The following was part of my dissertation research. It is simply a summary of various writings on apostleship since Rengstorf's article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Dom Gregory Dix
Dix builds on Rengstorf’s shaliah concept. He complains that contemporary debate has revolved around the words episkope and episkopos . [1] Dix contends that, originally, episkopos is not so much the title of an order as it is ‘a description of anyone who fulfilled episkope. According to Dix, the early ‘apostle + presbyter-episkopoi + deacons’ is collapsed into a different hierarchy by the second century: ‘episkopos + presbyters + deacons.’ [2] This transformation represents, ‘the permanent localization of the apostle and the consequent permanent transfer to him of a function in the life of the local Church in addition to his own personal commission as the shaliach of our Lord.’ [3] Dix emphasises ‘the Lord’s commission to his shelihim’ and asserts that the ‘permanent Christian ministry grew up in unbroken continuity from both elements in the primitive organization …’ [4]
Hans von Campenhausen
A number of writers opposed this assertion of apostolic succession based on the shaliah concept; amongst these is von Campenhausen. He acknowledges that communion with the first apostles is important to Paul, citing Galatians 2:2. [5] However, von Campenhausen emphasises Paul’s Damascus road encounter as the source of his authority: ‘even the great apostles at Jerusalem could not do otherwise than recognise his authority.’ [6] He develops the theme of Paul’s ‘paternal’ relationship with the churches he has founded. [7] However, Paul ‘does not develop this authority of his in the obvious and straightforward way by building up a sacral relationship of spiritual control and subordination.’ [8] On the issue of virgins, Paul puts forward his own view humbly, distinguishing it from the Lord’s command (1 Corinthians 7:25). [9] Overall, Paul exhibits a ‘deference to the congregation’ [10] and a self-limitation with respect to his apostolic authority. [11] Von Campenhausen observes that Paul brackets himself with members of his apostolic teams, according to his view of ‘the apostolate as entirely a matter of proclamation, not of organisation.’ [12]
C. K. Barrett
Barrett addresses Rengstorf and Dix, who refer to the Mishnah: ‘a man’s agent is like to himself’ (Berakoth 5.5). [13] Barrett notes that, ‘a saying from the Mishnah would be an odd foundation for the Christians ministyr; but in fact it was outside the competence of a shaliah to create a further shaliah.’ [14] Barrett traces the development of the apostleship concept as he sees it. The twelve ‘were anything but missionaries to the Gentiles.’ [15] However, the word ‘apostle’, according to Barrett, ‘came to be interpreted in the Pauline sense.’ [16] Paul had a specifically missionary understanding of apostleship, [17] and tension with the Jerusalem leaders resulted. [18] When the first generation apostles were martyred, their successors had to deal with the discrepancies in their apostleship theologies. The Pastorals are a defence of Paul, [19] whereas later writers such as Jude and 2 Peter are embarassed by Pauline thinking. [20] Barrett sees passages such as Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:46ff and Mark 16:15 as later interpolations. Barrett therefore believes the Pauline view to have triumphed and been imposed retrospectively on the twelve.
