Apostles

by peacefulpete 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Hear the word "Apostles" and immediately the mind thinks of the contradictory lists of 12 men in the Gospels. However, the word (apóstolos) had a much broader usage in the Greek speaking world, pagan, Jewish and Christian. For simplicity I'd copy a few definitions.

  The word apóstolos occurs only in the LXX in 1 Kings 14:6, where it is used in a non-technical sense to represent the Heb. שָׁל֥וּחַ, from the verb שָׁלַח, H8938, “to send.” The idea of God sending His servants the prophets is frequent in the OT, and the verb is normally translated by apostéllō in the LXX. The noun שָׁלִיחַ is used of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. In later Judaism this word was used to refer to those who acted as representatives for others (“a man’s shalīaḥ is as himself”). In particular it referred to accredited agents, often sent out in pairs, going from the authorities in Jerusalem to the Diaspora.....Christ Himself is described as apóstolos in Hebrews 3:1....It is used also to refer to messengers from the churches on two occasions (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). There is also an interesting use of the word to describe God’s messengers to Israel (Luke 11:49).Apostle - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

  The writer of some Paulines refers to traveling companions of Paul as 'apostles' (1 Thess 2:6, 1 Cor 4:9 etc),

  6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

  He uses the term superfine-apostles derisively speaking of those who he saw as arrogant but highly honored as teachers. (2 Cor 11:5)

  Even regarding a woman as among, and even "prominent among, the Apostles' (Romans 16:7)

  Yes translators have creatively found ways to render this passage so as to exclude Junia from the apostles, but they are stretching the simplest and clearest reading, the one shared by early prominent writers such as Origen:

  Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. It can certainly be said both that they were kinsmen of Paul according to the flesh, and had believed before him, and were held as notable among the apostles of Christ; about whom (it is also possible that it should be understood in this way, that perhaps they were from those seventy-two who are also themselves named apostles,) and therefore he calls them notable among the apostles, even those apostles who were before him.

  Also Chrysostom:

  And indeed, to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle.

  Note that the 'appellation of apostle' was an honorific one. Origen recalls the symbolic 70/72 'apostles' in Luke 9 (which is an expansion of the story in Mark 6 referencing the 70 nations in Genesis). Origen's (and Eastern Church today) assumption the word 'apostle' applied to the story in Luke (though not present now) as the word had not become intimately/exclusively associated with the 12 of the Gospels yet. This is transparent in the Didache.

  The Didache (first century) chapt 11:

  3Now about the apostles and prophets: Act in line with the gospel precept. [519] ?^4Welcome every apostle on arriving, as if he were the Lord. ?^5But he must not stay beyond one day. In case of necessity, however, the next day too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet. ?^6On departing, an apostle must not accept anything save sufficient food to carry him till his next lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

  My above summary is for a purpose. It is my view that far too often when readers hear expressions like "teaching of the apostles" we assume it a reference to 12 quasihistorical guys. That is not necessarily the case. It appears from the scant materials we have surviving that the expression was an honorific appellation credited due to special assignments as emissaries of church leadership or more broadly of Christ. It seems in come contexts to have been associated with prophets (like in the OT). It was in some cases self-declared, such as with Paul.

  There is much more that can be said.
• 

  Phizzy

  Agreed ! It seems that Paul used the word of himself in a new way, and later Writers like "Luke" picked up on the idea, and invented the Apostles of the Christian Movement.

  K. Lake in the Books "Christian Beginnings", writing in the 1930's observed :

  " Thus we have the extremely interesting linguistic fact that a Pauline-Lucan branch of Christian literature seems to have popularized and given a technical meaning to a word which was otherwise scarcely used, except in a different sense, in the whole course of previous Greek literature".
• 

  peacefulpete

  Thanks Phizzy. That was the direction I was heading. I suspect it was part of the process of cementing control though claims of apostolic succession. That wasn't an idea immediately seized upon.

