IN THIS ISSUE...

What is an Apostle?

EVIDENCES: Attack of the Atheists

    Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they went to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4)

    Saul and Barnabas are sent by the brethren at Antioch to do a specific work. Since this is done according to the command of the Holy Spirit, the text also notes that the two men are sent out by the Holy Spirit. As we continue reading, we find in verse 9 that Saul is also known as Paul. As the account brings us along on their journey, we find Paul and Barnabas referred to as apostles in the fourth and fourteenth verses of chapter fourteen. And here we see illustrated for us the basic meaning of the word: an apostle is one sent forth. It is not a title, but a word which denotes a person who has been sent to do some particular work. Paul and Barnabas had been sent on this journey to preach the gospel, and were therefore apostles on this journey.

    The word is used this way several times in scripture. For example, Paul writes to the brethren at Philippi:

Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need (Philippians 2:25).

In this passage, the Greek word translated messenger is "apostolos": the same word elsewhere rendered apostle. Epaphroditus had been sent to Paul by the church at Philippi. Here again, we see that an apostle is simply one who is sent forth. In fact, Jesus uses the word in this sense when speaking to His twelve closest disciples on the night He was betrayed:

Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. (John 13:16)

Here, the word "apostolos" is translated by the phrase, he who is sent, which is its literal meaning. So then, in and of itself, the word "apostle" merely indicates an individual who has been sent to do something. The word can take on great significance, however, depending upon who does the sending.

    In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, we find Jesus giving the word a very special meaning:

    And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles: Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. (Luke 6:13-16)

Of course, we recognize these as Jesus' closest companions during His earthly service. These men were named apostles by Jesus Himself to set them apart from the rest of His disciples, and these are the ones we first think of when we hear the word "apostle". They are a very special kind of apostle, because the One who sent them is Jesus Christ. They were also men who were to be sent on a very special assignment: to proclaim the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ to all the world:

    Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:16-20)

    If these are the same men, why are there only eleven now? It is because the events of Matthew 28 occur after Judas Iscariot has betrayed his Master. It is the risen Christ who is speaking in the above passage, sending His eleven remaining apostles on their mission.

    Of course, the original twelve are not the only men known as apostles of Jesus Christ. After Jesus ascended back to heaven, His apostle, Peter, announced that a replacement should be chosen for Judas Iscariot:

Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. (Acts 1:21,22)

In order to take the place of an apostle, Peter indicated that a man had to have been with Jesus throughout His years of preaching, right up until His ascension. The man chosen at this point was Matthias (Acts 1:26).

    Now, what about Paul? We have already seen that the word "apostle" is applied to him in the generic sense, but wasn't he also one of those very special apostles chosen and sent by Jesus Himself? After all, he even refers to himself as Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 1:1). He did not keep company with Jesus when He was on earth, but it was Jesus who appeared to him in a vision and sent him to be the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:3-16). In fact, he even compares his own apostleship with Peter's:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked in me for the Gentiles)... (Galatians 2:7,8).

    Clearly, Paul is every bit as much an apostle of Jesus Christ as any of the others. So, how can this be, since he did not meet the qualifications? Peter had said that a man needed to have traveled with Jesus while He was on earth, which Paul did not do. The answer is, that in Paul's case Jesus made an exception. Paul even refers to himself as the exception, when listing those who had seen Jesus after His resurrection: Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (I Corinthians 15:8) Just as if Paul had been born too late to have traveled with Jesus but Jesus chose him anyway, so Paul is the exception among the apostles. He is the only one who was sent by Jesus to preach the gospel to the world, who was not with Him while He was on earth. And since Jesus is the one gives us the rules, He is the one with the authority to make the exception: we have no such right. There can be no apostles today, because it is not possible for anyone living to meet the qualifications; it would be absurd to suppose that there could be a two-thousand-year-long succession of apostles, when only the first twelve fit the qualifications, and all the rest were exceptions!

    In addition to the above qualifications, the apostles of Jesus Christ were also characterized by demonstrations of the power of God:

    Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (Acts 2:43)

    And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. (Acts 5:12)

    As we noted in last month's issue, these signs were such that there was no way they could have occurred by any natural or artificial means. In fact, the signs were so impressive that even the enemies of the faith could not deny that they were supernatural. Among the more impressive powers granted the apostles was the ability to impart gifts of the Holy Spirit to believers:

And [Peter and John] laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:17)

And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with other tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:6)

This particular phenomenon was so impressive, that Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money for it (and was sternly rebuked by Peter, Acts 8:18-23). Because this ability was unique to the apostles, we do not see the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit manifested by believers today. Such signs as this were so characteristic of the apostles, that Paul could refer to the fact that he had performed them, when answering those who questioned his authority:

    Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, with signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (II Corinthians 12:12)

So then, in keeping with what we saw in last month's article on miracles, the signs worked through the apostles were proof of their identity as apostles. The apostles could give their ability to accomplish supernatural feats as evidence of the divine origin of their message. And this leads us to what is, for us today, the most vital characteristic of the apostles.

    Beginning in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John is an account of some of the events of the night in which Jesus was betrayed, wherein He ate what is known as the Last Supper with the twelve. In the thirtieth verse of this chapter, Judas Iscariot leaves to perform his evil deed, leaving Jesus alone with the eleven faithful apostles. At this point, and continuing through the sixteenth chapter, is John's record of the things Jesus said to these eleven chosen disciples. Among the things He promised them was the Holy Spirit:

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. (John 14:26)

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth (16:12,13).

