So this is one of those topics that will most likely upset quite a few people, although that isn't my intention. I have noticed in "churchianity" that there are quite a few leaders who have taken on the title of "apostle". I have even served under a few during my years in the church, prior to my becoming a "Torah observant believer". This blog is basically just my thoughts on this topic, based on what I have come to understand from my personal studies.
From my experiences, most believers are really hungry for a title in church. They seem to really crave the reverence that comes with the title. I have seen people get told over the pulpit that they were being called to preach, and right away, their mindset changes. They begin to crave the opportunity of getting behind the pulpit and preaching to the choir. However, ministry is much more than the pulpit, ministry takes place outside of the 4 walls.
Anyway, church has become a place where a title makes you somebody, when in all actuality, you were somebody long before you got the call. I can recall a sister from my old church who was called to be an elder, and because she had been given that title, her expectation was that everyone address her as such. She felt empowered to act like she was above everyone else. I remember one day, a sister called her by her name, and she went on about how that was disrespectful, and how she needed to address her by her title. This is what it has come down to.
Let me get back to this "apostle" thing though. I am of the belief that anything done in the church needs to be scripturally sound if it is to be done within it. That said, when it comes to ordaining people into positions, there are 2 apostles in the New Testament, who have written about what the qualifications should be. The first was Peter, followed later by Paul. Interestingly enough, Peter's qualification has gone ignored, whereas Paul is continuously cited. Lets take a closer look.
In 1 Timothy 3, the Apostle Paul dedicates this 16 verse chapter to outlining the qualifications for both a bishop and a deacon. What stands out to me in these passages is that, when he speaks about the the bishop, he doesn't go into the person being "called to be", but rather "aspiring to be". What catches my attention about this is that, based on the context, "anyone" can have this position, however, they have to meet the guidelines. In today's church, it's the other way around, one has to be "called", and the call must be confirmed, by the Pastor. Don't get me wrong, I believe that people can be "called" into ministry, but according to Paul's context, if there is a need, and a person desires to meet the need, all that is needed is for him to meet the qualifications.
I also believe that during the time of the writing of this epistle, any person desiring this position was not one looking for reverence, power, and status, but rather to serve, unlike many today who see ministry as an opportunity to make money. Paul also gets into the qualifications for the deacon. Again, it's about people filling a need to keep the ministry healthy. It is this book that is used when ordaining people to one of these positions, and in the midst of the ceremony, and the official outfits worn, the pastor or person officiating the ordination quotes from these passages, says a few words, and prays over the person. After that, they are officially ordained.
Easy enough, right? Well, this is the part that gets a bit tough. Now, we can all agree that both Peter and Paul were indeed apostles, and as such, their words carry great weight. But the problem is this, it was Peter who outlined the qualifications for an apostle, yet, no one cites his words on what it takes to be an apostle. This is quite interesting. So what exactly does Peter have to say about becoming an apostle? In Acts 1:12-26, we find the 11 apostles assembled together in the upper room, just before the Holy Spirit fell on them. Peter stood up in the midst of them and begin to address the need to fill the office of Judas, now that he was no longer a part of the 12.
According to Peter, the requirement for an apostle was that he had walked with them during the time of Yeshua's ministry, and was also a witness to His resurrection. This really makes it difficult to walk in this call. No one today can claim that they were with Him during His ministry, or that they seen Him in His resurrection. This office, according to Peter could only be filled by someone who was present with them a that time, and, they only needed one, because they already had 11, and Mattityahu (Matthew), made 12.
I believe this is why Peter does not get cited in the manner that Paul does. based on context, this was a one time thing, according to Peter. Once the vote was completed, and they prayed, that position was filled. Today's church misses the bigger picture as it relates to this passage. To get a better picture, what must be understood is that, we must first go back to when Yeshua had asked the disciples about who the people said that He was. After hearing what they had to say, He asked them, who they thought He was. Peter exclaimed, "you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God". Yeshua praised him for his answer.
He then told them that it was on the revelation of who He was, that He would build His church, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. At the end of this verse, He talks about giving them the authority to bind and loose, and that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. For some reason, the church understands this as meaning that then can bind up demons, and then can loose angels in situations. I have heard countless prayers where this can be heard being proclaimed, loudly.
Unfortunately, nowhere in Scripture do we find this being taught, from Genesis all the way to Revelation. In fact, the whole idea of binding and loosing is a "rabbinic Jewish" term. It refers to one being given the authority to make rulings in situations based on the Torah. In other words, this authority was given to them to make rulings to allow or forbid a thing, and however they ruled, would be accepted on both earth and in heaven. So lets fast forward back to Acts. Yeshua was establishing His 12 Apostles in Jerusalem, to be the churches foundation. They had the divine authority to judge and make rulings in all matter relating to Torah.
The Apostle Paul was an exception, the only exception. Clearly, Paul was not walking with Yeshua and His disciples during His earthly ministry, so he did not meet that criteria for being an apostle, and for this reason, the only way he could be one is if he were to see Yeshua after His resurrection. The fact that Yeshua presented Himself to Paul, attests to the fact that Yeshua respected and accepted what Peter had said, as it relates to the qualifications for an apostle. Unlike the 12, Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. Whereas as the 12 were based in Jerusalem, Paul was able to move around, spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.
Paul was also in line with the authority of the 12, even though he himself was an apostle. When an issue arose concerning the Gentile church, Paul was sent to Jerusalem to see the 12, in order to get their ruling for the Gentile church. This can be found in Acts 12, and in most Bibles, is affectionately known as the Jerusalem council. All that to say, Paul was the only exception to the rule as it relates to being an apostle. Scripture confirms that he did indeed see Yeshua, so his claim as an apostle is valid. Another thing to consider is that no one else outside of the 12 and Paul were addressed as "apostle".
If Paul was the only other person in the Bible listed as an apostle, and in the midst of the countless people they all encountered, no one else was given that title, it does indeed make it a challenge for someone in today's time to claim this title. And although some could claim they "felt" the calling, or that Yeshua was calling them to this position, the fact that the Word does NOT agree with their call, renders it null and void. The word simply has to agree. Yeshua does NOT operate outside the realm of His word. The moment we say He does, then everything else in His word comes into question.
So, to those who are dead set on this call, a call that no biblical text agrees with, and only they themselves serve as witness, because of the fact that it cannot be reliably confirmed, you have a real problem on your hands. Again, it is not place to tell anyone, what they are or aren't called, however, if your call or rather your title does not line up with the word, there is some serious things that need to be considered. I would also have to ask, if you agree with the qualifications outlined by Paul for bishops, deacons and elders, yet you do not agree with Peter and his qualifications for an apostle, what does that tell you?
Again, I am not trying to tell anyone what they can and can't claim, but if we are a people who live and die by the word, and the word does not support our theology, then we have some choices to make. I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on this, whether good or bad. I do not claim to have all the answers, and I acknowledge that like anyone else, I too, can be wrong, but what i do, do is try and base my theology on what is plainly written, as opposed to my own personal thoughts or beliefs. I believe in letting the word speak for itself. I do hope this was well received and not taken as me popping shots at anyone. As always, I'd love to hear back from you. Leave a comment below.
