Apostles, Apostles, and Apostles; Acts
1:1 – 3
One of the major things we
are going to cover as we go through Acts is just developing as we go through
the historical development of Acts is a biblical eschatology. We are using the word
“biblical” there not as an adjective that is in contrast to non-biblical. Often
in seminaries today people talk about a biblical theology. What they mean by
that is not contrasting it with a non-biblical theology but the term “biblical
theology” is a technical term for developing theology book by book as it is
developing terms of progressive revelation through the Bible. In Acts chapter one we see no church. It had never existed before and nobody
even expects what is going to happen to happen. Then in the second chapter we
have the coming/outpouring of God the Holy Spirit which is a general term for
the filling, indwelling and baptism ministries of God the Holy Spirit, they are
unique and distinct for this age. And that gives birth to this organism called
the church, the bride of Christ, composed of all those who believe in Jesus for
salvation during this age. So the term “the church” is used in two senses: the
universal Church, which means all believers throughout all time make up the
body of Christ, and then we have the local church. Each local church is a
manifestation of the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So we start off in Acts
chapter one where there is no church and end up on chapter twenty-eight there
are local churches scattered throughout the country surrounding the
Mediterranean and even beyond, and in terms of the Church universal the Church
has expanded to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of believers
in those thirty years. As the church begins there, especially in terms of local
churches, is no organization, no authority structure. All of a sudden on one
day there is nothing and on the next day there are a little over three thousand
believers, and in a couple of weeks there are probably ten or twelve thousand
and they are met with all of the organizational and administrative challenges
to train, teach, mature and minister to thousands of people. What a challenge
that was to the apostles. Any organization functions on the basis of authority
and the authority that God laid down that is the foundational authority for the
church is the apostles.
We are first introduced to
them in the book of Acts in Acts 1:2. The focal point is on Jesus’ ministry,
the works of Jesus and His teaching, the words of Jesus, what He instructed His
followers. So it begins with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the
day He was taken up, “after He had by the Holy Spirit
given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.” This is indicating that His
giving these commandments to the apostles occurred prior to His ascension. “… whom He had chosen” is a key phrase there. Jesus is the one
who chose the original twelve.
The doctrine of apostleship is going to be
foundational to things that happen in chapter one but also in chapter two when
we learn that after there is this explosion of converts in the first day of the
church age, the day of Pentecost, everyone continued to meet and were devoted
(made it a priority) to the teaching of the apostles. What is significant about
the apostles and what do we learn subsequently in the New Testament about the
role and foundation of the apostles?
It is interesting that a few years ago
some position books came out when it was popular to write books called, for
example, Four Views on Eternal Condemnation, Four View on Eternal Security,
Four Views on the Millennium, Four Views on Whatever, and having scholars
representing four different theological positions write an explanation of their
view. Then they would write responses and critiques of the other positions. One
of these came out several years ago called Four
Views on Tongues. What was interesting was that the one person who argued
that they had ceased didn’t even mention the 1 Corinthians 13 passage. His
whole argument was based on the fact that tongues were revelatory, revelation
ceased because the only control factor of revelation was the apostles, and since
the apostles were a foundational office and foundational gift once the apostles
went off the scene they no longer had a control verification system for
revelation, therefore tongues and other revelatory gifts would have ceased. He
does hit on an important point and that is that there was something unique and
distinct about the presence of the apostles on the earth, and that once they
passed off the scene the church really had reached a stage of maturity because
there would not longer be any more special revelation from God because there
would no longer be a body individuals with the authority to determine the truth
or error of that revelation. So what we see here is that from the very
beginning there was the establishment of an authority structure within the
local church.
The term
apostolos [a)postoloj]
is the Greek noun. It is not used in the sense it is used in the Scripture in
external literature. In terms of classical Greek literature the word originally
was used of a ship that was sent on a mission. Then it came to be applied to
the commander of the vessel or naval group, or the governor of a colony. One
thing that all of these had in common was that
something or someone was given a mission, a task to perform, and they were sent
on that task. In the New Testament the word takes on a unique and distinct
meaning in that it refers to a man that is officially commissioned by an
authorizing agent related to the church and then given the authority to perform
the task. What is inherent in the word “apostle” as opposed to “disciple” is the
sense of authority. An apostle is someone who is given the authority to act as
a representative for somebody else, and that comes out of an Old Testament
background with the Hebrew word sheliach meaning someone who is sent. As has been pointed
out before, the background for understanding New Testament Greek vocabulary isn’t
classical Greek usage; it is Old Testament Hebrew usage. We can only understand
a few shades of meanings or nuances from historical Greek usage,
the key is to understand how these ideas were communicated in the Old Testament
vocabulary. In the Old Testament the word sheliach represented someone with
the authority to act as a representative of someone else. They were a proxy,
someone sent with a task and with the full authority to represent the person
who sent them. That is the basic idea: someone sent on a mission to perform a
task.
