John 15:26-7 where Jesus promises to send the Advocate, the Spirit of truth, and says of the Spirit 'he will testify on my behalf.' I therefore think that we should see apostleship as based in the dual missions of Son and Spirit. [17]
[2] J.A. Kirk, Apostleship since Rengstorff: Towards a Synthesis, New Testament Studies 21 (1974/75), p.250; and K. H. Rengstorf, Apostleship (from G. Kittel's Theological Dictionalry of the New Testament), (London: A&C Black, 1952), pp.12-13
[4] cf. C. G. Kruse in Green (1992), p.29 and P. W. Barnett in G. F. Hawthorne et al (ed.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Leicester: IVP, 1993), p.47 versus D. Müller in C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), p. 134
[11] I. H. Marshall et al (ed.), Witness to the Gospel: the theology of Acts, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p.185
[12] A. J. Mattill, Jr., “Naherwartung, Fernerwartung, and the purpose of Luke-Acts: Weymouth reconsidered”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 34.03, pp. 276-293, Source: ATLA Serials, [online], p.292
[17] Paul S. Fiddes, Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity, (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2000), p.7
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)