NEWLY UPDATED! Here's a posting I promised -- The FiveFold Ministry (Part VII)

Before I go on to part B: let me spill the beans first about what the Apostolic ministry is about and its function. Then, for those who need more proof that the apostles are not limited to the Twelve or the 1st century apostles, you can read the rest of the article to satisfy your intellectual curiosity. :D

In sum (and in light of all that I'm going to say in this article):
1. Since the term "Apostle" means "sent one", an Apostle is an elder who has been sent on a mission (to be very specific, as a messenger via the messenger concept). This mission is usually such a giant task, and thus requires a great amount of divine intervention in order to make the mission work.
2. This mission can be given (or "commissioned") by Christ himself OR by the Church (presumably under the leading of the Holy Spirit).
3. From the precedence of Scriptures, we would argue that this mission usually involves some kind of spearheading or being a pioneer, either to a foreign land or in a certain unique kind of ministry. One such ministry, for instance, is that of rapidly planting churches (not just planting one church, but planting a series of churches).
4. Because the mission itself is so hard and so new, God adequately supplies all that is needed for the apostle(s) to get their work done:
i. The ability to perform supernatural signs and wonders to get the mission done;
ii. Authority to cast out demons, heal the sick, and pronounce judgment, as part of the mission;
iii. Ability to explain the Scriptures and the truth to the new converts;
iv. Supernatural deliverance from potentially fatal trouble (cf. Peter's imprisonment and Paul's shipwreck);
v. Wisdom and prophetic guidance for the mission.
Notice that each element by itself does not constitute proof that someone is an Apostle: but if all the factors are combined and show some kind of God-given mission, this would prove that God has indeed commissioned the Apostle to carry out the mission.
5. Intense suffering--as part of the mission.

How do Apostles function within the church?
1. They function (as mentioned in the Prophetic bit) as part of the foundation of the Church together with the Prophets. Why this is so is easy to see: in NT days, most apostles functioned in teams of 2, and their usual mission was to penetrate unreached territory for the gospel. There is one exception: Barnabas was (shortly) commissioned as an apostle of the Jerusalem Church towards the church in Antioch, in order to represent the 12 to teach and encourage the Antioch Christians who had fled there and formed their own local church. Now if apostles mainly do church planting (as the Scripture seems to indicate), then it is quite natural that they would function as the foundation of any local church. For instance, the very first batch of Christians in any local area would have been discipled and taught by them. And when the apostles leave, they would be the one appointing the new elders to take over them (most of these would be teachers and pastors).

Now what happens if the elders meet some trouble in the church and don't know what to do? The very first people they would naturally appeal to are the ones who discipled them: the apostles who sowed the Word of God in them in the first place. So the apostles have authority not simply because of their position or "status" as apostles, but because they have spent the time grooming up the church, being the parents of the local church and helping it to grow to where it is.

So notice that we are arguing that apostles function as the foundation and yes, have pretty high authority in the church, but not because they simply have the office. Rather, we are arguing that it is a natural progression: if an apostle has been doing his job and caring for the sheep and being one of the first few to establish the church where it is, quite naturally as the founding elders, the apostles enjoy the parental authority to discipline the church and to bring it to where God intends it to be. And we also affirm what the Scripture says: that this authority, as given by God, is not to tear people down, but to build them up.

Which also means that apostles do not have ABSOLUTE authority as a result of their position. Rather, 1) they only enjoy this authority over the churches they have functioned as apostles to. Every apostle has a scope of authority. Paul and Barnabas were given the role of apostles to the Gentiles, while the Twelve were commissioned as apostles mainly to the Jews. 2) Furthermore, apostles also do not have absolute authority in that they still need to fall within the bounds of Scripture AND they need to be in agreement with other apostles. On top of that, an apostle is also liable for rebuke by anyone if his conduct is in contravention of the Gospel (cf Galatians, where Mr "Chief Apostle" Peter is rebuked by "lower-ranking" Apostle Paul for not living up to the full implications of the Gospel.)