Within that there are three different
technical uses of the word “apostle” in the New Testament. The first is a
designation of the original twelve as they were sent out by the Lord Jesus
Christ to the house of
Luke
Think of
this as a formula. There is a person, an entity or an organization that is commissioning
them or sending them on a mission. Then there is the fact that they are sent,
and then there is the mission they are sent on. What we will see is important
about distinguishing these three categories of apostles in the New Testament is
that in two cases they are sent by Jesus and in one case they are sent by a
local church. They are all sent on a mission, but the mission differs. Jesus
sends the apostles in the Gospels, pre-Pentecost, to the house of Israel and
the house of Judah, and He gives them specific commandments that are unique to
that time period and don’t carry on to later missions. So the twelve He
initially chooses are chosen to take the good news of the gospel of the kingdom
to the Jews. It is not a spiritual gift; it is not a church age office; it is dispensationally prior to the church age apostles.
In Matthew 10:2ff
He names the twelve apostles, and in Matthew 10:5 NASB “These twelve
Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in {the} way of {the}
Gentiles, and do not enter {any} city of the Samaritans.” That is not the
mission of the church; that is the mission of these apostles prior to the
crucifixion. The message is the same one that Jesus had in Matthew 4:23 NASB
“Jesus was going throughout all
Matthew 10:1
NASB “Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority
over unclean spirits [demons], to cast them out, and to heal every kind of
disease and every kind of sickness.” That is not normative for an Old Testament
believer, it is not normative for a disciple, and after Pentecost it wasn’t
normative for anybody other than the twelve, the apostles, and for the same
basic reason. It provided validation for the message. They don’t heal everyone,
they don’t cast out every demon, and they didn’t go into the cancer wards of
the day and walk down the aisles and heal everybody. When Jesus went to the
pool of
People, especially
in the Charismatic camp, completely distort the whole ministry of healing and casting
out of demons that Jesus and the disciples had because they don’t understand
that these were signs that would be performed by the Messiah. So these are
validating His claims to be the Messiah and those who He is sending out as His
proxies, as His representatives, are going to perform the same signs that He
would perform because they are operating is His place, as His surrogates, as it
were, out among the people.
In Matthew
10:2, 3 we have the list of the names of the twelve, including Judas Iscariot.
We know Judas wasn’t a believer, ever. In John chapter thirteen Jesus casts him
out and He makes the point that all were clean except one. The phrase “all were
clean” is a phrase that referred to believers. The one who wasn’t clean was
Judas Iscariot. Also, Judas Iscariot was said to have had Satan enter into him
and the Greek word there is eiserchomai
[e)iserxomai] which means to go into somebody, and it
is always a word that is used to describe demon possession; that a demon enters
into somebody and takes control of their body. It is not demon influence where
the demon has some sort of influence on the individual from an external vantage
point. exerchomai indicates it is
internal. And what is the solution? Jesus casts the demon out. He doesn’t exorcise
the demon; only the magical priests did exorcism. The word that applied to
Jesus and the disciples is always the word ekballo
[e)kballw] meaning to cast out. So there is this
terminology “into” and “out of” and that defines what demon possession is. Judas
isn’t even demon possessed, he is Satan possessed. Satan entered into him and
that can only happen to someone who is an unbeliever. But he performed all the
same miracles that Peter and James and John and all the others performed. When Jesus
said one of them would betray Him they didn’t all say it must be Judas, he’s
got that shifty look in his eye. No, they didn’t say anything like that. As far
as they were concerned Peter looked at Jesus and said: Is it me? Judas went out
on the mission and he is empowered and doing the same thing everybody else was
doing. He wasn’t saved by his external works.
Matthew 10:5
NASB “These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: ‘Do not go
in {the} way of {the} Gentiles, and do not enter {any} city of the Samaritans.”
The words “sent out” is the verb apostello
[a)postellw] (apostolos [a)postoloj] is
the noun), which means to send out, and as the verb moved over as a noun it
became more and more technical until we reach its technical meaning in the New
Testament. [6] “but rather go to the lost sheep of the
house of
Then they
are given their marching orders. Matthew 10:8 NASB “Heal {the} sick,
raise {the} dead, cleanse {the} lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received,
freely give.” These signs were distinct signs of the Messiah. In the Old Testament
it was clear that this was what would be expected of the Messiah, that He would
come and He would heal, He would heal the lame and give sight to the blind. The
rabbis believed that only when the dead were raised and the blind were given
sight would they know for sure that the Messiah was there.