    The apostles received instruction directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Thus, their teaching was without error. This includes the apostle Paul, as he wrote to the Galatian disciples:

    But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11,12)

The apostles received direct revelation from God, and this revelation enabled them to establish the church according to the pattern God intended. So, when we today wish to live and worship and serve as God wants us to, we need merely follow the pattern which the apostles laid down for us, as recorded in the New Testament.

    The apostles of Jesus Christ were unique in history. They had qualifications, powers, and guidance which no one has had since. Thus, their teaching carries with it an authority which no other man's teaching carries: the authority of God Himself. Therefore, if we set anyone else up as a religious authority, we are missing the mark. That does not imply, however, that God did not ordain any kind of organization for His church. There is a clear structure for the people of God outlined in the New Testament, and we will begin to look at that structure in the next issue.

I am not reporting any news when I write that atheists do not believe the Bible. Atheists, of course, consider themselves too intelligent and sophisticated to believe in God. As anyone who has read this publication knows, Evidences is dedicated to providing examples of the hard evidence God has provided for us to analyze with our rational minds, and conclude that He is, and that He inspired the writers of scripture. So, if it is reasonable to believe in God and the Bible, on what grounds do the atheists assert the opposite? For one thing, they claim that the Bible is beset by contradictions. Of course, if this is so, then there is reason to doubt its inspiration. Therefore, let us ask the question, "Does the Bible contradict itself?"

In order to answer this question, we will let the atheists have a crack at showing some. The following passages are cited on an "American Atheist" website as an example of a biblical contradiction:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8)

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

    So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16,17)

Now that sounds like a contradiction! Of course, the answer to whether it really is a contradiction, is found a few verses earlier, where Paul tells us that the Law of Moses was nailed to Jesus' cross (Colossians 2:11-14). Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law and prophets, and established a new covenant in His own blood (Hebrews 10:1-10, et al.). That being the case, we are not terribly surprised if some of the specific rules of the old covenant are different from what we find under the new. No, we don't celebrate the Sabbath today, because it was a provision under the Law of Moses, and not of the new covenant. This is the same reason we no longer sacrifice animals or burn incense. So then, there is no contradiction here.

Let us look at another example of supposed contradictions:

...the earth abides forever. (Ecclesistes 1:4)

...the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (II Peter 3:10)

At least this time it sounds like a contradiction. In this present case, it will help us to look at the context of the phrase cited in Ecclesiastes:

    What profit has a man from all his labor
    In which he toils under the sun?
    One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
    But the earth abides forever.
    The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
    And hastens to the place where it arose...
    That which has been is what will be,
    That which is done is what will be done,
    And there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:3-9)

You will note that this passage is poetry. You may recall learning in grammar school that poetry is often full of figurative language, and that we need to be careful about taking it too literally. You have heard the phrase, "poetic license". As it happens, the bulk of the book of Ecclesiastes is written with the perspective of one who dwells under the sun: that is to say, it is written from a man-centered, rather than God-centered, perspective. The lesson of the book is that when we look at the course of things in this earth without taking God's plans into account, everything appears empty and useless: I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind. (1:14) And, from an earth-bound perspective, the earth certainly appears to last forever! So, in the context in which it appears, this expression should not surprise us.

Moreover, it is appropriate to note that the Hebrew word rendered "forever" in Ecclesiastes 1:4 simply means "of long duration", and not "eternity". The same word is used of the Law of Moses in such passages as Exodus 31:16-17, Leviticus 24:8, and Numbers 18:19 - and we have already noted that the Law of Moses did have an end. So, even if we take the passage in Ecclesiastes literally, we still have no contradiction with II Peter 3:10. The earth will come to an end, at a time appointed by God.

So far, then, the atheists are 0 for 2. Let us look at another "contradiction":

"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30)

No one has seen God at any time. (John 1:18)

Here again, we simply need to look at the context of the passage cited. The passage in Genesis is a familiar one. It is the record of God - or perhaps an angel of God - appearing to Jacob and wrestling with him. If you look in your Bible, you will see that what Jacob saw was a man. God appeared to Jacob in the form of a man, just as He did to Abraham in Genesis 18:1-2. Jacob did not see God on this occasion, because God is not flesh but spirit (John 4:24). Jacob saw a manifestation of or from God. The fact that Jacob, in his excitement, shouted that he had seen God, does not make it so. The Bible does not tell us that Jacob was correct in saying this; it merely records the fact that he said it. And, the Bible consistently describes the shortcomings of its characters, along with their strengths. But let me ask you to put yourself in Jacob's shoes for a moment. Imagine that God appeared to you in some form, and spent the night with you, and then blessed you before He left. Would you not be emotionally charged? Would you not likely come out with some excited comments? Would it be out of line to suppose that you might say something which, though not literally true, described how you felt? Once again, we need to lift the sentence out of its context, and misrepresent its intent, in order to get a contradiction.

These examples are typical of the "contradictions" found in scripture. They clearly show how desperate the unbelievers become in their attempts to disprove God's word. (The expression "grasping at straws" comes to mind.) In order to make an apparent contradiction, they need to lift two unrelated passages out of their respective contexts, and put them side by side. And, all we need to do to take the contradiction away, is to put the passages back in their original contexts, and understand their intended meaning. Once again, we see that in spite of the innumerable attacks against it, the Bible stands firm.