Ernst Käsemann
Käsemann asserts that the New Testament ‘has no technical definition of what we are accustomed to call ecclesiastical office,’ and postulates that this is deliberately avoided because it would imply ‘the presupposition and recognition of an authoritarian relationship which has no place in the ordering of the Church.’ [21] Käsemann cites Matthew 20:25f.; 23:11; 1 Corinthians 3:5 and 1 Peter 5:3 in support of this assertion. Instead of the present-day concept of ‘office’, Käsemann notes the Pauline notion of ‘charisma’. A genuine charisma is validated ‘only by the service it renders.’ [22] Paul thus seeks to bring the Corinthian enthusiasts ‘back down to earth’. [23] Käsemann suggests that we need a global view of life – ‘Now everything can become for me charisma.’ [24] In this Pauline vision, ‘each has a particular gift from God’ – a principle repeated several times. [25] This principle, Käsemann believes, means that, ‘Ecclesiastical egalitarianism is thus ruled out of court … There is differentiation in the divine generosity, whether in the order of creation or of redemption. Equality is not for Paul a principle of Church order.’ [26] The various members of the body, ‘have the same care for one another’ (1 Corinthians 12:25), [27] and are ‘subject to one another out of reverence for Christ’ (Ephesians 5:21). [28] Turning specifically to ‘offices’ within the church, Käsemann now argues that ‘a situation in which all Christians are regarded as endowed with charisma is a situation which does not admit the possibility of sacred space, sacred time, the right of representative action in the cultus, of sacred persons in the sense of both Judaism and the pagan religions.’ [29] One of the implications, is that Ignatius’ argument for the episcopal office is ruled out. [30] Furthermore, all the baptised are ‘office-bearers’ in this view of Paul. [31] What, then, of apostles? ‘Even the apostle is, as Paul is always emphasizing, only one charismatic among many, though he may be the most important.’ [32] Käsemann presents the Pauline view as a holistic one which does not distinguish between spiritual and practical ministries. [33] Church order is not static, based on offices and institutions, but rather dynamic: ‘authority resides only within the concrete act of ministry as it occurs, because it is only within this conrete act that the Kyrios announces his lordship and his presence.’ [34] In contrast to this Pauline outlook, Käsemann sets Luke and the Pastorals (which Käsemann does not believe to have been written by Paul). [35] The Pastorals suggest a context in which the church is embattled and defensive. [36] ‘Resistance was based on a single strong point; the community rallied round the apostolic delegate and the presbytery associated with him.’ [37] The presbytery is seen as a later development under Jewish Christian influence. There is a transition to early Catholicism, with monarchical bishops, which is based on ‘a theoretical principle of tradition and legitimate succession.’ [38] The same elements are seen in Acts. Käsemann cites Galatians 1:1, ‘Paul an apostle – sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,’ and argues that ‘his conception of the essence and order of the Church cannot possibly be harmonized with that which comes to prevail in early Catholicism.’ [39] Käsemann asserts that the Pauline communities ‘were, within one generation, swallowed up by Enthusiasm,’ but argues, nevertheless, that the church must put her trust in God’s continuing stream of grace. [40]
Bengt Holmberg
In Paul and Power: The structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles analysed the distribution of power according to Paul’s letters. Holmberg concludes that ‘the numberous relations of superordination and subordination that can be found in the Pauline texts are with few exceptions based neither on coercion nor on a utilitarian constellation of interests but on a belief in legitimacy shared by all parties.’ [41] This is because authority is perceived to flow from ‘the Founder of the Church.’ Holmberg does not believe that Paul has the same status as the church in Jerusalem or the Jerusalem apostles because he originally persecuted the church. [42] Paul experiences various degrees of authority with his coworkers, some being assistants while others are more like colleagues. However, ‘in the churches that he founded his charismatic authority is of wide range and great intensity.’ [43] In these relationships, Paul acts as ‘the presonal representative of God’ but he deliberately acts with restraint. The discrepancy between Paul’s own understanding of his authority, and that of the churches he oversees, leads to conflict with regard to the Corinthian church. Paul has a postive attitude to the development of local leadership. He puts pneumatic and non-pneumatic functions on the same basis, ‘as being manifestations of the Spirit in the church.’ [44] His opposition to Enthusiasm has ‘a strongly institutionalizing effect on the emerging local offices.’ [45]
Regarding the nature of authority, the fact of having known Jesus personally is less important than ‘being in close contact with sacred ratio, the divine Word: apostles, prophets and teachers are the real ‘authorities’ during the first years of the Church.’ [46] Capacity for hard work and the fruit of one’s labours are signs of apostleship. [47] Within the framework of Weber’s theory, it is charismatic authority rather than ‘traditional, rational-legal’ authority which predominates in the primitive church. [48] However, the church ‘must also be characterized as an institutionalized charismatic movement’ because of various given elements such as a tradition, doctrine, cult and organization. [49] As time passes, the institutionalization of church life becomes less open and flexible. Development is controlled ‘by a corporate tradition which guides the emerging functioanal differentiation and its institutionalization.’ [50]