They were
told they weren’t to take a lot with them on their mission. Matthew 10:9 NASB
“Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, [10] or a bag
for {your} journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker
is worthy of his support.” This is one of those great commands from the Lord
that shows that everybody today is really a secret dispensationalist. It doesn’t
matter how Covenant one is, how Reformed ones is, how much of a Lutheran one
is, how much one believes in replacement theology and how much one hates dispensationalism, they want their missionaries to have
just a little more than what they are carrying on their backs and what they
have in their pockets! Which shows that the plan doesn’t
always work according to the same commands every time. Initially when
Jesus sent them out they were to go only to the Israelites, to the Jews, and
they were not supposed to take anything with them. Empty your pockets boys, you
are going to go out and trust the Lord!
What is
going on here? This is where background in important. Alfred Edersheim has written one of the classic books on the life
of Christ called The Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah. In that he explains this. He was trained to be a rabbi
and he brings a tremendous wealth of knowledge about rabbinical customs to his
understanding of the Gospels:
…the directions about not taking staff, shoes, nor money-purse,
exactly correspond to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-precincts
with staff, (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle. The symbolic reasons
underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably the same: to avoid
even the appearance of being engaged on other business, when the whole being
should be absorbed in the service of the Lord.
So when Jesus sends them out on this mission they
are operating in just the same way a priest would in going into the temple. Which indicates this fits in with Jewish thought, rabbinical
thought and operation, at that time of history. This lack of preparation
means that they are going to have to trust the Lord to provide for them all along
the way and that God’s sufficient grace would take care of them.
In terms of lodging the Lord then directs them: Matthew 10:11 NASB “And
whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at
his house until you leave {that city.}” You’re not just looking for the
wealthiest person, you want to find those who are “worthy.”
The idea here has to do with them being upright, respected for their spirituality
and for their relationship with the Lord. [12] “As you enter the house, give it
your greeting. [13] If the house is worthy, give it your {blessing of} peace.
But if it is not worthy, take back your {blessing of} peace.” In other words,
if it is worthy then stay there, relax, enjoy your
presence there; if not then leave. [14] “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed
your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.”
If they reject you and reject your message then you are not dependent upon those
people for your hospitality in any way. You just move on, not worrying about the
fact that you have been rejected, that the message has been rejected, the
gospel has been rejected; you just keep on going to the next village and keep
going all the way through the land. [15] “Truly I say to you, it will be more
tolerable for {the}
Matthew
Matthew
It is of the greatest importance to keep
in view that at whatever period of Christ’s ministry this prediction and
promise was spoken, and whether it was spoken only once or oftener, they refer
exclusively to a Jewish state of things.
That is a very important observation. What
is being said here isn’t something you can take out of context and apply it
into the church age. This is talking about a unique and distinct set of
circumstances occurring in Jesus’ ministry when He is sending out the disciples
to the house of
Matthew
Matthew
10:21 NASB “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father {his}
child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to
death. [22] You will be hated by all because of My
name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.” That is
another important passage there, the same phrase is found in Matthew 24.
At this
point He does go beyond what they are going to experience in their lifetime in
terms of the hostile reaction. But this is to be understood not in terms of the
church, we are still talking about the message that they are offering that the
kingdom is about to come. Just based on Old Testament prophecy if they did
accept the kingdom then the Tribulation would have occurred somehow at this
time as well because all of those things would have to have taken place, and “those
who endure to the end”—same phrase found in chapter 24—related to enduring to
the end of the Tribulation period where to “be saved” isn’t soteriological
justification, it is deliverance from the persecution that takes place.
Matthew
chapter ten, then, describes the mission of the twelve apostles to
There were
teachers before Acts 2, also administrators, healing that took place, but they
weren’t church age spiritual gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28 NASB “And
God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations,
{various} kinds of tongues.” So God is the one who distributes the gifts but
the distribution is done through the Holy Spirit and under the authority of the
Lord Jesus Christ. We know this because in Galatians 1:1 the apostle Paul
introduces himself as Paul and apostle, and then he says: “Not sent from men,”
where he uses the Greek preposition apo
[a)po]
which indicates the ultimate source, “nor through the agency of man, but
through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead.” God the
Father is the ultimate authority but the administration of the apostleship is
through Jesus Christ who chooses the twelve.