2. We would advise that Apostles never function alone, but follow Jesus' model of functioning in twos. In fact, we would even argue for a "team". The reason is because no apostle is perfect and needs a "buddy" who will simultaenously keep him in check and also encourage him. It's always nice to know you have a buddy, especially when you're suffering torture for the Gospel. :)

3. Although apostles need to fall within the bounds of Scripture, one of the greatest potentials for an Apostle who knows the Word of God well, is to develop on it and bring some of the loose ends to their logical conclusion (without contravening other parts of Scripture). Good apostles know that they don't have to be ultra-conservative in order to please God. Rather, they should build on the theological and practical understanding of God others have had, and help to push the understanding of God even further than before. Doing this can mean that the Elder is tentatively in controversy, and yet, part of the reason why the Elder can explain himself convincingly, particularly to Teachers, is because he uses the principles of Bible Interpretation very well. So a good Apostle would push the boundaries of Christian understanding the way the Apostle Paul did. One of the greatest compliments you can get as an Apostle is when someone else says, "This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him...Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something different, even as they do the rest of Scripture (!!!). This will result in their destruction." (2 Pet 3:15-16) So yes, as an Apostle, push the boundaries, using the Scriptures as the firm foundation that you build your "theories" on. :)

4. Apostles are not the "lords" of a church. Neither is any elder. Elders need to work TOGETHER to be effective. And just to help clarify things, no, there is no form of hierarchy among different eldership roles. As we have argued, the foundational role of prophets and apostles simply comes with the job: the fact that they set direction for the local church and help to establish the local church from its roots means that their authority flows naturally from the job that they do, rather than there being any form of fixed hierarchy where prophets and apostles are ALWAYS above the other 3 leadership giftings. It just doesn't work that way. There will be times when a pastor or a teacher can rebuke an apostle, or when the apostle is needed to take an evangelist to task, or when the prophet is needed to encourage the pastor, or when the pastor is needed to care for and give a listening ear to the apostle. This is the way God intended the Body, folks: each part doing its part, and edifying everyone else in the process, so that we all, and I repeat, all, grow into the full stature of Christ, becoming totally like Him in every way.

How would we establish if someone is an Apostle?
1. Let me begin by answering what an apostle is not. An apostle is not someone who "has arrived". Jesus' apostles had lots of problems: they had lack of faith, they had problems believing Jesus COULd actually rise from the dead, they didn't know their Scriptures well (hence the reluctance to believe in a crucified Messiah), they had greed problems (Judas particularly), they were cowards, etc etc etc. So apostles have not arrived. Apostleship is just a specific ministry function, and as the Peter episode in Galatians demonstrates, apostles need time to grow. So in your estimation of apostles, always give them time to grow, and a certain leeway for error.
2. Now on to some broad criteria of apostleship:
i) The mission. Is there a clear mission which the apostle's ministry is residing in?
ii) Is there a proper representation of the Gospel?
iii) Are there signs, wonders and miracles following to confirm that Gospel? (2 Cor 12:12)
iv) Is there a parental heart for the sheep, to be "gentle among [the sheep], like a mother tending her young"?
v) Is there theological knowledge/stability? Bible school is, needless to say, a minimum requirement.
vi) Is there suffering for the Gospel? Or is the person enjoying wealth and fame?

Something also that has been said about the other eldership roles can also be said about the Apostle:
1. Like every other elder, he trains up the 5-fold Christian to do every good work that Christ intended them to do. The Fivefold Ministry trains up the 5-fold Christian: and in this case, the Apostle provides an excellent example what it means to be Christ's representative at its highest level.
2. Like every other Elder, he acts as an inspiration to the flock and raises other Apostles after him to serve the Lord.

-----------
B) What Jesus used the term "Apostle" to mean

In Mark 3:13-19, we see Jesus' first use of the term "Apostle". What we can see is that out of the crowd, Jesus chose 12 men, and gave them a specific mission:

1) To be with him (v14);
2) To preach the Gospel (v14);
3) To cast out demons (v15).

We also hope that you notice that Jesus, the absolutely flawless one and the one who has the (insight of the) Spirit without limit, chose "Judas Iscariot, the one who would later betray him". Keep that in mind for our later discussion.

What is interesting here is that the Apostles were, as of that moment, not exactly "sent out ones". They were entitled thus, but right now they were to follow him around, try to do the things he was doing, and get scolded for their lack of faith. :P So we can conclude a few things from this episode:

1) They are apostles purely because Jesus said they were, not because they were in a representative capacity (yet);
2) They had a specific 3-fold mission--being with him, preaching, and casting out demons--and we notice that this mission/destiny was to dominate the rest of their earthly lives;
3) It is possible for apostles to fall away--like Judas Iscariot (and thus the fall or faithfulness of an apostle does not disprove or prove whether he was chosen);
4) Notice that they were all chosen by Jesus. I think this is quite specific, and it makes sense. If you are going to be called a "sent out one", it makes sense that you cannot send yourself. Someone has to choose you to be a messenger, and then send you out. So this passage corroborates the idea that an apostle must be specifically "called" into this area of ministry. There is this sense that the "call" is absolutely crucial to the definition of an apostle (cf the call of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13:2--"to which I have called them").

