I have read dozens of books by reputable professors and bible scholars that examine biblical apostleship, so I think that qualifies as a representative sample of all the books ever written. Every one that discusses the matter affirms that the office has ceased. I have not found a single scholar that claims apostles continue today. If you think that by chance the books I've read are not a representative sample, and I have missed a vast of quantity of scholars who say otherwise, now is the time to show me who they are.
You are not comparing like with like. Of course scientific discoveries are continually being made which cause scientists to change their theories. God's word however never changes, and nor does the correct interpretation thereof. Which is why you very rarely see massive shifts in scholarly consensus.
If you think all the scholars are wrong concerning the cessation of apostles, then you should write your own exposition, have it peer-reviewed and published by a reputable theological journal. Then, if you are correct, more and more scholars will come round to accepting your view and endorse it themselves. If a sizeable proportion do so, then we can say your argument has merit. If the majority agree with you, we can say you are probably correct. Until that happens, the notion of apostles continuing today remains on the theological scrapheap.
Ok, here's a couple more that I have scanned in. I have plenty more if you want them.
The Spirit of Promise - Donald Macleod
professor of systematic theology at the Free Church College (1978 to 2011)
Their charisma was clearly intended to be temporary, if only because it was an essential qualification that they should have seen the risen Christ. This is why Peter lays down in Acts 1:21-22 that the person chosen to replace Judas must be 'a witness with us of his resurrection'. Paul clearly related his apostleship to the same fact: 'Last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles' (1 Cor. 15: 8, 9). The Galatian denial of his apostleship also revolved around this issue: He was no real apostle because he had never seen Christ and had received his gospel only at second–hand. Paul protests vigorously that he had not received his gospel from men but had been taught it by a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). His call to be an apostle was intimately bound up with his having seen the Son of God (Gal. 1:16).
The argument from the unrepeatable nature of apostolic qualifications is reinforced by the fact that the apostles never designated successors; nor did they lay down the qualifications such successors should have. They were content to leave the founding of new churches to evangelists and the care of existing ones to pastors and teachers. The nearest we have to a successor to the apostles is Timothy and he is spoken of only as an evangelist, whose authority does not go beyond enacting in the churches the arrangements which Paul lays down.
The temporary nature of the apostolate is implied in its very nature. It was foundational: the church is built 'on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Eph. 2: 20). The same idea occurs in Rev. 21:14, which tells us that the walls of New Jerusalem had twelve foundations inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles. It is true, of course, that the building of the spiritual temple goes on throughout the Christian era (1 Peter 2: 5) as each stone is chosen and prepared. But the laying of the foundation takes place once and for all in the period of the incarnation. Christ is the chief cornerstone. The apostles are the foundation. The once–for–allness of this is clearly seen in the New Testament itself. Just as Christ was once offered, so the faith was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
Consequently, the proper attitude to apostolic tradition is not to develop and add to it but to 'hold it fast' (2 Thess. 2:15). It is a sacred trust to be kept (1 Tim. 6:20).
The uniqueness of the apostolic period at the time of authoritative foundation–laying is integral to the New Testament and Oscar Cullmann is fully justified in asserting that, 'the scandal of Christianity is to believe that these few years, which for secular history have no more and no less significance than other periods, are the centre and the norm of the totality of time' .
A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles - Mal Couch
Professor of Theology & Languages at Tyndale Theological Seminary
After Jesus' earthly ministry and ascension, the most important individuals left to carry on His work in the world were the apostles. The establishing of the church, the reception of the church's doctrine, and the spread of the gospel of Christ were largely dependent on the apostles. Since the apostles cast such a large shadow over the New Testament, it is essential to understand what we can about them and the ministry that was given to them.
What Is an Apostle?
The Greek word apostolos simply means "one sent forth." In older Greek literature it was a maritime or military term. A naval fleet dispatched on some expedition was called "the apostle." But in the Greek world before the New Testament the term was never used of a personal representative or emissary. Numerous terms were used for religious messengers or representatives, but apostle was not one of them.