The exercise of authority in the primitive church has a dialectical nature: ‘All Christians are responsible for and to a degree capable of performing these vital functions, but this never abolishes the need for special charges or offices which are expected to entail a greater degree of responsibility and capability in these respects.’ [51] This is true of Paul’s apostolic calling to the Gentiles: he has a unique role but the whole church is also called to this task. There is also a dialectic in Paul’s relationship with the church in Corinth. He has given authority to the local church, but he still also has influence: ‘Thus true institutionalization of authority in the local church is effected through the dialectical interplay between the greater, institutionalized apostolic authority and the lesser, emergent local authority.’ [52]
Rudolf Schnackenburg
Schnackenburg argues that ‘Paul did not know of a uniform concept of apostleship which had clear-cut criteria.’ [53] However, different strands of understanding can be identified in Paul’s writing. Schnackenburg addresses 1 Corinthians 15:7, which he takes to present a traditional formula. This is important because it means that Paul’s own understanding is not necessarily restricted to the limits of this formula. Having said this, what points does Schnackenburg derive from this verse? Firstly, ‘apostles’ were ‘a cohesive group.’ [54] Secondly, this group ‘could be situated in or near Jerusalem’ since they were ‘in close connexion with James.’ [55] Thirdly, this group based its claim to apostleship on appearances to its members of the Risen Christ. [56] When Paul claims to have witnessed the post-resurrection Jesus, he is not giving unqualified approval to this qualification as the sole criterion for discerning apostleship. Paul is merely demonstrating that he, too, meets this definition. 1 Corinthians 9:1 similarly shows that seeing the Lord Jesus was an accepted requirement for apostleship. Paul is keen to be accepted as an apostle on this basis, too: ‘Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?’ But Paul follows this rhetorical question with another, based on a different requirement: ‘Are you not my work in the Lord?’ ‘That is to say, the congregation brought into existence through his preaching is also evidence of his apostleship … One may boast of an appearance of the risen Lord or claim successful missionary efforts; Paul was able to meet both requirements.’ [57]
Schnackenburg discusses Andronicus and Junias, whose names suggest that they are ‘Hellenists.’ [58] The Hellenistic Jews, according to Luke’s account, turned to Christ ‘when the appearances of Jesus were already past’ and it is therefore ‘highly improbable’ that Andronicus and Junias had seen the risen Lord. While the exact meaning of Romans 16:7 remains in doubt, the most likely interpretation is that the Andronicus and Junias are referred to as apostles. [59] Paul’s polemic against the ‘super-apostles’ in 2 Corinthians 10-13 permits us to explore the issue further. In 2 Corinthians 12:12 Paul states that ‘the signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, signs and wonders and mighty works.’ Paul accepts charismatic effectiveness as a sign of a true apostle, agreeing with the super-apostles, but he sets it in the context of suffering: ‘Christ wants to show his power of life to those who receive the gospel, primarily through the weakness of the herald.’ [60]
Anders Eriksson
Referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 1 Corinthains 11:2, Eriksson asserts that ‘In his role as founder of new churches in the Gentile mission, the apostle Paul is involved in a process of transmitting apostolic tradition.’ [61] The early Christian churches thus have a ‘body of authoritative material which [Paul] calls παράδοσις .’ [62] The role of the apostles is to be ‘the commissioned bearers of tradition. This apostolic origin gives the tradition authority.’ [63] Eriksson shows that in 1 Corinthians, Paul includes both fixed traditions and argumentation (or his own interpretation).
Ernest Best
Best argues that, though Paul saw himself as an apostle, and though he exercised authority in the churches he had founded, the two are not necessarily linked. Paul exercises authority as a parent, not as an apostle. The association of apostleship with authority is to be traced to various church historical, psychological and sociological factors – for example, in later generations bishops needed to bolster their authority and appealed to apostolic succession. [64]
Jeffrey Crafton
[1] G. Dix, The Ministry in the Early Church in K. E. Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), p.292
[2] G. Dix, The Ministry in the Early Church in K. E. Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), p.292
[3] G. Dix, The Ministry in the Early Church in K. E. Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), p.292
[4] G. Dix, The Ministry in the Early Church in K. E. Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), p.301
[5] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.33
[6] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.35
[7] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.45
[8] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.46
[9] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.48
[10] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.50
[11] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.53
[12] H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, (London: A&C Black, 1969), p.53
[53] 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.301
[61] A. Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series, 29, (Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), p.74
[65] J. A. Crafton, The Agency of the Apostle, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 51, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), p.50
[65] Crafton (1991), p.54
No comments:
Post a Comment