This weekend, I visited a local church in my city. As I was listening to the Pastor speak, I couldn't help but hear one of the members shout out, "preach apostle"! Up until the moment, I really had no idea that he was an apostle. I mean, prior to that, I understood that he was a Bishop.
After the service was over, and I was headed home, I find my mind once again thinking on the biblical qualifications of apostle. So many pastors in our church culture today have taken it upon themselves to take on this title, but I really can't help but wonder, did they take the time to really study on this call before taking it on?
As I thought on this matter, I began to consider the number of people that I have personally encountered who were calling themselves apostles. One thing that they all had in common, is that they all agree in their theology as it relates to Torah, or "The Law". In listening to their teachings on Torah, they all teach that it ended at the cross, and that from that moment, we were under grace, and not the Law.
The first thing that comes to mind is that we as a non-Jewish people were never under the Law. In fact, the Law had been solely given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. That said, if it was never imparted on us as as Gentiles, then why do we preach that "we" are no longer under something that had never been imposed on us from the jump?
What we need to understand is that the Gentiles who did become Torah observant, or rather, decided to keep the Law, did not do it because it was imposed on them, but rather, as they came to fully understand what the "Law" was, the willingly chose to walk in it. Consider Acts 15, a chapter I speak on quite often. It is commonly titled the "Jerusalem Council", in that the Apostle Paul had come to them for guidance concerning the Gentile church, and what they needed to do in order to be "saved".
The reason that the Apostle Paul went to them is because he understood that they were given "authority" to make judgement in matters concerning Torah (The Law). How can I prove this you ask? Good question. Well, back in the days of Yeshua's ministry, after asking the famous question to the disciples "who do men say that I am"? Peter was praised by the Lord because He recognized that YHVH had given this revelation to him.
He continues by telling them that it was on this rock, this rock being the revelation the "He" was the Son of God, (not on Peter, just because he was called a "rock"), and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This is where it gets good. Yeshua tells them that he was giving them, the "disciples", the keys to the kingdom, and that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.
In the eyes of the church, the idea of binding and loosing takes on a whole different meaning. They totally misunderstand what is going on here. And because they fail to really study it, this erroneous theology has run amuck in the church. So, what exactly does this term mean? I'm so glad you asked. The idea of binding and loosing is a rabbinic term. Because we have gotten so far away from the Hebrew roots of our faith, we miss this.
Binding and loosing is a term that refers to the authority given to a person to make judgements on matters as it relates to Torah (the Law). This authority resided with the religious leaders. A good example would be when Moses appointed elders at the request of Jethro, who would help him in judging matters. They took on the smaller matters, but left the bigger ones to him. These people were knowledgeable in the word to be entrusted to make rulings on matters from the perspective of the Scriptures.
Ultimately, what Yeshua was doing, was empowering His disciples to make rulings on complicated matters based on their knowledge of Torah, and that whatever they ruled on a matter on earth would be accepted in heaven. Binding and loosing basically referred their rulings, and whatever they ruled would be accepted in heaven as well. In other words, their ruling on a matter was supported by Yeshua. They were like the elders that Moses had.
With this in mind, the Apostle Paul was sent to Jerusalem, to meet with the 12 because only they could making a ruling on this matter, and whatever they ruled had to be accepted by all. There was no exceptions. So, as Paul went before them, and presented his case, he presented it understanding that whatever was decided by the 12 would have to accepted by him as well. It is quite interesting that after all the debate, it was unanimously agreed by the 12, that there were 4 things that the Gentiles needed to do, however, these 4 things were NOT salvation issues per se.
As the Apostle James concludes his ruling, he makes it clear that his intention was for the Gentiles to be able to attend the synagogue with the Jews, on the Sabbath, and learn Torah "the Law". The 4 things initially given was to make the Gentiles acceptable enough for the Jews to allow them into the synagogue, that they may then be allowed to be taught alongside them. That said, consider this. When a person comes to a church and gives his life to Yeshua, the church doesn't bombard him with what he can and can't do, but rather embrace him as he is, love on him, and encourage him to come back. They want him to connect with the church, and as he does, he begins to gradually learn from the word what he can and cannot do, and based on this, he makes the necessary changes, as he grows in knowledge.
It was the same case with the 12. They understood that as the Gentiles stayed connected, they would learn, and the more they came to understand, the more they would begin to change. All in all, the point behind this whole blog is the fact that, the Apostles were Yeshua's emissary's who were appointed to be the foundation of the church. They were given authority by Him, to make rulings on matters as it related to Torah.
The idea of one being called an apostle today is very hard to accept when looking at it through the lenses of Scripture. Not only that, but the Apostle Peter laid out the requirements for one to be an Apostle. According to Acts 1, an apostle had to have walked with Yeshua in His earthly ministry, something which no one in this day and age could have done. Second, he had to have seen Yeshua after His resurrection. This would be very hard to prove.
It is interesting that the Apostle Paul, although he didn't walk with Yeshua in His earthly ministry, the fact that Yeshua allowed him to see Him attests to the fact that the ruling of this matter by the Apostle Peter, was accepted in heaven as well. That said, Yeshua had to reveal Himself to Paul in order to validate his call.
In the case of Paul, he was definitely an exception to the rule, and for this reason, he was the Word to validate his call, but for one to call himself an apostle today, how can he validate his witness of agreement? For that matter, if you were to ask any of them had they ever seen Yeshua, how many would even know to say yes?
Again, I could very well be wrong about everything I said, but by the same token, with all that I have put forth in this blog, I can just as much be right. One thing for sure though, for a person to claim to be an apostle today yet have the belief that the Law ended at the cross, you have a serious problem. Part of the office of an apostle is the authority to bind and loose as it relates to something you no longer believe in. It's like being a police officer with a badge, but not having regard for the laws you are supposed to be a symbol of I can't help but wonder, if someone reading this today happens to claim to be an apostle, and then seeing all that I put forth today, find themselves to be unable to rebut any of this, how many would be humble enough to admit that they "missed" God on this and no longer claim this title, or would they keep it going just to save face? Something to really think on huh? What's your thoughts?