When Jesus selected twelve men to associate closely with Him and to represent Him, He gave them the title apostles. Jesus clearly did not borrow the word from current Greek thought. And yet it does not seem that Jesus was using this term in an entirely new way. The evidence is that He was simply adopting a word then in current use among the Jews. The Jewish use of apostle carried with it the idea of one who was an official delegate of another. That usage is well known from literature after the fall of Jerusalem. But since it is highly unlikely that they borrowed it from the hated Christians, it was probably in use in Jesus' day. Likely. He simply adopted a familiar term. In Jewish usage, an apostle held a highly responsible position with power and authority to act for the sender.' And while this context is valuable to our understanding, it is the use of the word in the New Testament that decisively establishes its meaning and theological significance in relationship to the church.
From the almost eighty uses of the word "apostle" (mainly by Luke and Paul), it can be concluded that an apostle was one sent with authority to represent another. The word carries with it the idea of a special commission and special empowerment as one spoke and acted with the authority of the sender. The apostles of Christ were granted great power and authority, with which they authenticated their message and laid the foundation of Christ's church (Luke 9:1-6; 2 Cor. 12:12).
So an apostle is one sent by Christ with authority to represent Him. In passing, it should be noted that an apostle is distinct from a disciple. While it is true that the words were used of the same individuals, they are not synonymous. A disciple (mathetes) is simply a "follower or learner." Jesus had thousands of disciples, and it was from among His many disciples that He selected the twelve apostles (Luke 6:12-13).
The Twelve Apostles
When Jesus established the office of apostle, He selected twelve men to fill it. These twelve men had been with Him since the days of John the Baptist and had, therefore, seen Jesus' miraculous works and heard His insightful and authoritative teachings. Each would be a witness of His resurrection (Acts 1:22-23). The twelve apostles are listed in four different passages of Scripture (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).
The ranks of the Twelve were soon reduced to eleven with the defection and death of the traitor, Judas Iscariot. After the ascension of Christ it was the clear conviction of Peter and the others that this vacancy needed to be filled immediately. They saw it as a subject of Old Testament prophecy (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Pss. 69:25; 109:8). Two qualified men who had seen the resurrected Christ and had been with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry were set forth as possible replacements. The apostles left the decision to the Lord in the casting of lots, and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.
It has been the opinion of some that Paul, not Matthias, was truly God's choice to the be twelfth apostle. But Paul never claimed to be one of the Twelve. Rather, he viewed his apostleship as distinct (cf. Gal. 1:11-17, 2:2-9). Also, it is difficult to believe that Peter and the rest of the apostles would have made such a bold move in replacing Judas Iscariot simply on their own initiative. Instead, they saw their action as a fulfillment of Scripture, which would seem to suggest that this was something the Lord Jesus instructed them to do.
The Apostle Paul
Though not one of the Twelve, Paul must be seen as a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Clearly and forcefully he declared that he was an apostle, equal in authority with the Twelve (1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-5; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:5; Gal. 1:1-2:15; 2Tim. 1:1, 11). Luke also presented Paul as a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Luke, who had spoken often of the twelve apostles, did not restrict the use of the word apostle to just the Twelve but expanded it to include Paul (e.g., Acts 14:4, 14).
Although Paul did not accompany Jesus during His ministry (which was a requirement to be one of the Twelve), he did see the resurrected Lord Jesus. Paul did not have a vision on the Damascus Road but actually saw the risen Christ that day (cf. Acts 9:3-7, 17; 22:6-9; 26:12-16; 1 Cor. 15:8). Although he was untimely born (1 Cor. 15:8), he nevertheless was a true apostle of Christ.
Other Apostles
The term apostle attaches to others as well. They may not have been as prominent as Paul or the Twelve, but that does not automatically mean that they held an inferior rank. Other factors are involved in making such a determination. One such individual who is classified as an apostle is Barnabas.
As Luke records the missionary activity of the early church, he refers to Barnabas and Paul as apostles, treating them as equals. In fact, Luke places Barnabas ahead of Paul in his discussion (cf. Acts 14:4, 14). Later on, Paul himself sees Barnabas as an associate in his apostleship to the Gentiles (cf. Gal. 2:1-9) and as one holding the office of apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5-6).
Another possible apostle is James, the Lord's brother. James became a prominent part of the Jerusalem church and seems to be included by Paul in the ranks of the apostles as an equal with Peter (cf. Gal. 1:19). James is individually mentioned as one eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ but, at the same time, he is also included in the group of apostles (1 Cor 15:7).James could have been like Paul in that he was an apostle who was untimely born (1 Cor. 15:8).