The third us
of “apostle” is going to refer to people like Barnabas, and others who are
mentioned as apostles but it is a lower case “a”; they are sent by a local
church which commissions them. The church at
So three uses
of “apostle”: limited use, apostle to the Jews before the crucifixion; the
spiritual gift of the leadership and the foundation of the church after
Pentecost; and those who were sent on temporary missions by local churches or
individuals. Paul also uses the verb when he sends so-and-so on a mission.
We know
there is a distinction between the second category and the third category
because of the qualifications that are set forth. What qualified a person to be
an apostle as a foundation to the local church?
First, they
are gifted by God the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 12:8-11, 28, 29. Second, they
were to be an eye-witness of the resurrection or resurrected Christ: 1
Corinthians 15:8, 9; Acts 1:22. Third, the sign of an apostle was that they
performed signs and wonders. They were endued with miraculous powers. This is
illustrated in Acts 5:15;
Church age
apostleship does not begin until the day of Pentecost. Every time the twelve
are referred to in the Gospels it is not referring to them in terms of a
spiritual gift or a mission to the Gentiles which distinguishes the church age
office. Ephesians 4:8-11 makes it clear that this is a gift given by the Lord
Jesus Christ to the church.
The church age
apostolate is apparently limited to twelve. When the New Testament starts
talking about Barnabas and others as apostles it is obviously using the word
differently because when we come to Revelation 21:14 NASB “And the
wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There are only twelve and we can
know with certainty who those twelve are. There are
only going to be twelve names there and that means Judas isn’t going to be
there because he is an unbeliever. So it is going to be Matthias or Paul, one
or the other. The reason they are the foundation for the church is because of the
role of the apostles in the structure of the church: Ephesians 2:20 NASB
“having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus
Himself being the corner {stone}.” This isn’t Old Testament prophets, it is New
Testament prophets. At this stage the church age apostolate is apparently
limited to twelve.
The apostles
were recipients of direct revelation from God and were the only authorized
source for revelation. That needs clarification. There were some others who
were associated with the apostles who, like Luke, wrote Scripture. Luke is
associated with Paul; Mark writes Scripture and is not one of the apostles but
he writes Peter’s account basically of the gospel. If revelation is given
through them they are someone who is tightly connected with an apostle who is
the control factor for revelation. Once the last apostle disappeared there was
no more revelation because there was no longer a quality control team. Ephesians
3:5 NASB “which in other generations was not made known to the sons
of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the
Spirit.”
Who were the
disciples? We have the eleven, the list given in the Gospels. But who fills in
the gap? Who is the twelfth? We don’t think it is Mathias because this whole
episode in Acts chapter one is pre-Pentecost. They cast lots, which is an Old
Testament style of revelation. There is a dispensational change that doesn’t occur
until Acts 2. So when criticism is made of the selection of Mathias in Acts it
is assuming that Peter is choosing Mathias to be a church age office-holder who
has the spiritual gift of apostle. But that doesn’t happen until the next
chapter. Peter is still thinking in terms of apostle in the first meaning when
he is selecting Mathias. He is just replacing Judas and is thinking in terms of
what their mission had been from Matthew 10 to Acts 1. He is not thinking about
what their mission is going to be from Acts 2 on because he still doesn’t have
a clue that spiritual gifts are coming and what all of that is going to entail.
The
spiritual gift of apostle died in the first generation; there is no provision
for successors. There is no apostolic succession. When that word and concept
first started in the early church it wasn’t a succession of people which is
what there is now exhibited in the Roman Catholic Church and Anglicanism. In
those two systems there is what is called an Episcopal form of government where
apostolic succession is from one person to another. In the early church there
was a succession of doctrine where there was the lying on of hands, which most
of us have witnessed in ordination ceremonies or when sending out a missionary.
The symbolism there is that when the pastors or deacons or whoever the group is
puts their hands on somebody they are saying: We are identifying our doctrine
with their doctrine. It is the early version of the good house-keeping seal approval,
except it is the divine house. It is showing that what they believe and what
they teach is what we believe and what we teach, and so we are authorizing them
to go out. A spiritual gift is never passed on by laying
on of hands, a spiritual gift is never determined by men: Galatians 1:1. It is
through the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. The first time this matter of
apostolic succession came in was in the early fifth century with the claim of
Leo I, the Bishop of Rome, in order to build himself and to give him a position
of respectability.
What we have
here at the beginning of Acts chapter one is a reference to the twelve that
Jesus chose to go out to the house of