  I also wanted to mention Irenaeus's intro to his third book Against Heresies, wherein he quotes Luke 10 (the sending of the 70/72) as being the words the Jesus said to the 'apostles'. He continues to use the term when recounting the Pentecost scene of 120 'apostles' getting 'perfect knowledge' . What's especially surprising is it was part of his argument against 'heresies' in which he enumerates a succession of church leadership in Rome. In short, he seems to be using the term 'apostles' as meaning first generation Christian. Peter and Paul are described as 'the two most glorious apostles'.

  Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defense of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me." (Luke 10:16 story of the 70).... But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.

  Even in this context of attempting to argue for the superiority of his Church's doctrine due to succession legends, he seems to be using the term 'apostle' to describe more than 12 guys in the Gospels.

  The growth of this concept obviously really gained a footing after the Gospels were written. While the names of the 12 (to match 12 tribes) obviously were not terribly important, the inclusion of a few historical persons into the list, (Peter, James and a John) was necessary.

  Once again, we are stymied by uncertainty of dating and the originality of all of our material, but it seems clear that the final solidification of the concept of 12 Apostles as the foundation of the Church took some time.
• 

  Touchofgrey

  Peacefulpete & phizzy

  Enjoy your post and the references you provide.

  It's like paul and his followers started Christianity and the later gospels filled in the jesus story ,because Paul hardly mentioned much about him .
• 

  peacefulpete

  Touchofgrey....I don't think Paul originated the movement. He speaks of those before him. Such as Junia. The origins of the movement are lost to time. I've long said I understand it as a 'soft start'. Likely impossible to point exactly when a spinoff from a form of Hellenized Judaism actually occurred. Alvar Ellegard suggests it was the crucifixion of the Christ figure that was original to Paul. Who knows, but he does seem to say it was his defining belief. The renouncing of the Law seems to have been a big pill for his predecessors as well, so it seems Paul may have taken that matter to new levels.

  It's good to remember that even in the glossed history in the book of Acts the movement had not adopted the name Christian from its start.

  But as you said the Gospel narrative changed everything. Whether as a didactic play or text it fleshed out the story. Not only had the Logos descended and been killed, but he spent decades living out OT stories and condemning Judaism.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  The first use of the Greek word "apostle" was in the writings of the ancient Greek orator Demosthenes who lived from 384-322 BCE.

  He used it as a naval term to describe an admiral or a fleet or ships sent on a specific mission. Eventually the term APOSTOLOS came to mean a person "sent off" as an envoy for another, like a ship.

  It's well-known in the average world that this is what the word means. To illustrate, the Hebrew word, SHALOM which means "peace" also means "welcome." If you notice, in Pete's first post, he quotes that source which comments that the Greek work APOSTOLOS

  ...is used in a non-technical sense to represent the Heb. שָׁל֥וּחַ

  That Hebrew word is a form of the Hebrew word SHALOM:

  שׁלום

  The previous word looks similar because it is merely the noun in reference to a person, meaning "he who is sent forth to be welcomed." This is why it is in reference to such saintly, peaceful persons.

  A footnote to this is that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed, according to Jewish tradition, because they would not "welcome" those "sent forth." While Christian theology attributed this strictly to homosexuality, Jewish tradition has generally never altered its view that its destruction was due to this particular failure. (Ez 16:49-50) Why such destruction for mere lack of hospitality?

  In the Biblical narrative leading up to Sodom's destruction, Abraham had just received divine visitors, one representing God, two others being angelic visitors that went on to Sodom. (Genesis 18) Those two others had been "sent forth," and except for Lot, the rest of the city not merely denied welcoming them but actually tried attacking them in the worst way. (Ge 19:1-9) Jesus would later use this very situation as a condemnation for those who would not accept those that he himself would 'send forth.'

  If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.--Matthew 10:14-15, NRSV.

  The term "apostle" is merely a personification of an envoy representing a divine presence. When not accepted, it generally spells doom...or at least, that is how the Biblical narrative plays out.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Very interesting take on Matt 10.