It is quite likely that the term was applied to many others besides these fifteen. If the concept was restricted to just these men, why were early churches fooled by some who claimed to be apostles but were not. That there were false apostles who brought confusion into the church is seen in several passages (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Rev. 2:2). The early church apparently allowed for some flexibility in the use of the term, although Paul and the Twelve seem to be especially esteemed as apostles of Christ.
The Scriptures speak of the "gift" of an apostle (Eph. 4:11), which also seems to suggest a larger group than Paul and the Twelve. Paul uses the term to describe Junia and Andronicus (Rom. 16:7) and the Lord's brothers (1 Cor. 9:5). However, in regards to these individuals the word is apparently used in a broader sense of being authorized messengers of the churches (see 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25).
A case can be built that these are apostles in the sense of being authorized messengers of the churches but not authoritative representatives of Jesus Christ (like the Twelve). These individuals certainly did not have the same influence or status as Paul and the Twelve.
The Extent of the Apostolic Office
What were the requirements for those apostles who had official authority? Several things had to be true before one could legitimately claim to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. First, they had to have been called by Christ Himself. The very idea of one being an authoritative representative of another would point to this. The direct hand of the Lord is seen in the selection of the Twelve (Luke 6:12-13), the choice of Paul (1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:1), and the replacement of Judas by Matthias (Acts 1:21-26). Of course, without any scriptural verification it can only be speculated whether this was true of Barnabas and James, the Lord's brother.
Second, it was necessary that an apostle actually saw the resurrected Lord Jesus. Since the resurrection of Christ is foundational to the faith, he had to be able to testify from firsthand knowledge to this fundamental reality (Acts 1:21-23; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7-9).
Third, he had to be able to demonstrate the "signs of a true apostle," which was the ability to work miracles and demonstrate works of power (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:43; 5:12; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4). These demonstrations of power validated the claim that they were authoritative representatives of the Lord Christ.
There is no compelling evidence for the idea of apostolic succession. The only apostle who was ever replaced was Judas Iscariot by Matthias and that was necessary to complete the ranks of the Twelve (cf. Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:14). Later when James, who was one of the Twelve, was put to death by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2), the church did not replace him. And there is no record of any other apostle being succeeded at death.
If apostolic succession was required and needed, Paul, for example, certainly would have addressed the crucial matter of his apostolic replacement when he clearly was facing death (2 Tim.4), but he does not even hint at such a thing. It also should be noted that, in light of the requirements for a true apostle, no one after the first century could qualify. No one since that time has seen the risen Christ, and no one could have been with the Lord Jesus during His earthly ministry. Also, it must be remembered that one who claims the office of an apostle must be able to work the supernatural signs of a true apostle. The inability to perform sign miracles clearly shows that such claims are false.
So it is necessary to conclude that there are no apostles in the church today. Nor are any needed, for their work was foundational in nature. Theirs was a gift and a ministry of establishing the church and its doctrine (John 14:26, 16:12–13; Eph.2:20). Once the church had been established on a proper foundation and the Scriptures for the church had been given and authenticated, the foundational ministry was completed. These facts should caution us not to dilute the concept of an apostle by viewing those who do missionary work today as modern apostles.
Did Peter occupy a primary place among the apostles? Jesus addressed Peter and said "upon this rock I will build My church" (Matt. 16:16-19). If one interprets the "rock" as a personal reference to Peter, the primacy of Peter has been taught. In an attempt to avoid this conclusion, some have suggested that the "rock" refers to Peter's great confession about Christ, while others have reasoned that it refers to Christ Himself. It seems clear from the grammar of this passage, and from the way it was generally understood in early church history, that the rock is Christ.
The apostle Paul confirms this in Ephesians 2:20 when he writes that "Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone" of the church. He points out that the apostles and prophets, too, are the foundation for the household of the saints (v. 19). For a complete discussion on the grammatical and contextual issues, see pages 51-58.
It is true that the Lord did have a special role for Peter in initially opening the door into the church, first to the Jewish nation, then to the Samaritans, and finally to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 2:5-47; 8:14-17; 10:1-48; 15:7). But the idea that Peter had a position as Christ's unique representative on earth was foreign to Peter and the rest of the apostles and is absent from the writings of the New Testament (e.g., Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). In fact, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), James, not Peter, played the more significant role.
Upvote
0