C) Who were the later apostles?

The first of the later apostles was Matthias (Acts 1). Here the criteria was quite specific: the new apostle was to be of the same level as the other apostles, in the sense of being in Jesus' ministry from the time of Jesus' baptism until resurrection, and (very importantly) to be an eyewitness of the resurrection. Now: a few things to be highlighted--notice that in the list of Acts 1:13--very few of the original apostles wrote Scriptures. Yes, they were to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. But let's get some fishbones out of the way first: 1) very few of them wrote Scriptures (in fact, only 3: Matthew, Peter and John, and that makes up for less than half of the NT). The majority of the New Testament was written by Paul (not part of the existing 12), and some other books were written by the 2 half-brothers of Jesus (James and Jude), a second-level elder (John Mark), and even a Gentile (Luke). 2) Having a successful "ministry" (in our present terms, at least) was also not part of the criteria--James the Apostle was very quickly killed in the early days of the church, and even Peter didn't remain the Jerusalem overseer for long: he handed over the leadership to James (the half-brother) considerably early. Many of the apostles, in fact, are left in oblivion--little is known about Thomas, Bartholomew, Andrew, and Philip from our Biblical sources.

So currently, in addition to the 4 principles above, 1 big criteria is now added for the Twelve: being an eyewitness of all of Jesus' ministry and his resurrection.

This is where we can see Jesus' title for them reaching its fullest expression:
1) If the apostles are called "sent out ones", it is only because they are sent out by Jesus (Matt 28--"Go into all the world") to represent him on earth. Notice:
i) Matt 28: Proclaim (inferred from "All authority"), go, make disciples, baptise, teach (as Jesus would have);
ii) Mark 16: Go, proclaim Good News, baptise, perform signs (as Jesus would have, esp v 20 "and the Lord worked through them"). Sidenote: those who dispute the longer ending of Mark need to ask themselves in good conscience whether they accept John's narration of the woman caught in adultery, or even the extra verses in the KJV. If they will accept that, we hope in good conscience (and consistency) they will accept this as well. Further sidenote to everyone: notice how similar the longer ending of Mark is to Matthew. That's further evidence that this ending is probably a good reading compared to the short one.
iii) Luke 24: Proclaim, be witnesses, wait for Holy Spirit to give power (just like Jesus had cf Luke 4:1 and 14);
iv) Acts 1:8: Receive power, be witnesses (of Jesus/representing Jesus).

2. As part of that proper representation, they were to:
i) be utterly familiar with all that Jesus taught, said and did;
ii) see the resurrection for themselves--a foresight of the martyrdom they would face as part of representing the Master;
iii) be with the Master: but this time, with his Apostle, the Holy Spirit;
iv) proclaim the Good News (what Jesus had been doing all along)
v) cast out demons (what Jesus had been doing all along).

If I were to summarise what the Twelve were to do, it would be to follow exactly in the footsteps of Christ, to "relive" his life in their own paths, to do exactly as he would have done had he faced the people and circumstances they were to face. In contemporary terms, think WWJD, but this time not a human guesswork of what would Jesus do, but the disciples consciously imitating the Jesus they saw and touched and listening to the direction of the Holy Spirit to do so. Or another way of saying it: you know the Bible has so many versions? GNB, NIV, NLT, NRSV etc? But all of them say the same thing, only in a different way and to a different audience. They are all the same Word of God. It's the same here: the Apostles are the different versions of Jesus, to a different audience and in different sets of circumstances. But at the essence, they are to be the same: Jesus was to live in them, and do his works through them. At the end of the day, as you compare the "versions", you are meant to see Jesus consistently through them.

----------
Now as we go later in Acts, we realise the emergence of other apostles besides the Twelve. 1) The first time anyone is specifically "sent" (apostellos) is Barnabas, who is sent to the Antioch church as a representative (notice the representative function) of the Jerusalem church to encourage and teach the believers who were there. 2) Later, in Acts 13, notice the Spirit saying "Set Saul and Barnabas apart for the work to which I have called them?" This sets the stage for Saul AND Barnabas to be "sent out" into Gentile territory (their identities as apostles is later confirmed in Acts 14:4, for those who are hesitant at calling Barnabas an apostle).

(under construction) Later in the NT, we see more and more of this description of "sent"as being described of others as well. There is even the mention of a possible female apostle called Junia. Stay tuned. :) Very tired now...going to take a rest. God bless!